bicubic resize ?

Ideas for improvements and requests for new features in XnView Classic

Moderators: XnTriq, xnview

Post Reply
2blackbar
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 1:12 pm

bicubic resize ?

Post by 2blackbar » Mon Jan 28, 2013 1:14 pm

Im wondering why its not in the program, its best one to resize pixel graphix cause it doesnt create blur.I have to resize in other soft now but would like to have it in xnview.

User avatar
xnview
Author of XnView
Posts: 31372
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2003 7:31 am
Location: France
Contact:

Re: bicubic resize ?

Post by xnview » Tue Jan 29, 2013 9:43 am

ok, right, i'll add cubic resize
Pierre.

2blackbar
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 1:12 pm

Re: bicubic resize ?

Post by 2blackbar » Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:09 am

youre serious ? :D thanks!

User avatar
helmut
Posts: 8153
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2003 6:47 pm
Location: Frankfurt, Germany

Re: bicubic resize ?

Post by helmut » Sun Feb 10, 2013 7:49 pm

Cubic resize is for enlarging images, only, right?

If cubic resize for enlarging images is introduced, I see the need for two settings/drop down lists:
1. Resample (reduce size)
2. Resample (enlarge)

User avatar
XnTriq
Moderator & Librarian
Posts: 5424
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 3:00 am
Location: Ref Desk

Re: bicubic resize ?

Post by XnTriq » Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:00 pm

Algorithms currently available in XnView v1.9 (Image » Resize):
  1. Nearest Neighbour
  2. Bilinear
  3. Hermite (Cubic Hermite spline?)
  4. Gaussian
  5. Bell
  6. Bspline
  7. Mitchell
  8. Lanczos (3-lobe)
  9. Hanning
foxyshadis ([url=http://newsgroup.xnview.com/viewtopic.php?t=3496]Info about Resampling algorithms[/url]) wrote:Mitchell is bicubic.

Agreed that some of the resizers aren't very useful. Could be worse, could be the full list of imagemagick resizers. :p Gauss, bell, and bspline are almost indistiguishable, and often only useful as specialized effects, not generic outputs; in general they're too close to bilinear to even matter. There are a wide range of bsplines but this one doesn't retain much sharpness. Hermite is practically indistiguishable from Mitchell - in fact it's one of the degenerate cases of the Mitchell/Netravali filter, iirc. Those who actually care about these others would probably also care enough to want their tunable parameters as well, or more advanced non-separable resize kernels.

So point, bilinear, bicubic, and lanczos would seem to be enough for anyone using batch resize. If you wanted to emulate photoshop, you could have a bicubic smoother (lower "c") like photoshop, to fill that halfway point in.

[...]

Point, box, and nearest neighbor are (usually) synonyms for the same thing, [...]
Nicky Page ([url=http://nickyguides.digital-digest.com/bilinear-vs-bicubic.htm]Bicubic Resizing vs Bilinear[/url]) wrote:Everyone uses Bicubic resizing religiously when they make DivX movies or any time they resize pictures in photo editing software. I have suggested that it is best to use Bilinear to shrink images and Bicubic to enlarge them. In fact I believe it is a rule that shouldn't be broken. But then again there is mixed opinion even among experts on this matter. Digital photo experts JASC (makers of Paint Shop Pro) comment: "Use the Bilinear Resampling method for shrinking these images and Bicubic for enlarging them". Whereas the help file of Adobe Photoshop just mentions that Bicubic is more exact method for resizing. In actual fact Bicubic is more precise, but only when it comes to enlarging. When it comes to shrinking its exactness can actually produces pixelation, because to shrink an image pixels must be discarded anyway.

The following shows examples demonstrating this effect. There are reasons you may prefer Bicubic shrinking methods though. Namely, if sharpness is absolutely vital and pixelation problems are less important.

Post Reply