• Welcome to the Lightroom Queen Forums! We're a friendly bunch, so please feel free to register and join in the conversation. If you're not familiar with forums, you'll find step by step instructions on how to post your first thread under Help at the bottom of the page. You're also welcome to download our free Lightroom Quick Start eBooks and explore our other FAQ resources.
  • Dark mode now has a single preference for the whole site! It's a simple toggle switch in the bottom right-hand corner of any page. As it uses a cookie to store your preference, you may need to dismiss the cookie banner before you can see it. Any problems, please let us know!

Lightroom Interpolation

Status
Not open for further replies.

PatrickC

Active Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
178
Location
UK
Does anyone know how much effort Adobe put in to the interpolation algorithms?

The general rule when interpolating with PS is to only inteerpolate in +1'% increments - as far as I know, this still stands in the latest versions CS3/4. Obviously it isn't possible to do this when exporting from LR. So how good is the LR interpolation? Or do I need to do it in PS if I have to go up by more than 1'%?

Patrick Cunningham
 
Some are now questioning the 1'% step approach; I don't think there is widespread concensus either way.

Lightroom 2.3 uses an adaptive bicubic algorithm -- rather than just the three steps that PS provides (smoother, standard, sharper) Lightroom adapts automatically depending on the size of the source and the desired output. It also operates in linear (not gamma-corrected) space rather than on a rendered file, as PS does.

So compared with bicubic in PS, LR should be better. Some images may get better results from other methods, however.

Do some tests and compare, and please report what you find!
 
Mark Sirota;4'929 said:
Some are now questioning the 1'% step approach; I don't think there is widespread concensus either way.

Last I heard, when Bicubic Smoother and Bicubic Sharper were introduced (CS?), 1'% increments were no longer necessary.
 
Jeff Schewe in one of the Luminous Landscape videos said not to use the 1'% method anymore. Both bicubic smoother in ps and LR are better.
Question for Mark-what does it mean linear vs gamma corrected space?
 
Gamma-corrected space effectively has a contrast curve applied; linear space does not. LR operates on its files before applying the contrast curve, because it works with raw data rather than rendered images.

Did that help?
 
Thank you all for your contributions. A very useful discussion - I might try running a few comparisons at some point, but we're preparing for an exhibition in Sao Paulo (that's the biggest city in Brazil for those who don't know!), so pretty busy at the moment.

Patrick Cunningham
 
Yes, I think. Would another way to say it be that linear means untouched raw data? if that is true, then I understand.
Patrick, do you live in Sao Paulo or just there to do the exibition? Our first exchange student we had (93-94) was from there. She still lives there and we email every so often. Big city, but small world, huh.
 
Sue lived in SP for many years before I met her; we live in England now.

Sao Paulo is a huge city, much larger than New York or London. It is a thriving, modern business centre with huge state of the art shopping centres and striking modern high-rise offices. The traffic is absolutely appalling and I can think of no worse prospect than to live there! I wouldn't want to live in New York either, though for some mysterious reason I have ended up living in the suburbs of London. Do a search for Sao Paulo on our site (though the pics there are fairly old).

Six degrees of sparation!

Patrick
 
Victoria Bampton;4'934 said:
Last I heard, when Bicubic Smoother and Bicubic Sharper were introduced (CS?), 1'% increments were no longer necessary.

Its benefit nowadays is to provide the nice warm feeling that you're doing something.

John
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top