Alternatives to QImage?

Archived from groups: comp.graphics.apps.photoshop,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Caitlin" <caitlin_online_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42ec0b0f$0$30937$61c65585@un-2park-reader-02.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
>I downloaded QImages last month, and was quite happy with it. What I'm
>after is something that allows me to print multiple photos in any layout I
>like. The trial period on QImage has now expired, and I went to register
>and was rather shocked by how expensive it is. Is there anything else out
>there that does this, but isn't so pricey?
>
If using Windows XP:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp [...] print.mspx

Vern

Archived from groups: comp.graphics.apps.photoshop,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Caitlin" <caitlin_online_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42ec0e5b$0$596$61c65585@un-2park-reader-02.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
>
> "VictorDog" <VictorDog@email.suppressed> wrote in message
> news:13UGe.42154$0f.20170@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>>
>> "Caitlin" <caitlin_online_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:42ec0b0f$0$30937$61c65585@un-2park-reader-02.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
>>>I downloaded QImages last month, and was quite happy with it. What I'm
>>>after is something that allows me to print multiple photos in any layout
>>>I like. The trial period on QImage has now expired, and I went to
>>>register and was rather shocked by how expensive it is. Is there anything
>>>else out there that does this, but isn't so pricey?
>>>
>> If using Windows XP:
>>
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp [...] print.mspx
>>
>> Vern
>
> Thanks Vern, I was aware of this, but this, as many programs do, limit you
> to a range of layouts with standard sizes and dimensions. I am looking for
> something that allows me to resize, rotate, and place a group of images
> anywhere on the page. QImage does it, and I may end up paying for it, but
> at $79 it seems a bit pricey for something that only has one function.

This is doable with Photoshop Elements (2 or 3). You set up a blank page,
move desired images to the page and size to your liking, move them around as
you wish (each occupies a separate layer), and when you get what you want
you can save it in PSD format or flatten the layers and save to jpg or
several other formats. Easy to do once you get the hang of layer
management. Cost is less than $100 depending on the vendor's pricing when
you purchase it. This program has a somewhat long learning curve, but image
management is great in my estimation. I worked in my own darkroom for over
25 years, and this program has several of the darkroom "tricks" plus all of
the digital magic we now take for granted!
>
>

Archived from groups: comp.graphics.apps.photoshop,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 09:19:43 +1000, "Caitlin"
<caitlin_online_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I downloaded QImages last month, and was quite happy with it. What I'm after
>is something that allows me to print multiple photos in any layout I like.
>The trial period on QImage has now expired, and I went to register and was
>rather shocked by how expensive it is. Is there anything else out there that
>does this, but isn't so pricey?
>
Personally, I use Photoshop.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

Archived from groups: comp.graphics.apps.photoshop,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"John Adams" <nospam@rmii.net> wrote in message
news:cQUGe.6554$0C.6513@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Ed Ruf" <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:gq5oe1h5jt6bb3ij1vaa8v1i0dm7pcc1tu@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 09:19:43 +1000, in comp.periphs.printers "Caitlin"
>> <caitlin_online_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I downloaded QImages last month, and was quite happy with it. What I'm
>> >after
>> >is something that allows me to print multiple photos in any layout I
>> >like.
>> >The trial period on QImage has now expired, and I went to register and
>> >was
>> >rather shocked by how expensive it is. Is there anything else out there
>> >that
>> >does this, but isn't so pricey?
>>
>> Do you realize you get lifetime upgrades? That Mike actually listens to
>> users and incorporates their desires to future versions? That he provides
>> good support.
>
> BFD. $79 is still *way* too much money for what the
> program does. Go to:
> http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/photoprintsw/
> and take your pick.
>

Exactly - $79 just seems crazy for a one function application, no matter how
good. I'm used to this kind of software being more in the range of $30.
Thanks for the link, I'll have a browse through them.

Archived from groups: comp.graphics.apps.photoshop,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Caitlin" <caitlin_online_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42ec0b0f$0$30937$61c65585@un-2park-reader-02.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
>I downloaded QImages last month, and was quite happy with it. What I'm after
>is something that allows me to print multiple photos in any layout I like. The
>trial period on QImage has now expired, and I went to register and was rather
>shocked by how expensive it is. Is there anything else out there that does
>this, but isn't so pricey?

I use Photo Paper Saver, trial version with no time limit (but will only print
two pages at a time) from http://www.fpdoctor.com/pps/main/main-j-0-0.html and
$20 to register.

Regards,
Bob Headrick, MS MVP Printing/Imaging

Archived from groups: comp.graphics.apps.photoshop,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:00:48 +1000, "Caitlin"
<caitlin_online_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:

[snip]
>I must have been thinking of something else - I could have sworn it had two
>price levels, and that the $45 excluded printing some formats. Anyway, I've
>checked out some of those other apps and they don't seem to have the
>flexibility I'm after - they all seem to be limited to printing standard
>dimensions etc, where as QImage you can drag and resize like Photoshop (but
>multiple images at a time). I guess I will have to cough up the dough,
>though it does still seem a bit pricey.

If you think QImage is expensive, try looking at ImagePrint...

http://www.colorbytesoftware.com/PriceList.htm
http://www.colorbytesoftware.com/feature_list.htm

Of course, as well as print layout, ImagePrint talks direct to
printer so in theory you should be able to produce better prints.

--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Website : www.metalvortex.com
Contact : www.metalvortex.com/form/form.htm

"It ain't Coca Cola, it's rice", Straight to Hell - The Clash

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article <0d4oe1pss3p4crhlfrl4n95ru5o9tbo960@4ax.com>,
hecate@newsguy.com (Hecate) wrote:

> Personally, I use Photoshop.

If you haven't tried Qimage I'd strongly recommend that you do so. It
produces /far/ better quality prints than Photoshop in my, and many other
people's, opinion. That's especially true if the image needs upscaling at
all. Qimage's Pyramid interpolation makes Photoshop's bicubic
interpolation look positively primitive!

Really, Hecate, it's a no brainer. Trust me! :-)

Caveat: do work through the tutorial. The interface is somewhat 'unique'.

Jon.

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Jon@NOonlySPAMbrowsingTHANX.com (Jon O'Brien) wrote in
news:memo.20050731113618.2336C@blue.compulink.co.uk:

> In article <0d4oe1pss3p4crhlfrl4n95ru5o9tbo960@4ax.com>,
> hecate@newsguy.com (Hecate) wrote:
>
>> Personally, I use Photoshop.
>
> If you haven't tried Qimage I'd strongly recommend that you do so. It
> produces /far/ better quality prints than Photoshop in my, and many
> other people's, opinion. That's especially true if the image needs
> upscaling at all. Qimage's Pyramid interpolation makes Photoshop's
> bicubic interpolation look positively primitive!
>
> Really, Hecate, it's a no brainer. Trust me! :-)
>
> Caveat: do work through the tutorial. The interface is somewhat
> 'unique'.
>
> Jon.
>
What is image upscaling?

Shannon

Archived from groups: comp.graphics.apps.photoshop,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Hi Caitlin

Qimage is $45, not $79.

Worth every penny. It has no competition
as regards output quality. Layout flexibility
and printer control are excellent. Just takes
a while to penetrate the UI.

-- stan

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article <oLXutAB16S7CFwPB@wookie.demon.co.uk>,
wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk (John Beardmore) wrote:

Hi Wookie. Long time no see.

> Even Photoshop ?

Definitely. Qimage has several interpolation methods that beat
Photoshop's best-shot bicubic interpolation hands-down. The best of the
lot being Pyramid.

Take a look at: http://www.ddisoftware.com/testpics/new-pyr.htm for
samples (or maybe 'resamples' would be more appropriate).

Jon.
(cody from CIX)

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article <SA$QvKTXi97CFw5Y@wookie.demon.co.uk>,
wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk (John Beardmore) wrote:

> Not sure I could say which was best really without seeing the original
> 'analogue' view.

Yes, there's nothing like seeing the hardcopy results. You can download a
trial version and give it a test drive, though.

> I guess the bicubic had obvious artefacts with straight edges, but old
> pyramid perhaps has more on the white curved surface.

'Old' pyramid didn't last long. It was his first attempt at the algorithm
and was fairly quickly replaced by the current version.

> I guess new pyramid is the best on detailed examination. Very
> interesting !

I wouldn't dream of saying 'I told you so'. :-)

Jon.

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article <IdWG44ksEd8CFwCm@wookie.demon.co.uk>,
wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk (John Beardmore) wrote:

> We don't print many stand alone images.
> ...unless there is a way of making these algorithms accessible to DTP
> software, they will probably remain inaccessible to us.

In that case, the only way I can see the upscaling being useful to you is
if you have lowish res images that will need upscaling for final printing.
You can then print to file from Qimage before importing into
Pagemaker/InDesign. Otherwise, Qimage is a chocolate teapot as far as your
requirements are concerned.

Jon.

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article <YyQyTBu16g8CFwSH@wookie.demon.co.uk>,
wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk (John Beardmore) wrote:

> Are these scaling algorithms better in general though ? Might it also
> do a better job of down scaling ?

Can't comment on that, I'm afraid, as I've never needed to shrink images.

> ...it may be handy for making 1 to 5 mega pixel images into posters.

I regularly use it to print 3MP images to 11"x17" and occasionally to
13"x19" and it does the job admirably. How large you could go I don't know
but it will depend on the intended viewing distance, of course.

Jon.

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article <m5ednYotD4hfrWnfRVn-pA@comcast.com>, nospam@nospam.net
(Shannon) wrote:

> So it sounds like just enlarging the print gives you larger dots, and
> you can see them since there's no "data" between them...

Almost. The most basic method of enlargement, pixel doubling, replaces
each pixel with four (or nine, or 16) identical ones. That will only work
when you double (treble, quadruple, etc.) the image width and height, of
course. That's not a problem if all your image consists of is vertical and
horizontal lines but leads to jagged edges in all other cases.

To see the effect, create a new image in your editor. Make it a bitmap
(two colour) image with a white background and set the foreground colour
to black. Draw some straight, single-pixel lines at, say, 45 degrees and
about 60 degrees. Zoom in on the lines and see how they become very blocky
and jagged.

To get round the 'jaggies', as this effect is sometimes known, you could
fill part of each 'step' in the jagged line with pixels that are the same
colour as the line. If it's a 45 degree black line on a white background,
you could fill a triangular area of the step with black pixels, reducing
the step size and making the line appear smoother. If the line's not at 45
degrees it gets more complicated and some of the pixels have to be a shade
of grey to fool the eye into thinking there's a smooth edge. That's called
'anti-aliasing' and it's one of the most basic processes used in image
enlargement.

To see this effect, convert your bitmap image to greyscale, double or
treble its size and zoom in. If you include a vertical or horizontal line
in your bitmap image and increase the image size by a non-whole number,
you'll see that anti-aliasing is used on these lines as well.

If you're not increasing the image size by a whole number, it gets a lot
more complicated. You have to calculate new values for most of the pixels
in the image. When there are more than two colours in the image, and
especially when not all transitions between colours are hard-edged, it
gets even more complicated, because you have to calculate what colours to
use to make the colour transitions in all directions reflect the original
transitions as faithfully as possible.

> ...but Qimage, from what I've read in this thread, uses a 'triangular'
> dot pattern when upscaling, which fills in the area much better.

I'm don't know how pyramid interpolation works but I'm pretty sure that it
doesn't refer to triangular patterns of pixels. It's probably more likely
to refer to the steps used in working out what colour each pixel has to be
and represents the 'tree' of decisions to be made, which either spread out
from the original calculation, getting closer and closer to the final
colour, or close in on it from a series of initial approximations. However
it's done, it's pretty smart stuff (well worth $45!) and produces very
good results.

Jon.