Jump to content

Best Resampling Method


Recommended Posts

Trying to understand which resampling method would be best to use on landscape or wildlife images.  From the Help section, it looks like Lanczos 3(non separable) would give the best results.  The 4 choices in the Export menu(Linear, Bicubic, etc.) are only names to me, so any clarification about them would be helpful. (Just an amateur enjoying the hobby)

Thanks,

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Hi Phil, the resampling methods are ordered by sharpness. For photographic purposes you can safely ignore Nearest Neighbour. Bilinear will produce the softest result, whereas Lanczos 3 non-separable will produce the sharpest (the difference between separable and non-separable is very slight). Bicubic is somewhere in the middle and will probably suffice for the majority of your images.

 

One reason to use a softer resampling method might be if your image has lots of high frequency content - from excessive noise to very fine detail like chainlink fences and difficult patterning in architecture. Using a sharper resampling method may exacerbate these parts of the image, and may even produce resampling artefacts (though they are more noticeable in video content to be honest - stills, not so much).

 

As always, experiment! But for a good safe bet with most of your images, try Bicubic. Hope that helps!

Product Expert (Affinity Photo) & Product Expert Team Leader

@JamesR_Affinity for tutorial sneak peeks and more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...
4 hours ago, TextusGames said:

Just created 62 pixel circle in 64 pixel file and exported with all 5 methods. And the bilinear method produced most smooth result for me at least. 

Not really surprising. As @James Ritsonimplied, the Nearest Neighbour and Bilinear are not suitable for photo work, but they are good for line artwork such as your circle. Hence the choice.

John

Windows 10, Affinity Photo 1.10.5 Designer 1.10.5 and Publisher 1.10.5 (mainly Photo), now ex-Adobe CC

CPU: AMD A6-3670. RAM: 16 GB DDR3 @ 666MHz, Graphics: 2047MB NVIDIA GeForce GT 630

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...
On 5/22/2020 at 2:28 AM, John Rostron said:

Not really surprising. As @James Ritsonimplied, the Nearest Neighbour and Bilinear are not suitable for photo work, but they are good for line artwork such as your circle. Hence the choice.

John

 

On 1/11/2017 at 11:47 PM, James Ritson said:

Hi Phil, the resampling methods are ordered by sharpness. For photographic purposes you can safely ignore Nearest Neighbour. Bilinear will produce the softest result, whereas Lanczos 3 non-separable will produce the sharpest (the difference between separable and non-separable is very slight). Bicubic is somewhere in the middle and will probably suffice for the majority of your images.

 

One reason to use a softer resampling method might be if your image has lots of high frequency content - from excessive noise to very fine detail like chainlink fences and difficult patterning in architecture. Using a sharper resampling method may exacerbate these parts of the image, and may even produce resampling artefacts (though they are more noticeable in video content to be honest - stills, not so much).

 

As always, experiment! But for a good safe bet with most of your images, try Bicubic. Hope that helps!

is it working for images only or may have different about vector file?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, sudarmindamir said:

is it working for images only or may have different about vector file?

Vector drawings are resolution independent, so there is no need for resampling.

Alfred spacer.png
Affinity Designer/Photo/Publisher for Windows 1.10 • Windows 10 Home/Pro
Affinity Photo for iPad 1.10 • Designer for iPad 1.10 • iPadOS 15.6.1 (iPad Air 2)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Alfred said:

Vector drawings are resolution independent, so there is no need for resampling.

That depends. Vector graphics are often converted to a bitmap at the end for various purposes - and this conversion can result in rather bad quality depending on the rasterization and resampling methods used.

For example, Illustrator produced (and still does) rather sub-par lower resolution exported bitmap versions. Compared to Designer, Lunacy/Sketch and other vector editors, the output of an (for example) 240px by 240px icon with simple shapes just looks pretty awful: too soft, and it often introduces pixels at awkward positions which affect the quality of rounded shapes.

In short: the base vector-->bitmap conversion in Illustrator is not very acceptable in my opinion.

A legacy trick to improve the overall final quality has always been to export a much higher resolution bitmap version and then use another tool (image editor or dedicated optimization tools) to scale the result to the required lower resolution. This results in a much more acceptable lower resolution variant.

True often even for other vector applications (Designer, Lunacy, etc.) which already produce (much) better output at the original required low resolution. Rounded corners look visibly more rounded: the base exported low resolution versions often cause slightly too straight looking rounded corners, for example.

The resampling method plays a major part in this last step. I tend to stick with Catmull-Rom myself when scaling down vector graphics that are exported as larger bitmaps.

That said, really, generally the output of Designer and most other vector apps is fine, and there is no real need to perform that in-between step. Unless, of course, you work with Illustrator ;-)

But if I have to work with high-resolution bitmap versions of what used to be vector art work, and need to produce lower resolution versions, I always avoid resampling algorithm such as bilinear, bicubic, lanczos, or Mitchell-Netravali. Those result in too soft looking downsampled results. Catmull-Rom or even Box work best in these cases. Catmull-Rom also preserves the most detail in scaling down photos to lower resolutions, by the way (since most software does not support this resampling method, I rely on ColorQuantizer for this last step).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note there is currently a delay in replying to some post. See pinned thread in the Questions forum. These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.