can this photo be blown up

jenny smith

Can a jpg

width 192 pixels

height 256 pixels

96 dpi

45kb

be blown up to width 6 ins
height 8 ins
be good quality

perfect resize claim it can do any increase

DaireQuinlan

I could blow it up to 6 feet by 8 feet and it would look great, from about half a kilometer away.

So, in short, probably not. The detail isn't there. But for a definite answer you'd need to supply what it's to be used for, how far away will people be when they see it, is there any fine detail in the original picture etc etc.

Heebie

You could try using something like "Genuine Fractals" but it probably won't come out as well as you might like... there just isn't much source material to work with.

Do you have any chance of getting better source material? original photo? original digital file etc..? The JPG had to be made from something, and very few cameras shoot that small.

jenny smith

Heebie wrote: »

You could try using something like "Genuine Fractals" but it probably won't come out as well as you might like... there just isn't much source material to work with.

Do you have any chance of getting better source material? original photo? original digital file etc..? The JPG had to be made from something, and very few cameras shoot that small.

well my friend who texted it to me said a photo shop had blown it up 8x6 and it is good .

There is detail for what it is, small detail if you know what i mean. it was shot on a phone, do they compress in texting?

_Brian

What I usually tell people is just enlarge it and see. It's only one snap and won't cost that much to do.
People have different expectations, a purest will say never it will be awful, but for someone with an emotional interest in the photo could be very satisfied with the results.

The general rule though is that phones take awful pictures. Poor tech combined with small lenses results in underwhelming results.
Some of the better phones are ok if used outdoors in decent light, but a reasonable camera will be better

jenny smith

Heebie wrote: »

You could try using something like "Genuine Fractals" but it probably won't come out as well as you might like... there just isn't much source material to work with.

Do you have any chance of getting better source material? original photo? original digital file etc..? The JPG had to be made from something, and very few cameras shoot that small.

perfect resize is genuine fractals

jenny smith

Thanks all. Checked with professionals - cannot be done

Pete67

Many messaging apps do compress images heavily, if you can, go back to the phone that the picture was taken on, connect it to a laptop via USB and copy the original image to the laptop. Then copy it to USB stick and get it printed. Should be fine up to 8 by 10 inch if the original image file can be located. Hopefully it has not been deleted.

twowheelsonly

jenny smith wrote: »

well my friend who texted it to me said a photo shop had blown it up 8x6 and it is good .

There is detail for what it is, small detail if you know what i mean. it was shot on a phone, do they compress in texting?

Pete67 wrote: »

Many messaging apps do compress images heavily, if you can, go back to the phone that the picture was taken on, connect it to a laptop via USB and copy the original image to the laptop. Then copy it to USB stick and get it printed. Should be fine up to 8 by 10 inch if the original image file can be located. Hopefully it has not been deleted.

Phone to phone will reduce the size, particularly via text.

If the person with the original can email it to you to open on a laptop you can download it from there or upload it to a 'cloud' for printing . They should be able to email the original to you directly from the phone but you need to open / save it on a laptop , not on your phone. I've had to do that quite a few times as opening the email on the phone doesn't seem to work . (It should....but I've found that it generally doesn't for some reason.!!! )

The reason their copy is good is that they have the original - yours looks like it's only somewhere between a fifth and a tenth of that, possibly even smaller.

Effects

jenny smith wrote: »

Thanks all. Checked with professionals - cannot be done

It can be done, it just won't look perfect. Get it printed, it will only cost a euro, and see how you like it.

I recently had to print a photo for a friend of a friend that she took at a wedding. Quality is terrible but you can make out the couple and the location so she's happy with it.

magicbastarder

twowheelsonly wrote: »

The reason their copy is good is that they have the original - yours looks like it's only somewhere between a fifth and a tenth of that, possibly even smaller.

standard DPI would be 300, which would put hers at .65" x .85", i.e. about half a square inch; so there's about 1% of the info you'd expect in a full res quality photo of the size she's looking for (6" x 8")

Heebie

300 DPI is fairly standard (many photographic "minilab" setups go with 303, as this just BARELY surpasses 300dpi, which is considered the threshold for the human eye to distinguish individual pixels at some particular viewing distance that I can't recall. Fuji Frontier systems and AGFA's later models, for example, use 303.)

BUT.. depending on the content, "adequate" or "fair" results might be had from significantly lower resolutions. I've seen as little as 80dpi print and look good, but it was extremely organic content with no straight lines. The shapes were all rounded. The lower the resolution, the more jagged and horrid straight lines look. (especially thin lines.)

Upsampling an organic image with something that does a good job, then sharpening the edges slightly with low "strength" and high radius and extremely high threshold values, it might not look too bad.

The DPI of this image is well below 80 even... equivalent to ~32dpi @6x8, so the result would end up being very soft looking, even viewed from a distance. A 4x5 might not look so bad, it would be starting at ~64dpi.

If the image isn't too personal, perhaps the OP can put it up on pix.ie so a few of us could take a crack at it to see what can be had from it.

magicbastarder wrote: »

standard DPI would be 300, which would put hers at .65" x .85", i.e. about half a square inch; so there's about 1% of the info you'd expect in a full res quality photo of the size she's looking for (6" x 8")

davidlimerick

does size really matter?