Can someone help me enlarge this image?

[HumblyLearning]

Hi guys, just wondering with the right program, what is the biggest size you can turn this image into and still have it in pretty good quality?



I tried to enlarge it on Photoshop twice its size and it turned out pretty bad. Would vectorizing it work? Yeah, I am asking for a favor. I don't have the tools to do it and I am not sure how much trouble learning a new program would be. If someone could enlarge this image for me as large as possible and keep the quality, I would really, really appreciate it. If it's not possible because the image is too small, I understand.

 

[Tom Mann]

Getty Images appears to own this image, and therefore controls its distribution, copying, etc. (hence the term, "copyright"):

http://www.gettyimages.it/evento/br...m-of-the-rio-2016-olympic-picture-id591969820

Even the medium resolution preview on Getty's Italian website is of considerably better quality than the version you posted. Just retain the Getty watermark in all copies you print or send people, and don't attempt to make money off of their image (eg, print and sell T-shirts or posters based on it), and you probably won't have any lawyers knocking at your door.

For the best quality and without any watermark, why don't you just go to Getty's web site and spend a few dollars to purchase a short term, limited use license to a high resolution copy for your own personal use?

Tom M

PS - BTW, FYI, we don't remove watermarks on this board. That is tantamount to stealing someone else's property.

 

[HumblyLearning]

Thank you! I didn't know the image was available on Getty Images. I checked there under "rio 2016 Olympic soccer" and it didn't come up. I guess you have a better way of finding things.

 

[HumblyLearning]

Tom (or anyone who knows), I checked the sizes on Getty Images. There is small (594px X 396px), medium (1024 X 683) and large (4694 X 3129). Look at the prizes. They are expensive! http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/592225832 Do you think I can get away with buying a small? But how big do you think I can enlarge a 594px x 396px and keep the quality? I would like to print it and hang it in my room in honor of the Olympics. This is just for me only; no commercial use. Ideally I would like the poster to be 28.5" x 20" (no idea how many pixels that is) but I don't know if I can get it that big with a small size.

 

[gedstar]

Well their certainly not cheap

28.5" * 20" is equal to 8550 * 6000 pixels

This is what a 594px x 396px image will look like on that size canvas


I converted the image to a smart object and resized it to fit the canvas and didn't notice a lot of difference in the quality

P.S. just in case I'm mistaken hang on until someone else comes along to verify this

 

[HumblyLearning]

Thank you. I might buy the medium size (1024 X 683) then since small seems too small. How big (in pixels) do you think I can enlarge the medium size and still maintain the quality? Probably not as big as my original plan but how big?

 

[Tom Mann]

Hi Humbly - Getty is obviously behind the times w.r.t. licensing options. I've seen quite a few micro-stock agencies offer a rock-bottom "personal use only" ultra cheap image licensing options. If it was me, my first step would be to search for the same image from other stock image agencies, as well as search on the name of the photographer and consider dropping him a line explaining your intended use and asking if he will license it to you directly for a reasonable price.

With respect to the minimum acceptable dimensions (in pixels), everyone is different, but if you want to have any hope of seeing the individual faces of the players, you need the full resolution version (i.e., at least 4000 pixels horizontally). If you are going to stand back a bit and just take in the entire scene, you might be happy with 2 or 3 thousand pixels horizontally.

Also, to respond to your implied question about whether special software exists to recreate all the data missing in a low resolution version, the answer is simple: The only software of that type that exists is in the minds of the producers of TV crime shows, where the cop directs the funky/homely lab tech to "zoom in" on an incredibly low quality photo, a sharp image magically appears, and the perp is immediately arrested, LOL.

I own several of the best up-rez'ing software packages, and for an image like this, if you go more than 2x, or possibly 3x (in linear dimensions), details will definitely look blurry. You need more like 10x in linear dimensions (or 100x in area /total number of pixels).

HTH,

Tom M

 

[HumblyLearning]

Thank you Tom, for the helpful info. I think I do need a large size in this case. I already checked other sites like istock and a bunch of others. They don't have photos like this one. However, I have found the e-mail of the photographer and will see if she can sell it to me for less. Thanks again for the idea.

 

[gedstar]

If you do get the photo report back here and we'll see if we can enlarge it for you, won't do any harm to try

 

[Tom Mann]

Just to give you an idea of what to expect from different starting file sizes, I found a 1kpx wide version of the team picture from the recent Olympics.

I used a combination of Genuine Fractals (aka, OnOne Perfect Resize) and Photo Zoom to up-rez it to 3kpx wide, and then I cropped out a small area of around 700 px square so it would display 1:1 in this forum (and so I wouldn't be violating any copyright rules). This result is attached below.

I also have attached a photo that I took quite a few years ago with a 12 megapixel camera that came out in 2008, and which produced images slightly over 4kpx wide. This photo was taken at about the same distance as the Olympic photo, and with roughly the same focal length lens.

As you can see, the detail is vastly higher when you start with a 4kpx wide image, versus when you start with a 1 kpx wide image, artificially up-rez it to 3 kpx wide, and then apply the same crop to both images.

I can guarantee you that the original of the picture from the Olympics was taken on a camera vastly superior to my 8 year old camera, so that if you get the full resolution version of the image you are interested in, the detail will be even better than that of my photo.

HTH,

Tom M