Home Forums SharewareOnSale Deals Discussion PhotoZoom 6 / Mar 30 2021 Reply To: PhotoZoom 6 / Mar 30 2021

#17539524 Quote
Gary
Guest

Several people have noticed that this offer is for version 6 but recently we were offered version 7 here at SoS on 2020-09-21 (and still available). I noticed that the names after the version numbers were also different. One is version 6 “Standard” but the other is version 7 “Classic.” Since Franzis generally installs to a different folder, I decided to install the version 6 Standard offered today. When the install started, I noticed two things that stood out to me; one is that version 6 also uses “Classic” (no Standard mentioned), and the second was the BenVista name.

BenVista is one of the early software companies that jumped on the enlargement abilities offered by using S-Spline technology. I did a comparison of products that used the S-Spline technology a few years back. At that time, Franzis did not have any products using the S-Spline technology, which put them at a disadvantage with the others that already had S-Spline-based products. Franzis has offered products developed by other companies under their own name, so seeing the BenVista name was not a big surprise.

BenVista simply allows Franzis to market the PhotoZoom product under the Franzis name. BenVista uses “Classic” and “Pro” but does not use “Standard” at all. The “Classic” editions are what a lot of software companies would call their “Standard” edition. BenVista sells the same software, and their current version is 8, just like the Franzis PhotoZoom 8. Both have the same retail price. BenVista has version 8 “Classic” and “Pro” editions. On Franzis’ website, you cannot purchase the “Classic” edition. Even though I said that Franzis only sells the “Pro” editions on their website, somehow, they can also offer the “Classic” editions, just not normally accessible on their website.

When I compared version 6 to 7, I did not see any differences in the output when using the same preset (each does start with slightly different presets). From the literature I could find, any differences might be mor related to the compression method used to store the files and how other artifacts are dealt with (such as noise). Therefore, some pictures might look exactly the same regardless of which version used, and others might show different results.