On 4/11/06, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Joel Wilcox wrote:
> > Interesting about the sharpening comment. I purchased Fred M's SI Pro
> > over the weekend. I used it to downsample this image to web size. I
> > often feel the need to do a tiny bit of sharpening right after
> > downsampling, but not with SI Pro.
> I have had SI Pro for the 300D for some time.
>
> I work with several different sources to display on the web, and SI is
> specific to individual digital cameras, so I use his WP Pro for down
> sampling - have it set up in an action. I really like it in general.
> It's one drawback for me is that there are only 3 sharpening settings.
> Low is often just right, None occasionally best, and sometimes I want
> something in between. Then I do two down samples, layer the sharpened
> one on top of the other, adjust opacity of the top layer to taste,
> flatten, resave and erase the work copy.
> > I've seen web demos of how SI Pro works, but real life is better. Day64
> > printed really well at about 12x15. I should read the documentation. I've
> > been shooting from the hip.
> >
> I agree it's amazingly good. A couple of times, I posted some full pixel
> comparisons of tests that convinced me it is better at up sampling than
> anything else I have. As they contain some comparison sof different SI
> Pro settings, and it does make a difference, here's the link again
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/resize.htm>.
>
> Moose
I remember when you posted that. It didn't hit me as the cat's PJs at
the time. It's trying to convey something distinctive but subtle
through a relatively crude display medium (the web), which is no fault
of yours, of course. Where it really impressed was in the large print
I made. I did two successive upsamples (through convenient paper
sizes -- 8X12 and then 12x18, I think) and the printed result is
photographic in a sense that the one with regular bicubic upsampling
isn't. Halleluia!
One thing that confuses me: you said the software was specific to
your camera. Mine isn't. It's just a PS plug-in and I can use it
with anything I can open in PS.
My sharpening routine is cruder than yours. I just try .5 pixels
radius at 60-100 amount and then do another pass at .3 pixels. No
sharpening in the camera. One more process before printing, if
applicable. I've tried other, more complex processes, but I've been
satisfied with this simple process. I don't usually web out an image
that I haven't already printed, so I might be more oriented to see a
crunchy version on screen. But on the whole, I think you are just a
lot more advanced than I am, certainly in the way you do web stuff. I
need to take it more seriously.
Joel W.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|