I prefer the RL version, at least it does not affect the color/saturation.
Of course if it is your intention that's ok.
When you are talking about print, different kinds of printing techniques
need different level of sharpening, offset need the most and Frontier type
need less. If you are making a small print, you need more sharpening if you
are making a giant print with a high pixel file you need less.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Moose"
> usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
>> Oh,
>> I found the site that piqued my interest in the deconvolution
>> routine.(R-L iteration).
>>
>> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/image-restoration1/index.html
>>
>
> The R-L processing is interesting and, in the example, clearly a bit
> better than USM. But lets get right down to it. Anyone interested in
> this stuff, I'd appreciate your votes on the alternates here.
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/ARL_Sharp/Fox.htm>
>
> Problems I see with his presentation and examples, which also mostly
> explain the above:
>
> - He refers to an end use of a print, yet never shows scans of prints
> nor comments on any visible differences in actual prints of various
> sizes. He doesn't seem to know about, at least doesn't mention, the
> different sharpening needs for web display vs. printing. Images
> optimized for printed output will generally look over sharpened, even
> 'crunchy' when viewed on screen.
>
> - He does not compare it to more sophisticated approaches to sharpening.
> The techniques in Bruce Fraser's book "Image Sharpening", Fred Miranda's
> sharpening plug-ins and undoubtedly numerous others offer different and
> often more effective sharpening than simple uses of USM - and without
> the extreme processing overhead penalty.
>
> - He only tries one up-sampling option. There are better tools
> available. Qimage and other, more expensive and often specialized RIPs,
> may use both more sophisticated up-sampling algorithms and different
> sharpening algorithms, both optimized for printing, rather than viewing.
>
> Based on what I see in his examples, it appears that the R-L processing
> makes full pixel and upsampled images look better on screen than does
> simple USM. My rough guess is that in a print of his side by side
> example at his specified magnification, the USM version will look
> better, sharper, clearer, than the R-L version at any normal viewing
> distance.
>
> For the screen? I think I've equaled or bettered his AR-L result using
> far less exotic and processor intensive tools. I would not use any of
> them for printing.
>
> Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|