Very interesting, Moose. The R-L seems to preserve detail well esp in
the eye, though you did a very nice job. Perhaps one comparison box is
missing. As he states in Fig 8 the techniques are not mutually
exclusive and perhaps a Moose USM pass s/p R-L would be the
best---don't know. I am not convinced the 1.5 hrs of processing is
necessarily a convincing negative as tweaked algorithms can be made to
run faster and perhaps 80% of the benefit may be after 25% of the
iterations. DXO uses similar algorithms and can process an image soup
to nuts from raw in a couple minutes. (I doubt Raw Developer would sell
if each image took 1.5 hrs.) DXO seems to apply a prodigious amount of
LCE and USM with the one click processing though the defaults can be
changed and everything turned off but for the distortion correction
(ala PT lens) CA correction, and the deconvolution. The noise reduction
routine is supposed to be as good as NI, but a layered NI ala Moose I
suspect iis better. Last I checked they did not support your lenses
with the 5D-- I would want a ringside seat for a DXO vs.
Moose--hints of a grandmaster vs Deep Blue.
Mike
Moose wrote:
> ...
>
> 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 ...
Simply looking at the on-screen examples provided, while also noting
the
problems you specify, to my eye the R-L processed image is the best of
them, though it's a fine like between it and "Moose Pass 2B".
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|