On 2/7/2012 12:55 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
> I've been using deconvolution sharpening on a few images, but have
> generally found that for some reason it doesn't do so well on Olympus E-1
> files, nor on DMC-L1 files. As a general rule, deconvolution sharpening
> works best on gaussian blur style blurring. The Oly/Pany files are more of
> a smearing in the blurring.
>
> That doesn't mean I avoid it, though. Far from it. But but I haven't gotten
> as much success as Moose has from it.
That's the reason I specifically kept referring to use with the S100. I also
use it on other cameras. It is, for example
very useful with 60D files, but not as magical as for the S100.
I imagine that MP count might make a difference. For the same size on the
sensor one with more MPs simply spreads the
OOF area over more pixels, allowing more subtle and precise correction. Maybe
the 12 MPs of the S100 just happen to hit
some sweet spot in FM/s algorithm? Maye I should try it on the 12+ MP 5D.
> Speaking of sharpening, I rather am impressed with the bilateral sharpening
> built into PWP. It doesn't get used very much, but it is another knife in
> the drawer that seems to work well at cutting up the veggies. It does a
> great job on portraits.
Not much use to this Moose. :-)
> Usually, though, I end up just using a two-pass sharpening in PWP. I'll use
> the heavy sharpen with low setting for the first pass and then normal
> sharpen with a high setting. Heavy sharpen uses 8 surrounding cells in the
> matrix (like USM), whereas normal sharpen uses 4 neighboring cells (side by
> side and up and down).
I do have a trial of PWP 6 around here somewhere, If I install and play, what
settings are you using?
> I get a whole lot less haloing with the normal
> sharpening than with the USM based settings.
OK, I'm confused. What is this 'normal sharpening' that is apparently not USM
based? Or are you saying that 8 cells is
normal USM and this is lighter?
USM is inherently different than deconvolution. So far, FM has proved to be
more useful, with better detail recovery and
fewer artifacts on the files I work with, so I use USM mostly for LCE these
days.
> For what it's worth, when I do
> my raw conversion, I do try to get the maximum sharpness at that time and
> will typically do an equivalent USM of 0.7 pixel radius and enough to make
> it visible then back off a bit.
Yeah, well, I like to sharpen in a separate level, so I can fine tune with
opacity. And I like my raw conversions pretty
straight. And I've switched from USM based, Fred Miranda's Intellisharpen II,
to Focus Magic for most work. Three
reasons I don't sharpen in the conversion step.
Confuse A Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|