For the most part I don't really care too much about overall pixel counts
EXCEPT when it comes to the E-1. That camera needs all the assistance it
can get when it comes to pixels as it is just on the low side of adequacy.
10-12MP is fine most of the time. 16-24MP is a fine sweet spot.
Based on something His Mooseness showed, and something I came across on the
EweToobs, I tried a slightly different setup and I think I found something
a little more helpful with the E-1 files while never leaving the "World of
Adobe". Do note that for higher ISO images, EVERYTHING changes, but for ISO
100 images, this seems to be an interesting development.
As previously discussed, E-1 files suffer from halos and white lines around
high contrast transitions. It's a trait that is even more pronounced if we
use copious amounts of highlight recovery, but isn't tied to it. USM
sharpening of E-1 images is best served with a radius of 0.7 or 0.8 as a
full 1.0 exasperates a lot of issues with the E-1. The problem comes in
with that type of sharpening, as well as other little tweeks, if we manage
to keep the halos/transitions under control, other aspects of the image
fall apart. Noise becomes a major concern. Also, fine random details (field
of grass) can get raspy.
The "Enhance Details" function is very subtle for most images, but for the
E-1 images, there seems to be a bit of a benefit as it largely addresses
the halos/transitions, but doesn't amp up the noise. I can sharpen the
image without it looking as raspy.
The "Enhance Details with 2X expansion" function does have a distinct
problem in that it will take a line or edge that was heavily pixelated and
will make it a little wavy. However, there seems to be a very distinct
advantage to this algorithm that I overlooked until I tested with a very
specific image which I'll talk about in a second.
If I open the above images (Olympus RAW, Enhance, Enhance with 2X) in
Photoshop and do a stare and compare, my initial reaction is that the
simple Enhance image is best. However, if I use the image resize function
in Photoshop using "Preserve Details 2.0" things get interesting in a real
hurry. This is a fantastic algorithm (Adobe, thank you for fixing what was
absolutely the worst resize algorithm in the industry) and manages to find
details that you don't think actually exist. After resizing, I added
sharpening to the images to get each other to match apparent sharpness as
much as possible.
The native Olympus RAW file and the normal Enhance file actually had
similar levels of perceived detail, but the halo/transition characteristic
was certainly in the Enhance file's advantage. In certain areas of the
image, the AI feature of Enhance with 2X literally manufactured details out
of thin air. The problem I'm finding is that it's not uniform and adds
texture in some places, but not all places.
This is where the big surprise is, though. Noise:
The Enhance with 2X conversion was certainly the most noise-free of the
three, except in areas where the AI invented details and those didn't have
the same noise texture as the rest of the image. Oops.
Based on my testing SO FAR, I'm pretty pleased about three specific
discoveries:
1. The Enhance Details feature greatly helps the halo/transition issue.
This alone was worth the price of my time.
2. The Enhance Details with 2X creates more perceived details, helps even
more with the halo/transition issue, and results in a far less noisy image
except where fake texture is invented.
3. The Preserve Details 2.0 image scaling in Photoshop helps E-1 files as
the upsizing will straighten out pixel jaggies and creates some details by
way of multi-pass to determine what that one single pixel containing an
entire far-away object really is. Unfortunately, unlike the Enhance Details
with 2X, it also expands noise. However, unlike it, straight lines don't go
wavy.
Horses for courses, I guess. More to follow, but at least for now, I have a
new drawer of wrenches in the tool cabinet.
Except for the very rare image, I doubt I'll use any of this for pictures
not taken with the E-1. For the most part, any gains are minimal at best
and those images rarely need the extra heavy lifting.
Keep up your analysis, Moose. We make a great team.
AG Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|