Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: plugsnpixels on August 04, 2009, 10:13:27 pm
-
The first Topaz Detail beta for Windows is now ready (Mac version coming Wednesday), and includes factory presets. See the download link at the top of the page here (http://plugsandpixels.com/detail.html). Serial number is in the ReadMe that is included with the file.
-
Thanks for the heads up - I'm a fan of Topaz (in certain circumstances - Adjust particularly and denoise occasionally) so I'll check this out.
-
You're welcome!
BTW, besides offering a high level of control over image detail, Detail is developing into a serious B&W conversion tool which is perfect for landscape images. More info soon.
The Mac version is being held up just a bit so it can benefit from the latest fixes and improvements to the Windows version right out of the gate.
-
The Mac version is now out!
-
A bit slow, but performs as advertised - I'll discard my old fashioned local contrast USM. The lack of halos/ringing is impressive - I suspect the technology behind the algorithm is pretty complex.
-
I found it slow loading as well, although it certainly seems to have possibilites, a lot depends on the final price though.
-
That does look pretty impressive...
Someone on here suggested, if you have Nik's Silver Efix, to use the "structure" slider and use the resulting layer in luminosity mode. Doing so gives you very very similar results as far accentuating details.
-
sniper, beta4 for Mac just came out (http://plugsandpixels.com/detail.html) (to match the Windows beta); it's supposed to be faster. Though there may still be some wait for the pre-processing. The developer is constantly trying to improve it.
-
Beta 4's multi-core optimization has really helped load times. Thr 85 MB TIFs that took 5 minutes to load now take less than 2. JPGs are a matter of a few seconds on my Dell quadcore running @ 2.33 GHZ. As a micro-contrast tool I am loving it. Jury is still out for B&W conversion (don't do much anyway.)
-
A bit slow, but performs as advertised - I'll discard my old fashioned local contrast USM. The lack of halos/ringing is impressive - I suspect the technology behind the algorithm is pretty complex.
Could be wavelets.
-
No 64-bit version is a big disappointment for a plugin coming out this long after CS4 release.
I don't know what previous betas were like, but I tried opening an 86 megapixel pano with B4 and it took so long I thought Photoshop had hung (I didn't use a stopwatch, but I'd guess at least 5 minutes). So hopefully there's still some room for improvement.
The actual results looked decent though, I'll have to try some more images. Definitely one of those tools where a little goes a long way though.
-
Beta 5 for Mac (http://www.plugsandpixels.com/detail.html) is just out, solving both a multiprocessor crash issue and related compatbility issues when using other developers' plug-ins in the same session. Also, it seems a lot faster!
I'm checking into the 64-bit question and will let you know.
-
Jeff, the developer says:
"We did not make a beta release for 64-bit Windows, but it will be available for the real release."
-
Good to know, thanks for the update.
-
Crashes out on my PC with any image over about 300mb (P4 duo 2.8GHz 3Ghz RAM)
Often makes a real mass of web size jpgs
Works as advertised on 'normal' sized images but seems to add/bring out a fair amount of noise
-
In the absence of a Noise tab (such as in Adjust), you can increase "Small Details" and REDUCE "Small Boost". If you adjust these properly, you will see that Reduce Small Boost will suppress the noise while increase "Small details" maintains sharpness.
-
Seems to crash Photoshop when sending large files to print on 8 core Mac.
-
You're using Detail beta 5? Let me know and I'll pass on the info.
-
Ummm...Can't locate a version number for it, but I just downloaded it a couple days ago.
-
Click the menu button (lower right of the interface) one of the options will tell you the version number. It might not have the particular beta build listed though, but it seems you would have the latest judging by when you downloaded it.
-
Click the menu button (lower right of the interface) one of the options will tell you the version number. It might not have the particular beta build listed though, but it seems you would have the latest judging by when you downloaded it.
Of course, I should've looked there. I looked at the .dmg in my download folder and it says it was a b3.dmg, under the About in the menu says ver 1.0.1. Trashed that and downloaded b5.dmg and installed and the it also says it's ver 1.0.1 under About in the menu.
I will test this today and see if it crashes.
-
Well, that certainly cleared it up..... much quicker and no crashes.
-
Crashes on my system just before completing opening (takes about 30 mins to do so). 300 mb tif OS X.5.7, CS3, MBP 17" core duo (the first) with 2 gigs RAM. I'm on beta 5.
-
I'm thinking 2 gigs of RAM may not be enough for such a large TIFF (also factored in is how many other apps are open, how much RAM is allotted to PS, the number of undos set in PS, etc.).
Maybe try a 100 meg image and continue downward until the crash no longer occurs. Then you'll know the threshold.
-
I'm thinking 2 gigs of RAM may not be enough for such a large TIFF (also factored in is how many other apps are open, how much RAM is allotted to PS, the number of undos set in PS, etc.).
Maybe try a 100 meg image and continue downward until the crash no longer occurs. Then you'll know the threshold.
60MB TIFF worked on a Mac Pro 2x2.26 Xeon / 16GB / OSX 10.5.8
-
60MB TIFF worked on a Mac Pro 2x2.26 Xeon / 16GB / OSX 10.5.8
OK, I can see how this can work - just drew this up in 5 mins: (i.e. uncut/cropped, no sharpening (!), no major work done, flames not accepted)
Initial HDR image
(http://www.markhout.com/test/hdr_no_topaz.jpg)
With Topaz detail
(http://www.markhout.com/test/hdr_topaz.jpg)
Grayscale conversion in Lightroom:
(http://www.markhout.com/test/hdr_topaz-gray.jpg)
Only comment so far is that I challenge the difference between "details" and "boost" in the menu - I understand their purpose, but the sliders don't work intuitively.
I will play around a bit more and let you know.
Thanks much - am impressed so far!
Mark
-
OK, I can see how this can work - just drew this up in 5 mins: (i.e. uncut/cropped, no sharpening (!), no major work done, flames not accepted)
Mark
Mark,
No flame intended, but why is the original HDR so soft at such a reduced web size? I assume that it might be the result of downsizing to some extend, could you post original high res crops with and without topaz?
Thank you.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Mark,
No flame intended, but why is the original HDR so soft at such a reduced web size? I assume that it might be the result of downsizing to some extend, could you post original high res crops with and without topaz?
Thank you.
Cheers,
Bernard
Hi Bernard, good to hear from you and no flame taken at all. I will check back when I get home tonight (am on Eastern time) but the main reason for the inital HDRs softness is that I have dialed down all capture sharpening on HDR images.
I found that capture sharpening may be nice for 'over-the-top' HDRs, but not for my more worldly HDR purpose - HDR capture sharpening highlights noise as well. The interesting thing of Topaz detail is that it increases the impression of sharpness - even though it is not billed as a sharpener and there are no distinct sharpening routines. The two Topaz'd images have not been sharpened in LR afterwards, and no export sharpening was applied.
Mark
-
could you post original high res crops with and without topaz?
Not original size, but close.
HDR crop:
(http://www.markhout.com/test/croptonemap.jpg)
Topaz crop:
(http://www.markhout.com/test/croptopaz.jpg)
Grayscale crop:
(http://www.markhout.com/test/croptopazgray.jpg)
-
Beta testing is over; the final release version of Detail (http://plugsandpixels.com/detail.html) is now available (as an individual plug-in and as part of the Topaz suite).
-
Not original size, but close.
HDR crop:
(http://www.markhout.com/test/croptonemap.jpg)
Hum, not saying that I dislike the image or the look, it does look way too soft to me to be a good base to test a detail enhancing application. If it were an application aimed at recovering blurred images then yes.
Cheers,
Bernard