Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: HCHeyerdahl on February 26, 2013, 03:18:39 pm
-
I quite recently recieved an email notifying me that Focus Magic 4.0 Beta 64 bit is available for download.
My test pc is not available so I am just woundering if anybody tried it yet?
http://www.focusmagic.com/supported-programs.htm
Chris
-
Thanks for the link. I downloaded it and will try it. It has been a favorite of mine for many years, and I have missed being able to use it.
-
I quite recently recieved an email notifying me that Focus Magic 4.0 Beta 64 bit is available for download.
My test pc is not available so I am just woundering if anybody tried it yet?
Hi Chris,
It's working fine on my Win 7 64-bit machine. The interface has not changed. It can now also sharpen large images, without memory issues. For the fun of it I tried sharpening a magnified 2.5 GB image, and while that still takes a while to complete (with 8 processor cores at 100% capacity) , it did so without complaining. Regular images sharpen much faster than they used to.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I just tried FM4 Beta using Photoshop CS6, 64-bit on a Win7 64-bit machine with a 1st generation i7 CPU with 12Gb ram. On several images from a 5DIII and a 1DII, FM seems to operate exactly as it did in FM3: I can get beautiful results without noticeable artifacts, but the performance is now super fast by comparison. The one complaint is that the FM window that comes up is so small on my 30" 2500x1600 monitor and no way to resize it.
I wish FM would work on RAW files, as I like it for capture "sharpening" much more than what LR4.2 or ACR does in the detail panel.
-
Come on guys...is it any good? Or do I have to download it and try it?
It is better than LR4?
Is it better than InFocus?
Is it better than Smart Sharpen?
-
Come on guys...is it any good? Or do I have to download it and try it?
Hi Bill,
It's good for what it does, deconvolution sharpening.
It is better than LR4?
I assume you mean compared to the Lightroom's Detail control, yes it's better, although LR's sharpening will probably satisfy most users.
Is it better than InFocus?
They are close, when InFocus is used correctly. Infocus needs some more development to improve its artifact suppression. FocusMagic's methods are mature.
Is it better than Smart Sharpen?
It has been suggested that Lightroom basically uses something like Smart Sharpen deconvolution, but I think Lightroom is more effective. FocusMagic beats both, especially Smart Sharpen.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Thanks, Bartvander and HCHeyerhahl.
Tried the 64bit Beta on Win7, 24gb. It seems to be especially well suited to sharpening already upsized images without exaggerating upsizing artifacts, which is a problem with other sharpeners I use. Runs very fast on big files. 3 gigabyte files in well under a minute and single 21mp images in the time it takes to click the OK button.
The postage-stamp preview window seems small, but it updates instantaneously and I think this is the sort of program one uses parametrically more than from visual feedback. And it handles normal, single frame files so fast it's no trouble at all to try out iterations on the full image.
For $45, it's a definite go. Only time will tell the full story, but it looks pretty darned good.
-
They're not interested in those of us who use Macs, plainly. Sad.
Jeremy
-
They're not interested in those of us who use Macs, plainly. Sad.
Jeremy
"We'll be BETA testing the Intel Mac version of Focus Magic in April 2013"
-
Only time will tell the full story, but it looks pretty darned good.
Hi Bill,
A small tip then, from a long time user.
Given the small preview size, it can help to empirically determine the optimal radius as follows. Set the amount to 300%, now, starting at zero, slowly increase the radius by 1 pixel at a time. There will usually be a point where the image stops getting sharper, and suddenly produces double contours or fatter contours of sharp edges and lines instead of just sharper. That is the point where you want to decrease the radius by one pixel, and then set a less exaggerated percentage.
That may be more accurate than the automatic detection. Sharp lenses and good focus with little diffraction usually need no more than a single pixel radius and an amount of 100, modest diffraction may require a 2 pixel radius. Large radii may also require large percentages.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Bart,
You made my day! I actually figured your method before you told me how I might do so! A bit of grey matter functioning after all...sometimes nice to confirm not entirely infirm... ;)
-
One of my old techniques with FM might be useful to some of you. On some images, when I put the little red square in different places, FM detects different blur radii. In most such cases I simply determine which makes most sense for the image. However, there are times when I want different radii for different parts of the image. I will do a series of layers with masks and paint in with a soft brush the different FM outputs to the different areas of the image.
-
Thanks all for your feedback.
I decided to install it on my main PC and it works very nicely.
Being fairly new to this kind of sharpening, I would like to make sure I understand the opitmal use of it. Here is my current understanding of a suitable workflow which I use today:
1. I first convert my raw image in Lightroom and add capture sharpening as advised in the Lula videos on LR 4.
2. Second I go to Photoshop and then the first thing I do is to use Focus Magic. Then I edit (layers masks etc etc) and finally add som selective edge sharpening for artistic effect if required.
3. Finally I go back to Lightroom for printing and add output print in the print module.
I would appreciate any comment on this.
Chris
-
Is it really adviced to do capture sharpening before deconvolution? That seems strange to me, I would let Focus magic work on an image that was as unprocessed as possible.
-h
-
Is it really adviced to do capture sharpening before deconvolution? That seems strange to me, I would let Focus magic work on an image that was as unprocessed as possible.
I agree. One would typically use FocusMagic as the Capture sharpening (or defocus repair) tool. Because LR combines the effects of sharpening and noise reduction, one could still need to do the optional noise reduction in LR, but then there is no early feedback on what will happen after a later FM stage.
Cheers,
Bart
-
It's good for what it does, deconvolution sharpening.
Bart,
I downloaded the beta and it works fine with 64 bit Photoshop. Aside from 64 bit support, on cursory examination I don't see much difference from the older version. Are there advances that I have not seen?
Regards,
Bill
-
Bart,
I downloaded the beta and it works fine with 64 bit Photoshop. Aside from 64 bit support, on cursory examination I don't see much difference from the older version. Are there advances that I have not seen?
Hi Bill,
Nothing on the surface I know of. From what I've seen and read, they ironed out some smaller bugs, and ported the plugin to 64-bit, which presumably consisted mostly of using larger pointers for addressing of bigger memory. They also make better use of multithreading and parallel processing (in one extreme experiment I saw 128x128 pixel blocks).
So besides the speedup and elimination of restricted image size limitations, things look pretty familiar, and functionally identical. Maybe they changed more, e.g. the restoration agressiveness between the various image types, but the results look similar to before. Not having to switch to the 32-bit version only for sharpening is a big plus.
Cheers,
Bart
-
...ported the plugin to 64-bit, which presumably consisted mostly of using larger pointers for addressing of bigger memory.
Depending on the state of the original code, this can generally be more painful than your description suggests.
-h
-
I agree. One would typically use FocusMagic as the Capture sharpening (or defocus repair) tool. Because LR combines the effects of sharpening and noise reduction, one could still need to do the optional noise reduction in LR, but then there is no early feedback on what will happen after a later FM stage.
I use FM to substitute for CS6 or LR4.3's capture sharpening, as I prefer the effect. I still use ACR or LR's noise reduction on most images prior to conversion, with the sharpening set to 0. I have also tried the 0 sharpening in ACR or LR, followed by careful use of Topaz Denoise, after which I use FM. I'm not convinced either way, between ACR/LR for noise reduction vs Topaz, but it certainly is simpler using Adobe.
If you use FM before noise reduction you *will* bring your noise into much clearer view! :(
-
They're not interested in those of us who use Macs, plainly. Sad.
Not true - they have limited development resources.
I spoke to them a while ago and they just had to prioritise - as a Mac user I wish it were not so, but having used it years ago, and it being one of the first reviews I wrote on the Northlight Images site, I'm really keen to be able to bring it back into my workflow and see what it will do.
-
The CS6 64 bit plug in works fine on my Win7 quadcore Dell. Much faster than previous version. Quality of results seems to be about the seem as previous version. Glad that they finally have a 64 bit version available. For some images, it seems to give a better look than does LR4 if FM is used for capture sharpening.
Auto detect works well for most images.
Les
Edited
Artifact suppression is very good even when high radius is used. Easier to use than InFocus. With FM now back in the game, maybe we'll see improvements in other programs.
-
It's always been a favourite with people but I've passed it over due to no 64bit version. Is this one step sharpening? I use photokit sharpener at the moment and it splits the sharpening steps up for an optimal result.
-
It's always been a favourite of people but I've passed it over due to not 64bit version. Is this one step sharpening? I use photokit sharpener at the moment and it splits the sharpening steps up for an optimal result.
Hi Mark,
FocusMagic is only for deconvolution (Capture) sharpening, or restoration of Blurred image detail (that is also useful after upsampling, e.g. for print). For creative sharpening I use TopazLabs Detail, which BTW also offers deconvolution sharpening although not as good as Focusmagic, but instead it allows to simultaneously manipulate 3 levels of detail (a bit like Clarity on steroids) which can work wonders for many images. Lot's of control, and easy to make or use presets.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I have been trying the trial and still slightly prefer Nik Sharpener Pro 3 for capture sharpening; seems to produce fewer jaggies.
-
Are there advances that I have not seen?
Hi all,
One of the advances is the capability to process larger files. Perviously one could circumvent "out of memory" messages by selecting smaller areas of the image, and process them sequentially, in Photoshop. The performance at the edges of the selected region seemed to blend into the adjoining selection region just fine. However, I recently ran into a new boundary, 2 GB selections (granted, much larger than it use to be). Whether this is a Photoshop or Focusmagic limitation remains to be determined.
Anyway, when you run into such a limitation, try selecting a <2GB part of the image and process that, before moving on to the other regions of your (huge) image. Setting 'guides' will allow to avoid double processing of regions.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I have been trying the trial and still slightly prefer Nik Sharpener Pro 3 for capture sharpening; seems to produce fewer jaggies.
Hi,
This might be caused by too much (capture) sharpening or an AA-less sensor, before you use FocusMagic. Try solving that prior to post-processing, and/or first upsample the image before sharpening it (which obviously will require a larger sharpening radius), and downsample afterwards to the original file size.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I noticed that it's a free download of the the 4beta. Is there any limitations/expiry?
-
Hi Bart,
Out of curiosity, how do you position raw converter sharpening vs Focus magic sharpening?
I currently capture sharpen directly within C1 Pro but applying a small radius high intensity sharpeing, but I am sure I may be getting better results with a smart combination of both C1 Pro and Focus Magic. I'd be very interested in how you do it.
Thanks.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi Bart,
Out of curiosity, how do you position raw converter sharpening vs Focus magic sharpening?
I currently capture sharpen directly within C1 Pro but applying a small radius high intensity sharpeing, but I am sure I may be getting better results with a smart combination of both C1 Pro and Focus Magic. I'd be very interested in how you do it.
Hi Bernard,
FocusMagic replaces capture sharpening, so I do the Raw conversion without sharpening. With C1 Pro 7, I tick the Adjustments tab | Disable sharpening box on the Export Recipe. When the output needs to be downsampled, capture sharpening doesn't help, and when upsampling is in order, then Focusmagic does a better job because it can be applied to the upsampled data (and also deconvolve upsampling blur).
FocusMagic is also pretty good at not sharpening the image noise as much as the image detail, which boosts the S/N ratio even more.
To reveal a nice trick for when you need a fast output with very decent sharpening at the native pixel dimensions, you can output an unsharpened magnified/scaled filesize, apply Focusmagic at that magnification (C1 goes to 250%), and then downsample with bicubic in Photoshop (not ideal, but quick) to the normal pixel dimensions (40% of 250%). The only FocusMagic limitation in combination with Photoshop CS6 seems to be a 2GB filesize.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I noticed that it's a free download of the the 4beta. Is there any limitations/expiry?
Hi,
Currently it looks like a free upgrade for existing users (on my system it accepted the already installed licence key), but I assume the Beta could expire when the official Release version is available.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Thanks Bart!
Cheers,
bernard
-
Hi Bart,
> To reveal a nice trick for when you need a fast output with very decent sharpening at the native pixel dimensions, you can output an unsharpened magnified/scaled filesize, apply Focusmagic at that magnification (C1 goes to 250%), and then downsample with bicubic in Photoshop (not ideal, but quick) to the normal pixel dimensions (40% of 250%). The only FocusMagic limitation in combination with Photoshop CS6 seems to be a 2GB filesize.
Would this magnification need to be done in the raw converter? My raw converter has no such option. But I could magnify in PhotoLine, where I could use Lanzcos 3 or 8 for both the up- and down scaling - assuming this would be better than bicubic (speed is no worry).
Kind regards - Hening.
-
Hi Bart,
To reveal a nice trick for when you need a fast output with very decent sharpening at the native pixel dimensions, you can output an unsharpened magnified/scaled filesize, apply Focusmagic at that magnification (C1 goes to 250%), and then downsample with bicubic in Photoshop (not ideal, but quick) to the normal pixel dimensions (40% of 250%). The only FocusMagic limitation in combination with Photoshop CS6 seems to be a 2GB filesize.
Would this magnification need to be done in the raw converter? My raw converter has no such option.
Hi Hening,
No, FocusMagic only processes images that have already been demosaiced. So you can do that on the output file of your Raw processor of choice. Just make sure you apply no (or very little) sharpening at the Raw stage at all.
The reasoning behind it is that upsampling that unsharpened data will have a kind of low-pass filtering built in that will prevent aliasing artifacts when downsampling back to the regular size again. The upsampling itself tends to anti-aliase edges that are bordering on stairstepping/aliasing themselves. The sharpening of the upsampled data will not produce pixel perfect sharpening, but will boost 'micro'-contrast and resolution which is now probably multiple pixels large.
Downsampling that enhanced micro-contrast will attempt to create downsampling artifacts (due to the imperfect bicubic filterering), but there will probably be not enough really high frequency detail to cause much of a problem, just better contrast and some restored resolution at the magnified sub-pixel level.
But I could magnify in PhotoLine, where I could use Lanzcos 3 or 8 for both the up- and down scaling - assuming this would be better than bicubic (speed is no worry).
Upsampling with Lanczos is not recommended without a means of regularization of the ringing that is inherent in that type of filtering. Otherwise I'd rather use something more subtle like Mitchell Netravali, if that's available in Photoline. Downsampling may be better when Lanczos 3 is used, but watch out for ringing artifacts near sharp edges on uniform backgrounds. We wouldn't want the quick and dirty to become very dirty ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Bart,
thank you for your reply.
> We wouldn't want the quick and dirty to become very dirty ...
Ooops - my intention was not at all for the quick - I just saw this as a way of optimizing the sharpening workflow, speed not considered. What would *that* be??
What I do now is R-L deconvolution in the raw converter (Iridient Developer, former Raw Developer) - the radius to be optimized in the future ;-) - As for the upsampling to print size, I have so far left that to my print service - his sharpness was better than what I could muster with Qimage (a software that I'm happy to have done away with that way...). - I have never heard about Mitchell Netravali - I assume that is something that you have in PixInsight? I am somewhat shy of heading for PixInsight because you warned elsewhere about the lack of documentation.
Kind regards - Hening.
-
I have never heard about Mitchell Netravali - I assume that is something that you have in PixInsight? I am somewhat shy of heading for PixInsight because you warned elsewhere about the lack of documentation.
http://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/filter/#mitchell
-h
-
What I do now is R-L deconvolution in the raw converter (Iridient Developer, former Raw Developer) - the radius to be optimized in the future ;-) -
I have no specific info about their implementation of the R-L deconvolution, but since they offer it as one of the few Rawconverters that do, I must assume it's correctly implemented.
As for the upsampling to print size, I have so far left that to my print service - his sharpness was better than what I could muster with Qimage (a software that I'm happy to have done away with that way...). - I have never heard about Mitchell Netravali - I assume that is something that you have in PixInsight? I am somewhat shy of heading for PixInsight because you warned elsewhere about the lack of documentation.
Indeed, and it's not cheap especially if only used for that purpose. The little documentation they have produced is of very high quality though, they are a capable bunch of people, but with limited resources. Here (http://pixinsight.com/doc/docs/InterpolationAlgorithms/InterpolationAlgorithms.html#__section001__)'s some of their documentation about resampling. One of the resampling options is Mitchell Netravali, but their resampling can also be adaptive, based on the local level of detail that is being resampled. It also allows to control the strength of the suppression of resampling artifacts such as ringing and aliasing.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Thanks to the both of you! - Hening