piccure+ releases update

[Mike Sellers]

Would applying this software to images taken with my Leica S2 70 mm lens show an improvement ?

[Paul2660]

Just a note:

This upgrade is a bust for me, and I am going to drop back I guess to prior release.  Processing times are as slow as before on IQ100, IQ260/160 and Nikon D810. 

The new app is supposed to be able to run some cycles with the GPU, (in may case identical GTX970 4GB cards). but the GPU processing part fails each time with an insufficient memory error.  Not sure what that is happening, as per monitoring software, during the processing time the GPU is only using max 855mb not even 1GB.  This is running both from Photoshop CC and standalone.  Win 7 and Win10 32GB of ram on both machines. 

At times the whole process aborts on my older machine when run under photoshop CC (I prefer this with a layer to work on fading sharpening is needed)

I realize there are way too many machine setups for Piccure to test everything.  But I am using pretty high end Asus boards (which have never had an issue) and nvidia cards latest drivers and not cheap either.

So if you are running this type of setup, you may want to skip this upgrade especially if you using the files from any of the cameras I referenced.  Processing time on a IQ100 16 bit image (2 part pano) is 25 minutes.  Yup 25 minutes, just as long as the older version processed.  And without a doubt during the run the GPU part will fail. 

Overall still a bit disappointed as many know this software is not inexpensive and you have to pay per machine, I have several licences.  But even with all the problems, I will still use it (older version) as the results speak for themselves. (at least for me).

Paul C

[picc_pl]

Dear Paul,

thanks for your email.

We have received your support ticket and we have replied yesterday night at 9:40 pm within 50  mins and today (Sunday) within 15 mins. The statements you make are not entirely correct unfortunately - there is about a 50% speedup even without using the GPU. We were still waiting for the image you promised us today (Sunday) and promised to take a look - so far we have not received the image. Our developers don't work 24/7 either - it's just the founders...

There also is the possibility to deactivate the GPU as described in detail in the handbook. Go "Menu/Deactivate GPU". Version 3.0 is still more than 50% faster on a CPU in this case than version 2.5.

We have fully refunded your order and kept your license alive. However, given that we tried really hard to fix this very specific problem of yours at 10 pm Saturday night and on Sunday - and this is the kind of communication you prefer, we'd rather not continue a business relationship going forward. I can understand that many will find this "bad and evil". But we do this because we are passionate about the technology and our product and we usually love the feedback and interaction with our customers. Money is not our primary incentive. We gave you the software for free, but we will not support this case going forward.

Have a nice Sunday.
Lui

[Paul2660]

Dear Paul,

thanks for your email.

We have received your support ticket and we have replied yesterday night at 9:40 pm within 50  mins and today (Sunday) within 15 mins. The statements you make are not entirely correct unfortunately - there is about a 50% speedup even without using the GPU. We were still waiting for the image you promised us today (Sunday) and promised to take a look - so far we have not received the image. Our developers don't work 24/7 either - it's just the founders...

There also is the possibility to deactivate the GPU as described in detail in the handbook. Go "Menu/Deactivate GPU". Version 3.0 is still more than 50% faster on a CPU in this case than version 2.5.

We have fully refunded your order and kept your license alive. However, given that we tried really hard to fix this very specific problem of yours at 10 pm Saturday night and on Sunday - and this is the kind of communication you prefer, we'd rather not continue a business relationship going forward. I can understand that many will find this "bad and evil". But we do this because we are passionate about the technology and our product and we usually love the feedback and interaction with our customers. Money is not our primary incentive. We gave you the software for free, but we will not support this case going forward.

Have a nice Sunday.
Lui

Lui,

Sorry that you interpreted my post as a negative statement.  I thought I was very clear in both of my posts on this subject that I felt that your sharpening solution was by far the best I have used.  However on an open forum such as this one I also felt that other users who have the same equipment setup as mine or close, may want to do more testing as you do offer a free trial period.

Personally, I started using your software (older version) sometime in the later part of 2015, and I based on the results, I have totally switched over to it, and made it quite clear I was more than willing to pay for multiple licenses due to the results I was able to obtain.

I also never asked for a refund, and would rather continue to pay for the software. 

You are correct that I made my previous post prior to sending you the file to test on, so that may have been presumptuous on my part, but I have also worked on issue for quite a while now as I knew that if I could get the GPU portion  to work, that the that the new version's improvement in processing times would be a huge benefit to my workflow.

Sorry that my comments were seen as an attack? or overtly negative as overall I would never want to stop using Piccure+ for sharpening for any of my camera files.

Edit:  I also misstated my license cost as I did have the 3 actuation's licence which when I purchased it was $109.00 US. I did not purchase 2 licences.

Sincerely
Paul Caldwell

[degrub]

Paul,

What was the difference between your first post and the last post  - image file size ? -  where the speedup went from what was expected to very little ?

The response from the developer/founder was a bit odd given what was actually written by you in the forum thread.

[earlybird]

Wow.





I referred to my tests with the previous version of piccure to remind myself how it compares with other choices. The black edge lines seem more obvious than I remembered.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ly4cbdsyiygjj9i/Sharpen%20Tests.zip?dl=0

I would like to compare the previous version of Piccure with the latest version to see how it has improved, but my trial for the previous version ran out several months ago. It would be great if I could run both side by side, or at least one version right after another so that I can see the 50% increase in speed for myself and see if the black edge line issue has been improved.

[jrp]

It would be interesting to know how this product compares with DXO, which on the face of it offers similar capabilities, albeit using measured profiles, rather than calculated ones.

[Damon Lynch]

It would be interesting to know how this product compares with DXO, which on the face of it offers similar capabilities, albeit using measured profiles, rather than calculated ones.

When there is not a lot of image noise, Piccure produces notably sharper results than DxO or even Canon's DPP, the latter of which produces excellent results with its digital optimizer applied to Canon wide angle lenses.

[Alan Smallbone]

Paul not sure why your machine is not working well, I have an ASUS motherboard and Nvidia GPU cards and the upgrade works just fine. I do not have CC but using PS6 and Lightroom 6. I have noticed a speedup, not measured it quantitatively but it seems faster. Still experimenting with the new version of Piccure+ but so far it is nice upgrade. As I only have a 1 machine license I am not running it on my laptop. Also using Win10, I suspect maybe there is some other conflict in your systems, maybe AV or something like that.

Alan

[Paul2660]

Hi Alan.

I believe it's a file size issue. Having same issues on both my main PCs where the GPU error stating not enough memory happens. One PC is brand new all new ASUS.

From watching the monitoring software the max ram that is being used is 855 to 1 GB On both cards and they are 4 GB.

Processing falls beck to the main system.

These are Phaae One files IQ260 and 100 all 16 bit sharpening with a layer so big files. But I get the same problem if I drop back to 8 bit.

But results look good once the file has finished.

Paul C

[jrp]

Well, I have had a quick test comparison with a Lightroom-processed file (Sharpening set at 50/0.7/70/20).

The result is hard to judge, because, although it produces slightly higher apparent sharpness, it is not a full raw processor, so other factors that make the resulting picture pleasing are not directly available:

 - lens geometry corrections (eg, when embedded in the DNG by the camera)
 - macro contrast / exposure / saturation

So you end up having to process the raw in Lightroom / ACR anyway, in which case, I assume, the piccure+ will be less effective because it is having to work with a partially processed TIFF, rather than a RAW file.

It is possible that it may be worth it for some pictures that you want to print very large but, for screen output, I don't think that the extra fiddling is worth the detour.

In conclusion, this seems like an interesting technology preview, but not really practicable. 

What am I missing?

PS: Is there a way of uninstalling the program on a Mac without leaving debris?  It does not seem to come with an uninstall app...

[picc_pl]

Hi,

The result is hard to judge, because, although it produces slightly higher apparent sharpness, it is not a full raw processor, so other factors that make the resulting picture pleasing are not directly available:

 - lens geometry corrections (eg, when embedded in the DNG by the camera)
 - macro contrast / exposure / saturation

So you end up having to process the raw in Lightroom / ACR anyway, in which case, I assume, the piccure+ will be less effective because it is having to work with a partially processed TIFF, rather than a RAW file.

piccure+ does one thing: correct optical aberrations and micro-shakes that cause an image to look slightly (or a bit more) blurred. It is a one trick pony only for this purpose. However, you can apply most corrections associated with the lens of a camera without any downside (as explained in detail in the handbook):
"You can pre-process the image before using piccure+ with the following operations:
- Process the RAW file.
- Correct chromatic aberrations (thus saving piccure+ processing time).
- Correct vignetting.
- Correct lens distortion.
- Denoise with DxO PRIME (several users found the results very good). Usually denoising prior to using piccure+ is
a bad idea.

Please do not:
- Sharpen the image (e.g. SmartSharpen or "Correct Lens Softness“).
- Crop the image.
- Adjust saturation, brightness, or contrast (at least do not adjust them significantly)."

It makes little sense to embed all the processing functionality a user already finds in excellent programs such as Photoshop or Lightroom. piccure+ complements existing solutions and does not replace them. piccure+ internally converts images from RAW to TIF prior to processing - applying adaptive deconvolution to RAW data would put the software more in the 1000+ USD price range given the efforts needed...

If you import images with another RAW processor, kindly keep in mind that many (most) have default sharpening applied (e.g. ACR when importing through Photoshop) - which is generally not a good idea (also for other processing).

It is correct that if you have a 72 dpi screen the results may be less impressive/visible as compared to 300 dpi print. Mac users have a real advantage with the Retina displays - and once you experience Retina, there is no "going back". Unless the computer screen is calibrated it also does not make so much sense to do much of image editing. Also keep in mind that many browsers and many Apple devices (e.g. iPhone) have problems displaying color spaces other than sRGB (e.g. just assume it is sRGB) therefore "ruining" the image. So if you just view images on a screen (and show it to others), it is probably the best idea to stay in sRGB... If you are going for print that's a different story. It depends on the lens and camera used. If you shoot f5.6 probably there is really little benefit of running piccure+...

If you want to remove it, remove the piccure+ folder and HD/Library/Application Support/IIS2

Best,
Lui
Co-Founder

[earlybird]

I remain curious about the recommendation not to crop before using piccure.

It is tempting to crop before the process because you can potentially save lots of time. I have wondered; Is there an existence of symmetrical "distortions" that exists in the original full frame that is anticipated by the mathematics employed by piccure? Does cropping before hand somehow trick piccure into making corrections in an unanticipated and, or, less than ideal way?

Thank you.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I remain curious about the recommendation not to crop before using piccure.

It kills the opportunity to detect symmetrical distortions and sharpness fall-off. Center of image is then no longer the center of the opical projection. BTW, this also means that P+ is not very well suited for tilt and shift lenses, or view cameras.

It is tempting to crop before the process because you can potentially save lots of time. I have wondered; Is there an existence of symmetrical "distortions" that exists in the original full frame that is anticipated by the mathematics employed by piccure? Does cropping before hand somehow trick piccure into making corrections in an unanticipated and, or, less than ideal way?

Apparently that is the case. In a 'Blind' restoration it is not always possible to detect the optical center of an image.

Cheers,
Bart

[earlybird]

Thank you Bart.

[earlybird]

I have also wondered about the recommendation to dismiss the use of piccure at or beyond f5.6.

I became preoccupied with the dark edges that the process was synthesizing, and now I realize that I was only working on images that were already sharp. I have fast lenses but usually shoot images that I want to seem sharp at f5.6 or f8.0. Using deconvolution to sharpen further seems appropriate when I have the goal of sharp depiction. When I shoot at f1.2 f2.0 etc. I am doing so because I want the image to have a noticeable or remarkable soft fall off from the focus point.

These ideas make me wonder if the appearance of the synthesized dark edges is minimized when starting with softer images that do not already have well defined edges and if it is true that I should just regard the recommendations seriously and dismiss my aspiration to use piccure to further sharpen images that are already relatively sharp.

[picc_pl]

I remain curious about the recommendation not to crop before using piccure.

It is tempting to crop before the process because you can potentially save lots of time. I have wondered; Is there an existence of symmetrical "distortions" that exists in the original full frame that is anticipated by the mathematics employed by piccure? Does cropping before hand somehow trick piccure into making corrections in an unanticipated and, or, less than ideal way?

Thank you.

I mean, you can - but you do simply remove a lot of data which piccure+ can otherwise rely on. Usually cropping is done for aesthetical reasons, not in order to "dismiss valuable data". So the general recommendation is not to crop an image - just like shoot RAW as to avoid the mess JPGs create in terms of data preservation...

BTW, this also means that P+ is not very well suited for tilt and shift lenses, or view cameras.

Apparently that is the case. In a 'Blind' restoration it is not always possible to detect the optical center of an image.

We didn't say that - and as a matter of fact many professional photographers use piccure+ for tilt/shift lenses, particularly in architecture. piccure+ does not rely on any lens profiles and can thus also accommodate complexities stemming from T/S.

I have also wondered about the recommendation to dismiss the use of piccure at or beyond f5.6.

We did not say "at or beyond" but "at" f5.6. The reason is simply that as a rule of thumb at f5.6 the vast majority of all lenses is sharpest, the psf is coming quite close to a Gaussian shape and rather uniform across the image - thus diminishing the advantages of piccure+ over other solutions. Beyond f5.6 diffraction can start to become a problem (in real life at faster apertures than "diffraction limited" would suggest for a sensor size) - and can often not be corrected sufficiently with other solutions. So you could think about the "utility function of using piccure+ over other solutions" as a U-shape with the bottom at aperture f5.6. For faster apertures it makes more sense and for slower apertures it starts making sense again probably from 6.3 on(give or take, rule of thumb).

I became preoccupied with the dark edges that the process was synthesizing, and now I realize that I was only working on images that were already sharp. I have fast lenses but usually shoot images that I want to seem sharp at f5.6 or f8.0. Using deconvolution to sharpen further seems appropriate when I have the goal of sharp depiction. When I shoot at f1.2 f2.0 etc. I am doing so because I want the image to have a noticeable or remarkable soft fall off from the focus point.

... the nice thing about piccure+ is that it cannot make the "bokeh" you intentionally created sharp. But actually it strengthens the effect as the "sharp" areas become crisper, whereas the "out of DOF areas" stay "blurred". It does not shift focus.

These ideas make me wonder if the appearance of the synthesized dark edges is minimized when starting with softer images that do not already have well defined edges and if it is true that I should just regard the recommendations seriously and dismiss my aspiration to use piccure to further sharpen images that are already relatively sharp.

We don't track what people do with our software, so I cannot say for sure. But I would rather say the opposite is the case: piccure+ is rather used for very sharp images to make them a little bit better. Not to make "bad ones bearable"...

Best,
Lui

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

We didn't say that - and as a matter of fact many professional photographers use piccure+ for tilt/shift lenses, particularly in architecture. piccure+ does not rely on any lens profiles and can thus also accommodate complexities stemming from T/S.

Good to know, thanks Lui. Will have to test that though...

Cheers,
Bart

[picc_pl]

We didn't say that - and as a matter of fact many professional photographers use piccure+ for tilt/shift lenses, particularly in architecture. piccure+ does not rely on any lens profiles and can thus also accommodate complexities stemming from T/S.

...I remembered piccure+ was with T/S lenses - it was actually Keith Cooper from Northlight Images:
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/plugins/piccure_plus.html

There are a few sample images towards the end of the article - taken with a TS-E17mm shift lens... Keep in mind the review is almost a year old and based on v2...
Best,
Lui

[earlybird]

I downloaded and tried the latest version. It seems much improved, and I am excited about the quality. I didn't see the dark edges, but I have not specifically tried a high contrast edge circumstance where, in the past, the dark lines seemed most obvious.

I gave piccure+ another head to head comparison to what I think is the best use I can make of Topaz Infocus and it seems like my work with piccure+ has moved my state of the art forward. The quality I am appreciative of is that it seems to sharpen as good or better than my current workflow, with less build up of grain or noise.



Now if I can just get over the idea of paying an extra $40 to have the luxury of easily moving back and forth between 2 computers. At the very least it would be nice if piccure's website clearly stated if you can start with the single license and upgrade for an extra $40 after you get tired of deactivating and activating when you switch CPUs.