I want to give FocusMagic a thorough evaluation but 10 tests is not enough for me to form a positive opinion.
Hi,
A quick tip for those who want to try it, but need more than 10 conversions. Especially in the beginning, one doesn't know what settings to use, so 10 images are used up very quickly. So what I did before doing some full image conversions, was to use the tiny preview to inspect various areas of the image, but then canceled the actual conversion and moved to another image to try. Only when you've got a better feeling for it (which shouldn't be too hard) then you can apply the conversion to a few images.
I tried it a few months ago and was left with the impression that both the Topaz InFocus license, that I was already using, and the Piccure+ license, that I finally just acquired, were more effective for me, but I still see that many informed and experienced users prefer to use FocusMagic.
They all use similar principles (deconvolution) to actually increase resolution, in contrast to other tools that merely increase edge acutance. The strength of FocusMagic is the low level of artifacts (very little ringing and good suppression of noise amplification), and it's ease of use. Of course it also does a great job restoring resolution (if possible).
I have been learning to use Topaz Infocus with milder settings than I was originally using and have been using it frequently with just the deconvolution parameters. This has made me want to revisit Focus Magic because I see claims that it has better artifact appeasement.
There is a trick to get the most (more resolution without artifacts) out of both FocusMagic and Topaz InFocus.
FocusMagic"Image source" set to Digital Camera or Forensic gives good results unless the image is very noisy, in that case another source setting may be required.
Click on image detail that represents the best focused area in the image, or that needs to be restored due to misfocus.
Then set the "Amount" to its maximum of 300% (don't worry it's only temporary).
Now gradually increase the "Blur Width" starting at 0.
There comes a moment where adding 1 to the Blur Width will suddenly not improve sharpness, but instead it produces fatter details and double contours. Back-off 1 on the Blur Width, and you've found the maximum Blur Width to use. Now set the Amount depending on how much you want to sharpen. Values between 100 and 175 are common with small Blur Width settings, maybe a bit more for larger Blur Width settings.
InFocusInFocus is quick to add ringing artifacts, but it's usually due to too large radius settings. In a similar way like we did with FocusMagic, we can overdo the visibility of artifacts by temporarily setting the following (I have a preset for that, which takes just one click).
Assuming a "Blur Type" of Generic".
Set Blur Radius to 0.6.
Set Suppress Artifacts to 0.0
Set Micro Contrast to 1.0 (= maximum)
Set Sharpness to 1.0 (= maximum)
Set Sharpness Radius to 0.8
Zoom in on the image, e.g. 400%, and look at sharp high contrast edge detail.
Now slowly start increasing the Blur Radius until ringing artifacts start to develop (clicking once on the slider will then allow to make very small changes with the keyboard arrow keys).
Set Suppress Artifacts to suppress those barely visible ringing artifacts that are starting to appear, but make sure you haven't increased the Blur Radius too much.
Now that the Deblur panel settings are correct, set the Sharpen panel settings that were maxed out back to zero and slowly increase them till the image looks good, not oversharpened. The Sharpness Radius of around 0.8 will suffice if the deconvolved image was restored to high sharpness, but you can try different Radius settings there.
Because artifacts were barely visible (if at all) with all amplifications maxed out, there will be even fewer artifacts visible at lower and more normal settings.
I'd like to learn how to get the best out of FocusMagic, but 10 test runs just seems trivial compared to how many attempts it took me to become convinced that I could make good use of Topaz InFocus and Piccure+.
When you use my suggestions above, you can keep trying (and not saving) on many image fragments in the preview.
Should I just shut up and buy it? Is it that good? Should I ask for an extended test period? is that possible?
I usually use FocusMagic, but occasionally InFocus does a bit better. But overall, I'm very pleased with FocusMagic because it requires less fiddling, and does a very good job at improving the signal to noise ratio while restoring resolution.
Sometimes even thirty days seems too short for my evaluations, indeed if Piccure+ hadn't offered an extra test period as accompaniment to their latest version I wouldn't have become persuaded I could use it too its advantage.
I don't mind spending money on software but I very much dislike buying software that I learn to never use.
Any thoughts?
It's your money, you have to decide. Piccure+ does a good job, often comparable to FocusMagic, although I occasionally still see some dark halo artifacts with Piccure+, and it's not as easy to boost the amount. So I prefer FocusMagic, but if I already had Piccure+, I'm not sure I'd spend more money, just for getting rid of occasional black halos.
Cheers,
Bart
