Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Which Capture Stage Sharpeners?  (Read 27633 times)

texshooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 575
Re: Which Capture Stage Sharpeners?
« Reply #40 on: March 07, 2015, 02:15:08 pm »

Why does creative/capture/output sharpening have to be so theological. Please, somebody put together a definitive and comprehensive video tutorial on the subject (for profit of course), packaged with before and after full-Rez files. It's all one big rabbit hole. 
Logged

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3387
Re: Which Capture Stage Sharpeners?
« Reply #41 on: March 07, 2015, 02:40:47 pm »

Capture sharpening is supposed to reverse the blurring effects that caused our original Capture lose some of the original sharpness/detail. This has nothing to do with the original subject's detail, but only with the Capture process induced blur. The subject is not to blame that it now blurred, it's the Capture process itself. If we are able to reverse the capture blur, the subject will be restored to it's original full 'unblurredness' (how's that for a scrabble word ;) ). Some (but not all) detail is already lost beyond recovery, so it won't become perfect, but we can still restore a lot.

If we use the commonly used three staged sharpening (capture, creative, and output), it seems to me that sharpening according to image content would fall into the creative stage. I have been using Topaz Detail for this purpose, since it allows sharpening according to detail size (see screen capture below). For capture sharpening, I find the built in ACR/LR tools are adequate if one is using parametric editing. If a TIFF image will be produced, one can use the tool of one's choice. I understand that the Topaz tool of choice for capture sharpening is InFocus, but many use Detail for all three phases of sharpening.

Bill
Logged

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re: Which Capture Stage Sharpeners?
« Reply #42 on: March 07, 2015, 03:36:57 pm »

If we use the commonly used three staged sharpening (capture, creative, and output), it seems to me that sharpening according to image content would fall into the creative stage. I have been using Topaz Detail for this purpose, since it allows sharpening according to detail size (see screen capture below). For capture sharpening, I find the built in ACR/LR tools are adequate if one is using parametric editing. If a TIFF image will be produced, one can use the tool of one's choice. I understand that the Topaz tool of choice for capture sharpening is InFocus, but many use Detail for all three phases of sharpening.

Bill

Topaz suggests that Detail be used for Output Sharpening, though with the masking tools it can certainly be used for creative sharpening as well.  The whole capture/creative/output sharpening model only makes sense if one follows a relatively strict workflow and creates intermediary files from which final output files are derived.  Assuming a RAW input file, I guess one could say that capture sharpening would always be the same. Creative sharpening would usually be unique only given the intermediary file size.  Only the output sharpening would be totally unique to each size/type of output.

Logged

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3387
Re: Which Capture Stage Sharpeners?
« Reply #43 on: March 07, 2015, 04:43:41 pm »

Topaz suggests that Detail be used for Output Sharpening, though with the masking tools it can certainly be used for creative sharpening as well.  The whole capture/creative/output sharpening model only makes sense if one follows a relatively strict workflow and creates intermediary files from which final output files are derived.  Assuming a RAW input file, I guess one could say that capture sharpening would always be the same. Creative sharpening would usually be unique only given the intermediary file size.  Only the output sharpening would be totally unique to each size/type of output.



Thanks for the graphic. It is helpful in clarifying which Topaz tool to use in various stages of the workflow.

There is some disagreement regarding capture sharpening. Jeff Schewe states that the "radius and is based on the edge frequency of the image", whereas Bart disagrees and has even produced a slanted edge analysis tool to determine the radius. For a given lens, the primary variable is the aperture, a larger radius being required for smaller apertures (larger f-numbers). For my own work, I use Bart's advice.

For output sharpening, Mr Schewe states in his Image Sharpening book (page 108-109), that output sharpening is a fixed determinate process whose parameters are determined by the type of output (halftone, contone, ink-jet, etc), the image size and resolution, and the paper type. According to this concept, image content does not matter. His parameters are incorporated into the LR output sharpening and PhotoKit Sharpener.

That leaves creative sharpening as the main area where image content is an important consideration. Others may choose to differ.

Regards,

Bill


Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Which Capture Stage Sharpeners?
« Reply #44 on: March 07, 2015, 06:13:12 pm »

Why does creative/capture/output sharpening have to be so theological. Please, somebody put together a definitive and comprehensive video tutorial on the subject (for profit of course), packaged with before and after full-Rez files. It's all one big rabbit hole. 
It's all rather simple really: http://www.creativepro.com/article/out-gamut-almost-everything-you-wanted-know-about-sharpening-photoshop-were-afraid-ask
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Which Capture Stage Sharpeners?
« Reply #45 on: March 07, 2015, 07:07:26 pm »

There is some disagreement regarding capture sharpening. Jeff Schewe states that the "radius and is based on the edge frequency of the image", whereas Bart disagrees and has even produced a slanted edge analysis tool to determine the radius. For a given lens, the primary variable is the aperture, a larger radius being required for smaller apertures (larger f-numbers).

Hi Bill,

That's correct. The main blur defining variable for a given lens (on a given sensor) is the aperture that was used. The effect of that aperture on the total amount of blur in the Capture process can be quantified in terms of a blur radius, the exact same radius that should also be used to reverse the effect. Using a different radius will result in either under correction of the blur, or over-correction (in the form of halo).

I've shared the attached example before, but it illustrates the differences one can expect for a good lens, in the plane of best focus, as the aperture is varied. The varying amount of blur, and thus the require correction, depends on the aperture that was used. The image detail plays no role, unless of course there is not much detail to sharpen, due to the nature of the subject or e.g. defocus.

Here is an example of the effect of defocus (or DOF) on the amount of blur correction required, and hence the radius setting of our Capture sharpening tool.

Aperture determines the required radius in the plane of optimal focus. If we let the amount of defocus, or even worse the subject detail, determine the radius, we run the risk of oversharpening the better focused plane of the image. We can only optimize Capture sharpening for the best focused parts of the image, unless we can spatially vary the amount of sharpening across the image. A generic sharpening tool does not allow such finesse, so Capture sharpening for the aperture used it is. All the rest is left to Creative 'sharpening', or rather detail enhancement or local contrast enhancement.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Which Capture Stage Sharpeners?
« Reply #46 on: March 08, 2015, 03:18:49 am »

There is some disagreement regarding capture sharpening.

My understanding of capture sharpening is directly derived from working with Bruce Fraser in helping develop PhotoKit Sharpener. Bruce thought that the capture sharpening needed to achieve an optimal preliminary sharpening prior to adding additional sharpening for creative and output sharpening.

Bruce felt that both the image source; film scan or digital capture (and demosiacing), noise/grain characterizations, lens characterizations and other aspects of the source needed to be factored into the sharpening along with the image characterizations that depend on the edge frequency of the image.

Both factors need to be addressed for optimal capture sharpening. If you only consider the image source and not the image aspects then it becomes more difficult to optimize an image prior to creative and output sharpening. Bottom line, sharpening the edges, not the surfaces and pick a radius appropriate to all aspects of the image.

Some may consider the image contents not to apply when capture sharpening...I disagree. And so did Thomas Knoll when he asked Bruce Fraser to consult with Adobe for improvements in the sharpening in Camera Raw. Bruce was able to lend some effort but could not finish prior to his passing. Using Bruce's philosophy of capture sharpening lead to the current ACR/LR sharpening which was furthered by Eric Chan.

So, if you plan to use ACR/LR for capture sharpening, it would behoove you to both understand and adopt Bruce's philosophy of using both the source AND the image content when trying to arrive at an optimal capture sharpening setting.

Either that or stop doing capture sharpening in ACR/LR and choose to use a different tool. There are a lot of ways to skin a cat...I choose to use Bruce's method (as does ACR/LR which I use for capture sharpening) but people are free to use whatever tool gives them the best results for their images.

And while ACR/LR doesn't offer a ton of creative sharpening options, if you understand how the Detail panel works (and what the settings do) you can substantially improve the capture sharpening using local controls. If those controls fail to give an optimal result, you can always go into Photoshop for further creative sharpening (and use PhotoKit Sharpener if you have it :~).
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Which Capture Stage Sharpeners?
« Reply #47 on: March 08, 2015, 04:47:33 am »

Hi Bill,

My take is that I can agree with both Jeff and Bart.

Starting with capture sharpening, I agree that the main intention is to restore information lost in capture. So radius would be chosen to match diffraction + OLP filtering and deconvolution would be used. But, that would not be the optimal setting for portraits as it enhances both real and fake detail.

If the sharpening adds artefacts of it's own, it is reasonable that it would be done at the largest image size in the process.

The way I handle it, right now, is that I use a small radius (0.7) and relatively large amount with deconvolution in LR. If I stop down to f/16 or more I increase radius to 1.3. This works well for my standard print size which is A2.

If I print larger, it would normally be 70x100 cm and that would mean significant upsizing of the image. In that case I may take a different route, like developing without sharpening, upscaling and than applying sharpening, using say FocusMagic and doing some additional work in PS before going back to LR for printing.

In my view LR offers a very pragmatic sharpening workflow, but I would like have different sharpening steps with different radii.

A final thought is that we may sharpen to much for pixel peeping. High resolution detail plays a minor roll when a print is viewed at reasonable distances. Our vision resolves to about one minute of arc, but much lower frequencies dominate our impression of acuity. Sharpening for fine detail may ignore the low frequency details. Doing an additional sharpening step using say 2 pixel radius a low amount like 15% in PS/USM may give a significant enhancement to the viewing experience.

Best regards
Erik


Thanks for the graphic. It is helpful in clarifying which Topaz tool to use in various stages of the workflow.

There is some disagreement regarding capture sharpening. Jeff Schewe states that the "radius and is based on the edge frequency of the image", whereas Bart disagrees and has even produced a slanted edge analysis tool to determine the radius. For a given lens, the primary variable is the aperture, a larger radius being required for smaller apertures (larger f-numbers). For my own work, I use Bart's advice.

For output sharpening, Mr Schewe states in his Image Sharpening book (page 108-109), that output sharpening is a fixed determinate process whose parameters are determined by the type of output (halftone, contone, ink-jet, etc), the image size and resolution, and the paper type. According to this concept, image content does not matter. His parameters are incorporated into the LR output sharpening and PhotoKit Sharpener.

That leaves creative sharpening as the main area where image content is an important consideration. Others may choose to differ.

Regards,

Bill



Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Which Capture Stage Sharpeners?
« Reply #48 on: March 08, 2015, 06:09:26 am »

Starting with capture sharpening, I agree that the main intention is to restore information lost in capture. So radius would be chosen to match diffraction + OLP filtering and deconvolution would be used. But, that would not be the optimal setting for portraits as it enhances both real and fake detail.

Hi Erik,

It's important to note, and it's not just semantics, that proper Capture sharpening doesn't 'enhance' real detail, in the sense of magnifying the amount, it merely attempts to restore it to what it was before it entered the lens. What better starting point for postprocessing could one have? We can deal with skin pores and blemishes by using the proper tools for that, or modify the visibility of original detail with a lens filter and lighting.

If the Capture process also generates fake detail, photon shot noise and or grain, aliasing artifacts, dust bunnies, etc., then we need to deal with those with the proper tools, but not with (what's more akin to) Creative 'sharpening' that disrupts the restoration of the original detail from the subject.

Good deconvolution tools attempt to restore resolution, but not amplify noise, or at least restore more resolution than amplify noise for a better S/N ratio. We can use noise reduction in that process, as long as the noise reduction doesn't blur the image too much, because that would require increasing the deconvolution radius. Cascading blurs amount to a larger blur radius, because one can create a large radius blur by cascading multiple smaller blur radii.

This is where it gets interesting, because some noise reduction programs use a combination of blurring, and edge detail preserving techniques, which breaks the original signal's true composition of spatial frequencies. Such noise reduction would make it much harder to restore the original detail, because it was changed into something artificial that doesn't comply with the laws of physics anymore.

That's why a good deconvolution method tries to separate the noise from the signal, and only restore the latter!

Quote
If the sharpening adds artefacts of it's own, it is reasonable that it would be done at the largest image size in the process.

Yes, if e.g. stairstepping, or even worse halos, are created by the Capture sharpening process then we are making life only more difficult for when we want to generate large output. However, the more accurate we choose our Capture sharpening settings, the lower the risk of creating 'detail' which was not in the original signal. Again, with Capture sharpening we strive for the restoration of original subject detail, nothing more, nothing less.

Quote
The way I handle it, right now, is that I use a small radius (0.7) and relatively large amount with deconvolution in LR. If I stop down to f/16 or more I increase radius to 1.3. This works well for my standard print size which is A2.

Yes, as you saw from my charts earlier, a radius of 0.7 is about as good as it gets, and that's true with most lens/sensor combinations (assuming a Raw conversion without prior sharpening), and when diffraction kicks in, we (or rather the Capture sharpening tools) need to work a lot harder to restore the original signal. But a lot is possible as was demonstrated in the Deconvolution sharpening thread here on LuLa, with examples here, as long as we use the correct settings.

The moment we deviate from proper restoration to 'enhancement', we tend to create trouble for ourselves later in postprocessing.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Manoli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2296
Re: Which Capture Stage Sharpeners?
« Reply #49 on: March 08, 2015, 08:27:06 am »

Good deconvolution tools attempt to restore resolution, but not amplify noise, or at least restore more resolution than amplify noise for a better S/N ratio. [...]  This is where it gets interesting, because some noise reduction programs use a combination of blurring, and edge detail preserving techniques, which breaks the original signal's true composition of spatial frequencies [...]

if e.g. stairstepping, or even worse halos, are created by the Capture sharpening process then we are making life only more difficult for when we want to generate large output.

Hi Bart,

If large output is the end requirement, would it not be optimal to uprez the file before demosaicing and perform capture sharpening and, noise reduction if required, later in the conversion process ? I would have thought that if all three are performed sequentially prior to generating a TIFF output file - that would give you the 'cleanest' result.

I'm asking you because, as you are no doubt aware, Iridient Developer V3 has recently been released and AFAIK, this is the first RAW converter to include, natively, an option to uprez the file prior to demosaicing, noise reduction and capture sharpening.

The sharpening options include, amongst others, UM, R-L and the default Iridient Reveal. Uprez options are many - Quadratic, a variety of both Lanczos and Blackman, the defaults Iridient Ultrarez and Iridient Ultrarez sharper - a total of 12.

You have been a strong advocate of Focus Magic and Topaz's InFocus as capture sharpeners, but both these entail converting first, baking and sharpening later so I'm asking you whether or not, in your opinion, a change in the post processing methodology would be beneficial when large output is the end requirement.

In anticipation, thanks.

Best,
M

Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Which Capture Stage Sharpeners?
« Reply #50 on: March 08, 2015, 11:36:58 am »

Hi Bart,

If large output is the end requirement, would it not be optimal to uprez the file before demosaicing and perform capture sharpening and, noise reduction if required, later in the conversion process ? I would have thought that if all three are performed sequentially prior to generating a TIFF output file - that would give you the 'cleanest' result.

Hi,

Yes, there are some benefits to doing the Raw conversion (demosaic, Capture sharpen, noise reduction) to a larger grid, as if we gain some super resolution precision in placing the recalculated values. If, and how much, there will be a significant enough improvement remains to be seen (depends on implementation quality of the algorithms), but a subtle improvement is certainly expected if the algorithms are implemented very well. In fact, it would also benefit original size conversions, provided that the down-sampling is optimized to avoid resampling artifacts.

Quote
I'm asking you because, as you are no doubt aware, Iridient Developer V3 has recently been released and AFAIK, this is the first RAW converter to include, natively, an option to uprez the file prior to demosaicing, noise reduction and capture sharpening.

Yes, I am aware, but being a Windows platform person I cannot test it. I'm pretty sure I could provide some pointers to handling some of their challenges.

I'm currently investigating the upcoming new functionality in PixInsight, a specialist tool for astronomy imaging, where the development team seems to have some contacts with Dave Coffin (of DCraw) as well, for the development of a Bayer CFA drizzle method that avoids the need for demosaicing, and it uses small image displacements in multiple images to fill in the blanks of the sparse CFA sampling of RGB color planes. That's similar but even better than a multi-step camera sensor, because one can use more input images to increase sampling density. That too could be combined with resolution enhancement on a larger than original grid, although it requires multiple-image input.

Quote
You have been a strong advocate of Focus Magic and Topaz's InFocus as capture sharpeners, but both these entail converting first, baking and sharpening later so I'm asking you whether or not, in your opinion, a change in the post processing methodology would be beneficial when large output is the end requirement.

Yes, doing some of it at the Raw conversion step does have benefits. Mind you, it could very well be that e.g. Capture One already uses some of that under the hood (their conversions have higher real resolution than e.g. ACR delivers, without sharpening), but do not offer the option to keep the data at the larger size.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Manoli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2296
Re: Which Capture Stage Sharpeners?
« Reply #51 on: March 08, 2015, 02:03:20 pm »

... but a subtle improvement is certainly expected if the algorithms are implemented very well. In fact, it would also benefit original size conversions, provided that the down-sampling is optimized to avoid resampling artifacts.

Previously, IIRC you advised that Adobe Photoshop Bicubic was the way to go for downsampling with Photozoom Pro for upscaling.  Is Adobe bicubic still your recommendation for downscaling ?

Quote
Yes, I am aware, but being a Windows platform person I cannot test it. I'm pretty sure I could provide some pointers to handling some of their challenges.

Please do ... !
I've only done some perfunctory tests so far and my impression is that it does indeed give you a better file, but I'm not sure if that's just a 'placebo effect' reaction to a new process or whether what I'm seeing is indeed an improvement.

Best,
M

« Last Edit: March 08, 2015, 08:25:53 pm by Manoli »
Logged

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re: Which Capture Stage Sharpeners?
« Reply #52 on: March 08, 2015, 02:03:49 pm »

Bruce felt that both the image source; film scan or digital capture (and demosiacing), noise/grain characterizations, lens characterizations and other aspects of the source needed to be factored into the sharpening along with the image characterizations that depend on the edge frequency of the image.

Both factors need to be addressed for optimal capture sharpening. If you only consider the image source and not the image aspects then it becomes more difficult to optimize an image prior to creative and output sharpening. Bottom line, sharpening the edges, not the surfaces and pick a radius appropriate to all aspects of the image.

Some may consider the image contents not to apply when capture sharpening...I disagree. And so did Thomas Knoll when he asked Bruce Fraser to consult with Adobe for improvements in the sharpening in Camera Raw. Bruce was able to lend some effort but could not finish prior to his passing. Using Bruce's philosophy of capture sharpening lead to the current ACR/LR sharpening which was furthered by Eric Chan.

This has always been my philosophy...Capture Sharpening is intended to correct for the limitations of the capture AND to provide the best starting point for further edits.  Hence, the image content must be accounted for in the capture sharpening process.

I realize Output sharpening is intended to overcome the limitations of the rendering mechanism/media, but I think the image content has to be accounted for in output sharpening too.  To say I am destined for X size print on Y Printer and therefore I use Z sharpening settings is a poor way to go.  Certainly, experience will drive you to Z settings as a starting point for this size print on this printer.  I still will account for skin and smooth areas of smooth tones with less sharpening in those areas.  Tools like Topaz Detail recognize this by inclusion of masking tools.
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Which Capture Stage Sharpeners?
« Reply #53 on: March 08, 2015, 02:59:48 pm »

This has always been my philosophy...Capture Sharpening is intended to correct for the limitations of the capture AND to provide the best starting point for further edits.  Hence, the image content must be accounted for in the capture sharpening process.

But therein lies the rub, you can't have both at the same time. If Capture sharpening is perfect (or as good as possible) it may not yet be what the subject needs, it's probably not enough. When you try to do subject enhancement at the Capture sharpening stage, you'll kill the Capture sharpening accuracy.

What you describe is already the task of Creative 'sharpening' which then has no artifacts from Capture sharpening to stumble over. When you get the Capture sharpening wrong, then Creative 'sharpening' either cannot do its best, or it overdoes things which were already overdone.

The two stages are very distinct, Capture sharpening restores sharpness, Creative 'sharpening' enhances the impression of detail/sharpness.

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: March 08, 2015, 03:02:40 pm by BartvanderWolf »
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Which Capture Stage Sharpeners?
« Reply #54 on: March 08, 2015, 03:04:49 pm »

What you describe is already the task of Creative 'sharpening' which then has no artifacts from Capture sharpening to stumble over. When you get the Capture sharpening wrong, then Creative 'sharpening' either cannot do its best, or it overdoes things which were already overdone.
I believe Bruce would agree. He'd also suggest getting the capture sharpening and hence the creative sharpening correct.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

texshooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 575
Re: Which Capture Stage Sharpeners?
« Reply #55 on: March 09, 2015, 05:45:52 pm »

Regarding the highly evangelized Topaz Infocus, can someone explain the difference between its Edge Softness and Suppress Artifacts sliders.
I read the manual but am still muddy. The best I can come up with is that the Edge Softness slider is for reducing edge "Ringing", an artifact uniquely generated by Topaz's software, and the Suppress Artifacts slider is for reducing noise.


Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Which Capture Stage Sharpeners?
« Reply #56 on: March 09, 2015, 07:51:39 pm »

Regarding the highly evangelized Topaz Infocus, can someone explain the difference between its Edge Softness and Suppress Artifacts sliders.
I read the manual but am still muddy. The best I can come up with is that the Edge Softness slider is for reducing edge "Ringing", an artifact uniquely generated by Topaz's software, and the Suppress Artifacts slider is for reducing noise.

The method of deconvolution that Topaz InFocus uses, can produce very/unnaturally sharp edges that can lead to stair-stepping and such. That's where the Edge Softness control is for, to soften the transition. InFocus can also generate ringing artifacts, repeated edges of gradually lower amplitude. That is what the Suppress artifacts control is for, to suppress those repeating edges. But one should first make sure that the artifacts are not caused by using too large a radius, because that will often be the main reason that the artifacts are created.

InFocus is a bit aggressive in its deconvolution approach, especially when the radius is set too large, so those controls for tuning down the overcorrections are unfortunately often necessary. Deconvolution should not be overdone, it should be exactly right. When used with restraint, the correction controls will be needed less, and also don't forget that InFocus offers additional sharpening controls to add a finishing touch to the deconvolved result. Use deconvolution to restore original detail, and use the sharpening controls to emphasize the result.

It may sometimes be easier to see what is happening by first upsampling the image, e.g. with Photoshop's bicubic smoother (to avoid generating upsampling artifacts), and then use InFocus (obviously with a proportionally larger radius than one would otherwise need). The loss of real resolution from the upsample can be very well compensated by InFocus, and after sharpening one can down-sample to the original size and apply a finishing touch of sharpening, but very little is now needed.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

texshooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 575
Re: Which Capture Stage Sharpeners?
« Reply #57 on: March 09, 2015, 09:38:20 pm »

The method of deconvolution that Topaz InFocus uses, can produce very/unnaturally sharp edges that can lead to stair-stepping and such. That's where the Edge Softness control is for, to soften the transition. InFocus can also generate ringing artifacts, repeated edges of gradually lower amplitude. That is what the Suppress artifacts control is for, to suppress those repeating edges.

In this video (start 6:00), The Topaz rep uses the Edge Softness slider to correct an artifact which he calls "ringing." Is this artifact the same kind you refered to as "...ringing artifacts, repeated edges of gradually lower amplitude"? If yes, why does he recommend the Edge Softness slider to fix it while you say to use the Supress Artifacts slider?  It would help if I saw exactly the types of artifacts each of these sliders are designed to mitigate. How does  "Ringing" look different from "stair stepping?"

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cyuXwDFs95U
Logged

Jack Hogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 798
    • Hikes -more than strolls- with my dog
Re: Which Capture Stage Sharpeners?
« Reply #58 on: March 10, 2015, 04:30:20 am »

The method of deconvolution that Topaz InFocus uses

Hi Bart, I have often wondered: what method of deconvolution does it use?

FWIW in my opinion one of InFocus' strengths is its quick and easy automatic 'Estimate' mode.  I find that Albert Yang's suggested settings (Unknown/Estimate, Radius 2, Softness 0.3, Suppress Artifact 0.2) work well as-is a majority of the time.  I have them saved as a preset and it's the first set I try.

Jack
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Which Capture Stage Sharpeners?
« Reply #59 on: March 10, 2015, 07:17:12 am »

Hi Bart, I have often wondered: what method of deconvolution does it use?

Jack, I remember from the introduction that they mentioned it was a (proprietary) 'advanced' new method, perhaps they made it themselves.

Quote
FWIW in my opinion one of InFocus' strengths is its quick and easy automatic 'Estimate' mode.  I find that Albert Yang's suggested settings (Unknown/Estimate, Radius 2, Softness 0.3, Suppress Artifact 0.2) work well as-is a majority of the time.  I have them saved as a preset and it's the first set I try.

Yes, it often works quite well. The drawback is that it needs to be determined on an image by image basis. The automatically estimated PSF itself can not be saved, just the settings to acquire a new one can be saved as a preset. It is also very important to only use it on the very best focused areas (in the plane of best focus) of the image, because otherwise those areas will get over-corrected when basing the PSF on a less well focused region. That also requires enough useful detail to be present in that plane of best focus for the estimation of the PSF. It also means that e.g. axial rotation blur will be hard to correct, because it is larger at the edge than at the center of the image, and different on all edges. It would require multiple runs of the filter on multiple layers, to be blended afterwards to rescue such images.

InFocus would be even more useful if one could import one's own PSF, in the form of an image crop or as numerical text. Also a choice between several deconvolution algorithms would be useful, because noisy images often require a different approach than relatively clean images. I've sent them those suggestions as feature/improvement requests, but their development resources have (sofar) been more 'focused' on the other filters (probably more revenue from those).

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up