Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: earlybird on July 01, 2016, 09:42:24 pm
-
I want to give FocusMagic a thorough evaluation but 10 tests is not enough for me to form a positive opinion.
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.
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.
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+.
Should I just shut up and buy it? Is it that good? Should I ask for an extended test period? is that possible?
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?
Thank you.
-
Any thoughts?
Thank you.
Yes - have you tested Photokit Sharpener 2? If you are concerned about controlling artifacts, once you are into trying a range of good products before making a decision, this software should be of considerable interest to you.
-
Does that also use deconvolution mathematics?
I imagine I will try it some day. It was my impression that it was used for creative and output sharpening, and I guess I have imagined that it was an advanced interface for various unsharp mask processes.
I have been focusing more on "capture" sharpening lately, at least in terms about making active decisions at the earliest stage of post processing, and I am interested in the various deconvolution processes that are available.
Thank you.
-
It is an integrated sharpening workflow from capture, through creative to output. You should read Jeff Schewe's materials on sharpening to learn what standard digital image sharpening is all about before getting too focused (pardon the pun) on deconvolution. Deconvolution technology has its place and particular strengths, but if your aim is to get good properly sharpened general photographic output, you owe it to yourself to survey the range of technologies and make decisions once you know more about the subject. Don't be biased against a product because it doesn't carry a "deconvolution" label. See what is best for your photos and purposes through first hand experience testing the range of them. My two-cents worth and I'll leave it at that.
-
I am asking about Focus Magic because I am interested in the subtle difference in results from the deconvolution processes.
-
That's fine - I'll leave it to the Focus Magic specialists in this Forum to demo subtle differences or indicate how to obtain them.
-
Thank you.
-
You can turn crap into hotcakes with all of them, but there are some images that defy science.
-
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.
InFocus
InFocus 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
-
Hi Bart,
Thank you for the detailed information.
-
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.
Thanks again Bart for your insightful methods with InFocus (in particular), it seems I am not delving into it as much as I could.
Cheers,
Dave
-
Hi Guys,
It's my pleasure to share some of my own findings.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bart
Thanks for the tips on In Focus. It's a bit more difficult to get a handle on than FM or Picurre
Paul C
-
As always excellent post BartvanderWolf!
Guys do not forget that NIK Sharpener Pro RAW Presharpener is also deconvolution...
Ahhh!
I just found new deconvolution tools for Windows Photoshop and standalone.
I do not know if it is good, but looks interesting...
http://www.astraimage.com
-
Focus Magic support was kind enough to reply with my inquiry about an extended trial. They explained that since I have already used up the 10 attempts that their licensing technology would not permit further testing on my computer. They explained that it is possible to get another 10 saves by using a different computer.
I think I'll try some of the other choices first.
I think that when I first tried FocusMagic that my expectations were for a more dramatic result than I have learned to strive for as I have gotten more experience with "capture" sharpening. As I have learned what to expect from a deconvolution process I feel like I am ready to evaluate the applications more effectively. I guess I lost my chance to do so with FocusMagic until I am ready to pay up. :-)
Thank for the link to astraimage. The idea that it has several choices of deconvolution processes seems interesting.
-
...
I just found new deconvolution tools for Windows Photoshop and standalone.
I do not know if it is good, but looks interesting...
http://www.astraimage.com
I downloaded the Astra Image Photoshop Plugins. It uses a demo with a watermarking license security system which will let me evaluate extensively. I have been using it this afternoon and it has all sorts of deconvolution options, some of which take lots of time to process but also seem to produce excellent results.
Thank you for the link.
-
Hi Bart,
Thank you for your workflow on using FocusMagic.
Would you provide similar detail on where in the overall workflow to use FocusMagic?
As I understand it, FM should be used before most everything else because of the nature of its algorithms. So, my question is: what adjustments are safely used in LR before exporting to PS where FM can be accessed?
I know that a while back there was a long thread on this matter, but it is not clear to me what in summary was the best approach.
TIA for your contribution (again) on this matter.
Doug
-
Much of what I'm reading in this thread amounts to a quest for absolutely perfect sharpening. It might be worth stepping back and remembering that the difference between a really really good result and a really really really good result has no practical significance for printing nor for people who will ultimately view the image (whether online or in print).
-
I downloaded the Astra Image Photoshop Plugins. It uses a demo with a watermarking license security system which will let me evaluate extensively. I have been using it this afternoon and it has all sorts of deconvolution options, some of which take lots of time to process but also seem to produce excellent results.
Thank you for the link.
You are welcome,
Astra Image is very interesting, but it is very slow as it is single threaded and and no GPU... :'(
-
Much of what I'm reading in this thread amounts to a quest for absolutely perfect sharpening. It might be worth stepping back and remembering that the difference between a really really good result and a really really really good result has no practical significance for printing nor for people who will ultimately view the image (whether online or in print).
Very True... :(
But it is very interesting to play with different tools/algorithms/workflow...
Maybe the really really really good result makes the operator happy... :)
-
Hi Bart,
Thank you for your workflow on using FocusMagic.
Would you provide similar detail on where in the overall workflow to use FocusMagic?
As I understand it, FM should be used before most everything else because of the nature of its algorithms. So, my question is: what adjustments are safely used in LR before exporting to PS where FM can be accessed?
Hi Doug,
Well, sharpening in LR would hurt the ability to use Deconvolution effectively. Some (color) noise reduction might be allowed if necessary. Local contrast adjustments do not help. Distortion correction / Upright do not help, because sub-pixel interpolation will create sharper pixels and softer pixels in alternating patterns of originally uniform structural detail. Chromatic Aberration correction does help.
I know that a while back there was a long thread on this matter, but it is not clear to me what in summary was the best approach.
TIA for your contribution (again) on this matter.
You're welcome. The benefit of parametric editing becomes a bit of a drawback if Sharpening is not up to date. Especially the Deconvolution Capture sharpening should be applied early in the sequence of operations. LR could make good use of some serious improvements of it's sharpening functionality.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Astra Image is very interesting, but it is very slow as it is single threaded and and no GPU... :'(
Hi Pictus,
I had a look and it look like a decent implementation of deconvolution, although I miss a control for noise regularizaton in the Deconvolution-sharpening section. Typical deconvolution may need some help with that, as part of the deconvolution process. The default algorithms they mention, do not have provisions for that, although they might have added some of that invisible to the user, under the hood.
The algorithms they offer seem to increase in robustness in the presence of noise, but that also depends on actual implementation. Noise free images (with very high Signal/Noise ratios) will do well with the Van Cittert algorithm, and Richardson-Lucy (especially if it has added noise dampening) is a well behaved general algorithm.
I do see different previews for the same parameter settings, depending on what one tries before, so that seems something that needs work. For example, I tried a deconvolution with a Blur kernel size (radius? not clear) of 1.00 which looked reasonable, then a deconvolution with a less critical radius of 0.99, which looked like rubbish, and then 1.00 did not change it back. So it's not entirely robust and bug free it seems. BTW, deconvolutions do use all 8 cores on my CPU.
It also produces ringing artifacts around the image borders, so one might need to crop a few pixels on all sides if that gets too obvious.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Thanks for your reply to my post, Bart.
Doug
-
Hi Pictus,
I do see different previews for the same parameter settings, depending on what one tries before, so that seems something that needs work. For example, I tried a deconvolution with a Blur kernel size (radius? not clear) of 1.00 which looked reasonable, then a deconvolution with a less critical radius of 0.99, which looked like rubbish, and then 1.00 did not change it back. So it's not entirely robust and bug free it seems. BTW, deconvolutions do use all 8 cores on my CPU.
Hi Bart,
4 cores here and only 25% utilization. :(
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4686872/Astra_image-CPU.png)
I saw some bugs too, do not remember where exactly, but some combinations
seems to change the highlights...
Maybe was in the Deconvolution Smart - Weighted Derivative + Blur Kernel Cauchy.
Lets wait for Astra Image 6. ;D
I will play more with Van Cittert/Richardson-Lucy and also investigate this Weighted Derivative...
Every time I read/hear the name Lucy this https://youtu.be/aVVjxPGDda4 comes to mind... :) ;D :)