Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: brianrybolt on August 30, 2018, 11:17:56 am
-
Hello,
I don’t understand why one needs to upscale a file if you are going to print it yourself on a decent printer. As I understand it, the print driver takes care of that. I’m shooting with a Fuji X-T2 (24 mg) and my print size rarely goes beyond 36x24 inches (HP Z3100 printer || printing by Lightroom and possibly Q-image in the future. I occasionally go to 38 - 40 inches and I’ve never had a problem.
Am I missing something - all this talk about Topaz AI Gigapixel - seems like good software but do I need it?
-
Hello,
I don’t understand why one needs to upscale a file if you are going to print it yourself on a decent printer. As I understand it, the print driver takes care of that. I’m shooting with a Fuji X-T2 (24 mg) and my print size rarely goes beyond 36x24 inches (HP Z3100 printer || printing by Lightroom and possibly Q-image in the future. I occasionally go to 38 - 40 inches and I’ve never had a problem.
Am I missing something - all this talk about Topaz AI Gigapixel - seems like good software but do I need it?
You're not necessarily missing anything. The basic question you're asking is whether the printer driver or an external piece of software does a better job of upsampling a photo to meet the intake resolution requirement (in PPI) of the printer. The best way to find out is to try both under your own working conditions and see which provides a result more to your liking. Most software offers a trial period of some kind, so this should cost you no more than some time.
-
I don’t understand why one needs to upscale a file if you are going to print it yourself on a decent printer. As I understand it, the print driver takes care of that.
Some may. Most do not (Native Canon, Epson):
https://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/photography-workflow/the-right-resolution/ (https://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/photography-workflow/the-right-resolution/)
Printer Output Resolution
Today’s high-end, large-format inkjet printers are capable of outputting at high resolution. The Epson pro printers’ print heads have a reported output resolution of 360/720 dpi, depending on the print mode. Canon and other printers that use similar thermal head technology have a reported 300/600 dpi. What do I mean by “reported”? The print driver communicates with the operating system print pipeline and states its resolution in dots per inch. You can send any output resolution to the print head, but the print pipeline will resample the input resolution and send the printer the resolution it asks for. The people at Epson say that the print driver doesn’t do the re-sampling, and since the application sending the print doesn’t do the resampling unless asked to do so, the resampling must be happening in the print pipeline. I’ve tried, unsuccessfully, to get confirmation from Apple and Microsoft about their respective print engine activities regarding the resampling of the image data. So I really don’t know where or how the resampling is being done. But I’m convinced some sort of resampling is being done. Is it an optimal resampling algorithm, or is it something done for speed? I don’t know, but I suspect, at best, it’s a compromise in favor of speed. I’m pretty sure there are better, optimized resampling algorithms that could do a superior job. In fact, Adobe Photoshop Lightroom resampling is a hybrid Bicubic algorithm that interpolates between Bicubic and Bicubic Smoother for upsampling and Bicubic and Bicubic Sharper for downsampling.
-
Hello,
I don’t understand why one needs to upscale a file if you are going to print it yourself on a decent printer. As I understand it, the print driver takes care of that.
Hi Brian,
In general, printer drivers use very mediocre resampling methods (to avoid losing speed and needing lots of processing power, and reduce the risk of running out of memory), so it's not difficult to improve on that. The larger the magnification, the more visible the differences will be. That's where the interest in A.I. Gigapixel comes from. However, the amount of possible improvement also depends on image quality and content.
I’m shooting with a Fuji X-T2 (24 mg) and my print size rarely goes beyond 36x24 inches (HP Z3100 printer || printing by Lightroom and possibly Q-image in the future. I occasionally go to 38 - 40 inches and I’ve never had a problem.
Printing a 24MP image at 20.77 x 13.73 inches (or smaller) will match the visual acuity requirements of someone with 20/20 vision when viewed from 12 inches distance. However, that means that the pixel density is 291.3 PPI. The HP printers natively require 300 or 600 PPI image data, and thus the printer driver will resample from 291.3 to 300 (or 600) PPI internally before printing. That final resampling can lose quite a bit of quality.
Am I missing something - all this talk about Topaz AI Gigapixel - seems like good software but do I need it?
At output sizes larger than 21x14 inches of uncropped images, I do think you are leaving potential image quality on the table, and you can easily solve it. Qimage already takes care of the communication with the printer driver, and on-the-fly resamples to exactly what the driver needs, and then adds smart sharpening to compensate for the resampling and ink diffusion losses. Whether you need an application like A.I. Gigapixel for modestly larger images depends on how important perfect (instead of almost perfect) images are for your intended output goals.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Mark's response is spot-on: try AI Gig and see.
We've become believers, even with images from a P1 IQ4. As long as you have a capable video card installed, AI Gig is terrific for certain images even at the 360-400% zoom levels you are using. You will notice the most difference in portrait images where AI Gig produces enlargements with more natural detail rather than the painterly look other products give. Depending on your intended use, this may or may not be helpful - soft focus images certainly aren't improved by hard edges and infilled details.
-
Hi Brian,
In general, printer drivers use very mediocre resampling methods (to avoid losing speed and needing lots of processing power, and reduce the risk of running out of memory), so it's not difficult to improve on that. The larger the magnification, the more visible the differences will be. That's where it interest in A.I. Gigapixel comes from. However, the amount of improvement also depends on image quality and content.
Printing a 24MP image at 20.77 x 13.73 inches (or smaller) will match the visual acuity requirements of someone with 20/20 vision when viewed from 12 inches distance. However, that means that the pixel density is 291.3 PPI. The HP printers natively require 300 or 600 PPI image data, and thus the printer driver will resample from 291.3 to 300 (or 600) PPI internally before printing. That final resampling can lose quite a bit of quality.
At output sizes larger than 21x14 inches of uncropped images, I do think you are leaving potential image quality on the table, and you can easily solve it. Qimage already takes care of the communication with the printer driver, and on-the-fly resamples to exactly what the driver needs, and then adds smart sharpening to compensate for the resampling and ink diffusion losses. Whether you need an application like A.I. Gigapixel for modestly larger images depends on how important perfect (instead of almost perfect) images are for your intended output goals.
Cheers,
Bart
Hi Bart,
You and I are saying resampling happens in the printer driver, but Andrew is quoting a source (and his reference jogged my memory about this discussion in the past) claiming that "Epson people" say the printer driver doesn't resample data. Ever since I saw that statement, I've periodically wondered who those "Epson people" are (maybe it was one person) and whether in fact that person or those people are correct or have been interpreted correctly; I say this because yet again there is a needless lack of transparency from the technology providers on what should be public information: where does the resampling happen if not in the originating image editor? The user determines the input resolution in PPI to the printer with the - usually - two choices offered in the driver, be it 360/720 or 300/600. Having made one of those choices in the driver, does the resampling operation (if needed) go back to the "print pipeline", which presumably means the computer operating system, and if so where? Especially as we don't know that piece of it either, I would find this surprising, but I'm always willing to be surprised.
A paper by Jonathan Sachs of Digital Light and Color from 2001 (Resampling) (http://www.dl-c.com/Temp/downloads/Whitepapers/Resampling.pdf) says the printer driver does it when needed.
Anyhow, regardless of where it happens, I still suggest that if resampling is necessary, it's best for the curious user to compare resampling in the editing application versus letting "the system (wherever)" do it, versus using a bespoke resampling application. Those are the options, just test all of them.
On the subject of the human visual acuity "requirements" you mention, are we dealing with "requirements" or with "limits"? According to Tim Vitale's Version 20 of "Film Grain, Resolution and Fundamental Film Particles" published April 2007 (and I understand that unfortunately Mr. Vitale is no longer alive to discuss the matter), the LIMIT of human visual acuity is equivalent to 300PPI. Hence for a 24 MP camera with linear dimensions of 6000x4000 pixels, a long dimension of 20 inches would just meet the limit. But if you are using an Epson printer which expects 360PPI, the long dimension should not exceed 16.7 inches (6000/360). Printing larger than that requires infill magnification and would affect image quality, but whether it's visible or not depends on how much, how done, how viewed.
Finally there may be a discussion about what image sharpness looks like: are we discussing the separation of fine detail or the finesse of the edge definition of the detail? In his book on Photomacrogrpahy (Eastman Kodak, Technical Publication N-16, 1970, page 53), H. Lou Gibson suggests these are different, such that details can be separated but not look very sharp if over-magnification in relation to the image content fuzzes the appearance of edge definition. I mention this just to highlight the importance of the image content and the subjective aspects of sharpness when making comparisons of resampling techniques.
-
I've periodically wondered who those "Epson people" are (maybe it was one person)
Epson USA, product manager for Pro Line. Perhaps Jeff will say more. Jeff (and I) have some abilities to get answers directly from Epson USA thanks to our work with them with the Epson Print Academy. Their technical B.S. factor is low to none! ;)
-
The 300 ppi recommendation came from the definition of 20/20 vision; i.e. the ability to resolve details at a one minute of arc separation angle. Given a 12 inch viewing distance, one MOA translates into 286 and change ppi - rounded to 300 for convenience. Go to a more reasonable viewing distance - arm's length is typically specced at 2 ft/0.6 m - and required resolution drops in half. Large scale signage we've done (10+ stories high, viewed from 100+ meters away) get printed at 3-5 ppi (gotta love the mixed units!).
Real world acuity depends on not only viewing distance and whose eyeballs are doing the seeing but also on lighting, contrast between elements, what colors are present, and viewing angle. The printer itself also plays a role. Halftone printer output always looks blurry compared to stochastic screening (e.g. photo inkjets) or true contone print. As Bart and Mark mention above, matching print resolution to what the printer driver expects is more critical to obtaining the best prints. Limiting the number of interpolation steps is always best.
-
I always thought the 300 PPI recommendation (generalization*) came from the 2X quality factor for LPI and that 150 linescreens where quite common for commercial printing.
Anyway, the idea that 300 PPI is always or mostly necessary is a generalization.
* All generalizations are false, including this one.-Mark Twain
-
Epson USA, product manager for Pro Line. Perhaps Jeff will say more. Jeff (and I) have some abilities to get answers directly from Epson USA thanks to our work with them with the Epson Print Academy. Their technical B.S. factor is low to none! ;)
Yes, I know the person, and yes, he would have known what he was talking about. So the plot thickens as to exactly how this gets done.
-
I always thought the 300 PPI recommendation (generalization*) came from the 2X quality factor for LPI and that 150 linescreens where quite common for commercial printing.
Anyway, the idea that 300 PPI is always or mostly necessary is a generalization.
* All generalizations are false, including this one.-Mark Twain
From the literature I've consulted, the 300PP is stated as an estimate of the limit of human visual acuity, which of course must be a generalization that would vary from person to person and depending on the factors Ethan mentions, plus some. Now from that observation could flow a recommendation, or a suggestion, that printing at 300 PPI will deliver all the visual acuity a person with 20/20 vision looking at the print 12 inches away can appreciate. But I'm not sure what stand-alone conclusions or inferences one can draw from that. Jeff has suggested a range of resolutions one can send to the printer and still expect excellent outcomes; I don't think he had exotic resampling tools in mind when making those observations, but he should comment if he so wishes.
-
Yes, I know the person, and yes, he would have known what he was talking about. So the plot thickens as to exactly how this gets done.
Kind of moot IF you follow Jeff’s suggestions to do the resampling yourself and not in the “print pipeline”.
-
Kind of moot IF you follow Jeff’s suggestions to do the resampling yourself and not in the “print pipeline”.
Yes I agree, but returning to the O/P's issue, when you do this yourself, do you do it in Lr or Ps, or do you use a bespoke resampling application such AI Gigapixel? Personally, whatever the native PPI of the image file after I've finished editing it in Lr, I send it to the printer through the Lr Print module specifying 360PPI resolution and the prints emerge just fine, anything up to output dimensions of 17x22 inches even with moderately cropped originals.
-
Yes I agree, but returning to the O/P's issue, when you do this yourself, do you do it in Lr or Ps, or do you use a bespoke resampling application such AI Gigapixel?
Personally I do this in Lightroom. When I did testing to prints for a Webinar, and this was a few years ago, I found LR was a tad better than Photoshop due to mostly capture sharpening applied there along with it's output sharpening. And I prefer to print out of LR.
-
.........And I prefer to print out of LR.
Yup, me too, except when I need Absolute RI for proofing/testing, which Lr doesn't support.
-
Is it true in the case of some Epson brand pro printers, the resolution output from a 360 ppi color file is just that, 360 ppi pixel-for-pixel from a color input file? Canon pro printers @ 300 ppi?
Or is the pixel actually better resolved @ 180 and 150 ppi?
-
I haven't tried AI Gigapixel yet as so far the output from PS CC and LR have been very good particularly the newer algorithms.
On the subject of resampling interpolation, I am somewhat confused about what is happening at the print driver end as I was given to understand that Epson (and I assume Canon etc) print driver did interpolation depending on the required output. A Whitepaper from Epson published in 2008 (Print Quality Issues and How to Cure Them)- quoting from page 18/19 (my bold emphasis):
Jaggies
............These "jaggies" may appear (the visibility is dependent on the actual image content) when the image print resolution is not a direct multiple or half of the native print head resolution.
In fact the "jaggies" are nearest neighbour interpolation artefacts.
When sending an image file to the printer, the printer driver will convert the image file to its own proprietary bitmap file before printing starts
If the image resolution is not a direct multiple or half of the printers native resolution, the conversion will create interpolation artefacts.............
The file is in my library and I cannot find a link to the original on the Epson site but a search showed a link Here (https://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/reference_library/epson/print_quality_how_to_cure.pdf)
While referring to the am/semi pro Epson range at that time my assumption was that pro range would operate very similarly. My takeaway from this paper was that the print driver must do the resampling to produce the required Epson proprietary bitmap image and that resampling would use Nearest Neighbour algorithms. As has been shown to be the case for many images better interpolation algorithms are available rather than use the print driver.
I guess my questions are. Is the whitepaper (and my assumptions) correct for all/some Epson printers and has anything changed in the 10 years since publication?
-
That's a useful paper from Epson, indicating that their driver does the resampling to fit their proprietary bitmap. It's what I would have expected, but it does stand in contradistinction to the view from one authoritative Epson person that Andrew mentioned above. So what to believe?
At various times I have tested printing at resolutions from 140 to 720 on Ilford Gold Fibre Silk paper in a couple of recent Epson professional desktop printers. Print viewing with bare eyes from normal reading distance, I wouldn't print below 180. I see quality improvement between 180 and 240, and marginal improvement from 240 to 360. I see no improvement beyond 360, but I wasn't testing vector graphics, only normal photos.
-
At various times I have tested printing at resolutions from 140 to 720 on Ilford Gold Fibre Silk paper in a couple of recent Epson professional desktop printers. Print viewing with bare eyes from normal reading distance, I wouldn't print below 180. I see quality improvement between 180 and 240, and marginal improvement from 240 to 360. I see no improvement beyond 360, but I wasn't testing vector graphics, only normal photos.
Interesting Mark. At what distance were you viewing the prints and did you have (corrected) 20/20 vision?
Jack
-
As I said, normal reading distance and perhaps a bit closer - let's say 12 to 18 inches. I wear eyeglasses and according to my optometrist my correction is providing 20/20 vision.
-
From the literature I've consulted, the 300PP is stated as an estimate of the limit of human visual acuity, which of course must be a generalization that would Jeff has suggested a range of resolutions one can send to the printer and still expect excellent outcomes; I don't think he had exotic resampling tools in mind when making those observations, but he should comment if he so wishes.
Read the article Andrew mentioned...that's still what I think. And to through a further wrench into the works, I'm pretty sure the Mac driver and Windows drivers behave differently on a range of issues except color management and profiles. So knowing EXACTLY what is going on in the print pipeline regarding resolution and interpolation is further problematic. In any event ANY interpolation is likely better in PS or LR or ACR or 3rd party apps than the friggin' print pipeline where at best it's a bilinear interpolation and at worst nearest neighbor (which really does suck).
And upsampling to get to 360/300 or 720/600 (Epson/Canon or HP) and THEN output sharpening is better than sending a non-standard resolution and hoping the print pipeline does ok.
-
Read the article Andrew mentioned...that's still what I think. And to through a further wrench into the works, I'm pretty sure the Mac driver and Windows drivers behave differently on a range of issues except color management and profiles. So knowing EXACTLY what is going on in the print pipeline regarding resolution and interpolation is further problematic. In any event ANY interpolation is likely better in PS or LR or ACR or 3rd party apps than the friggin' print pipeline where at best it's a bilinear interpolation and at worst nearest neighbor (which really does suck).
And upsampling to get to 360/300 or 720/600 (Epson/Canon or HP) and THEN output sharpening is better than sending a non-standard resolution and hoping the print pipeline does ok.
Some time back I did a printer driver test with my 9800 and Win 10 x64. It's nearest neighbor. "At worst" indeed.
-
My personal experience is that Printing at 720 ppi andere fine details on given a visibly better result compared tot 360ppi.
Not only at closer viewing distance, also at longer distances, like onze would use to observe a print in a gallery.
In fact given the conversion to rather random placed dots of ink, i do not see the pixels as such. Or the dots. What i see and experience is that Printing at 360ppi adds some softness, some vagueness , a sort of veil to the print. Also a feeling that tonal changes are not so smooth. The perceived 3-dimensionality,if present on the image, is also impacted. For me it is about the experience when watching a print. And highest resolution does improve that. This is also the feedback i het from my customers.
-
... In any event ANY interpolation is likely better in PS or LR or ACR or 3rd party apps than the friggin' print pipeline where at best it's a bilinear interpolation and at worst nearest neighbor (which really does suck).
And upsampling to get to 360/300 or 720/600 (Epson/Canon or HP) and THEN output sharpening is better than sending a non-standard resolution and hoping the print pipeline does ok.
Couldn't agree more.
Dedicated upsampling is a processing intensive operation (which e.g. Topaz A.I. Gigapixel takes to an extreme), and it's obvious that the printer driver pipeline does a worse job. And then we can add output sharpening after the resampling operation, something that the printer driver doesn't do by default either (and not sharpening Nearest Neighbor resampled data makes sense).
Cheers,
Bart
-
My personal experience is that Printing at 720 ppi andere fine details on given a visibly better result compared tot 360ppi.
Not only at closer viewing distance, also at longer distances, like onze would use to observe a print in a gallery.
Hi Jan,
Although difficult to quantify (due to many variables), it is to be expected that boosting the resolution near the limiting resolution of the printer will also boost the MTF of the lower spatial frequencies. It's a bit like lifting a veil, the entire image acquires a bit more 'pop'. So having higher resolution and the ability to sharpen and/or boost local micro-contrast, has an impact on the overall image quality.
Topaz A.I. Gigapixel increases the real resolution beyond what is present in the source image, and thus lifts the veil by adding plausible high-resolution detail.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Bart,
Thusfar i used for uprezzing the tool you and others crafted in 2014 here on lula. Also i would reduce the sharpering to 0, and apply sharpering achter the uprez. Now gai looks like doing a better job since version 1.0.2 .
Not yet tested in prints. On my agenda for coming week.
-
............ In any event ANY interpolation is likely better in PS or LR or ACR or 3rd party apps than the friggin' print pipeline where at best it's a bilinear interpolation and at worst nearest neighbor (which really does suck).
And upsampling to get to 360/300 or 720/600 (Epson/Canon or HP) and THEN output sharpening is better than sending a non-standard resolution and hoping the print pipeline does ok.
Agreed - this is my standard working procedure as well.
Unlike for Mr. Smit, no advantage of 720 over 360 for photographs hits me in the face, and I like to believe I know what to look for in a photograph. Well, OK, things can look differently to different observers. What does your experience suggest?
-
Agreed - this is my standard working procedure as well.
What does your experience suggest?
If the native resolution at print size is above 360/300 then it's better (and I've proved it for non-watercolor paper) to upsample to 720/600 and sharpen and print. If the native rez is below 360/300 then just stick to upsampling to 360/300 and don't bother with upsampling further.
All of this presupposes quality images properly adjusted with good lenses and no camera shake...YMMV if ya start with crap!
-
Jeff - puleese - I never start with "crap"; you should know that!?!?! (I hope) :-)
Seriously - I agree - the GIGO principle assures that playing with these options won't do much for crappy input.
-
I'm curious who Topaz really targeted for the GIGA software. Certainly not anyone in the high MP category - there aren't enough of us. After using it, though, I am more than happy to receive the benefits. I hope that they have become aware that even we/those users need this type of software development and advancement.
Victor
-
If the native resolution at print size is above 360/300 then it's better (and I've proved it for non-watercolor paper) to upsample to 720/600 and sharpen and print. If the native rez is below 360/300 then just stick to upsampling to 360/300 and don't bother with upsampling further.
All of this presupposes quality images properly adjusted with good lenses and no camera shake...YMMV if ya start with crap!
If you start with a file that has a native resolution of less than 360 ppi at the desired print size, you upress to 360 ppi using PS, LR or AIG, and then send the file to the Epson printer and check "Finest Detail," will the printer pipeline not upress from 360 to 720? If so, would you not be better off upressing in PS, LR or AIG to 720 dpi?
Thanks.
-
If you start with a file that has a native resolution of less than 360 ppi at the desired print size, you upress to 360 ppi using PS, LR or AIG, and then send the file to the Epson printer and check "Finest Detail," will the printer pipeline not upress from 360 to 720? If so, would you not be better off upressing in PS, LR or AIG to 720 dpi?
With AIG, yes, because AIG will attempt to add more resolution where there was none, to begin with. As long as you keep the resulting filesize below 4 GB (TIFF limitation).
Example, you have a narrow line, say a distant powerline or a twig or a crack in a surface, the other methods will make that line 6x as wide when scaling 600%. AIG will try to keep it narrower and sharp at just 4x times as wide, thus with higher resolution. This will not make a huge difference, but in some of the details it does show. And that is before any output sharpening is added. With more pixels, one can do a better job of sharpening for output.
I have an image example I'm willing to share.
- An original vertical panorama, that I downsampled to 30% of its original size:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/kpps4axc14itsao/0920_Tr_30pct.jpg?dl=0 - A 300% AIG upscaled version (28.8 MB !) (that beats similar upsampling with Photozoom Pro and Perfect Resize):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jhr74lruhcss4cu/0920_Tr_30pct_Gpx110Mod300pct.tiff?dl=0 (NOTE: Updated to AIG Version 1.1.0, with moderate noise and blur reduction) - A 600% AIG upscaled version (93.5MB !):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wp6ji82ab376wtl/0920_Tr_30pct_Gpx110Mod600pct.tiff?dl=0 (NOTE: AIG Version 1.1.0, with moderate noise and blur reduction)
Now, before you start inspecting the level of detail, make sure to zoom out to the printed dimensions, so use:
100 * Display_PPI / Printer_PPI
as the display zoom percentage to watch it at the printed output size (@600 PPI or 720 PPI).
There will hardly be a visual difference, because the display pixels are the same size. But now, realize that the 600/720PPI print will have almost twice the resolution of what is needed to satisfy our average visual acuity. It will be sharper.
An excellent print can be made (almost as good as when starting with the full-size original, not this downsampled version of it). The downsampling did lose some detail (because it became smaller than 1 pixel), but AIG did a fine job of restoring the impression of detail.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I had an email from Ddisoftware yesterday, the authors of Qimage, with a link to a video directly comparing the output of Qimage and AI Gigapixel, which raises some interesting points: https://youtu.be/LGWEyG4DUOM
He actually recommends AIG in some instances, though he highlights some artefacts in its processing that might be counter-indicative. I haven't yet found comparable artefacts in my own tests of AIG, though on different subject matter - it would be interesting to know if anyone else has found anything similar.
Malcolm
-
I had an email from Ddisoftware yesterday, the authors of Qimage, with a link to a video directly comparing the output of Qimage and AI Gigapixel, which raises some interesting points: https://youtu.be/LGWEyG4DUOM
He actually recommends AIG in some instances, though he highlights some artefacts in its processing that might be counter-indicative. I haven't yet found comparable artefacts in my own tests of AIG, though on different subject matter - it would be interesting to know if anyone else has found anything similar.
Hi Malcolm,
Thanks for that link. Mike's comments in that video are correct, and he explains the differences/trade-offs quite well.
Unfortunately for him, good for us, Topaz Labs have just issued an update (to probably a newer version than what Mike used). The users now have a choice of how strong the noise and Blur reduction must be (None, Moderate, or Strong).
I just ran the newer version on the image of the ship I posted before, and even in the Moderate setting, the results were visibly crisper with more subtle low contrast detail than in the Version 1.0.2. So Mike's results might also have been a bit different, had he used this later version of the software.
I have yet to compare it with the noise and blur reduction set to None, but Moderate is already an improvement for low noise image input compared to the previous version. It's good to have options.
Cheers,
Bart