Is this over sharpened?

PeteD wrote:
http://1mpkzq.blu.livefilestore.com/..._8_g/Furry.jpg

I don't think it is over-sharpened. The fuzzy areas at the
top and bottom are out of focus, which sharpening can't fix.
My guess is that you used the macro setting on the camera,
which brings a small depth of focus. Using a long zoom
instead would have flattened the distances nicely.

"Marvin" wrote in message
...
PeteD wrote:
http://1mpkzq.blu.livefilestore.com/..._8_g/Furry.jpg
I don't think it is over-sharpened. The fuzzy areas at the top and bottom
are out of focus, which sharpening can't fix. My guess is that you used
the macro setting on the camera, which brings a small depth of focus.
Using a long zoom instead would have flattened the distances nicely.

I have no macro setting but I certainly set the aperture to get the best
depth of field for the prevailing conditions, f11 from memory with 1/125
second exposure.

"John Navas" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:59:18 +1000, Jurgen wrote
in :

I can't quite figure out how a portion of that image on the right side
is blurred but on the other side, at about the same distance from the
camera is not. Rita calls it "Tennessee blur". Has this picture been
artificially blurred with Photoshop?

I've seen this happen from lens element decentering.

It also happens when you have a very narrow depth of field, small
differences in distances will cause the blurring of course.

"Mark Thomas" wrote in message
...
John Navas wrote:
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:10:54 +1100, "PeteD" wrote in
:

http://1mpkzq.blu.livefilestore.com/..._8_g/Furry.jpg

Try Focus Magic on the original.

I tried FM some time back and was unimpressed. I just visited their site
to see if anything had changed much or improved, and frankly, it seems to
have stood still. And of course it can't go very far because of the
physics involved. For any 'normal' image, with background and foreground
detail, deconvoluting will almost invariably introduce unpleasant
artefacts - you can see them all over the samples at their own page. And
they do not inspire confidence when they skew the 'comparisons'
deliberately. On this page:
http://www.focusmagic.com/exampleunsharpmask.htm
..note the bit that says they use Threshold=0 for their USM comparisons?
That's *ridiculous*, especially for the first example (and I would have
quickly erased the the other examples in camera..). On that first image I
get a much better result from a single-pass USM *with more sensible
parameters* - try it yourself at say A=200 R=0.7 T=5. Less artefacts,
hardly any visible haloes/ringing and no increase in noise, looks just as
sharp. Happy to post result if asked.

Deconvolution can be very useful in astronomy, where the scenes are as
simple as possible (mainly point sources, dark background), and of course
they can help do little party tricks like reveal number plate characters
or clock faces when they appear to be lost in a blur. Motion blur can
certainly be ameliorated (my word of the day) reasonably well, but o-o-f
blur is less well handled, and the more complex the image or o-o-f, the
more problematic it becomes and the more artefacts are introduced.

For 'normal' final sharpening, which usually involves an already-in-focus
image that just needs a little extra 'edge' (due to bayer, downsampling,
etc) I remain unimpressed and wouldn't pay anything for such a program.

If arguing otherwise (ie in regard to normal sharpening), I'm happy to see
some *real world* FM sharpening examples, but they need to be compared
with the results gained using conventional methods like USM. Post your
results and the original, and let's see who wins...

I have had a pretty similar experience with FM, I think in this case there
is a very small amount or focus error but FM would treat the entire shot
well.

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 05:28:42 +1100, "Pete D" wrote in
:

"Mark Thomas" wrote in message
...
John Navas wrote:
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:10:54 +1100, "PeteD" wrote in
:

http://1mpkzq.blu.livefilestore.com/..._8_g/Furry.jpg

Try Focus Magic on the original.

I tried FM some time back and was unimpressed. I just visited their site
to see if anything had changed much or improved, and frankly, it seems to
have stood still. And of course it can't go very far because of the
physics involved. For any 'normal' image, with background and foreground
detail, deconvoluting will almost invariably introduce unpleasant
artefacts - you can see them all over the samples at their own page. ...

I have had a pretty similar experience with FM, I think in this case there
is a very small amount or focus error but FM would treat the entire shot
well.


Digital Outback Photo
http://www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_39/essay.html:

We have to say that Focus Magic does an outstanding sharpening job.
...

If optimal image detail is your goal get Focus Magic (we are an
affiliate).

Highly Recommended


Northlight Images
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/focus_magic.html:

Summary

As far as I'm concerned, this is an important part of my image
manipulation toolkit. The fact that I could get excellent results on
such a huge file came as a pleasant surprise. It turned what would
have been a good 8x10 print into one that could comfortably be
printed much larger.


My own experience is that Focus Magic often produces less
artifical-looking results than even careful unsharp masking, and can do
a remarkable job on images that are a bit or more out of focus --
autofocus being what it is, few images have perfect focus.

Caveat: I normally use less adjustment than the software recommends
automatically, often just the "1" setting.

It can be downloaded and evaluated for free:
http://www.focusmagic.com/download.htm


p.s. I'm not going to get into a silly contest over this. If you don't
like it, don't use it -- "different strokes for different folks".
--
Best regards,
John
[Please Note: Ads belong (only) in rec.photo.marketplace.digital]

Pete D wrote:
"John Navas" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:59:18 +1000, Jurgen wrote
in :

I can't quite figure out how a portion of that image on the right side
is blurred but on the other side, at about the same distance from the
camera is not. Rita calls it "Tennessee blur". Has this picture been
artificially blurred with Photoshop?
I've seen this happen from lens element decentering.

It also happens when you have a very narrow depth of field, small
differences in distances will cause the blurring of course.



So is that yes or no?

John Navas wrote:

Digital Outback Photo
http://www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_39/essay.html:

We have to say that Focus Magic does an outstanding sharpening job.
...

If optimal image detail is your goal get Focus Magic (we are an
affiliate).

Quote - "we are an affiliate". (O:
On their contest page:
http://www.outbackphoto.com/contest/..._13/essay.html
I would suggest image 7 (by a sharpener I'd never heard of) is the best
effort by a good margin, but opinions will obviously vary.

Compare that image to the one beneath it, which is Focus Magic... Oh
dear - halos and exaggerated noise. Sure, that may be user error (feel
free to post a better effort). Again, a single USM pass at say
250/0.7/6 gives a more pleasant result than FM.

Northlight Images
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/focus_magic.html:
The example given here is about *motion blur*. And the result..? looks
a bit like a 5DII image with those Black Dots®..

Also, if you read a bit deeper, here's what he actually says about final
image sharpening (my capitalisation):
"Focus Magic with its much more complex methods, SOMETIMES produced
results that looked better -after- the resizing. The sharpening at this
stage is quite light (say 25% in Focus Magic)..."
"There are LOTS OF OTHER WAYS you could approach the task.."

Again, may I remind listeners that this post is about final sharpening,
and of that, there are no samples.

So *for final image sharpening* we are left with the one sample on FM's
own page, which is easily bested by a sensible one-pass USM...

My own experience is that Focus Magic often produces less
artifical-looking results than even careful unsharp masking
So again, example? It's easy, just post a crop of the original, and
then FM's result. Then I'll have a go with USM.

Caveat: I normally use less adjustment than the software recommends
automatically, often just the "1" setting.
Understandable, given the samples posted on their site. I generally
prefer the look of the untouched originals..

p.s. I'm not going to get into a silly contest over this.
Why is asking for real world examples and posting comparisons, a "silly
contest"?

If you don't
like it, don't use it -- "different strokes for different folks".
Certainly. And potential buyers should be able to see real examples and
comparisons. So do you want to help them?

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 07:42:17 +1000, Mark Thomas
wrote in
:

Also, if you read a bit deeper, here's what he actually says about final
image sharpening (my capitalisation):
"Focus Magic with its much more complex methods, SOMETIMES produced
results that looked better -after- the resizing. The sharpening at this
stage is quite light (say 25% in Focus Magic)..."

I think that's pretty much what I said.

p.s. I'm not going to get into a silly contest over this.

Why is asking for real world examples and posting comparisons, a "silly
contest"?

Because I know from long experience here that it would almost certainly
be a waste of time, no matter what the result, leading to nothing more
than another difference of opinion and insults. Minds are already made
up. You are after all the Mark Thomas, right?
--
Best regards,
John
[Please Note: Ads belong (only) in rec.photo.marketplace.digital]

John Navas wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 07:42:17 +1000, Mark Thomas
wrote in
:

Also, if you read a bit deeper, here's what he actually says about final
image sharpening (my capitalisation):
"Focus Magic with its much more complex methods, SOMETIMES produced
results that looked better -after- the resizing. The sharpening at this
stage is quite light (say 25% in Focus Magic)..."

I think that's pretty much what I said.

p.s. I'm not going to get into a silly contest over this.

Why is asking for real world examples and posting comparisons, a "silly
contest"?

Because I know from long experience here that it would almost certainly
be a waste of time, no matter what the result, leading to nothing more
than another difference of opinion and insults. Minds are already made
up. You are after all the Mark Thomas, right?
I'm not sure why opinions are a problem when they are backed up, and I
didn't post anything that could be construed as a insult. If you say
different, then QUOTE it.

I posted information, links and my opinion, which you refuse to debate.
Be brave, don't snip it again - it's completely ontopic - *which is
the best of these images?*:
http://www.outbackphoto.com/contest/..._13/essay.html
Do you think the FM one (8) is best? If not, why don't you post a
better one? And I'll post a USM version with details (although I've
already conceded I can't beat image 7).

YOU brought up Focus Magic in this context. If all you can do is post a
program's name and then not back it up, then so be it. Others can look
at the links and decide for themselves if you wish to play no further part.

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 08:13:49 +1000, Mark Thomas
wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:

Because I know from long experience here that it would almost certainly
be a waste of time, no matter what the result, leading to nothing more
than another difference of opinion and insults. Minds are already made
up. You are after all the Mark Thomas, right?

I'm not sure why opinions are a problem when they are backed up, [SNIP]

Don't be disingenuous, and cut out the childish goading.
I expressed my opinion, with citations to back it up.
You expressed your opinion, with specifics.
Let's leave it at that. I will at least.
Have the last word if you must.
--
Best regards,
John
[Please Note: Ads belong (only) in rec.photo.marketplace.digital]