Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
From | Kevin McMurtrie |
Date | 09/16/2014 06:39 (09/15/2014 21:39) |
Message-ID | <mcmurtrie-9A12AC.21392615092014@news.sonic.net> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Floyd L. Davidson |
Floyd L. DavidsonMathematically, it's nothing more than a frequency enhancement. It's like an audio EQ but for two dimensions instead of one. Maybe you're thinking of reversing USM from a saved file that suffers from clipping and severe loss of precision.
Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us>wrote:Kevin McMurtrieFloyd L. Davidson
In article <MPG.2e7f6291cf0026d798cc0c@news.supernews.com>, Alfred Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com>wrote:Alfred MolonKevin McMurtrie
In article <2014091316132932858-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck says...SavageduckAlfred Molon
...and what PP software, & what sharpening methods do you use? I am not going to advocate one application, or method over the other, I know what advice I can give with what I am familiar with in my workflow.
Isn't unsharp mask the same across all PP applications? I would have thought it's an algorithm which is implemented in various PP applications, or are there differences?
The digital form of unsharp mask is the inverse of a blur. There's both a frequency (diameter) and an intensity.
Not the case. It is the high pass sharpen tool that is the inverse of blur. They can use the exact same algorithm with different parameters. Using one and then the other virtually reverses the results.
UnSharpMask is not reversible.
-- I will not see posts from astraweb, theremailer, dizum, or google because they host Usenet flooders.Kevin McMurtrie
The fancier sharpening tools analyze an image and adapt the sharpening to different types of blur in the image. This handles minor focus problems, simple motion blur, and some of the radial blurring found in cheap lenses.
The super-fancy tools will trace camera shake and estimate a corrected image.