Fine, that would be my choice. PhotoShop is too expensive and too
stressful unless doing color separation work. To avoid endless talk
about preferences, I cited PhotoShop which constitutes a paradigm for
desktop computing. I also said "or equivalent" which includes many
other excellent software applications. While I have reviewed the FFT
equations for research applications - - and they are IMPRESSIVE - - I
am not a mathematician. I offer two simple concepts to understand them
in totality without mathematics:
- FFT, PhotoShop, etc, are mathematical 'Filters' analogous to the
use of optical filters on a lens which impacts what you see.
- UNLIKE optical filters, etc., which can alter and directly
determine the S/N of data collected, the mathematical filters can only
filter this fixed set of data, not alter it.
(I should add that the REAL value of FFT is in the design of optimized
imaging systems including lenses to maximize S/N of collected data and
in some complex systems as an online monitor of data being collected.
Use of FFT to make 'purty' pictures is but an afterthought. GI/GO is
the Law of God!!!)
'Ideal' data (picture, etc.) can be enhanced with mathematical filters
to improve our perception. Likewise, data with low S/N (shake, poor
focus, etc.) can be filtered to improve our perception from this data.
Where reality breaks down, is the 'public perception' that garbage in
can mysteriously be converted to pearls out.
Finally, to accent the general principles above: Scattered photons of
light can seriously degrade the S/N, i.e. 'sharpness', of a photo. You
are experienced in the use of polarizing filters to markedly enhance
the S/N at the time of data acquisition when a scattered photon (N) can
be separated by identifiable physical characteristics. However, once
all of the photons (data bits) are collected in one 'bucket', either
film or digital, there is no identifiable characteristic of a scattered
photon. Placing a 'polarizing' mathematical filter on the 'bucket' of
collected data will not alter the S/N. 'Sharpening' an image with
mathematical filtering of low frequency data blurring edges is not even
in the same vernacular as 'sharpening' an image by exclusion of
scattered light at the time of acquisition.
Hope that helps.
Bill Hunter
On Saturday, August 9, 2003, at 03:25 PM, Danrich wrote:
What about PhotoShop Element 2.0 made for photo work specifically?
I guess sharpen is not sufficient to overly blurred picture?
Daniel
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|