On 12/7/2010 4:45 PM, usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
> . . .
>
> No clue that the Moose uses deconvolution as a tool. I believe Focus Magic
> uses a peanut butter spread on cracker approach with blind deconvolution
> assuming a gaussian PSF . . . I believe DXO does the deconvolution on the
> separate RGB channels and is context aware. Noise seems to cause great
> indigestion for deconvolution and I believe Focus Magic reduces it no matter
> what. I am not sure, but despite a stable full of optics Ph.D's DXO could no
> way quickly crank out lens module after lens module with lens specific PSF,
> though aberration corrections clearly are carefully done---even to the point
> of focus distance specific aberration correction when possible.
OK Mike, you asked for it. :-)
We could natter on for a long time, speculating about deconvolution (now that
I've looked it up). How about proof in the
pudding - or leaf litter.
Full frame. <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/DXO/_MG_2371.htm>
Please limit comments on artistic choices. I did these to test DXO's RAW
conversion and standard processing defaults.
They aren't finished display images, as that might mask the things I'm testing.
I had to change one parameter to avoid a
blown red channel. The ACR/PS versions use a number of tools.
One 100% sample. <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/DXO/_MG_2371fp1.htm>
Another 100% sample.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/DXO/_MG_2371fp2.htm>
So whaddya think? Which tools(s) would you pick?
Questionable Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|