OK, but how do you interpolate?
Chuck Norcutt
On 1/27/2011 1:38 AM, Moose wrote:
> On 1/26/2011 2:41 PM, Nathan Wajsman wrote:
>> Another one of my newly discovered 280 megapixel images:
>>
>> http://www.greatpix.eu/Other/Sometimes-I-use-film/7590141_XFqsu#1168851838_RcenX-O-LB
>
> C'mon, Nathan and the rest of you guys. There's something wrong here. The
> moment I saw it, I thought there was
> something wrong with the tones, especially the lower ones. The lower ones
> look sorta blocky, coarse, something wrong.
>
> So I look at the histogram. This image has had major tonal movement(s) in
> post on a 8 bit image or some other tonal
> disaster. The lower half is full of holes and the top is full of spikes. No
> wonder the tonal graduation looks whacky.
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Wajsman/Biar_Alicantea.htm>
>
> I can't get back the lost tones - assuming here that the original scan was 16
> bit and had them. I can simulate them with
> interpolation and smooth things out.
>
> The other thing that bugged my eye was the church tower leaning to the side.
> Roofs and such look pretty level, so it's
> perspective distortion, with nothing else to show it so obviously.
>
> Then as long as I was at it, I reduced the hot spotting/vignetting, whacked
> out the big, ugly TV antenna and sharpened a
> bit for this size.
>
> Well, I think the tonality is much nicer now. :-) Look too at the clarity
> of detail in the vineyards and other
> background stuff. That's not just sharpening, they started to look a lot
> better as soon as I interpolated a continuous
> tonal range, as did the face of the tower.
>
> Likes It Now 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/
|