Been a bit under the weather of late so could not respond to posts I should
have, or at least felt compelled to respond.
Focused Moose writes:
<<<Moderate softness from diffraction that can be partially corrected with
deconvolution*
Yes, at first blush one would not predict either exact PSF deconvolution as
used by Canyon or blind R-L deconvolution as used in FM would work very well
due to the obliteration of some high freq detail at a hard cutoff from
diffraction which is distinctly different than Gaussian blur.
I did post something to that effect:
http://lists.tako.de/Olympus-OM/2013-02/msg01884.html
Empiric evidence mounting to the contrary , revisited that issue and also
spotted a review by Roger at Lensrentals.
http://lists.tako.de/html/Olympus-OM/2013-05/msg02068.html
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/03/overcoming-my-fentekaphobia
So the Diffraction monster's teeth aren't that long and non-determinate PSF
deconvolution can still improve the images.
To quote my own post:
As in the pin-hole
example, I neglected to consider that in diffraction softened images
deconvolution sharpening can (with non-determinate PSF's) do increase
detail CONTRAST, though you can't really increase the maximum detail
frequency.
OK to stop down a bit more than originally thought Mike
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|