So in summary, you did use stabilize followed by sharpen on the last image. I
have been liking AI Sharpen a lot, getting back images I otherwise might have
skipped over. On macro shots I have seen some bad results using stabilize on
some of the out of focus areas.
This tool can make an somewhat lesser lens almost as good as a premium lens.
Although I have not seen what it will do for chromatic aberration and suspect
it does not fix that?
Like a good long novel, there is still so much to learn and explore with
photography these days.
WayneS
At 1/9/2020 11:29 PM, Our Most Crafty person wrote:
>On 1/9/2020 8:17 AM, Wayne Shumaker wrote:
>>Just to clarify, did you sharpen with Stabilize then Focus or were they
>>separate sharpenings. Stabilize vs Focus?
>
>On 1/9/2020 8:28 AM, Wayne Shumaker wrote:
>>Also, Sharpen AI has a suppress noise slider, so wondering if the initial
>>Denoise AI is redundant?
>
>On 1/9/2020 5:00 PM, Mike Gordon via olympus wrote:
>>Impressive, a tour de force. Masterful sequential use of powerful tools.
>
>Yow! Thanks!
>
>>I have the same question as Wayne.
>
>The Topaz AI apps are powerful, but also confusing. Sharpen has three separate
>processing options, with different aims:
>
>Sharpen: Seems to focus on edge contrast? Sort of like USM, but without halos.
>On images that are otherwise sharp, but have motion blur, it seems sometimes
>to do almost nothing.
>
>Stabilize: As it says, it works to correct motion blur. The beauty, compared
>to Focus Magic, Fix OoF Blur it that it's not only automagic, but works
>locally, so motion in different directions in different parts of the image are
>corrected. This is the most powerful and useful for most of my long tele
>shots, particularly of stuff that moves.
>
>Focus: This attempts to correct missed focus. Kinda, sorta like Focus Magic,
>it can correct for some lens failings
>
>Each of these Modes then come with three sliders, Remove Blur, Suppress Noise,
>and Add Grain.
>
>Then, Denoise AI has two processing options, Denoise and Clear. And, guess
>what? Three options within each. and guess what? One choice in each is
>"Enhance Sharpness" Denoise is pure magic up to about ISO 800, on my cameras.
>Clear is a different kind of magic for higher noise levels. Clear obviously
>does some other stuff to make noisy image look better, generally all good,
>whereas Denoise only affects noise. Look at the night iPhone sample I just
>posted to see how much better Clear is with lots of noise.
><www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Process/Halide/Salad.htm>
>
>So, if one has all the AI apps, the number of permutations is unmanageable.
>
>Working on the assumption that, as these apps are designed to be sold
>individually, functions overlap for completeness, I have chosen to assume that
>each is optimized to perform its primary function.
>
>So, in Denoise, I only have one, undefined, way to enhance sharpness. I'd
>rather wait to sharpen with more control. In Sharpen, "Suppress Noise" is only
>one, undefined option, whereas, the two processing options in Denoise can have
>dramatically different results (or much the same, it depends mostly on the
>sort of noise.)
>
>That's the one reason I apply NR first, separately. The second is that various
>things I do in processing images, including sharpening, often exacerbate
>(enhance?) noise, and I want to be able to try different things without
>worrying about noise.
>
>As to the other question, yes, although the tools in Sharpen AI are all in one
>interface, they do different things. Neither Sharpen nor Focus did much for
>the hawk. I applied Stabilize first, as a little play showed that most of the
>softness was motion blur.
>
>I then tried both Sharpen and Focus, with a few settings for each. To the
>Eagle Eye, they both added just a bit of clearer detail. I could see subtle
>differences. If it were a contest, with a nice prize, I would have used both,
>as layers, with masks to apply different effects to different areas. But,
>nobody else would likely to notice a difference, so I just went with one.
>
>>I would have thought there would be more artifacts (such as ringing with FM)
>
>These tools tend not to throw a lot of artifacts, if used reasonably. The
>preview window @ 100% makes it pretty easy to see if they are going to happen.
>
>> with that degree of recovery or it would look artificial. Just looks good,
>> period.
>
>Thanks! Good tools, careful craft.
>
>Crafty 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/
|