Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Focus magic 4.0 Beta - anybody tried it?  (Read 6540 times)
Les Sparks
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


WWW
« Reply #20 on: February 28, 2013, 03:58:07 PM »
ReplyReply

The CS6 64 bit plug in works fine on my Win7 quadcore Dell. Much faster than previous version. Quality of results seems to be about the seem as previous version. Glad that they finally have a 64 bit version available. For some images, it seems to give a better look than does LR4 if FM is used for capture sharpening.
Auto detect works well for most images.
Les
Edited
Artifact suppression is very good even when high radius is used. Easier to use than InFocus. With FM now back in the game, maybe we'll see improvements in other programs.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2013, 04:33:39 PM by Les Sparks » Logged

MarkL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 329


« Reply #21 on: March 13, 2013, 01:43:58 PM »
ReplyReply

It's always been a favourite with people but I've passed it over due to no 64bit version. Is this one step sharpening? I use photokit sharpener at the moment and it splits the sharpening steps up for an optimal result.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2013, 05:11:48 PM by MarkL » Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3007


« Reply #22 on: March 13, 2013, 02:41:28 PM »
ReplyReply

It's always been a favourite of people but I've passed it over due to not 64bit version. Is this one step sharpening? I use photokit sharpener at the moment and it splits the sharpening steps up for an optimal result.

Hi Mark,

FocusMagic is only for deconvolution (Capture) sharpening, or restoration of Blurred image detail (that is also useful after upsampling, e.g. for print). For creative sharpening I use TopazLabs Detail, which BTW also offers deconvolution sharpening although not as good as Focusmagic, but instead it allows to simultaneously manipulate 3 levels of detail (a bit like Clarity on steroids) which can work wonders for many images. Lot's of control, and easy to make or use presets.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
jrp
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 77


« Reply #23 on: March 13, 2013, 03:20:29 PM »
ReplyReply

I have been trying the trial and still slightly prefer Nik Sharpener Pro 3 for capture sharpening; seems to produce fewer jaggies.
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3007


« Reply #24 on: March 16, 2013, 06:45:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Are there advances that I have not seen?

Hi all,

One of the advances is the capability to process larger files. Perviously one could circumvent "out of memory" messages by selecting smaller areas of the image, and process them sequentially, in Photoshop. The performance at the edges of the selected region seemed to blend into the adjoining selection region just fine. However, I recently ran into a new boundary, 2 GB selections (granted, much larger than it use to be). Whether this is a Photoshop or Focusmagic limitation remains to be determined.

Anyway, when you run into such a limitation, try selecting a <2GB part of the image and process that, before moving on to the other regions of your (huge) image. Setting 'guides' will allow to avoid double processing of regions.

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: March 16, 2013, 06:48:45 PM by BartvanderWolf » Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3007


« Reply #25 on: March 16, 2013, 06:56:58 PM »
ReplyReply

I have been trying the trial and still slightly prefer Nik Sharpener Pro 3 for capture sharpening; seems to produce fewer jaggies.

Hi,

This might be caused by too much (capture) sharpening or an AA-less sensor, before you use FocusMagic. Try solving that prior to post-processing, and/or first upsample the image before sharpening it (which obviously will require a larger sharpening radius), and downsample afterwards to the original file size.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
Samotano
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 88



WWW
« Reply #26 on: March 21, 2013, 10:02:22 PM »
ReplyReply

I noticed that it's a free download of the the 4beta.  Is there any limitations/expiry?
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7523



WWW
« Reply #27 on: March 21, 2013, 10:31:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Bart,

Out of curiosity, how do you position raw converter sharpening vs Focus magic sharpening?

I currently capture sharpen directly within C1 Pro but applying a small radius high intensity sharpeing, but I am sure I may be getting better results with a smart combination of both C1 Pro and Focus Magic. I'd be very interested in how you do it.

Thanks.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3007


« Reply #28 on: March 22, 2013, 06:07:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Bart,

Out of curiosity, how do you position raw converter sharpening vs Focus magic sharpening?

I currently capture sharpen directly within C1 Pro but applying a small radius high intensity sharpeing, but I am sure I may be getting better results with a smart combination of both C1 Pro and Focus Magic. I'd be very interested in how you do it.

Hi Bernard,

FocusMagic replaces capture sharpening, so I do the Raw conversion without sharpening. With C1 Pro 7, I tick the Adjustments tab | Disable sharpening box on the Export Recipe. When the output needs to be downsampled, capture sharpening doesn't help, and when upsampling is in order, then Focusmagic does a better job because it can be applied to the upsampled data (and also deconvolve upsampling blur).

FocusMagic is also pretty good at not sharpening the image noise as much as the image detail, which boosts the S/N ratio even more.

To reveal a nice trick for when you need a fast output with very decent sharpening at the native pixel dimensions, you can output an unsharpened magnified/scaled filesize, apply Focusmagic at that magnification (C1 goes to 250%), and then downsample with bicubic in Photoshop (not ideal, but quick) to the normal pixel dimensions (40% of 250%). The only FocusMagic limitation in combination with Photoshop CS6 seems to be a 2GB filesize.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3007


« Reply #29 on: March 22, 2013, 06:11:05 AM »
ReplyReply

I noticed that it's a free download of the the 4beta.  Is there any limitations/expiry?

Hi,

Currently it looks like a free upgrade for existing users (on my system it accepted the already installed licence key), but I assume the Beta could expire when the official Release version is available.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7523



WWW
« Reply #30 on: March 22, 2013, 10:08:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Bart!

Cheers,
bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Hening Bettermann
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 539


WWW
« Reply #31 on: March 23, 2013, 06:09:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Bart,

> To reveal a nice trick for when you need a fast output with very decent sharpening at the native pixel dimensions, you can output an unsharpened magnified/scaled filesize, apply Focusmagic at that magnification (C1 goes to 250%), and then downsample with bicubic in Photoshop (not ideal, but quick) to the normal pixel dimensions (40% of 250%). The only FocusMagic limitation in combination with Photoshop CS6 seems to be a 2GB filesize.

Would this magnification need to be done in the raw converter? My raw converter has no such option. But I could magnify in PhotoLine, where I could use Lanzcos 3 or 8 for both the up- and down scaling - assuming this would be better than bicubic (speed is no worry).

Kind regards - Hening.
Logged

BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3007


« Reply #32 on: March 23, 2013, 06:54:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Bart,

Quote
To reveal a nice trick for when you need a fast output with very decent sharpening at the native pixel dimensions, you can output an unsharpened magnified/scaled filesize, apply Focusmagic at that magnification (C1 goes to 250%), and then downsample with bicubic in Photoshop (not ideal, but quick) to the normal pixel dimensions (40% of 250%). The only FocusMagic limitation in combination with Photoshop CS6 seems to be a 2GB filesize.

Would this magnification need to be done in the raw converter? My raw converter has no such option.

Hi Hening,

No, FocusMagic only processes images that have already been demosaiced. So you can do that on the output file of your Raw processor of choice. Just make sure you apply no (or very little) sharpening at the Raw stage at all.

The reasoning behind it is that upsampling that unsharpened data will have a kind of low-pass filtering built in that will prevent aliasing artifacts when downsampling back to the regular size again. The upsampling itself tends to anti-aliase edges that are bordering on stairstepping/aliasing themselves. The sharpening of the upsampled data will not produce pixel perfect sharpening, but will boost 'micro'-contrast and resolution which is now probably multiple pixels large.

Downsampling that enhanced micro-contrast will attempt to create downsampling artifacts (due to the imperfect bicubic filterering), but there will probably be not enough really high frequency detail to cause much of a problem, just better contrast and some restored resolution at the magnified sub-pixel level.

Quote
But I could magnify in PhotoLine, where I could use Lanzcos 3 or 8 for both the up- and down scaling - assuming this would be better than bicubic (speed is no worry).

Upsampling with Lanczos is not recommended without a means of regularization of the ringing that is inherent in that type of filtering. Otherwise I'd rather use something more subtle like Mitchell Netravali, if that's available in Photoline. Downsampling may be better when Lanczos 3 is used, but watch out for ringing artifacts near sharp edges on uniform backgrounds. We wouldn't want the quick and dirty to become very dirty ...

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
Hening Bettermann
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 539


WWW
« Reply #33 on: March 24, 2013, 10:33:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Bart,

thank you for your reply.

> We wouldn't want the quick and dirty to become very dirty ...

Ooops - my intention was not at all for the quick - I just saw this as a way of optimizing the sharpening workflow, speed not considered. What would *that* be??

What I do now is R-L deconvolution in the raw converter (Iridient Developer, former Raw Developer) - the radius to be optimized in the future ;-) - As for the upsampling to print size, I have so far left that to my print service - his sharpness was better than what I could muster with Qimage (a software that I'm happy to have done away with that way...). - I have never heard about Mitchell Netravali - I assume that is something that you have in PixInsight? I am somewhat shy of heading for PixInsight because you warned elsewhere about the lack of documentation.

Kind regards - Hening.
Logged

hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1615


« Reply #34 on: March 25, 2013, 03:03:09 AM »
ReplyReply

I have never heard about Mitchell Netravali - I assume that is something that you have in PixInsight? I am somewhat shy of heading for PixInsight because you warned elsewhere about the lack of documentation.
http://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/filter/#mitchell

-h
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3007


« Reply #35 on: March 25, 2013, 08:10:47 AM »
ReplyReply

What I do now is R-L deconvolution in the raw converter (Iridient Developer, former Raw Developer) - the radius to be optimized in the future ;-) -

I have no specific info about their implementation of the R-L deconvolution, but since they offer it as one of the few Rawconverters that do, I must assume it's correctly implemented.

Quote
As for the upsampling to print size, I have so far left that to my print service - his sharpness was better than what I could muster with Qimage (a software that I'm happy to have done away with that way...). - I have never heard about Mitchell Netravali - I assume that is something that you have in PixInsight? I am somewhat shy of heading for PixInsight because you warned elsewhere about the lack of documentation.

Indeed, and it's not cheap especially if only used for that purpose. The little documentation they have produced is of very high quality though, they are a capable bunch of people, but with limited resources. Here's some of their documentation about resampling. One of the resampling options is Mitchell Netravali, but their resampling can also be adaptive, based on the local level of detail that is being resampled. It also allows to control the strength of the suppression of resampling artifacts such as ringing and aliasing.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
Hening Bettermann
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 539


WWW
« Reply #36 on: March 25, 2013, 09:08:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks to the both of you! - Hening
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad