| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/20/2010 03:32:03 AM · #26 |
Right, but what is it specifically and technically about AMD processors that gives such errors? Different architecture, etc.?
|
|
|
|
11/20/2010 04:45:02 AM · #27 |
| Hmmmm. Looks like a lot of people can save money on lenses now, eh? |
|
|
|
11/20/2010 05:43:18 AM · #28 |
I am always pretty dubious about plugins of this sort - do they really stand up to close scrutiny when viewed at 100% before going to print? Or does it only really fix it for for viewing on the web? Would love to see some 100% crops of large file (before and after) and sometimes looking at these things in a small 800x600 image doesnt always tell the whole story. Call me cynical if you like, but I just cant see how these would be of any use apart from making a few snapshots look a bit better.
Would love to be proved wrong. |
|
|
|
11/20/2010 06:14:28 AM · #29 |
OK, downloaded trial and testing. Interesting, very interesting..
Currently running some comparisons on a slightly out of focus shot using InFocus and Photoshop Smart Sharpen. Trying to remain unbiased as possible.
Cannot post on here as I no longer have portfolio privilages. Maybe I could host on my website - lemme see. |
|
|
|
11/20/2010 07:19:02 AM · #30 |
| Neat Thanks,I love Topaz Products. |
|
|
|
11/20/2010 09:53:10 AM · #31 |
OK, here are some examples. I have hosted them on my wesbite. They are downsized so that kind of goes against what I was saying with 100% crops earlier - but they are very indicative of the quality from the larger versions.
OK, so IMAGE 1 is the control image - as you can see I didn`t nail the focus perfectly (I guess I am used to shooting with the incredible 1D AF, instead of the 5Dmk2 I shot this with - that will teach me to slum it).
Now, the next two images are recovered with Topaz InFocus and the other using Photoshop SmartSharpen. Any see any difference between the two? I will tell which is which later.
Ideally you will use a tabbed browser to view these as you can then switch between them and see the difference `side by side` so to speak.
1 - Base image
Image 2
Image 3
My results show that whilst InFocus does a pretty good job, for most recovery jobs SmartSharpen is a great tool once you learn how each slider affects the final result - comes bundled with Photoshop and if using 64bit version of Photoshop its a lot faster (and works great with AMD!)
Message edited by author 2010-11-20 09:57:31. |
|
|
|
11/20/2010 10:09:01 AM · #32 |
I didn't have to study 2 & 3 to see a big difference. I prefer #3. #2 has haloing as if it's been done by a hack photographer who wears sneakers while shooting weddings. ;-) |
|
|
|
11/20/2010 10:10:36 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
I didn't have to study 2 & 3 to see a big difference. I prefer #3. #2 has haloing as if it's been done by a hack photographer who wears sneakers while shooting weddings. ;-) |
THATS BULLSHIT!!!
I wear sandles & socks!.. cant argue with the rest though. |
|
|
|
11/20/2010 11:01:50 AM · #34 |
| I didn't notice any haloing in 2, but 3 has a bit more contrast, so in that regard would appear to be a tad sharper. |
|
|
|
11/20/2010 11:13:00 AM · #35 |
| I downloaded a "patch" file from their website and it appears to have fixed the crash issue for me. I'm going to play with it more over the weekend. I've got a shoot this afternoon and one more tomorrow so I'll have pleny of new images to try it out on. Although I may have to work on not getting sharp images so I can use it. LOL |
|
|
|
11/20/2010 12:04:39 PM · #36 |
3 is more natural, 2 shows more recovery.. |
|
|
|
11/20/2010 12:42:07 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by MattO:
I downloaded a "patch" file from their website and it appears to have fixed the crash issue for me. I'm going to play with it more over the weekend. I've got a shoot this afternoon and one more tomorrow so I'll have pleny of new images to try it out on. Although I may have to work on not getting sharp images so I can use it. LOL |
LOL, I was going to say, with the 1d4 you`ll struggle to get one out of focus.! |
|
|
|
11/20/2010 01:02:30 PM · #38 |
OK, 1 was unsharpened
2 was Infocus
3 is Smart Sharpen (although the actual settings escape me now)
Message edited by author 2010-11-20 13:02:41. |
|
|
|
11/20/2010 02:00:10 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Simms:
OK, 1 was unsharpened
2 was Infocus
3 is Smart Sharpen (although the actual settings escape me now) |
2 actually looks the best to me, how does it look at a larger size? |
|
|
|
11/20/2010 02:19:43 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by Simms:
OK, 1 was unsharpened
2 was Infocus
3 is Smart Sharpen (although the actual settings escape me now) |
2 actually looks the best to me, how does it look at a larger size? |
Ditto. Quite a bit the best...
R. |
|
|
|
11/20/2010 05:06:56 PM · #41 |
| The biggest differences I saw between the two were detail on her hair and contrast in the spots on her dress. In this regard, the second was better. I noticed a bit more noise-stuff that became apparent in the second one though; you can see it to the left of her hair in the mirror. This could just be added focus to texture on the wall, but it's hard to tell small-size. |
|
|
|
11/20/2010 07:46:34 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by Simms:
OK, 1 was unsharpened
2 was Infocus
3 is Smart Sharpen (although the actual settings escape me now) |
2 actually looks the best to me, how does it look at a larger size? |
Ditto. Quite a bit the best...
R. |
Lasik is suggested.
Message edited by author 2010-11-20 19:47:44. |
|
|
|
11/20/2010 08:28:20 PM · #43 |
got it....now have to play with it
Message edited by author 2010-11-20 20:29:21. |
|
|
|
11/20/2010 08:43:51 PM · #44 |
Before: 
After: 
These are 50% crops (cropped to 1600px and resized.) |
|
|
|
11/20/2010 10:01:28 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Before:
After:
These are 50% crops (cropped to 1600px and resized.) |
wow, why do we need image stabilization any longer? |
|
|
|
11/20/2010 10:03:34 PM · #46 |
I love what I'm seeing here, so I downloaded it to try out, but I'm getting an error every time I try to run it on an image. I'm using other Aperture, and other Topaz plugins are working just fine. I was wondering if anyone else here has gotten it working with Aperture, or if others are also getting error 2002.
I have already contacted Tech Support, but they are out til Monday. |
|
|
|
11/20/2010 11:40:40 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by giantmike:
I love what I'm seeing here, so I downloaded it to try out, but I'm getting an error every time I try to run it on an image. I'm using other Aperture, and other Topaz plugins are working just fine. I was wondering if anyone else here has gotten it working with Aperture, or if others are also getting error 2002.
I have already contacted Tech Support, but they are out til Monday. |
Mike are you crashing when trying to estimate blur? Are you using an AMD processor? |
|
|
|
11/21/2010 12:41:20 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Before:
After:
These are 50% crops (cropped to 1600px and resized.) |
wow, why do we need image stabilization any longer? |
Well, to be fair, if you look there are some very odd artifacts that show up, they look like curved bands... |
|
|
|
11/21/2010 01:46:29 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Before:
After:
These are 50% crops (cropped to 1600px and resized.) |
wow, why do we need image stabilization any longer? |
Well, to be fair, if you look there are some very odd artifacts that show up, they look like curved bands... |
You're right the quality isn't very good when compared to a shot that didn't need fixing, but all things considered it's amazing what the program can accomplish.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2010 03:13:02 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Before:
After:
These are 50% crops (cropped to 1600px and resized.) |
wow, why do we need image stabilization any longer? |
Well, to be fair, if you look there are some very odd artifacts that show up, they look like curved bands... |
You're right the quality isn't very good when compared to a shot that didn't need fixing, but all things considered it's amazing what the program can accomplish. |
No doubt! |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 10:30:42 PM EDT.
