| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/21/2010 06:04:13 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by MattO:
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? |
Nope on both :-/
I'm crashing when trying to open InFocus (not even seeing the UI yet), and I have an Intel processor. I also have the 1.0 release installed (not the beta). |
|
|
|
11/21/2010 06:21:37 AM · #52 |
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? |
You are joking right? Let me think, what would I rather have, the optical quality that comes with my image stabilised 70-200 L Glass - or not worry about that and fix it using this artifact inducing post-processing filter that at best is a souped up `smartsharpen` filter.
By the way, image 2 in the shots below was SmartSharpen and Image 3 was InFocus - just though I would throw it out there to see how many saw a case of emperors new clothes. |
|
|
|
11/21/2010 07:18:31 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by Simms:
By the way, image 2 in the shots below was SmartSharpen and Image 3 was InFocus - just though I would throw it out there to see how many saw a case of emperors new clothes. |
Sneaky!
I actually found it hard to decide which one I prefer... my eyes aren't really up to that sort of professional qualative evaluation yet - of course both were better than the original shot. When I need to choose between sharpened versions I just open up half a dozen tabs and get my wife to say which she prefers (she has absolutely no photography knowledge so I find her viewpoint to be completely subjective opinion on the image, not the technicals. Of course, she usually picks the one I think looks the worst.
Just had another stab at it... I like the more natural feel of shot 3, though presumably as shot 2 was slider based, you could have possibly achieved a more similar look with a bit more messing about? |
|
|
|
11/21/2010 09:11:28 AM · #54 |
I don't know how you folks are doing it...I've tried it on a few OOF files with very mixed results. Actually, the best result I got was a regular file which I could have sharpened with anything. Maybe I'm missing something.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2010 09:52:56 AM · #55 |
| Can't get it to open at all, i have an imac with an intel I7 processor and i also run other Topaz software, i get an error code 2002 cannot load library, its a shame i would have liked to have tested it against nikons sharpener Pro. |
|
|
|
11/21/2010 09:56:37 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Well I installed all of them, followed the video link and everytime I try to let it estimate blur it crashes.....really sucks to spend $160 for software that crashes immediately. :( have you had any issues with it crashing? It keeps telling me to report the error to Topaz. |
a little off the subject...I got the DeNoise 5 when it first came out...amazing pkg....BUT I have had to uninstall and reinstall now 3/4 times...no real reason (can't duplicate keystrokes) to make this happen...matter of fact I haven't even been in the program when it gets the error code, I get the error code when I exit PSE8 then go back later (a couple of days) to edit a picture...it's annoying...but I love the pkg enough to "work through it" getting pretty good at uninstall and install...sigh |
|
|
|
11/21/2010 12:48:43 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
I don't know how you folks are doing it...I've tried it on a few OOF files with very mixed results. |
I've been having mixed results as well. It seems to do the best on photos which are in focus, but soft, such as what my cameraphone produces. It helps some on shots with minor camera shake. It will be a useful tool to have available to help save a once time shot, but I don't think it will be one that I use on everything.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2010 01:03:25 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
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. |
Interestingly, looking at them again this morning I do see the haloing :-( Not on the model herself, but on the reflections in the mirror. The haloing is present in all 3 versions actually, but most noticeable in version 2 and least noticeable in the original...
R. |
|
|
|
11/21/2010 02:59:33 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by Simms:
By the way, image 2 in the shots below was SmartSharpen and Image 3 was InFocus - just though I would throw it out there to see how many saw a case of emperors new clothes. |
So, it produced the more natural look then huh? I think I like it even more then... |
|
|
|
11/21/2010 03:11:37 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
It seems to do the best on photos which are in focus, but soft... |
Based on your leaf example that's the conclusion I jumped to as well. Seems like it'll make a soft lens look good. |
|
|
|
11/21/2010 03:17:39 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
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. |
Interestingly, looking at them again this morning I do see the haloing :-( Not on the model herself, but on the reflections in the mirror. The haloing is present in all 3 versions actually, but most noticeable in version 2 and least noticeable in the original...
R. |
LOL, jeez, just how much stock do you have in that company Rob??? ;) |
|
|
|
11/21/2010 03:56:38 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by Simms:
LOL, jeez, just how much stock do you have in that company Rob??? ;) |
Sheesh, Slippy told me I needed Lasik when I voted for what turned out to be the samrt-sharpen, that the haloing is extreme. So evidently I preferred the SS version right? Then I look at it and see haloing I never even noticed before, and now it's glaringly obvious, and the ORIGINAL looks better than either of the doctored versions in that regard, and you accuse me of flacking for them? LOL...
I've actually been messing with this InFocus thingy today, and I'm actually surprised at how little it seems to be delivering, compared with the (apparently unrealistically high) expectations I had for it...
R. |
|
|
|
11/21/2010 04:34:54 PM · #63 |
| I didn't have much time to play with it in beta before the release. But I'm wanting to know how much of a difference there is with using InFocus vs. Detail? I can usually get pretty good results with Detail and am not sure what added benefit I would get from InFocus. |
|
|
|
11/21/2010 05:51:11 PM · #64 |
| As I see it, the major benefit is the ability to reverse motion blur... In my image above, there is motion, down and to the left (or the inverse, whatever), and this did do a much better job than simple sharpening, but with images that are, truly, simply soft, it's probably not much, if any, better than the sharpening tools... |
|
|
|
11/21/2010 06:05:54 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Before:
After:
These are 50% crops (cropped to 1600px and resized.) |
What happens if you then do a Denoise? Perhaps trying strongest with debanding? |
|
|
|
11/21/2010 06:44:47 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by giantmike:
Originally posted by MattO:
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? |
Nope on both :-/
I'm crashing when trying to open InFocus (not even seeing the UI yet), and I have an Intel processor. I also have the 1.0 release installed (not the beta). |
It's now fixed. In case anyone else runs into this, there is a new version of Fusion Express available which solves the problem. |
|
|
|
11/21/2010 06:54:45 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
As I see it, the major benefit is the ability to reverse motion blur... In my image above, there is motion, down and to the left (or the inverse, whatever), and this did do a much better job than simple sharpening, but with images that are, truly, simply soft, it's probably not much, if any, better than the sharpening tools... |
Right, this is my impression thus far. I already have a program called Focus Magic for dealing with motion blur, and it has done a decent job for me. Like InFocus, Focus Magic has different modules for lens blur and motion blur. I need to see if InFocus gives better results than Focus magic on the same image with motion blur; but I don't HAVE any handy....
Cory, you wanna send me your original on those bottles/jars?
R. |
|
|
|
11/21/2010 06:55:14 PM · #68 |
One design problem with this plugin and with Topaz Detail is that neither lets you use denoise in conjunction, like Topaz Adjust does. Sure, you can do it first, but it would be better to be able to balance the effects.
Topaz denoise actually does a pretty good job of sharpening while cleaning up the noise. So imagine if they actually combined these so you could use the best algorithms for removing noise, and sharpening a the same time. I can't help but think that the strategy for Topaz is to keep putting out single function tools because in the end it's more profitable, and keeps the cost down for each. While the latter is a good thing, it's not good for the "user interface" and functionality of the suite.
In fact, all of these tools could have easily been integrated into Topaz adjust.
Message edited by author 2010-11-21 18:56:12.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2010 08:07:07 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
As I see it, the major benefit is the ability to reverse motion blur... In my image above, there is motion, down and to the left (or the inverse, whatever), and this did do a much better job than simple sharpening, but with images that are, truly, simply soft, it's probably not much, if any, better than the sharpening tools... |
Right, this is my impression thus far. I already have a program called Focus Magic for dealing with motion blur, and it has done a decent job for me. Like InFocus, Focus Magic has different modules for lens blur and motion blur. I need to see if InFocus gives better results than Focus magic on the same image with motion blur; but I don't HAVE any handy....
Cory, you wanna send me your original on those bottles/jars?
R. |
Sure!
|
|
|
|
11/21/2010 08:07:43 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
One design problem with this plugin and with Topaz Detail is that neither lets you use denoise in conjunction, like Topaz Adjust does. Sure, you can do it first, but it would be better to be able to balance the effects.
Topaz denoise actually does a pretty good job of sharpening while cleaning up the noise. So imagine if they actually combined these so you could use the best algorithms for removing noise, and sharpening a the same time. I can't help but think that the strategy for Topaz is to keep putting out single function tools because in the end it's more profitable, and keeps the cost down for each. While the latter is a good thing, it's not good for the "user interface" and functionality of the suite.
In fact, all of these tools could have easily been integrated into Topaz adjust. |
Well, they've got to have SOMETHING to add to the next versions :) |
|
|
|
11/22/2010 08:46:30 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
One design problem with this plugin and with Topaz Detail is that neither lets you use denoise in conjunction, like Topaz Adjust does. Sure, you can do it first, but it would be better to be able to balance the effects.
Topaz denoise actually does a pretty good job of sharpening while cleaning up the noise. So imagine if they actually combined these so you could use the best algorithms for removing noise, and sharpening a the same time. I can't help but think that the strategy for Topaz is to keep putting out single function tools because in the end it's more profitable, and keeps the cost down for each. While the latter is a good thing, it's not good for the "user interface" and functionality of the suite.
In fact, all of these tools could have easily been integrated into Topaz adjust. |
Ferengi bastards!
|
|
|
|
11/22/2010 06:45:03 PM · #72 |
Good news for existing Topaz Bundle owners - simply download the bundle update - InFocus is included.
IMO, InFocus is simply showing what is there - in the mirror picture, there is a shadow to the left of the wood piece in the mirror. In the bottles, it is showing the shape of the bottle (both in the smile at the bottom of the top row labels, and in the curvature at either side.) You can see a similar shape that appears, but isn't as hot in the Green Tea bottles at the right side.
Since I struggle big-time with soft focus, I am looking forward to playing with this to see what it can do.
|
|
|
|
11/22/2010 08:19:34 PM · #73 |
|
|
|
11/22/2010 08:56:32 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by Simms:
ho ho ho.. |
What did you just call me? |
|
|
|
11/22/2010 09:19:51 PM · #75 |
i have just finished playing with it, and i just can't seem to get it to do anything to some older out of focus or pics with some camera shake that I took.
|
|
