| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/05/2013 11:33:58 AM · #1 |
Piccure Plugin Magically Reduces Camera Shake, Beats Adobe to the Punch
Download a beta version that you can use through July 1 |
|
|
|
05/05/2013 11:48:01 AM · #2 |
Thanks. I'll try it out.
This technology could be more beneficial to low light photography than noise reduction is. |
|
|
|
05/05/2013 11:50:09 AM · #3 |
Looks pretty good, except for this part -- I wish these were all made as stand-alone applications for those of us who can't afford (or don't want) to upgrade oftener than every few years ...
Originally posted by Linked review:
Piccure will be available for Photoshop CS4 and above ... |
|
|
|
|
05/05/2013 11:58:26 AM · #4 |
| That's incredible. Downside is, it requires a LOT of processing time; better have a robust computer. Also, downsize your image before processing with Piccure if you don't need the full resolution for very large displays. |
|
|
|
05/05/2013 11:59:36 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Looks pretty good, except for this part -- I wish these were all made as stand-alone applications for those of us who can't afford (or don't want) to upgrade oftener than every few years ...
Originally posted by Linked review:
Piccure will be available for Photoshop CS4 and above ... |
|
i know i would as i think most would rather have a plug-in. i realize it isn't cost effective, but its much easier dealing with one software than many.
edit: to add it does work on elements as well, plus plugins tend to work on legacy versions as well.
Message edited by author 2013-05-05 12:08:42. |
|
|
|
05/05/2013 12:02:13 PM · #6 |
| This seem to work any better than Topaz InFocus? |
|
|
|
05/05/2013 12:15:15 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Cory:
This seem to work any better than Topaz InFocus? |
Yes it's a whole different sort of approach. Better than Focus Magic too, which was my old standby...
Message edited by author 2013-05-05 12:15:26. |
|
|
|
05/05/2013 12:15:49 PM · #8 |
| Thanks! This looks awesome! |
|
|
|
05/05/2013 12:16:33 PM · #9 |
| Anyone installed it on a Mac system? The file seems to be inactive :/ |
|
|
|
05/05/2013 12:17:53 PM · #10 |
did a quick test. this image doesn't have a whole lot of shake. it seems to add lots of artifacts. i cant say how well it perform to inFocus.
to add the settings it on adds a halo around the face, moving it to "micro" does nothing. i wish you could adjust it not in steps.
Message edited by author 2013-05-05 12:23:23. |
|
|
|
05/05/2013 12:23:47 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Alexkc:
Anyone installed it on a Mac system? The file seems to be inactive :/ |
I've got it on the mac, just trying it now. I had to restart PS after the first try. Not sure it's working too well. |
|
|
|
05/05/2013 12:30:38 PM · #12 |
Quick test here with the micro settings (it was horrible with the default)
 |
|
|
|
05/05/2013 12:31:49 PM · #13 |
before:
after
it does a decent job if you aren't pixel peeping. FWIW it will require some photoshop effort to clean it up but it will help to salvage an otherwise lost image. lets see what the price point is.
Message edited by author 2013-05-05 12:32:56. |
|
|
|
05/05/2013 12:32:40 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by salmiakki:
Quick test here with the micro settings (it was horrible with the default)
|
yeah. its seems to work well on image with only slight blur. |
|
|
|
05/05/2013 12:37:18 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Mike:
yeah. its seems to work well on image with only slight blur. |
Yes, agree, with slight blur it seems to be OK. I'm OK with that. I have a few I can maybe rescue :)
Message edited by author 2013-05-05 12:38:06. |
|
|
|
05/05/2013 12:39:12 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by salmiakki:
Originally posted by Mike:
yeah. its seems to work well on image with only slight blur. |
Yes, agree, with slight blur it seems to be OK. I'm OK with that. I have a few I can maybe rescue :) |
i wish i hadn't thrown away some others i could try out. |
|
|
|
05/05/2013 12:39:55 PM · #17 |
|
|
|
05/05/2013 12:44:34 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Not liking the results. |
im not overly impressed, but i could see my self using it to salvage an image. it going to take some heavy photoshop and blending but it can probably be done. to much studying today but I'll give it a go in a few days and post the results. |
|
|
|
05/05/2013 01:31:32 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Not liking the results. |
im not overly impressed, but i could see my self using it to salvage an image. it going to take some heavy photoshop and blending but it can probably be done. to much studying today but I'll give it a go in a few days and post the results. |
Heavy Photoshop?
Here. I hit this in PS for two minutes. Just opened both images, set the top layer as the sharpened image, and set a hide mask. Then I revealed the details we want sharp (eyes, lips, necklace, hands(just a little), and ear (just a very little), and left the rest untouched.
The result is pretty decent, and I do think it could be used to salvage otherwise unusable shots.
 |
|
|
|
05/05/2013 01:31:57 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Mike:
i wish i hadn't thrown away some others i could try out. |
Thanks for giving me another excuse for archiving every image ... ;-) |
|
|
|
05/05/2013 01:39:41 PM · #21 |
| It does seem to be good for getting back slightly out of focus eyes. It has crashed my computer twice now though. LOL! |
|
|
|
05/05/2013 02:59:25 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Heavy Photoshop?
Here. I hit this in PS for two minutes. Just opened both images, set the top layer as the sharpened image, and set a hide mask. Then I revealed the details we want sharp (eyes, lips, necklace, hands(just a little), and ear (just a very little), and left the rest untouched.
The result is pretty decent, and I do think it could be used to salvage otherwise unusable shots.
|
good to know that it would be easier than I assumed. i was looking at this image when i made my comment:
this is the same image zoomed in:
Message edited by author 2013-05-05 15:00:25. |
|
|
|
05/05/2013 04:49:04 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by Cory:
Heavy Photoshop?
Here. I hit this in PS for two minutes. Just opened both images, set the top layer as the sharpened image, and set a hide mask. Then I revealed the details we want sharp (eyes, lips, necklace, hands(just a little), and ear (just a very little), and left the rest untouched.
The result is pretty decent, and I do think it could be used to salvage otherwise unusable shots.
|
good to know that it would be easier than I assumed. i was looking at this image when i made my comment:
this is the same image zoomed in:
|
Hmm. Looking at that, I'm not sure that this is better than Topaz Infocus |
|
|
|
05/05/2013 06:06:42 PM · #24 |
i just tried some shots that i did have from my vacation that i'd like to save, some camera shake from being in a cave.
the software was worthless. it could have been too much noise from high ISO, but so far my tests are not promising, here's hoping Adobe's iteration is steps better. |
|
|
|
05/05/2013 06:31:31 PM · #25 |
I'm not sure I'd call it "useless": here's a shaky macro, at the default settings. Granted, when you view it at 100% the artifacting is obvious, but how could it NOT be? Meanwhile, at a more normal on-screen viewing size, the improvement is definite.
 |
|
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: 07/27/2025 07:38:39 AM EDT.
