On 5/18/2016 3:55 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
It's nice that you were able to sharpen the image some more and improve it. I never even thought of that or of
checking a histogram for blowh highlights. But I stand by my statement. The blades of grass are well resolved.. by
lens and sensor. The detail is more visible after sharpening but there is nothing visible that wasn't before.
Yes - and No.
Changes in contrast alone can reveal detail that our eye otherwise can't see. I set this example up for another purpose,
but it illustrates this point. <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/DiffractionContrast/diffracted_sweep.htm>
Here's another.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Contrast_Resolution/Contrast_vs._Resolution.htm>
USM sharpening uses a different technique for a related effect. It finds contrast edges and makes them stronger in
contrast by increasing brightness for one to a few pixels from the edge on the brighter side and vice versa. Again,
taking something we have trouble seeing and changing it so it's more visible.
Deconvolution is a different kettle of fish. At it's purest, it knows how the lens aberrations mistakenly mis-distribute
the light that goes through it and uses that knowledge to undo the effect of the aberrations. So sure, in one sense,
some brightness, color, etc. is misplaced; it's in the image, but we can't see it and it may be obscuring something we
would otherwise see more clearly. OTOH, the WAY in which is there' but not visible is different, in that it isn't
located in the place where it belongs.
I take this to be different in kind, not just degree, from the other ways we "sharpen" images. You may see that
differently. In any case, what I applied was not sharpening, but deconvolution.
There is nothing wrong with his E3 or E-M5
Other than operator error, unintentionally setting the E-M5 to throw away
detail.
despite what FastStone says.
Chuck Norcutt
On 5/18/2016 4:42 PM, Moose wrote:
========================
On 5/18/2016 6:49 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
What I think it that you worry too much. Your images look just fine
to me. Take the image with the sheep, for example (an E-M5 image).
There are thousands and thousands of blades of grass in the
foreground. Even though they can only be a pixel or two wide they're
well resolved at 100%.
I disagree, strongly.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/BSwale/Sheep_Grass.htm>
========================
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
|