ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












     áòèé÷ :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening



Anthony wrote:

> In theory you can also downsample in one step and unsharp mask once, but
> then you must calculate the proper radius based on the number of pixels lost
> and unsharp mask up front.  For example, if you downsample in one step of
> 500%, you'd use a radius of 4.9 pixels or so.  I don't do it this way so I'm
> not sure how it turns out (it's easier to unsharp mask in steps afterwards,
> and look at the partial results after each step), but you can always try it.

Anthony,

Thanks for sharing this with us.

Up to now, I've just been sharpening the final down sampled image.  Your method 
of (over)
sharpening before each reduction in size certainly seems to work better.  Maybe 
I have
missed it in an earlier post but, if you are using your normal technique of 
halving the
image size, what are the unsharp mask settings you use as a default?

Thanks,



Al Bond

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.