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 Atkielski" <anthony@atkielski.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Strength of 98, radius of 0.7, threshold of 2.  Of course, this is a highly
subjective setting.  I do note that very small images usually require less
unsharp masking than very large images to get visually similar results, but
since the distinctions are small, I usually use this one setting for
everything.
<<<<<<<<<<<

I find that the first sharpening, that applied to the image from the
scanner, needs much larger strength and radius values than the second and
later sharpenings. Do you turn on sharpening in the scanner?

(I haven't tried that yet, since my experience with in-camera sharpening
(consumer dcams) is that it has too low threshold setting and aggravates
noise something fierce, but maybe scanner sharpening isn't so obnoxious...)

David J. Littleboy
davidjl@gol.com
Tokyo, Japan



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.