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



I tried this, and it really does work better than simply downsampling in one
bit hit then sharpening. Thanks Anthony!

---------------------
Stewart Skelt
---------------------
sgskelt@netspeed.com.au
http://www.netspeed.com.au/sgskelt
---------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@atkielski.com>
To: <sgskelt@netspeed.com.au>
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 10:26 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening


I use a setting of 98 with 0.7-pixel radius and threshold of 2.  If you are
downsampling, downsample in steps of 2x (half, half, etc., until you reach
your final size) and unsharp mask with these parameters after each step
(except the last, if it is substantially less than 2x).  Alternately, you
can reset the parameters for the unsharp mask to match the total
downsampling ratio (radius equal to just slightly less than the total number
of pixels lost), but I don't have much experience with that method.

Note that you may have to reduce these values for very small image sizes,
and increase them somewhat for very large sizes, depending on image detail.




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