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: Sharpening after scanning (SS4000): questionforArt



I have never let the scanner software do any sharpening or resampling if I
can avoid it; and as I am learning this seems to be in line with current
thought.  The reasoning for not doing this and leaving it for post scan
editing programs are two fold, although there are other reasons as well.
First, the available means for both resampling and sharpening are typically
better and more sophisticated in the post scan third party software than in
the scanning software.  Secondly, one has more control over resampling and
sharpening as to degree and type of resampling (and more specifically
sharpening).  You can regulate the type, method, and degree of sharpening
(and even resampling) by using post scan applications more than if one uses
the scanner software. Photoshop, for example, offers from 3-4 methods of
resampling with others methods available via plugin applications such as
Genuine Fractals and others; whereas scanner software typically offers only
one method.  Scanner software typically permits only one method of
sharpening that the user has no control of ver the location and degree of
sharpening that will be applied, while Photoshop has only one method of
sharpening (the unsharp mask); but it allows the user to set the radius and
amount of sharpening that is to be applied as well as the tolerance level
where it will kick in - not to mention that you can define the areas of the
image that will be sharpened so as to do localized sharpening.  There are
other programs and plugins out there which give even more flexibility in
defining the sharpening method, degree, and type of sharpening that will be
done - Pixel Genius's Photokit Sharpener is one such application.

filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk wrote:
> questionforArt
>
>
> Are either of you allowing your scanner software to do the initial
> "slight" sharpening, or doing it post-scanning?
>
>
>
> Stan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 6:23 PM
> To: snsok@cox.net
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Sharpening after scanning (SS4000):
> questionforArt
>
>
> What you are saying makes sense, in terms of the progressive unsharp
> masking process, and indeed my own workflow sometimes includes this.
>
> One of the reasons I came to this was because I found occasional
> upsetting artifacts showing up once I had completed the manipulation
> and compositing work when I then did the large USM at the end.
> Suddenly, defects I should have corrected in masking, dust clean up,
> and other artifacts showed up where they were not noticeable when the
> image was still soft.  This was particularly so with masking
> processes.  By doing some early-USM the edges were more defined and
> allowed for better masking and cut and pasting, and even in cases of
> some types of clean up.
>
> I also suspect doing a progressive USM (even if it were done at the
> end) by in stages and steps, might allow for (ironically) "softer
> sharpening" which might look more natural, sort of like a
> fractal-like process where definition was generated by "massaging"
> the pixels into place.
>
> Art
>
> Laurie Solomon wrote:
>
>> Art,
>>
>> There is a current wisdom among many including some industry gurus
>> that because of the points you make regarding captures by scanners
>> (and I might add digital cameras), it is beneficial to apply slight
>> sharpening to an image prior to doing any editing of the image,
>> additional sharpening at the end of the editing stage with focus on
>> local sharpening, and final sharpening of the overall image prior to
>> outputting.  This does represent a sea change from the all-at-once
>> prior to printing advice that use to be in fashion in the golden
>> days of digital's youth.
>>
>> filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>> forArt
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Stan,
>>>
>>> I may have mis-spoken or at minimum, been misunderstood.
>>>
>>> You are correct that sharpening should occur prior to printing.
>>> Saving
>
>>> the image sharpened is not necessary, and may, in fact, be
>>> detrimental
>
>>> since sharpening adjustments vary depending upon final output size
>>> and
>
>>> other factors.  They may even depend upon the printer type and
>>> driver software.
>>>
>>> I cannot give you absolutes in terms settings in using unsharp
>>> masking, because it depends upon many factors.  Some include the
>>> type of image or subject matter and contract, color intensity, etc,
>>> the size the imagine is going to be reproduced to, and the scanning
>>> resolution used, the type of source material (the film base used)
>>> and indeed the type of scanner and if things like dICE is used or
>>> not.
>>>
>>> By trial and error, I have a "sense" of the settings depending on
>>> these factors, and how the image looks on the screen at differing
>>> magnifications.
>>>
>>> However, my principal point is this:
>>>
>>> All CCD based scanners tend to introduce softening which can in part
>>> be recaptured via unsharp masking.  This softness is not a defect in
>>> focus or optics or the CCD, but is intentionally introduced to
>>> reduce the amount of noise and artifacting (Nyquist errors) that
>>> develop in the analogue to digital transfer which occurs in the
>>> scanning process.
>>>
>>> No image should be compared until optimum unsharp masking is
>>> accomplished because some manufacturers will uses some USM to make
>>> their scanners appear to have higher sharpness and resolution when
>>> actually introducing this higher focal accuracy may add unnecessary
>>> and even undesirable artifacts which cannot later be removed.
>>>
>>> Keeping the image unsharpened for storage does indeed allow you to
>>> adjust those measurements to the output method and size.
>>>
>>> Art
>>>
>>>
>>> Stan Schwartz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> A while back, Art mentioned sharpening a scanned transparency image
>>>> before saving it--to restore some of the loss of sharpness inherent
>>>> in the SS4000 scan. I am curious to know what degree of sharpening
>>>> you use, in Photoshop terms re: %,radius and threshold, for this
>>>> task.
>>>>
>>>> I've usually reserved sharpening as the last step before printing,
>>>> leaving my archived image unsharpened.
>>>>
>>>> Stan Schwartz
>>>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in
> the message title or body
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate)
> in the message title or body
>
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04

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