Re: Defocusing and grain

[Arthur Entlich <artistic-1@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Kennedy,

I tried both .8 and 1.2 in my unscientific process.  When I have a bit 
more time, I will do more experimentation with this.  I'm sure there is 
some advantage to be had, but that the parameters need to be quite 
precise to get optimum results.  I suspect I overly defocused.  SInce 
the Minolta only has a couple of non-referenced bars it is hard to 
calibrate the level of defocusing.  And the software interface and 
mechanics of the scanner focus mechanism are imprecise.

Art

Kennedy McEwen wrote:

> In article <3CB3E9FB.2060304@shaw.ca>, Arthur Entlich 
> <artistic-1@shaw.ca> writes
> 
>>
>> This creates a noticeably soft result.  The "good" part about it is it 
>> reduced grain and dirt/dust considerably.  The bad part is that 
>> although  I had many less of the typical speckled  type of sharpening 
>> artifacts, when I used USM, the amount of USM necessary to make the 
>> image look sharp created a different artifact - overly accentuated 
>> edge definition.
>>
> What USM parameters are you using?  I would expect that the radius 
> should be one pixel or less for the level of defocus that would be 
> sufficient to reduce aliasing to an acceptable level.


-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.