20D sharpness test... thoughts? [56k ok now!!!]

[kawter2]

There has been a growing debate over this so I was thinking of somehting


Ok I was checking out a coupple lenses at the camera shop and I shot a few with the 85mm f1.8. Ok first let me tell you something wierd, When I open up the photo in DPP (the canon software) it looks about 15% more sharp than when I open the exact same file in PS. Call me crazy then when it is rendered in IE, the look they same (even though dpp created a 4.297mb file while ps created a 1.396mb file, with the exast same compression ratio. The thing I do notice is that even though the image is not SUPER sharp out of the box, they REALLY hold up well to PS USM. I blasted one of them w/135% @ 3px and it barely started to loose its integrity

BEWARE THESE ARE BETWEEN 1.3-4.2mb


Make sure to click the files to see the orig size

Ok here is the file taken straight from the camera
http://www.kawter.hostrocket.com/shrp_tst/IMG_0137.JPG
http://www.kawter.hostrocket.com/shrp_tst/799px/IMG_0137%20copy.jpg

This file was only opened and saved in DPP
http://www.kawter.hostrocket.com/shrp_tst/IMG_0137_dpp.jpg
http://kawter.hostrocket.com/shrp_tst/799px/IMG_0137_dpp%20copy.jpg

This file was only opened and saved in PsCs
http://www.kawter.hostrocket.com/shrp_tst/IMG_0137_nofx.jpg
http://www.kawter.hostrocket.com/shrp_tst/799px/IMG_0137_nofx%20copy.jpg

This file was opened and USM'ed 70%@1.8px & saved in PsCs
http://www.kawter.hostrocket.com/shrp_tst/IMG_0137_70w2px.jpg
http://www.kawter.hostrocket.com/shrp_tst/799px/IMG_0137_70w2px%20copy.jpg

This file was opened and USM'ed 135%@2.9px & saved in PsCs
http://www.kawter.hostrocket.com/shrp_tst/IMG_0137_135w3px.jpg
(I know this is oversharpened, I just did this to show the extreme)
http://www.kawter.hostrocket.com/shrp_tst/799px/IMG_0137_135w3px%20copy.jpg

[Scottes]

Please put a warning in the title of this thread.

Better yet, make external links.

EVEN better, 600x600 crops would illustrate this just fine.

This is a little much to accidentally click on.

[kawter2]

Warning was put 1.675 secconds after the thread was posted

[kawter2]

for some reason, if your post doen't have a cat, bird, or a kid....


No replies

[drisley]

That is bizarre.
The DPP image is definately softer.
I tried some sharpening on the 20D images from Canon, and they really do hold up well.
In addition, they hold up equally well to the shadow/highlight tool.
I took the landscape photo from Canon, and there was one mountain that was almost black. Using the PS shad/highlight tool I was able to bring out the detail in the trees on that mountain, with no noise or posturation. And that's from an 8bit jpg. A 16bit tiff should be even better.
:)

[CyberDyneSystems]

2.9% in USM? Wow!

With the 10D I don't think I ever went above .7! I have never gone up to a radius of 1.

Thanks for the examples.

[Scottes]

2.9% in USM? Wow!

For printing a full-size image I usually do radius 1.8 - 2.1. So 2.9 is not out of line for a 300 DPI print. A radius between 1/50 to 1/100 of DPI is generally perfect.

[maderito]

I'm not sure what your question is.

This shot is simply not in focus. You're using the 85/1.8 at what appears to be a wide aperture. Thus the DOF is very small - especially this close in. Possibly the camera focused on the tangle of hair just above the eyes - or perhaps the nose. It certainly is not focused on the eyes - a primary requirement to get sharp appearing portraits.

For this lens used on head shots, you need to stop down to f/5.6 or more to get adequate DOF to evaluate image sharpness.

Finally - for this kind of close in shot of a contoured face, you probably want to use only the center AF focus point with a focus/recompose technique, locking the focus on the nearest eye.

[OviV]

2.9% in USM? Wow!

With the 10D I don't think I ever went above .7! I have never gone up to a radius of 1.

Thanks for the examples.

Scott Kelby in The Adobe Photoshop Book for Digital Photographers, recommends Amount: 65%, Radius: 3 px,Threshold: 3 level as a general rule for Unsharp Mask. This seems to work well for me.