G3 Image Clarity

[Barry88]

Merchandise

About


Click Here!
Click Here
G3 Image Clarity
User: My Threads

Actions: ^ Forum | Next New >>

Forum Canon Talk
Subject G3 Image Clarity
Posted by Barry88 [CLICK FOR PROFILE]
Date/Time 1:20:49 AM, Tuesday, January 28, 2003

I have been impressed with the clarity and detail of G3 images I have seen on the net.

I do not seem to get the same clarity even though I try many settings. For example, for a landscape I tried all combinations of the following, though all images were taken with a tripod 1/640 at f5.6 (automatic by the camera), 2272x 1704, superfine.

. Manual (continuous and single) and auto focus. Manual hard to see but set it to infinity.
. No digital or optical zoom.
. ProgramAE and Landscape.

Perhaps my expectations are too high as I expect that, on my PC, the 150% enlargement to be almost as claer as 100%. Is this unrealistic? and should I expect "eye"clarity at 100% only.
I use Sony E230 screen, 1280x960, true colour 32 bit with a good graphics card.

Having seen so many others' images that are so much clearer and sharper than mine leads one to wonder if a have a "dud" G3. I expect it is just me.
Oh!. I read the manual avidly to get clues and understanding.

[gandini]

I presume you mean "apparent sharpness" when you say clarity? If so, then *all* digital images are "soft" when raw, and "sharpened" when viewed, even straight out of the camera. Each manufacturer makes a choice as to how much sharpening is done -in camera-. Canon has chosen to do very little with it's more high end cameras (all the DSLRs for sure.) The G3 seems to have less of this in-camera sharpening than my G1 did, and perhaps the G2, even though I have no personal experience with this camera.
I am told that other camera manufacturers do more sharpening with the images produced by their machines, such as Sony and Olympus.
Since the output of the digital imaging sensor is essentially a "negative" I would want the best negative I could get that allows the most chance of me producing the final image (print, etc) that I had "pre-visualized," to coin an Ansel Adams term. And since sharpening is one of the many parameters I can adjust on a digital image (but absent on a film image!) I prefer to have it under MY control, not that of the camera manufacturer.
There is a plethora of examples of how successful post-camera sharpening can be (Fred Miranda's actions, Pekka's, and others), so why get stuck with one type of sharpening that is beyond your control?
I'll stick with the soft images from the G3, thanks.

PS. Anyone comparing out of camera raw images is fooling themselves if they think this is a valid way to compare cameras. It's the final product that is important. Would you rather compare table saws, than the furniture produced with them? One is an input to a process, the other the final product of that process. Take a look at Pekka's images, or those of Don Ellis, and you'll see that these people use cameras as tools to achieve their expressive goals. They use soft cameras...

cheers,

[drisley]

What would you recommend for sharpening paramaters for a full 4mpixel image?

I usually like to use unsharp mask in photoshop on the lightness channel in LAB mode.

[gandini]

drisley wrote:
What would you recommend for sharpening paramaters for a full 4mpixel image?

I usually like to use unsharp mask in photoshop on the lightness channel in LAB mode.


USM in Lab works very well. I recently purchased Fred Miranda's new sharpening action, after using his EdgeSharpen Pro (free) for quite some time. These actions are very sophisticated and allow a lot of control and adjustment of parameters. If you really want the best in non-linear sharpening, you should try one of these methods.
Blanket use of USM is like dipping your foot in a paint can to polish your nails...

cheers,

[Leighow]

BARRY


How "bad" is your best! Would it make any sense to post all -- or part -- of an image. I know that the on-screen clarity may not be perfect, but we would better appreciate your concerns.

I have the G2 and I hand-hold all my shots (actually I bought a cheap tripod on Boxing Day). Sharpeneing ifor me is a must -- but UMS has it limits but is very helpful.

HOWIE

[drisley]

gandini wrote:


USM in Lab works very well. I recently purchased Fred Miranda's new sharpening action, after using his EdgeSharpen Pro (free) for quite some time. These actions are very sophisticated and allow a lot of control and adjustment of parameters. If you really want the best in non-linear sharpening, you should try one of these methods.
Blanket use of USM is like dipping your foot in a paint can to polish your nails...

cheers,

Is the Miranda Sharpening Action hard to use?
Would you say it is a noticable improvement on the USM, and worth the money?

[gandini]

Fred Miranda's actions are very easy to use. Try the EdgeSharpen first (free from his site). If you like it, then Paypal him $12 and get the real thing--for 2 reasons: you're compensating him for his efforts (fair) and you're encouraging him to do even more for us!

Good luck and cheers

[drisley]

Thanks, I couldnt find the free edgesharpen pro download anywhere.
Could you point me to it if you have time?

[gandini]

drisley wrote:
Thanks, I couldnt find the free edgesharpen pro download anywhere.
Could you point me to it if you have time?

In his free downloads sections of Actions is a program called ES 8-bit light. I think this is EdgeSharpen. ESpro must be no longer available. The one I paid for is FM Intellisharp (or similar.)

cheers,

[drisley]

gandini wrote:
drisley wrote:
Thanks, I couldnt find the free edgesharpen pro download anywhere.
Could you point me to it if you have time?

In his free downloads sections of Actions is a program called ES 8-bit light. I think this is EdgeSharpen. ESpro must be no longer available. The one I paid for is FM Intellisharp (or similar.)

cheers,


Thanks, much appreciated.
Would you say FM Intellisharp is as good as it looks on the samples on his webpage?

[gandini]

Good question, and one that I can answer after yesterday's PS efforts.
I'd say that Intellisharp is more subtle while being equally effective compared to EdgeSharpen. Both are superior to USM done over the entire image.

good luck!

[drisley]

Thanks, I tried Edgesharpen, and there was no real noticable difference in sharpness.

[gandini]

drisley wrote:
Thanks, I tried Edgesharpen, and there was no real noticable difference in sharpness.

drisley: are you comparing ES to USM over the entire image? While there may not be a noticable difference on some images, I'd say that on images containing both areas of soft texture and some sharp edges, a selective sharpening algorithm like ES is superior over a non-discriminatory sharpener like USM. For me this is particularly noticable on close-up portraits, where I can really sharpen the eyes and lashes, but leave the cheeks and skin smooth.

cheers,