Posts for: JimH123
Nov 10, 2014 23:31:14 #
It is very evident that it did the job. Now you need to do the same thing with a RAW file and see it do even more.
Nov 10, 2014 23:08:08 #
I am home from work and will now place some samples for viewing. The target is a white gazebo which is about 1 mile away. It is being taken with a 500mm Ashai Pentax manual lens. It is taken with a Sony A57 which is a crop sensor, so the effective focal length is 750mm. ISO is set to 100 and white balance to sunlight. The pictures will be a crop of the center of the picture, approximately a 100% crop. There will be two pictures for each of the following F-stop values: 5.6, 8.0, 11.0 and 16.0. The first picture of each set will be the one that is attempted to be adjusted in Lightroom. The second will be adjusted with PiccurePlus. Lightroom was carefully tweaked to try for the very best possible sharpness. PiccurePlus used the default settings only.
F5.6 - Lightroom
(Download)
F5.6 - PiccurePlus
(Download)
F8.0 - Lightroom
(Download)
F8.0 - PiccurePlus
(Download)
F11.0 - Lightroom
(Download)
F11.0 - PiccurePlus
(Download)
F16.0 - Lightroom
(Download)
F16.0 - PiccurePlus
(Download)
The original picture, F16.0 - Lightroom
(Download)
The original picture, F16.0 - PiccurePlus
(Download)
Nov 10, 2014 18:41:27 #
Not even close. I have done test pictures of a gazebo about a mile away using a 500mm lens and tried for the best I could get from Lightroom using shots at F5.6, F8, F11 and F16. The best shot was obviously at F16 where I could discern the individual slats in the roof. But it was at the resolution limit of the lens and Lightroom could do no better.
Using PiccurePlus, the shots at F8, F11 and F16 were all very similar and far, far exceed the best Lightroom could do. Not only were the roof slats clear, their edges were sharp. It was an absolute no brainer which one was doing better.
Additionally I am finding that the picture is sharp from edge to edge.
They are not using the same methods for this task. Lightroom is adjusting intensities to fool the eye into thinking the picture is sharp. PiccurePlus is doing it with sophisticated math to determine how to sharpen the picture. And I repeat, it is not even close!
I will post some additional sample pictures tonight.
Using PiccurePlus, the shots at F8, F11 and F16 were all very similar and far, far exceed the best Lightroom could do. Not only were the roof slats clear, their edges were sharp. It was an absolute no brainer which one was doing better.
Additionally I am finding that the picture is sharp from edge to edge.
They are not using the same methods for this task. Lightroom is adjusting intensities to fool the eye into thinking the picture is sharp. PiccurePlus is doing it with sophisticated math to determine how to sharpen the picture. And I repeat, it is not even close!
I will post some additional sample pictures tonight.
Nov 10, 2014 11:06:43 #
I would think that if the scanned image has been saved in TIFF format so that there is more detail stored in the file, that you should see improvements. Not as much if you use JPG.
Nov 10, 2014 11:04:50 #
Piccureplus allows you to download a 2 week trial with no limitations during that trial period. The list price is $109. If you can show them a receipt less than 2 years old for Photoshop, Lightroom, DXo or Topaz sharpening products, they will send you a code for a 30% discount. I am nearing the end of my 2 week trial and I decided to take advantage of it.
Spent time this weekend photographing a distant target at various F-Stop values and then either using as is, or slightly tweaking in Lightroom before using PiccurePlus, and the results were absolutely conclusive. Every single shot I processed turned out better than what went in.
In tests using an old Pentax 500mm manual focus lens, I was finding that a shot at F8 and processed came out far better than a shot at F16 and not processed. And in fact, it I tried at F4.5, its wide open position, and then processed, it was almost as good as the F16 non-processed.
I have tried it with a whole range of lenses ranging from medium focal lengths to long focal lengths, and in all cases, the image was improved which included sharpening at the edges as well as the center of the image.
Basically, the Piccureplus claim that you can make a $300 lens perform like a $3000 lens seems to hold water. I have found the sharpening works the best. It has ability to remove CA which also works really good. I haven't concluded if its noise reduction is better or worse than other noise reduction I regularly use, and still need to further test. I was finding that if I did some slight noise reduction in Lightroom before running PiccurePlus, that I was getting really good results.
The motion correction is still something that may or may not work. I created several images using a slower shutter speed than should have been used. In the case where there was only minor movement, it removed the movement. Where I had more movement, I got mixed results. Perhaps it will get better in future updates.
But the bottom line is that if the picture is in focus, PiccurePlus can improve the resolution past the actual resolution of the lens. And it does this through very complex algorithms which are very CPU intensive. It is not uncommon to have it crunch 2-5 minutes on one picture. (Using an 8-core, 3.5GHz PC) There is a batch mode capability with the standalone tool. It works best on RAW files. JPG files just don't have sufficient detail left in the file to allow it to work as much magic. I have also been impressed with how the overall picture looks. I know the 100% crop looks much better, but when you go back to normal size, the picture still looks much better based on the fact that edges are so much more distinct.
Spent time this weekend photographing a distant target at various F-Stop values and then either using as is, or slightly tweaking in Lightroom before using PiccurePlus, and the results were absolutely conclusive. Every single shot I processed turned out better than what went in.
In tests using an old Pentax 500mm manual focus lens, I was finding that a shot at F8 and processed came out far better than a shot at F16 and not processed. And in fact, it I tried at F4.5, its wide open position, and then processed, it was almost as good as the F16 non-processed.
I have tried it with a whole range of lenses ranging from medium focal lengths to long focal lengths, and in all cases, the image was improved which included sharpening at the edges as well as the center of the image.
Basically, the Piccureplus claim that you can make a $300 lens perform like a $3000 lens seems to hold water. I have found the sharpening works the best. It has ability to remove CA which also works really good. I haven't concluded if its noise reduction is better or worse than other noise reduction I regularly use, and still need to further test. I was finding that if I did some slight noise reduction in Lightroom before running PiccurePlus, that I was getting really good results.
The motion correction is still something that may or may not work. I created several images using a slower shutter speed than should have been used. In the case where there was only minor movement, it removed the movement. Where I had more movement, I got mixed results. Perhaps it will get better in future updates.
But the bottom line is that if the picture is in focus, PiccurePlus can improve the resolution past the actual resolution of the lens. And it does this through very complex algorithms which are very CPU intensive. It is not uncommon to have it crunch 2-5 minutes on one picture. (Using an 8-core, 3.5GHz PC) There is a batch mode capability with the standalone tool. It works best on RAW files. JPG files just don't have sufficient detail left in the file to allow it to work as much magic. I have also been impressed with how the overall picture looks. I know the 100% crop looks much better, but when you go back to normal size, the picture still looks much better based on the fact that edges are so much more distinct.
Nov 10, 2014 08:52:07 #
I am using the Tamron 150-600 with both a Sony A57 (crop sensor) and A99 (full sensor) and the shots are incredibly sharp. It is focusing quickly and right on the mark. And there is no softness whatsoever.
I am including an example taken at Moss Landing, CA of a young seal. The adults were napping about 100 feet away. This shot is using the lens at 600mm and is additionally using a Kenko 1.4x teleconverter and was shot at F16 using ISO 400 which resulted in a 1/400 sec shutter speed. This was done on the Sony A57 which is a 1.5x crop. So effectively, this was a 1260mm shot. Lens was mounted on a tripod.
I am including an example taken at Moss Landing, CA of a young seal. The adults were napping about 100 feet away. This shot is using the lens at 600mm and is additionally using a Kenko 1.4x teleconverter and was shot at F16 using ISO 400 which resulted in a 1/400 sec shutter speed. This was done on the Sony A57 which is a 1.5x crop. So effectively, this was a 1260mm shot. Lens was mounted on a tripod.
Nov 10, 2014 00:04:57 #
My entire life I have only heard them called Canadian Geese. But I googled it and you are actually correct. And this is the first time I have ever heard the term Canada Goose!
I also see that they always fly in perfect formation. I wonder what the Goose penalty is for one of them to not tow the line and fly in correct formation? I'm sure they have their ways to enforce this!
I also see that they always fly in perfect formation. I wonder what the Goose penalty is for one of them to not tow the line and fly in correct formation? I'm sure they have their ways to enforce this!
Nov 9, 2014 22:17:23 #
Hi Bruce,
Thanks for the details. I have been using a SW package called PiccurePlus and it is sharpening my pictures beyond what I have been able to do with anything else. I am guessing that this SW on a RAW file of the moon would be incredible. It doesn't work so well on JPGs since they have so much less detail. And it won't process one channel B&W. The RAW file has everything it is looking for. it can be used standalone, although I use it with Lightroom.
I have an 8" F3.9 reflector that has a wider field of view. It is a FL of 800 mm. The closeup you are able to get is awesome.
Jim
Thanks for the details. I have been using a SW package called PiccurePlus and it is sharpening my pictures beyond what I have been able to do with anything else. I am guessing that this SW on a RAW file of the moon would be incredible. It doesn't work so well on JPGs since they have so much less detail. And it won't process one channel B&W. The RAW file has everything it is looking for. it can be used standalone, although I use it with Lightroom.
I have an 8" F3.9 reflector that has a wider field of view. It is a FL of 800 mm. The closeup you are able to get is awesome.
Jim
Nov 9, 2014 11:21:34 #
What is the focal length of the 8" scope? Very nice images. It would be interesting to try this with RAW images and to do some additional sharpening.
Nov 9, 2014 00:39:16 #
I am also including an example of the MotionPlus section of this SW. The first picture is the original. I hand held the camera at 1/20 sec and the result is somewhat blurry. The 2nd picture is after the PiccurePlus SW figures out the camera motion and undoes the motion. You can best see the effect in the leaves which have distinct edges.
Nov 9, 2014 00:15:46 #
I have been trying out PiccurePlus and I am really impressed at how it is able to sharpen photos. I use it with Lightroom and it works best with RAW pictures. The claim on the Web Site is to be able to make a $300 lens produce results like a $3000 lens and from what I have seen, it is correct.
I am giving an example here of a picture on an imitation owl that is on top of a chimney a number of houses away. It is taken with a Tamron 150-600 and has been cropped to the point that the resolution of the lens is the limiting factor. This picture on the left is the original shot. The picture on the right is what it now looks like after PiccurePlus sharpened it.
Picture #2 is a 100% crop of an old shed that can be seen across a canyon and is perhaps 1 mile away. This was taken with an older 500mm Pentax lens. Top view is the original and the bottom view is after it was processed by PiccurePlus which turned it into a TIFF file and then back to Lightroom for some additional tweaking.
Would like to know if others have tried it. There is a 2 week free trial. Cost is $109, but it you have a receipt for Photoshop, Lightroom, DXo or Topaz sharpening, they will knock off 30%. The company is in Germany.
I also did a test on the section called motion plus. I had to make a blury picture doing a shot at 1/20 of a sec hand held. Had to try several different options with the SW, but eventually it solved it and produced a sharp image.
The program is very computational intensive. My PC is 8 cores and runs at 3.5 GHz and it takes a couple minutes to process a picture. Even more it I tell it to switch to its highest quality setting.
What I have found that works best is:
1) Import the photo into Lightroom
2) The only pre-adjust I do is Details/Luminance if I see noise. If I don't, then I don't change it. And I only want to adjust luminance just as little as possible. I shoot a lot of motion subjects, so I use higher ISO, which can come with noise. With lower ISO, there may not be noise. PiccurePlus can also remove noise, but I am getting better results if I let Lightroom slightly reduce the noise.
3) I then right click and choose edit-in and go to PiccurePlus which opens in a new window.
4) Most of the time, I use the default settings and tell it to process. When done, I save which produces a TIFF and exits back to Lightroom where the new TIFF file is the open file in Lightroom.
5) In Lightroom, I now add any finishing touches I want.
The last picture is a Turkey Vulture taken hand held with a Minolta 500mm mirror lens taken with a Sony A57 which is a 1.5x crop. This this picture was effectively 750mm. This shot has been processed by PiccurePlus.
I am giving an example here of a picture on an imitation owl that is on top of a chimney a number of houses away. It is taken with a Tamron 150-600 and has been cropped to the point that the resolution of the lens is the limiting factor. This picture on the left is the original shot. The picture on the right is what it now looks like after PiccurePlus sharpened it.
Picture #2 is a 100% crop of an old shed that can be seen across a canyon and is perhaps 1 mile away. This was taken with an older 500mm Pentax lens. Top view is the original and the bottom view is after it was processed by PiccurePlus which turned it into a TIFF file and then back to Lightroom for some additional tweaking.
Would like to know if others have tried it. There is a 2 week free trial. Cost is $109, but it you have a receipt for Photoshop, Lightroom, DXo or Topaz sharpening, they will knock off 30%. The company is in Germany.
I also did a test on the section called motion plus. I had to make a blury picture doing a shot at 1/20 of a sec hand held. Had to try several different options with the SW, but eventually it solved it and produced a sharp image.
The program is very computational intensive. My PC is 8 cores and runs at 3.5 GHz and it takes a couple minutes to process a picture. Even more it I tell it to switch to its highest quality setting.
What I have found that works best is:
1) Import the photo into Lightroom
2) The only pre-adjust I do is Details/Luminance if I see noise. If I don't, then I don't change it. And I only want to adjust luminance just as little as possible. I shoot a lot of motion subjects, so I use higher ISO, which can come with noise. With lower ISO, there may not be noise. PiccurePlus can also remove noise, but I am getting better results if I let Lightroom slightly reduce the noise.
3) I then right click and choose edit-in and go to PiccurePlus which opens in a new window.
4) Most of the time, I use the default settings and tell it to process. When done, I save which produces a TIFF and exits back to Lightroom where the new TIFF file is the open file in Lightroom.
5) In Lightroom, I now add any finishing touches I want.
The last picture is a Turkey Vulture taken hand held with a Minolta 500mm mirror lens taken with a Sony A57 which is a 1.5x crop. This this picture was effectively 750mm. This shot has been processed by PiccurePlus.
(Download)
ignore that tiny insert in the middle of the shed. Don't know how that go there.
Fixing the shed picture. Don't where the tiny insert came from.
Nov 8, 2014 22:30:10 #
Saw this above the local duck pond in Morgan Hill, CA.
Nov 8, 2014 22:23:07 #
Saw some White Pelicans at Moss Landing in California today. They decided to put on a flying show for me.
Using a Sony A57 and a Minolta 500mm Mirror lens. This lens is Auto Focus and I wanted to test what it could do.
Pictures were loaded into Lightroom and sharpened using a software package called PiccurePlus. I have found it has really good sharpening ability if used on RAW files.
Using a Sony A57 and a Minolta 500mm Mirror lens. This lens is Auto Focus and I wanted to test what it could do.
Pictures were loaded into Lightroom and sharpened using a software package called PiccurePlus. I have found it has really good sharpening ability if used on RAW files.
Nov 8, 2014 10:09:28 #
Here is last month's full moon. Also, the planet Uranus can be seen in the lower left.
The second shot is 6 days earlier when the moon was a half moon. A little HDR processing to handle the extremes of brightness.
The second shot is 6 days earlier when the moon was a half moon. A little HDR processing to handle the extremes of brightness.
Nov 8, 2014 09:58:17 #
