Anti-aliasing (Page 2): This has nothing to do with leveling. You just don't have enough pixels. If you enlarge a low resolution image it gets pixelated.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

goldenyears wrote:

I took a photo which has a lot of straight lines. But I neglected to pay enough attention to leveling the image. So the lines have a "stair-step" appearance which I think is Do I have any choice other than to acquire yet another photo editor?

This has nothing to do with leveling. You just don't have enough pixels.

If you enlarge a low resolution image it gets pixelated.

kenArchi Loc: Seal Beach, CA

Way back in PSE 3, I remember using anti-aliasing. I would switch back and forth to see a curved line smooth out or stair step.

therwol Loc: USA

goldenyears wrote:

I took a photo which has a lot of straight lines. But I neglected to pay enough attention to leveling the image. So the lines have a "stair-step" appearance which I think is Do I have any choice other than to acquire yet another photo editor?

I have read over all of the answers so far, including my own, and I still don't have a clear picture of what's going on. Can you post the picture without resizing it in any way and store the original? Can you also mention the camera you took the photo with. (If you're using a high megapixel camera, you will have to make a copy with more jpeg compression to reduce the file size, but it the picture uploads fine, ignore this.)

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

goldenyears wrote:

I took a photo which has a lot of straight lines. But I neglected to pay enough attention to leveling the image. So the lines have a "stair-step" appearance which I think is Do I have any choice other than to acquire yet another photo editor?

Even if your camera has an anti-aliasing filter, you should not be seeing stair stepping if your files are of sufficient resolution. Be sure you are saving full size raw files or full size highest quality JPEGs. There is no reason to use any smaller sizes, unless you are too broke to buy large memory cards and hard drives.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

therwol wrote:

I have read over all of the answers so far, including my own, and I still don't have a clear picture of what's going on. Can you post the picture without resizing it in any way and store the original? Can you also mention the camera you took the photo with. (If you're using a high megapixel camera, you will have to make a copy with more jpeg compression to reduce the file size, but it the picture uploads fine, ignore this.)

Systems cant render an angled line on a grid of pixels without some "incrementing" of the height change. Same thing with a curved line. Points of a true curve will not fall exactly on the fixed locations of the pixels used to represent them. It's unavoidable, but higher resolution helps (can make the problem invisible, even if it doesn't go away), and fancy algorithms can trick the eyes to think it's not as bad as it really is. I remember early Samsung digital TVs would many times just omit inclined lines and edges when points didn't coincide with dots on the screen. Life gets better, but the underlying truth is that our world is not really digital or arranged in scan lines and columns.

therwol Loc: USA

larryepage wrote:

Systems cant render an angled line on a grid of pixels without some "incrementing" of the height change. Same thing with a curved line.

True, but if you use a high megapixel camera, even one with the typical 24 megapixels, the effect of incrementing shouldn't really be visible. I'm wondering what the OP used to take the picture. If the picture was taken with a phone and reduced in size for email, that might do it.

therwol Loc: USA

bikinkawboy wrote:

Keep in mind that more often than not, hi-tensile wire is electrified, which that fence wasn’t. If you see white or yellow plastic or white porcelain insulators between the post and wire, DON’T touch it.

I'm familiar with electified wires. Every time we visit the UK, we stay on a dairy farm, and they keep bulls for natural insemination. The owner would get calls in the middle of the night when a bull was in a neighbor's yard, and once a bull was running down the railroad tracks. They had to call the railroad to tell them to stop running the trains until they got the bull back where it belonged. "The battery was "flat" again."

goldenyears Loc: Lake Osewgo

Cany143 wrote:

... whatever other 'straight lines' your image contains are tilted some number of degrees left or right from where you want them to be, and ultimately that's what you want to 'correct' by making 'level'. ... whatever software you may have has just such a tool or feature, but you may not have come across it quite yet.

Absolutely correct in both instances. See the two images attached.

I dusted off my old copy of Gimp, which I haven't used because I thought it was too complicated. With "Transform" I was able to solve my problem. Applying the same concept as I used in Gimp to Luminar, which is what I use all the time, produced the same result. So I've learned to do something new. I have also learned that when one has a specific problem to solve, the solution is quite easily found, as compared to going from tool to tool trying to learn how to use all the features.

(Download)

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Most manufacturers have now removed anti-alias filters from their newer models. They are paying lip-service to the latest generation of enthusiast photographers who insist on sharp, sharp, sharp. Those photographers have only themselves to blame. It is easier to use editors to sharpen than it is to get rid of aliasing.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

therwol wrote:

.....if you use a high megapixel camera, even one with the typical 24 megapixels, the effect of incrementing shouldn't really be visible....

Excessive cropping would do it, even with a high res camera. I'm left wondering if the original image was so tilted it required a lot of correction. That would lose a lot of pixels along the edges and in the corners.

Cany143 Loc: SE Utah

goldenyears wrote:

Absolutely correct in both instances. See the two ... (show quote)

Most excellent, golden. I see that you possess the good taste (pun intended) to keep both versions --the 'regular' and the 'double oaked'-- of the bourbon I prefer, Woodford Reserve, on hand. And yup, its good --and is often easier than some make it out to be-- to learn new things. Good on you!

therwol Loc: USA

I've looked at both pictures you posted. I don't see any "stair-stepping" on straight lines in either one. It appears to me that the pictures are a bit out of focus, and that makes the edges of lines not as distinct as they could be to notice something like that. As far as rotating pictures, I've used many photo editors that have the feature, even to rotating a fraction of a degree.

revhen Loc: By the beautiful Hudson

I'm confused. If I take a picture where straight lines are sloping I am able to straighten the picture and then I have to crop it to eliminate the sloping sides. Usually the useful part of the photo is the center anyway. Could you send your picture to us to see the problem?

User ID

Architect1776 wrote:

What if the image IS level and the lines are not level for numerous reasons including perspective receding lines.

Then you need waaaaay more pixels.

User ID

goldenyears wrote:

Absolutely correct in both instances. See the two ... (show quote)

Hero rides into the sunset - roll credits.