[biz-engineer]

suggested defaults are usually too high, unless you like your shots oversharpened to death.

hum yeah.. it depends. From what I've seen, if a file contains good details already (e.g medium format file, prime lens, no upsampling), the amount of sharpening is very little. If the input image is blurred, the default sharpening ends up being way too much. Another thing is the AI thing, which sometimes gets confused, e.g sharpening of smooth clouds or smooth water areas in an image; e.g trying to focus the background that is naturally out of focus (thinking this is a focus error from the camera). That's why there are masks. So, for me , the sharpening algorithm is better than conventional unsharp masking, but the AI part of the software can be great when it works, or much worse. We have to know what we're doing with this software.

[kh1234567890]

Another thing is the AI thing, which sometimes gets confused, e.g sharpening of smooth clouds or smooth water areas in an image; e.g trying to focus the background that is naturally out of focus (thinking this is a focus error from the camera). That's why there are masks.

Sharpen seems to be pretty good at deciding what needs sharpening, even without masking.

[biz-engineer]

Sharpen seems to be pretty good at deciding what needs sharpening, even without masking.

Depends which mode is used. I used Focus mode on a test image of a tree trunk with beach, sea, clouds slightly out of focus in the background. It decided to sharpen about half of the background area.
Out of the 3 modes (sharpen, stabilize and focus), sharpen doesn't seem to change textures , stabilize modifies part of the image that have directional blur (e.g anything that looks like motion blur even if it's not , such as an architectural detail in perspective and slightly out of focus will be understood as motion blur by the AI engine), Focus replaces out of focus areas by textures from its database, so I happen to get get some kind of crocodile skin replacing gravel concrete floor that was slightly out of focus. That's why, the tool offer a preview of the original and the 3 sharpening modes side by side in the same window, so that a human can make a wise choice.

[Mooncatt]

Focus replaces out of focus areas by textures from its database, so I happen to get get some kind of crocodile skin replacing gravel concrete floor that was slightly out of focus.

Now that's funny. Have a sample of the croc flooring to show us? Lol

[kh1234567890]

Focus replaces out of focus areas by textures from its database, so I happen to get get some kind of crocodile skin replacing gravel concrete floor that was slightly out of focus.

You mean like this ? This is caused by too much sharpening and/or by using wrong AI model.




(Click image and then click again to enlarge in Flickr)

[biz-engineer]

You mean like this ?

Exactly, yes.

---------- Post added 20-05-21 at 22:03 ----------

I also found that Sharpen AI automatic setting over-sharpen soft images, and under-sharpen high resolution images. I guess it compares overall image detail relative to pixel count. That approach isn't ideal for printing, because the amount of sharpening for printing is done to correct for softening by the print process, so even an image containing lots of details still need to be sharpened before printing. Same with regards to noise reduction, as digital silver prints naturally smooth digital noise, there is less need to reduce noise for C-prints than there is for showing images on an electronic displays.

[kh1234567890]

I guess it compares overall image detail relative to pixel count.

The auto setting process seems far too quick for Sharpen to be doing any too complex analysis of the image.

I agree that the optimum amount of sharpening depends on how the image is going to be viewed. In that respect Sharpen is a pixel-peeper's dream as it makes up texture detail right down to a crazy pixel level. I tend to use it cautiously and what I liked about it was that it did not give unwanted sharpening halos. Topaz have managed to break this in the current version and with my graphics card.

[biz-engineer]

The auto setting process seems far too quick for Sharpen to be doing any too complex analysis of the image.

That's also my observation for the Sharpen mode. The auto-settings (sharpening amount, and noise reduction, for all three modes: sharpen, stabilize, focus) are simply base of file size / pixel count, I don't think the auto settings are content aware (I may be wrong).

[gatorguy]

That's also my observation for the Sharpen mode. The auto-settings (sharpening amount, and noise reduction, for all three modes: sharpen, stabilize, focus) are simply base of file size / pixel count, I don't think the auto settings are content aware (I may be wrong).

Assuming I do all the right things and end up with an image that's pretty nicely focused I've still found Topaz Sharpen with the "softness" setting makes the final render even cleaner while avoiding any of those giveaway sharpening artifacts.

[biz-engineer]

Assuming I do all the right things and end up with an image that's pretty nicely focused I've still found Topaz Sharpen with the "softness" setting makes the final render even cleaner while avoiding any of those giveaway sharpening artifacts.

Works well. Like drinks, sharpening is to be consumed with moderation

[Peter_JDH]

Has anyone compared AI sharpened images taken on vintage lenses in comparison to unsharpened images taken on modern FF lenses? The fact that Sharpen AI can create an even sharpness corner to corner on pictures taken with older glass makes me wonder if the older lenses effectively increase their stature relative to newer offerings. I don’t have a K-1 to experiment with.

[robgski]

A week ago I was taking pix at a family member's wedding for my own purposes. This weekend, I used Auto-Sharpen in all types, and overall I am becoming even more impressed with the results. I am sure if I were to take the time to learn to use custom or manual inputs, as well as the masking feature to select the parts of an image that I want to sharpen, I'd be even more pleased. I intend to post a few comparison images next weekend as work and family commitments permit.
As a reminder, I've started a Topaz AI user group on PF, please feel free to add your own examples.

[biz-engineer]

Has anyone compared AI sharpened images taken on vintage lenses in comparison to unsharpened images taken on modern FF lenses? The fact that Sharpen AI can create an even sharpness corner to corner on pictures taken with older glass makes me wonder if the older lenses effectively increase their stature relative to newer offerings.

Topoz Sharpen AI has no effect on the lenses. After applying sharpen AI to both images from new and old lenses, images from new lenses are still superior to images from old lenses. For a fixed goal of image enlargement, ideal sharpening technique can make it possible with image from old lenses when the perceived print quality wouldn't have been great without good amount of sharpening. The same holds for new modern lenses.

[robgski]

For a fixed goal of image enlargement

FYI, I've found Topaz GigaPixel to do a very good job of enlarging images. I've used it for scanned 4 x 6 photos, as well as for enlarging extremely cropped photos. I have not tried it after using Topaz Sharpen, I must add that example to my next comparison.

[biz-engineer]

Well, the reason I chose Sharpen AI and not Gigapixel AI is that I try to avoid artificial image content to be added to my images, I prefer to use sharpen AI because it uses AI to distinguish where noise can be reduced and where detail can be enhanced, but still allow manual control of include/exclude masking, which I think isn't possible with Gigapixel AI.