Ultra-Sharpen is on sale!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Roddytoo, Dec 16, 2004.

  1. Roddytoo

    Roddytoo Guest

    Thanks, really useful software.
    Chris
     
    Roddytoo, Dec 16, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Roddytoo

    John Doe Guest

    I don't know if any of your are interested but Ultra-Sharpen is on sale now
    for $10. That is $5 less than the normal price. The sale ends on the 23rd. I
    just picked up another copy for my laptop and thought I would pass this on.

    http://www.ultrasharpen.com

    John
     
    John Doe, Dec 16, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Roddytoo

    Colin D Guest

    Thanks for that info, John. I looked at the demo shot of some flowers and
    bought the program immediately. Although the site says 24 to 48 hours to
    deliver the program via email (a 1MByte download), it actually was in my mailbox
    within the hour, so I was rapt.

    A downside for some would be the requirement to use Paypal for the payment side,
    with no direct payment by credit card possible. ( I was ok as I have a Paypal
    account).

    Thanks again for the info,

    Colin
     
    Colin D, Dec 17, 2004
    #3
  4. Roddytoo

    John Doe Guest

    I am not thrilled with PayPal either. Not that I have had a bad experience.
    I just don't like the attitude of the people that run it. I believe you can
    order by mail with a check or money order. It is a little slower but would
    let you order without PayPal.

    John
     
    John Doe, Dec 17, 2004
    #4
  5. Roddytoo

    eawckyegcy Guest

    Looks to me that the "flowers" example was over USM'd. Must have been
    an "accident", eh?

    It just looks like a spatially adaptive sharpen: merge the original
    with a USM/whatever sharpened form with the help of an edge mask
    derived from the original image. Can't this be done with the layers
    gizmo in PhotoSlop?

    http://www.sgi.com/misc/grafica/depth/index.html

    Explains and generalizes the idea, sourced from a paper almost 20 years
    old...
     
    eawckyegcy, Dec 17, 2004
    #5
  6. Roddytoo

    Colin D Guest

    There were three examples in the demo, the unfiltered shot; the
    Ultrasharpened shot; and a USM-sharpened shot. It seems clear to me that
    the second is superior.
    Also, Ultra-s is a lot quicker to use than USM.
    Yes, but with more time.
    This is interesting, but it ignores the change in image size with changes
    in focusing distance. With the camera-subject distance fixed, changing the
    focus will alter the size of the image, which renders the above procedure a
    bit problematic, as it requires both images to be of identical size.

    Colin
     
    Colin D, Dec 17, 2004
    #6
  7. Roddytoo

    Annika1980 Guest

    From: Colin D [email protected]
    It's ironic, but I was thinking of this technique just yesterday. And just my
    luck .... I thought I was about to invent that method, combining multiple
    exposures of different focus to make a psuedo tilt/shift lens. Little did I
    know that papers had already been written on it.

    And like you, I wondered how I would deal with the changing image sizes. I
    seem to remember trying this once with that unexpected result.
     
    Annika1980, Dec 18, 2004
    #7
  8. Roddytoo

    eawckyegcy Guest

    As I said: the USM'd image was obviously over-sharpened (leading to
    the conclusion). The dealer was stacking the deck.
    www.google.com: define:abstract

    The commentary was about the spatially adaptive nature of the
    algorithm, the use of the edge-mask, etc. The specific instance wasn't
    particularly relevant (I can cite other instances). However:
    Then why did the example they present appear to work?
     
    eawckyegcy, Dec 18, 2004
    #8
  9. Roddytoo

    John Doe Guest

    Actually, it wasn't. It used the same amount of sharpening that was used
    with the Ultra-Sharpen sharpened image. After looking at what you said I
    asked. They could be a little more clear on that. I asked for the image file
    they used and ran my own test and used the same amount of sharpening with
    USM and with Ultra-Sharpen and got the exact same results.

    John
     
    John Doe, Dec 18, 2004
    #9
  10. Their web site shows a very restricted number of programs that it
    works with.

    Are they just being over cautious or does it truly not work with Paint
    Shop Pro?
     
    Bruce Shellenbaum, Dec 18, 2004
    #10
  11. Roddytoo

    Colin D Guest

    Bummer, being pipped by a 20-year-old paper {:)
    Maybe some lenses with internal focus could minimise the size change?

    Colin
     
    Colin D, Dec 18, 2004
    #11
  12. Roddytoo

    Colin D Guest

    Possibly because they used a lens with internal focussing that minimized
    the size change? but not every lens will do that.

    Colin
     
    Colin D, Dec 18, 2004
    #12
  13. Roddytoo

    John Doe Guest

    It is my understanding that since it is an "automate" plug-in and not a
    regular Photoshop plug-in that it only works with the programs listed.

    John
     
    John Doe, Dec 18, 2004
    #13
  14. So, it's more of a macro than an actual plugin?
     
    Bruce Shellenbaum, Dec 19, 2004
    #14
  15. Yep, you run it, and it goes through a whole load of steps before giving you an
    image which is indistinguishable from the original.

    Well, that's my experience so far. I haven't found a picture that it improves.
    I'm going to download the one from their 'sample' page and see what it does to
    that.


    --
    Chris Pollard


    CG Internet café, Tagum City, Philippines
    http://www.cginternet.net
     
    Christopher Pollard, Dec 19, 2004
    #15
  16. Roddytoo

    John Doe Guest

    I don't know what it is more like. I didn't create it. I do know that the
    plug-in goes in the automate directory and that it appears under File >
    Automate and not the filters menu. Why I can't say, there may have been a
    reason for this over doing it as a regular plug-in, you would have to ask
    them.

    John
     
    John Doe, Dec 19, 2004
    #16
  17. Roddytoo

    John Doe Guest

    Are you using the free Lite version or the Pro version? The Lite version has
    all sets hard coded in and is designed for low to medium resolution images.
    The Pro version allows you complete control over the sharpening.

    If you are not seeing a difference then you are doing something wrong.

    John
     
    John Doe, Dec 19, 2004
    #17
  18. I'm using the free lite version just now.
    I think I was expecting too much from it, using it on high res images. I tried
    it on a smaller image and there is a difference.

    Thanks
    --
    Chris Pollard


    CG Internet café, Tagum City, Philippines
    http://www.cginternet.net
     
    Christopher Pollard, Dec 22, 2004
    #18
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.