Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Ultra-Sharpen is on sale!

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 16, 2004 11:17:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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

More about : ultra sharpen sale

Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 16, 2004 11:17:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:z3mwd.12548$_3.138244@typhoon.sonic.net...
>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
>
>
>
>
Thanks, really useful software.
Chris
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 17, 2004 5:04:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Colin D wrote:

> Thanks for that info, John. I looked at the demo shot of some
flowers and
> bought the program immediately.

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...
Related resources
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 17, 2004 8:45:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Colin D wrote:

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

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

>> http://www.sgi.com/misc/grafica/depth/index.html
>
>> Explains and generalizes the idea, sourced from a paper almost 20
years
>> old...
>
> This is interesting, but it ignores the change in image size with
changes
> in focusing distance.

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:

> 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.
Then why did the example they present appear to work?
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 18, 2004 12:01:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John Doe wrote:

> 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

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
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 18, 2004 12:01:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 18, 2004 2:14:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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?



On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:17:35 GMT, "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com>
wrote:

>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
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 18, 2004 9:40:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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


<eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1103334319.836830.91940@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Colin D wrote:
>
>> > Looks to me that the "flowers" example was over USM'd. Must have
> been
>> > an "accident", eh?
>>
>> 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.
>
> As I said: the USM'd image was obviously over-sharpened (leading to
> the conclusion). The dealer was stacking the deck.
>
>>> http://www.sgi.com/misc/grafica/depth/index.html
>>
>>> Explains and generalizes the idea, sourced from a paper almost 20
> years
>>> old...
>>
>> This is interesting, but it ignores the change in image size with
> changes
>> in focusing distance.
>
> 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:
>
>> 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.
> Then why did the example they present appear to work?
>
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 18, 2004 2:35:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:

> Colin D wrote:
>
> > Thanks for that info, John. I looked at the demo shot of some
> flowers and
> > bought the program immediately.
>
> Looks to me that the "flowers" example was over USM'd. Must have been
> an "accident", eh?

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.

> 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?

Yes, but with more time.

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

> Explains and generalizes the idea, sourced from a paper almost 20 years
> old...

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
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 18, 2004 2:35:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>From: Colin D ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1

>http://www.sgi.com/misc/grafica/depth/index.html
>
>> Explains and generalizes the idea, sourced from a paper almost 20 years
>> old...
>
>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

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.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 18, 2004 11:05:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 19, 2004 12:41:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

So, it's more of a macro than an actual plugin?

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 20:05:32 GMT, "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com>
wrote:

>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
>
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 19, 2004 1:41:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Annika1980 wrote:

> >From: Colin D ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1
>
> >http://www.sgi.com/misc/grafica/depth/index.html
> >
> >> Explains and generalizes the idea, sourced from a paper almost 20 years
> >> old...
> >
> >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
>
> 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.

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

Colin
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 19, 2004 1:42:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:

> Colin D wrote:
>
> > > Looks to me that the "flowers" example was over USM'd. Must have
> been
> > > an "accident", eh?
> >
> > 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.
>
> As I said: the USM'd image was obviously over-sharpened (leading to
> the conclusion). The dealer was stacking the deck.
>
> >> http://www.sgi.com/misc/grafica/depth/index.html
> >
> >> Explains and generalizes the idea, sourced from a paper almost 20
> years
> >> old...
> >
> > This is interesting, but it ignores the change in image size with
> changes
> > in focusing distance.
>
> 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:
>
> > 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.
> Then why did the example they present appear to work?

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

Colin
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 19, 2004 6:40:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 21:41:54 -0900, Bruce Shellenbaum
<iwontreply@anotherdayinparadise.com> wrote:

>So, it's more of a macro than an actual plugin?

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
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 19, 2004 10:52:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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


"Bruce Shellenbaum" <iwontreply@anotherdayinparadise.com> wrote in message
news:nk8as0p05i7bu4u7p0hbubdp0qbhtktui0@4ax.com...
> So, it's more of a macro than an actual plugin?
>
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 20:05:32 GMT, "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>>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
>>
>
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 19, 2004 10:54:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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


"Christopher Pollard" <xmastree@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:f2cas09v317172jblcb03eech380rdsprv@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 21:41:54 -0900, Bruce Shellenbaum
> <iwontreply@anotherdayinparadise.com> wrote:
>
>>So, it's more of a macro than an actual plugin?
>
> 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
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 22, 2004 4:58:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 19:54:13 GMT, "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote:

>Are you using the free Lite version or the Pro version?

I'm using the free lite version just now.

>all sets hard coded in and is designed for low to medium resolution images.
>
>If you are not seeing a difference then you are doing something wrong.

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
!