Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi
I totally hate the USM "boom" look. So this algorithm looks interesting to me. However, I think FineSharp already does a pretty nice job on avoiding the USM look. So the first thing I did was look at the comparison images. But for some reason, the FineSharp image has a *much* stronger sharpening strength applied to it than the Plum image in the first post of this thread. Which makes it hard to judge which looks really better. Would you mind increasing the Plum sharpening strength for the screenshots in the first post to achieve the same subjective sharpening strength as FineSharp? That would make it *much* easier to see if plum really improves on FineSharp in quality.
Also, I prefer testing with high-quality sources instead of ultra-blurry SD sources. Maybe you could add comparison screenshots for this image?
FWIW, when comparing sharpening algos I usually prefer using a rather high sharpening strength, higher than I would use in real life, because that makes it more obvious what the algorithms are really doing.
Thank you!!  |
same sharpening strength for 3 algorithms, all 1.64
Plum looks much milder because it
ONLY sharpens the most delicate parts of the image(makes high frequencies even higher), it does not amplify low/median frequencies at all while finesharp still amplifies median frequencies..
maybe I could lower down the strength of finesharp and make it easier to compare..