GIMP users: Wavelet Sharpen better than PS Smart Sharpen?

Recently I downloaded and installed the Wavelet Sharpen plug-in for GIMP. Using Amount=0.6 Radius=0.3 it seems

superior to Patrick's Photoshop Smart Sharpen guidelines.

<p>

If you want to compare you can go to <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/3938130112">this gallery</a> and

click on the Originals of two guys standing in a hot-spring pool. The <b>psss</b> is downsampled 50% with Bicubic, then

Smart Sharpened in CS2 amount 100% radius 1, etc. The <b>gpws</b> is downsampled 50% with Lanczos, then Wavelet sharpened. No other edits in either case. The GIMP image has sharper Yucca plants, it is easier to read the logo letters on the green shirt, and the file size is smaller than from Photoshop.

<p>

Wavelet Sharpen might be good for out-of-focus pictures, kind of like Focus Magic, but I have not fully investigated the proper settings. I believe Focus Magic is still the big winner for camera-shake blur.

<p>you just killed my workflow. thx</p>

<p>it must be me.. because i dont see much of a difference between the 2?.. i mean i can see when pixel peeping some *things* but if you where printing both and mix them i cant say witch one is witch...</p>

<p>maybe if you can produce a bigger original? or a crop version .. but then again, i rarely have a look at a small logo to see if the image is sharp or not ; )</p>

<p>maybe a expert of Gimp can provide some info?</p>

Yes, I admit it isn't much better. But GIMP does not have Smart Sharpen, so I have been feeling like a 2nd class citizen until now. Unsharp Mask is awful on an LCD monitor (except when used with large radius for local contrast enhancement).

<p>i like to smart sharpen in lab color, patrick will probably ground me... but i think it a more fine sharpening.</p>

<p>well in that perspective i think that Gimp offer a good alternative when people dont have the big Photoshop ; )</p>

<p>I think you where showing a better way of sharpening using another soft....</p>

<p>as for the Lab mode, i stop fighting about it... LOL! .. just so you know, you can also apply the smart sharpen with the luminosity mode and get the same result.. just my 2 cents ah ah ; )</p>

Yup, with amount=2.4 radius-0.6 (for example) Wavelet Sharpen makes blurred pictures look pseudo in focus. I was sitting in my kayak holding onto a rock, bobbing up and down in the waves, and took several pictures of this waterfalls we had just run. This one was out-of-focus, probably motion blurred, but after treatment looks about as good as the next one that came out in-focus. Had to select the sky and calm water, then invert, to avoid sharpening those parts. You can see I missed some bubbles in the bottom center. The sharpened image is larger than the good one, but this is possibly a useful technique when you don't get the shot you want.<div></div>

<p>Im sorry but the photo with the water doesnt look right and over sharpened. What I am supposing it suppose to be bits of light reflection look like spots. Even in the trees. It probably would have look better a bit blurry.</p>

Yes, I agree. Probably Focus Magic can do better but it costs money and runs only on Windows. Here is the following (sharp) frame, Lanczos downsampled.<div></div>

<p>I still see tiny white specs peppered throughout (a bit like dandruff) especially in the foreground rocks and water just as it is on the first.</p>

<p>FYI, Bill, I find Focus Magic unequaled for capture sharpening, and for the common scenario of restoring crispness to images just slightly out of focus. But I find its motion blur correction too fussy to be useful. The out-of-focus correction requires the adjustment of one variable, the pixel blur width. The little sample in the preview window usually pops right into focus when I find the right setting. It's very easy and very effective.<br>

The motion blur correction is another story entirely. It requires two adjustments, the blur direction and the pixel blur width. I find getting the right combination of settings extremely difficult while squinting at the little window, and I often give up in frustration. Photoshop CS3 has a similar motion blur correction, with a larger preview window. I find it not much better.<br>

There probably are deconvolution algorithms that can effectively compensate for motion blur. JPL has used such things for decades to clean up images from space probes that fly by planets. I just haven't seen a usable and effective implementation for earthbound photographers.</p>

 

Ted, thanks for your post. Photoshop CS2 motion-blur correction did not work no matter what I tried, so perhaps Adobe improved it in CS3. Agreed that it is difficult to do in Focus Magic. The trouble with the image I tested was that blur direction was somewhat curved and blur width changed with focal distance. Guess I would have bought Focus Magic if I had more out-of-focus pictures, but usually they come out sharp enough.

 

Tim, this is the conundrum of contemporary digital photography. Cameras have so many megapixels now that downsampling algorithms can't keep up. Those white spots are actually bubbles in the water caused by the waterfall. This is actually a river of champagne! (joking)

 

Speaking of downsampling, GIMP Wavelet Sharpen works poorly with downsampling, much worse than ImageMagick adaptive-sharpen or unsharp (mask).