photools.com Community

IMatch Discussion Boards => General Discussion and Questions => Topic started by: JohnZeman on March 31, 2014, 12:52:47 AM

Title: Question about viewer sharpening
Post by: JohnZeman on March 31, 2014, 12:52:47 AM
Mario am I right in thinking when we apply sharpening to the viewer that the sharpening only applies to the full size image?  If so, is there any way to change the sharpening of the scaled to fit size?  That's where I'm having an issue as in the full screen viewer none of my images are very sharp when scaled to fit.  However when I dive zoom to 100% they look good.

As a reference, if I open the same images in FastStone MaxView or the Directory Opus viewer, they look fine in scaled to fit view, it's only in the IMatch viewer they look soft.  I've changed the sharpening setting from 0 to max 5 but that doesn't seem to change the scaled to fit sharpening.

All of my images are JPGs and most are the 20+ megapixel size.
Title: Re: Question about viewer sharpening
Post by: JohnZeman on March 31, 2014, 12:58:27 AM
I forgot to post a couple of examples.  Below are two screen shots of the way the same image looks in scaled to fit size in the IMatch viewer (first image) and in Directory Opus viewer (second image).

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Question about viewer sharpening
Post by: JohnZeman on March 31, 2014, 01:15:52 AM
Further testing by changing the viewer sharpening from 0 to 5 does seem to indicate some sharpening in the scaled to fit mode.  But then the dive zoom 100% view is over sharpened.  In other words I need 0 sharpening at 100% view and a lot of sharpening in the scaled to fit size.
Title: Re: Question about viewer sharpening
Post by: Mario on March 31, 2014, 07:01:14 PM
This is actually not easy to do. IMatch 'scales' the sharpen parameters set by the user to counter softness introduced by resampling the image when displaying it at less than 100%, but there is no golden rule of effective set of parameters. Also, there are limits of how large the parameters for the sharpen function can become.

For the next built I've increased the scale ratio a good pinch - so that most of my test images look 'too much' when viewed ad 100% and at fit-to-window. A medium sharpen looks OK in both scales. Problem is, as always with sharpen, the result depends on the details in the motive, if sharpen was already applied in-camera or the processing application, and the user's individual perception of sharpness. IMatch sits in the middle between the capture and the output sharpening, somewhat.

Let me know what you think about the 152 when it's out.
Title: Re: Question about viewer sharpening
Post by: JohnZeman on April 01, 2014, 02:22:14 AM
Problem is, as always with sharpen, the result depends on the details in the motive, if sharpen was already applied in-camera or the processing application, and the user's individual perception of sharpness. IMatch sits in the middle between the capture and the output sharpening, somewhat.

Let me know what you think about the 152 when it's out.

That's me.  I always optimize output sharpening in either Lightroom or Photoshop CS6 so my 100% view sharpening is always as best as I can get.

I'll check it again in 152 and will let you know the result.

Thanks Mario.  ;D
Title: Re: Question about viewer sharpening
Post by: JohnZeman on April 17, 2014, 12:27:06 AM
This is actually not easy to do. IMatch 'scales' the sharpen parameters set by the user to counter softness introduced by resampling the image when displaying it at less than 100%, but there is no golden rule of effective set of parameters. Also, there are limits of how large the parameters for the sharpen function can become.

For the next built I've increased the scale ratio a good pinch - so that most of my test images look 'too much' when viewed ad 100% and at fit-to-window. A medium sharpen looks OK in both scales. Problem is, as always with sharpen, the result depends on the details in the motive, if sharpen was already applied in-camera or the processing application, and the user's individual perception of sharpness. IMatch sits in the middle between the capture and the output sharpening, somewhat.

Let me know what you think about the 152 when it's out.

Just wanted to report that for me with my JPGs, the viewer sharpening is much improved in build 152, looks really good for me with a sharpening of just 1 applied.  However now it appears there may be a new brightness bug in the full screen viewer that I'll start a new thread on in the bug report section.
Title: Re: Question about viewer sharpening
Post by: Ferdinand on May 31, 2014, 04:07:41 PM
For the record - I have moved the continuation of this thread to bug reports
https://www.photools.com/community/index.php?topic=2415.0
Title: Re: Question about viewer sharpening
Post by: Mario on August 07, 2014, 08:53:43 PM
Has the much improved sharpen processing introduced in build 5.1.8 changed anything regarding this?
Title: Re: Question about viewer sharpening
Post by: JohnZeman on August 07, 2014, 09:31:15 PM
Mario for me it seems to be significantly better now in the most recent builds.  But I say that with some reservation because I also said that about 6 months ago when you made some prior changes to the viewer sharpening only to realize later on that it still wasn't quite up to what it should be.

It looks you're definitely on the right track though in your efforts to get the viewer sharpening up to where it should be.
Title: Re: Question about viewer sharpening
Post by: Mario on August 07, 2014, 09:51:08 PM
Can't get better because I'm utilizing the best quality sharpening there is. Maybe check your sharpen settings? I use no extra sharpen anymore on my systems!
Title: Re: Question about viewer sharpening
Post by: JohnZeman on August 07, 2014, 10:15:31 PM
What I meant was I need to evaluate the sharpening using different settings over a longer period of time and across a wide assortment of images before I can say for sure, but it's definitely much improved on my system now compared to what it used to be.
Title: Re: Question about viewer sharpening
Post by: Mario on August 07, 2014, 10:24:45 PM
OK.