focus magic- ?

[tramp]

hello, all. hope things are "on top of the world" with you!
more questions-
1- is anyone acquainted with the photo sharpening software "Focus Magic"? i ran across it on their website [www.focusmagic.com]. as i understand it, it is a sharpening [plus improved focusing] tool for photo files. they have a free download for one to try it on 10 photo files. i downloaded it and am getting some "test" photo's together to take to walgreens, for a comparison to the originals. on computer screen it looks good. they "advertize" its advantages over using usm. a 10 mb jpeg 12 file takes 5-7 minutes to complete. slower than usm, but it seems to take the "guess' work for me out of usm [ as to whether i have the correct values for amount, radius and threshold or not]. the down side seems to be the length of time to sharpen the image compared to usm, but at this stage it "appears" considering. the cost of the software is $45.00.
2- if anyone knows about it, please pass along your evaluation. if it is something that's not "credible" i would like to know.
3- thank you-

tramp

[Elysian]

I use FocusMagic for half a year now. I personally think that unsharp mask is too time consuming if you want to get it right, especially if you have lots of shots to correct. I've also used high pass sharpening using the highpass filter in Photoshop and I also get good results with that.
I have good experiences with FocusMagic; it's fast, stable and it does a clean job.
Avoid using too much sharpening though, which creates halos, a problem with all sharpening tools and techniques. In general I keep the blur width low (most of the times 1 or 2, depending on the resolution) and fiddle a bit with the percentage. This works better to avoid halos in my opinion. I've tried a lot of other products and my experience is that some are slightly better, but it's hardly visible with the naked eye. The question is; do you want the best solution possible and spend several minutes to sharpen a single photograph or do you want somehting that does the job in 10 sec with very good results? The choice is up to you ;)

[tramp]

thanks so much, Joe D. i believe i'm going to acquire focus magic. i got some "test" photo's back from walgreen's today [comparing the "originals" to "usm"and "focus magic", using the same print on each]. the focus magic and usm both were an improvement over the orginals,with focus magic having a slightly better print. if there was someone in my area to physically SHOW me the "in's and out's" of usm to where i had some assurance of doing it "optimally" i would be satisfied with it. but with about 2500 slides [50 years of "favorites"] scanned with a nikon ls-40 film scanner, [at 2900 dpi] "optimized" in ps 6.0 as a tiff, changed to jpeg 12 [highest resolution and lowest compression in jpeg], then burned to cd-r's, i want this final job of sharpening to be "optimal". so being essentially a "novice", at least with usm, i feel i can't go wrong with focus magic. i plan to have Shutterfly make 4x6 prints and i'll place them in an album. questions-
1- i have understood that the final steps before going to print [with a photo file] is to "image size" it, THEN lastly apply usm [because usm is so " image size dependent"]. shutterfly does not require the step of "image sizing" as they can print whatever size print one requests. with that being the case, in using focus magic, is it " image size dependant" like usm? or can i "skip" that step and apply focus magic to the 10 mb jpeg photo and not jeprodize the resulting print, no matter what size it is printed? up to this point i think i'm ok in the steps i've undertaken in all of this project. i don't want to "mess"any thing up from here on out. i want as "optimum" a quality print as i can get in the end.
2- you said to avoid doing too much sharpening. in using focus magic i just left it 100% all the time. is that ok? or can one "enhance" a photo more sometimes by varying the % and blur width?
3- explain how one tells if there is too much sharpening.
4- i've read about "haloing", but with it being new to me , i may not recognize it if i got it in a photo. explain.
5- in your next to the last sentence, i wasn't clear on which method was the several minutes? and which was the 10 seconds? clarify.
6- you said you keep your blur width low depending on resolution. explain the resolution part. the resolution on my jpeg 10 mb files shows 2900 when one opens up the "image size" window.
7- your help is appreciated-

tramp

[Elysian]

1. That's all depends what you mean by image size independent.
Imaging software has to make guesses when an image has to be sized down. It uses different methods for that (bilinear, bicubic). The result is always an image that is less sharper.
Always downsize in steps, you'll get better quality.
Whether you use USM or FocusMagic, both have to be the last step, no matter whether you downsized or not.

2. Yes, sometimes less or more is better, experiment

3-4 A good indication is halos. Halos; dark or white edges around objects (compare left image with right image). You can't avoid them totally though, but avoid making them extreme.
Other indicator is diagonal lines. Too much sharpening will increase the 'steps' in diagonal lines and suddenly these 'steps' are more noticeable by the viewer. Other indication is too much contrast. Part of sharpening images is a selective increase in contrast. That's why sharpening is nothing more but an illusion. It can't retrieve pixels that weren't there in the first place.
Too much sharpening creates too much contrast like in the example with the lion (left-original, right-too much sharpening). The best way to figure out what's too much sharpening is experimenting. I'm a heavy photoshop user since several years, so I can tell in general by watching at an image without seeing the original whether too much sharpening was used.
It's the same with color corrections. I can see color casts that few people see, just by looking at a photograph, simple because I've retouched so many photographs that I have learned to 'see' what's actually wrong with a shot. But color casts can be detected with most imaging software, there is however no tool that will tell you whether you've applied too much sharpening.
Compare it with audiophiles who can tell the difference in audio quality that isn't noticed by the majority of listeners. It all comes to practice.

5. Corrections in focus magic take less time than the the more advanced products

6. It all depends what your target is; is it the web or is it a printer and if so what kind of resolution do you print. See, an 800x600 image can have a visible halo in the preview window, one that will probably be visible when you print the image on an ordinary printer. However, the same kind of halo, but then visible in a 3200x2400 image is probably not visible when you print that image on that same printer, with the same size but different resolution. In that case it's allowed to use a higher blur width than with the 800x600 image, because halos will be less noticeable.
It does help to understand all this if you have some understanding about resolution, otherwise it can be quite confusing.

[tramp]

thanks JoeD, for the extent /time you took to explain what you did to me. it is appreciated.
in #1 of my last message to you, i was speaking of what Roger Rowlett [who frequents this forum] said some time ago that [quote} "usm is so 'image size" dependant". i then was wanting to take a jpeg 12 [10mb] file and apply usm to it [thinking that that would apply to all print sizes [such as 8x10, 5x7, or 4x6's] and Roger said that FIRST one has to "image size" a file [such as to a 4x6 @ 300dpi} THEN lastly apply usm. because different print sizes reguire different "amounts" of usm. in other words, one usm "setting" does not apply to all "image sizes" like i was then wanting to do. i was NOT saying "independant" like you wrote last. questions-
1- you mentioned in #1 [last time] to "always downsize in steps, you'll get better quality". put that another way, as i didn't understand the "downsize" and "steps".
2- why is it when, when one applies "focus magic" to a jpeg12 file it "drops" in file size? on two files recently, one was 11.3mb and the other a 7.1mb, after applying "focus magic" [no "image sizing" was done], they then were 4.18mb and 2.6 respectively. why is that? whenever i've used usm, if anything, the file size "might" increase slightly.
3- thank you, again. hope your day goes well.

tramp

[Elysian]

Sorry Tramp, was away for a while ;)

1- you mentioned in #1 [last time] to "always downsize in steps, you'll get better quality". put that another way, as i didn't understand the "downsize" and "steps".

Downsizing is making the image smaller by using Photoshop's resize command.
With steps I mean resizing in steps. Example: instead of going from 2100x1200 in one step to 700x400, resize for example first to 1400x800 and then resize again from to 700x400.

2- why is it when, when one applies "focus magic" to a jpeg12 file it "drops" in file size? on two files recently, one was 11.3mb and the other a 7.1mb, after applying "focus magic" [no "image sizing" was done], they then were 4.18mb and 2.6 respectively. why is that? whenever i've used usm, if anything, the file size "might" increase slightly.

The amount of sharpening does have an effect on the final size. Take an image in Photoshop, save it as jpeg and name it org.jpeg.
Now add some USM, save the file and name it usm.jpeg.
Now undo the USM (ctrl+z) and again apply some USM and use higher values, save the file as usm_more.jpg.
Again, undo the USM (ctrl+z) and again apply some USM and use lower values, save the file as usm_less.jpg.
Do you notice all the differences in file size? ;)

So the amount of sharpening and technique(s) being used both have an effect on the final size. But since FocusMagic has the tendancy to deliver smaller images (removes more nosie or adds less?), why bother? It's a positive side effect in my opinion.

[tramp]

thanks, Elysian.
1- i did not understand what you mean't when you said "why bother". bother with what?
2- i plan to have Shutterfly print to 4x6's, several thousand jpeg12 photo files that will be on cd-r's. i plan to apply magic focus to these after they are resized to 4x6 in ps 6.0 [prior to burning]. i have a cross section of exposure on these overall files from being "blurry" to being "right on" in exposure. i have taken a few "test photo files" to walgreens [varying in exposure from "right on" exposure to "blurry" and "in between" on exposure] and compared focus magic's "recommended" settings of amount and radius to ones that i applied a little less of amounts and radius. the latter seemed to be better as the former tended to "over sharpen" you had told me earlier that you do not use a radius over 1 or 2. this is what i used on the "lesser" photo's and left the amounts at 100%. the only exception was in badly "blurred" files i just applied a little lower value on each than what focus magic recommended. this was all a "guess" setting wise for me, but they turned out fairly decent.
it seems like the "recommended" settings of focus magic generally were too strong and tended to "over sharpen". what i want after applying focus magic are files that show "some" improvement to the file, but not to the point of "over sharpening" if i send all these files to Shutterfly at one time, i can get free return shipping on them [from an earlier promotion]. however, i don't want to get files back from them that are "over sharpened".
do you have any "general" guidelines for me "setting wise" of amounts and radius so i don't run into this?
what i had thought was to-
1- not apply any focus magic to "correctly" exposed files.
2- then, generally leave the amount at 100% and the radius at 1 or 2 on the bulk of the files that are "close" to correct exposure, but yet need "some" sharpening.
3- on badly blurred files to have it "some" less then what focus magic recommends.
4- in fact, have all the file settings somewhat less than what focus magic recommends, in "hopes" of not having any "over sharpened".
any "general" guidelines/tips you can give me in this project would be appreciated. i'm not too clear in my mind about how much/when to vary amount, except in badly "blurred" files. all of this is pretty much a 'guess" for me {setting wise] outside of what i learned from the walgreen "test" photo's.
thank you-

tramp