Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[filmscanners] Re: another Sharpening question
Yeap, you're right. My terminology was sloppy. Thanks for the correction.
Art
Laurie Solomon wrote:
> Art,
>
> While I am not refuting you, I wish to elaborate on one detail that you did
> not make real clear in your response so that others will not go away with a
> misunderstanding.
>
>>A common trick of the trade is to convert the image to LAB, and then
>>only sharpen the monochromic image, leaving the color alone.
>
>
> This might more accurrately be states as "...then only sharpen the L or
> Luminescence channel...."
>
> filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk wrote:
>
>>austin@darkroom.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Has anyone tried sharpening the channels individually for a color
>>>image? Since I don't do much color, I never thought of that
>>>before...but it seems like it might be advantageous, as you wouldn't
>>>lose as much detail in the sharper channels... Any thoughts on this?
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>Austin
>>>
>>
>>
>>A common trick of the trade is to convert the image to LAB, and then
>>only sharpen the monochromic image, leaving the color alone. Since
>>the human eye responds much more to brightness levels than color (we
>>have a lot more rods than cones) that can sometimes be effective is
>>reducing color artifacting that USM can create. It's the same basic
>>principal that was used with "s-video" and super 8mm video. hey
>>increased the frequency on the luma signal, pretty much leaving the
>>color signal alone since it is much more prone to noise when "pushed".
>>
>>Art
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
|