[filmscanners] Re: another Sharpening question

["Arthur Entlich" <artistic@telus.net>]

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