Capture Sharpening: 1DS-Mark II

[skahn]

Am I correct in assuming that the "Digital High-Res Sharpen" setting is the most appropriate for Capture Sharpening with the new EOS 1DS-Mark II?

Separately, any clue as to when ACR will support the new RAW format used by this camera.

Thanks,
Stephen

[Jeff Schewe]

We don't know yet. . .I have my Canon Explorer camera on order and it's supposed to be one of the first production units off the boat this week or next. We'll test it to see. Chances are Bruce and I will test it and find we really need to add another catagory for it and the 22MP cameras.

As for Camera Raw support. . .I would "guess" soon after the camera ships in volume. . .

[JimGoshorn]

Hi Jeff,

Please keep us informed on your findings. I have mine on order and should have it next week or the following.

Thanks!

Jim

[Stephen_Scharf]

Would that be "Digital Very High Res Sharpen" for this new category, or maybe, taking a cue from mountain bike racing, "Digital High Res Sharpen Mo' Extreme"? ;)

[CGPhillips4]

To pile on to this topic, Canon's recent 20D is 8 megapixels, which the PhotoKit Sharpener literature would recommend as the starting point for Digital High-Res. Should High-Res be used for the 20D, or is Medium-Res most appropriate?

[Francis Lepine]

The user manual says High-Res.

Francis

[Bruce Fraser]

On the 30-odd 20D images I've been able to test so far, Digital High-Res always produced a better result than Digital Mid-Res (which is what we'd expected).

I have a 20D on order—if the recommendation should change I'll be sure to let everyone know, but I'm pretty sure that DHR is the right choice.

[Jon Roemer]

I'm finding that the PK Capture Sharpener is not playing too nice with my 1Ds Mark II files. It is hard too judge though. I have a file that certain parts of it look better in Med-Res>SuperFine and other parts look better in High-Res>SuperFine. Anything above SuperFine looks pretty bad.

In general it's creating noise and blotchiness. In some cases running USM (300%, 0.3, 0) looks better. The noise and blotchiness is reminiscent of an earlier version of PK Sharpener that did not play nice with 1Ds files.

I'm also wondering if a 16.6mp file at 100% should look a touch crunchy when run through an initial capture sharpening? You certainly are never going to view it at 100% and on my screen at 300 dpi it would be at 24%.

Jon Roemer
www.jonroemer.com

[Bruce Fraser]

What can I say? I haven't seen a file from a 1DsMkII yet. But I wouldn't want capture sharpening to look crunchy at actual pixels no matter what the file size.

Watch this space is about all I can say at this point.

[Jon Roemer]

That's what I suspected...

If you need me to forward you any files contact me off-list.

Thanks,
Jon

[Jon Roemer]

Bruce,

Just as a follow up: the files I've tried PK Sharpener on were processed from Raw through DPP. I don't know if that plays any role in how well the two interact. Normally, I use ACR and I'll switch to that once I get the beta.

Thanks,
Jon

[johnkraus]

I'm also not pleased with Capture Sharpening and the 1DsII. Talking mostly about portraits. Using Digital Hi-Rez Sharpen and Medium Edge Sharpen. The trouble is with the Light Contour sub-layer, particularly in hair- the sharpening looks very artificial. If I turn the opacity on that layer down to about 30% it looks better, but by that point the sharpening is barely noticeable.

I've also noticed a similar issue with capture sharpening Kodak 645 Proback images, so it might be less related to the particular characteristics of 1DsII files as much as problems when sharpening images of this size.

Just trying normal USM in PhotoShop at recommended 300, .3, 0 as a starting point, the results are often more pleasing. Any suggestions welcome- I remain a big believer in PhotoKit, but am losing faith in Capture Sharpening.

[Jon Roemer]

Just trying normal USM in PhotoShop at recommended 300, .3, 0 as a starting point, the results are often more pleasing.

I agree that for the time being the 300, .3, 0 combo of USM works well as a starting point with the 1DsM2 files. It's also what Canon recommends (FWIW).

I look foward to what Bruce and Pixel Genius crew can cook up for 1DsM2 Capture Sharpening.

Thanks,
Jon Roemer

[Bruce Fraser]

John,

For portraits, Wide Edge is usually a better setting than Medium Edge. If you'd like to send a sample file or two to me at bruce@pixelgenius.com I'd like to take a look—I'm sure there are things we'll want to tweak for the very high-res cameras that didn't exist when we built the basic routines, but the Edge Width parameter is still a critical one.

Bruce

[johnkraus]

Bruce,
Wide Edge does work a bit better in terms of Light Contour looking better. However PS USM @ 300, .3, 0 still seems to be doing a better job for my eye. It seems the PK Capture Sharpen makes the light areas (like blond hair) too light, and the dark areas (say eye shadow) too blocked. At the same time middle areas (say eyes) are not as sharp. At detente settings. I'll try to send you a file if the differences hold up rezzed down.