Output sharpening for web > 1024 pixels

[Joe Santos]

What options do I choose if I want to output sharpen photos that are 1280X1024, 1600X1200 for web output?

[Joe Santos]

Did this question get thrown into the bit bucket?

I tried using the Web 1024 output sharpener and my images are coming out over-sharpened.

[Bruce Fraser]

Sharpening images >1024px wide for web is simply not supported by Sharpener, because at least two members of the PG team felt strongly that we should do nothing to encourage photographers to post images bigger than that due to the likelihood of image theft.

Like all our decisions, it's one we could be persuaded to revisit if there were significant customer demand. So far you're the third person to ask, so we have a ways to go before we could call teh demand 'significant.'

[Rick Baumhauer]

Well, my preferred size for upload is 1200x800 (or the inverse), as I like the balance between quality and size that it gives (and none of my work, at this point, is commercial).

So I guess this makes me #4 :)

Rick

[msbc]

I'd just like to view my output JPG's on my 23-inch Cinema Display at max resolution - 1920x1200 - or something closer than 1024.

Spare a kind thought for owners of the 30-inch - 2560x1600!!

Make me #5.

[MaartenB]

I like to show my pictures to others using a slideshow on my laptop or another PC with a resolution of 1280x960 or 1600x1200.
That makes me #6.

Maarten

[Tim Ernst]

Yup, higher resolution projectors are more common these days and I send files that are larger than the largest PK sharpener setting too. I think it's obvious there are plenty of folks out here that could use higher settings, and with the newer high-res cameras hitting the market, I suspect there will be an update to PK sharpen in the near future, and I hope it includes these higher settings for 72dpi output - and it doesn't have anything to do with photos being stolen - I think we are able to make that decision on our own...

Tim Ernst
www.Cloudland.net

[Jeff Schewe]

Folks,

Do not think for a minute that Bruce Fraser, nor the other members of the PixelGenius teams have failed to hear what customers have said regarding the current limitations inherent with PhotoKit Sharpener's Web and Multimedia output sharpening choices and capabilities. The solution to address people's wishes is neither simple to design nor engineer.

While the ability to chose specific target sharpening for things such as halftone and inkjet sharpening is a relatively simple matrix of possibilities, sharpening for pure monitor display is not. Not only do we need to worry about the nature of the content and thus proved various edge widths, to be precise we would need to do separate sharpenings for CRTs and LCDs and projectors. We need to address the intended viewing distance as well as the image size and whether the image is somehow being resized by the system. What if your web site design dictates that your main viewing image needs to be precisely 459 pixels to fit in the design template? Say you place a 1600 x 1200 image in Powerpoint or Keynote to present a slide show on a Cinema Display, what happens if you then run that same slide show through an LCD projector at 1024 x 768 and allow PP or Keynote to resize the image to fit on screen?

To be honest, when we first looked at designing PhotoKit Sharpener, we were pretty convinced in the beginning to punt web and multimedia sharpening entirely because of the limitations and complexities. Seth strongly argued that we should do SOME web and multimedia sharpeners since we could design a very good sharpening formula for web and projector viewing and that we, ourselves needed this functionality for our web sites and our own presentations. Don't forget that while PixelGenius is a software company, our members are individuals doing PixelGenius part time. We are primarily working photographers, authors, consultants and only one of us is an actual engineer capable of writing code. Much of our design criteria is for usefulness for our own personal needs.

For example, anybody ever wonder what the '35 Positive Film METW' means? We tell people the METW means "Mean Edge Transition Width" but what it really stands for is "Martin Evening's Tiny Waifs" because Martin wanted a sharpening routine specifically for his fashion/beauty shots of young attractive females. Don't ask about the "tiny waifs" description though, it's an inside joke :-)

So, the best thing I can tell you is yes, we hear you. Yes, we're working on it. Yes, you all will be the first to know when we have something (at least the PG Beta testers will be). And yes, we do have some interesting things we're working on. But no, we're not going to ignore our users.

[Joe Santos]

Wow! I guess the question didn't go into the bit bucket. And it looks like there is a demand for more than just 1024X768 Web output!

Thanks guys for chiming in.

And thanks Jeff and the rest of the PixelGenius staff for listening and not ignoring the users. You are my kind of company!