Piccure+; Yet another sharpening solution

[NorthernFocus]

I'm always skeptical when another software shows up making claims that they've finally found the holy grail of... well of anything. Along those lines I recently received an unsolicited advertisement for Piccure+ which claims to be able to correct inherent softness in lenses, softness due to AA filters, and even motion blur caused by camera shake. Their stated target market is professionals owning high resolution camera bodies which "out resolve" lenses and/or have degraded images due to AA filters. They claim to utilize "adaptive deconvolution" algorithms to analyze the image. Considering that all it does is sharpen, it's a fairly pricey bit of software at $80US.

After looking at the samples on their website, in spite of my skepticism, I downloaded the 30 day free trial. I've only poked around with it for a bit but I have to say it seems to do better than USM, Topaz Infocus, or OnOne Effects. For one thing, it incorporates a denoise routine along with the blur correction. Consequently, this is the first method of sharpening that I've seen(so far) that effectively sharpens detail without enhancing noise as well. There are other ways to avoid enhancing noise but they tend to be rather labor intensive.

Bottom line is that so far Piccure+ is looking rather attractive. Everything but the price....

[Black Pearl]

I've yet to see compelling evidence that all these fancy software solutions can do anything better than SmartSharpen.

[Manfred M]

I've yet to see compelling evidence that all these fancy software solutions can do anything better than SmartSharpen.

Totally agree, Robin. I've played around with the sharpening tools that OnOne and Nik produce, and find that they are no better (and probably a bit more complex that needed; and the additional complexity buys me nothing in terms of image quality) than the standard sharpening tools available in Photoshop.

i probably do in excess of 95% of my sharpening with USM, with the rest shared with Smart Sharpen and the High Pass filter. Given the price, this is definitely a piece of software I will not be throwing any money at.

Now if the folks at Photoshop would come up with an improved noise reduction tool, that is something I would appreciate.

[NorthernFocus]

I've yet to see compelling evidence that all these fancy software solutions can do anything better than SmartSharpen.

Does SmartSharpen avoid enhancing noise? Besides, not all of us use PS

Manfred, regarding complexity, I don't believe any of the other tools are any more complex than USM in as much as they don't have any more sliders to adjust. Granted one has to learn how to use said sliders but we all had to learn the USM sliders at some point.

My current favorite method of sharpening is to use the "dynamic contrast" tool and "detail" brush in OnOne. But that method requires selective sharpening via brushing/masking to avoid enhancing noise. To my way of thinking the need for masking adds complexity.

But THE best sharpening method, bar none, is simply the elimination of the AA filter in the camera body

[rpcrowe]

I always shoot in RAW then open my images in ACR. I initially use NIK Dnoise (if required) and then use NIK RAW Pre Sharpener...

Most of my sharpening is the done using the NIK Viveza Structure Slider (either globally or selectively with aid of Control Point Technology.

I finally resize my images using OnOne Perfect Resize (AKA Genuine Fractals) and apply output sharpening.

I did a very unscientific test a while ago, copying a number of images posted to this site by members and globally applied the NIK Viveza Structure Slider. IMO, virtually all the images seemed to have benefited from that treatment and none had quality compromised...

[James G]

I too have looked at a lot of sharpening software this last couple of years particularly because of my interest in both astro-photography and insect macro. Both have some interesting issues to resolve where sharpening is involved.

To be honest, the Photoshop algorithms combined with a couple of 'home built' actions now serve me best.

That said, I recently 'discovered' Astra Image, which can be used as a plugin with PS, or as a standalone tool.

It offers Deconvolution (Deblurring, Sharpening, & 'Smart'), Denoise, Multiscale Contrast and Wavelet Sharpening tools.

I found it pretty impressive on my moon shots, and at a cost of $30..cheapest version is $10 ... after a 30 day trial..... have now added it to my my installed 3rd party plugins. (The first and only additional software in 5+ years.)

[NorthernFocus]

Thanks for the info. When I'm done evaluating Piccure I'll try the Astra. Seems to make all the same claims at half the price. Worth a look anyway.

[Black Pearl]

Does SmartSharpen avoid enhancing noise? Besides, not all of us use PS

Manfred, regarding complexity, I don't believe any of the other tools are any more complex than USM in as much as they don't have any more sliders to adjust. Granted one has to learn how to use said sliders but we all had to learn the USM sliders at some point.

My current favorite method of sharpening is to use the "dynamic contrast" tool and "detail" brush in OnOne. But that method requires selective sharpening via brushing/masking to avoid enhancing noise. To my way of thinking the need for masking adds complexity.

But THE best sharpening method, bar none, is simply the elimination of the AA filter in the camera body

* Good point, could be very interesting for those without Adobe software.

* I have and I've noticed the Fuji files are intrinsically sharper than those from my previous bodies.

[rpcrowe]

* Good point, could be very interesting for those without Adobe software.

* I have and I've noticed the Fuji files are intrinsically sharper than those from my previous bodies.

Robin, the extra sharpness might be how the camera is set up to shoot with extra sharpness dialed in.

BTW: Do you shoot in RAW or JPEG?

[Black Pearl]

Robin, the extra sharpness might be how the camera is set up to shoot with extra sharpness dialed in.

BTW: Do you shoot in RAW or JPEG?

I shoot raw with the occasional raw/jpeg but it's the raw files that are sharper. Could be the lack of the AA filter, could be a better sensor, could be the lenses (though I had good Nikon glass too) or a combination of all those.

[IzzieK]

Thanks and appreciate the link James...will look at it in the morning when I have time...

[xpatUSA]

Does SmartSharpen avoid enhancing noise? Besides, not all of us use PS

Good point, could be very interesting for those without Adobe software.

Yes, I use RawTherapee (RT) for serious work and it offers the choice of either USM or 'RL deconvolution' (but not both at the same time).

Their RL deconvolution has four sliders for radius, amount, damping and # of iterations. I find it more suited to my less-than-perfect lenses and focusing - and the same tab in RT offers several local contrast options and a very nice Impulse Noise reducer for those artifacts that can show up with generous amounts of sharpening.

RT does use a Gaussian approximation to true deconvolution; I find that care is certainly needed when setting the radius.

So, I don't feel the need currently for a separate sharpener, although I am sure that Piccure+ is better for the more discerning amongst us.

[NorthernFocus]

After a bit more testing I have to say that I'm impressed with Piccure+. It doesn't perform quite as magically as the hype on their website but I have to say it does better than anything else I've tried for recovering slightly OOF images or those shot with poor glass. IMO it's best used for capture sharpening/NR at the very beginning of PP workflow. When I get the time I'll pick out a couple of images on which I've never been quite satisfied with sharpness after PP and rework them.

The interface is so simplistic that it doesn't give one high hopes. But even on my high end machine it crunches numbers for quite some time when you tell it to go. Regardless of the positive results I'd still not likely cough up the price they're asking for it. There are other, albeit more labor intensive, solutions. They are definitely proud of their work.

[xpatUSA]

I've yet to see compelling evidence that all these fancy software solutions can do anything better than SmartSharpen.

Unfortunately, "compelling evidence" for me would be something like separate analyses made on each method after "recovering" or "sharpening" a slightly blurred slant edge. The method that produces a 9-91% rise of 1.26px with no over-shoots or over-damping would definitely be the winner.

A little light reading on that assertion:

http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/art...ess/index.html

The following is pretty good although not quite perfect according to Falk Lumo who, along with Bart van der Wolf, knows more than we'll ever learn about sharpening:

[dje]

Hi Dan

I've been doing a bit of testing sharpening software lately too, in particular those apps with deconvolution sharpening. Piccure seems to do a good job but it seems to put a very heavy load on the CPU and on my machine which has a five year old i5, it is just too slow (over 2 mins to process an image after settings have been finalised).

You mentioned Topaz Infocus above (which I've also found to be good) but have you tried Topaz Detail which at $39 is good value I believe. It has two panels for sharpening, one called Deblur which features a deconvolution sharpener similar to InFocus (but with less options), and another panel called Detail which allows you to do sharpening at 3 different detail levels. So I use Deblur initially and then fine tune on the Detail panel if necessary (which is usually not the case). It doesn't have a denoise facility but it does have an inbuilt masking facility and also on the Detail panel you can reduce the sharpness in the shadows to reduce noise.

I find that if I reduce the noise in ACR to a negligible amount, these deconvolution sharpeners don't seem to increase the noise much anyway.

Dave

[James G]

I've yet to see compelling evidence that all these fancy software solutions can do anything better than SmartSharpen.

On balance I think I'd agree with you. But, I think sharpening techniques are a bit like Chefs' knives or a Master Carpenters' chisels. For most of us there is one 'favourite' tool that is the workhorse, and I'd probably put Smart Sharpen in this category. But there are occasions when I need a more specialist tool, like my 'boning knife' or my 'spoon chisel'

Specialist wavelet/deconvolution techniques fall into the same category for me. I use them for specific types of image where it seems to me that the 'real world' effect of the technique gives me a better or more controllable result! (paraphrasing Jeff Schewe.)

By the way I'm no more a master carpenter or chef than I am a 'master' photographer ....

[DanK]

I have to admit that I have never taken the time to go through any but the simplest of the math entailed in various sharpening methods. However, I have read numerous times that Photoshop Smart Sharpen uses a deconvolution algorithm if you set it for lens blur. I have also read that the Lightroom sharpening algorithm is essentially a blend of methods and that moving the detail slider to the right will more closely approximate deconvolution sharpening. Anyone know the technical details of this?

In any case, having tried a number of sharpening approaches, I have found that the Lightroom tools and Photoshop Smart Sharpen take care of almost everything for me, although I occasionally use high pass sharpening as well.

[NorthernFocus]

...Piccure seems to do a good job but it seems to put a very heavy load on the CPU and on my machine which has a five year old i5, it is just too slow (over 2 mins to process an image after settings have been finalised)...

I agree. That may ultimately kill it for me. Takes much too long to try different settings.

...You mentioned Topaz Infocus above (which I've also found to be good) but have you tried Topaz Detail which at $39 is good value I believe. It has two panels for sharpening, one called Deblur which features a deconvolution sharpener similar to InFocus (but with less options), and another panel called Detail which allows you to do sharpening at 3 different detail levels...

I haven't tried Topaz Detail. I'll give it a look as well.

As several other have stated, ninety percent of what I need for sharpening is accomplished quite simply. Trying these other tools is in search of a solution for that ten percent that has problems imposed at time of capture and therefore needs more help.

[Bobobird]

One that I find to be more than decent is the PixelGenius PhotoKit Sharpener. Has capture, creative and output sharpening each with many options. Output comes out with its own layer so can be adjusted at will.

[NorthernFocus]

One that I find to be more than decent is the PixelGenius PhotoKit Sharpener. Has capture, creative and output sharpening each with many options. Output comes out with its own layer so can be adjusted at will.

PixelGenius appears to be compatible with PS only. According to their marketing material. Likely due to the fact it utilizes layers.

I have to say the Piccure+ is far superior to the Topaz InFocus for both improving localized contrast and producing less artifacts. I suspect the reason it takes so much more time to process is also the key to the superior results, presumably due to performing more iterations to arrive at a solution.

One thing that has become clear to me over the course of evaluating the various tools. When properly applied the deconvolution method is superior for correcting optical aberrations than traditional USM or high pass sharpening. And it is much less apt to enhance noise than USM. Of course I'm speaking in relative terms. OnOne also has a method they call "progressive" sharpening which is more tolerant of noise than USM. I'm not sure what the theory is behind that one.