in praise of RawTherapee, "Amaze" demosaicing algorithm

Started Jun 10, 2011 | Discussions thread
RussellInCincinnati
Senior MemberPosts: 3,186
Like?
point-shaving
In reply to RussellInCincinnati, Jun 26, 2011

GaryW:Why bother with deconvolution or any sharpening then, if you're not going to zoom in on that level of detail?

Good question, leading to some useful experiments, and agreed. For example have just posted that there is no advantage to the Amaze demosaicing plus RL deconvolution at normal print (i.e. display) sizes, unless there's a moire problem (which is not frequently the case).

As for the huge print sizes, my original post was showing that there is more sharpness that can be extracted by Amaze demosaicing plus RL Deconvolution from Nex raw files, than you can get with AHD demosaicing. And my unsharp mask samples showed that you can't make up for that sharpness in an AHD image simply by applying an unsharp mask.

You keep hitting on the point that you don't like my unsharp mask application to the magnified sample images, because it "oversharpened" them. I must not be making it clear that the unsharp masked examples were only shown on this forum as part of a demonstration that the lost sharpness of the AHD demosaicing could not be simply recovered. I was not meaning to recommend that everyone should apply the same unsharp mask to real images that I applied to my samples. Thus my comment to you about the "oversharpened" sample images is not really to argue with you, it's just to point out that it's not real important that the sample fragments are oversharpened.

GaryW: I'm just saying, if you're going for the best pixel-level resolution, don't overcook the sharpening and mess it up.

OK, agreed, when am not posting exaggerated-fine-detail examples on the Sony Nex forum, it would be better for me not to oversharpen my client's images.

Russell: Anyway, the overall point of interest in this thread is not to show a workflow that is "good" in any absolute sense.

GaryW: That's fine, but I take opportunities to try to get people to think about sharpness, as most people overdo it, IMHO.
OK, I see.

GaryW: But...[in arguing for not showing us oversharpened test images] I like to make comparisons of real-world, this-is-how-I-would-do-it over perfectly-and-arbitrarily-"fair".

Agreed that it would have been better for me to show exaggerated-for-fairness-and-didactic-purposes examples, and also should have shown real world workflow examples. Have indeed done a bit of that in my post just a couple of minutes ago, showing my real workflow on a real job resulting in normal sized images. And interestingly in that realistic, normal-print-size workflow there is no advantage (or even perceptible difference) to Amaze demosaicing and RL Deconvolution.

GaryW: But as long as you are clear that you're just forcing an equality of procedure to prove a point, that's OK
Well I must not have made that perfectly clear.

GaryW, but since deconvolution is just another kind of sharpening, I'm not sure you really have to run it through the separate sharpening technique. As I said, if you really think it needs touching up, I'd try a small radius. Often I find deconvolution to be sufficient.

My results with Amaze+RL deconvolution suggest that while it does induce some jaggies (as CK3 I think noted), it doesn't produce as much haloing around edges of things as does unsharp mask. RL Deconvolution is a much different sharpening algorithm than unsharp mask, quite of the digital era and related to the technology of the new "lightfield" camera. Unsharp mask is an imitation of procedures well known in the film era, and while I love it dearly, it does mangle the images and increase noise a bit more for a given level of crispness than RLD. Once again now am clear that AHD+unsharp mask disadvantages only noticeable at huge print sizes.

Russell: Adopting RT Raw Therapee...solved maybe half of Nex moire problems. Without blurring anything.

GaryW: I agree -- using RAW and taking that extra time is well worth it, at least for shots that matter. I also like DxO for its noise handling. I find it superior to the free RAW converters. It has its own deconvolution, but only for certain lens/camera combinations, unfortunately.

However that DxO deconvolution should be better than Raw Therapee's, in the case where you're using a lens and sensor combo that DxO knows about, and there's no motion blur or other complexifying factors that make the DxO super precise deconvolution less noticeable.

Russell: RL Deconvolution sharpening ... does not sharpen so much as to screw up later resizing of an image

GaryW: It can extract a bit of detail where you thought there wouldn't be any more to get. You can definitely overcook deconvolution, though. It's not a cure-all.

Fortunately have found Raw Therapee's deconvolution with its built in defaults to be not overcooking anything. In fact have no desire to ever touch those defaults, since the default sharpening is so great and the slight jaggies produced from the default RT workflow seem inconsequential.

GaryW: On the other hand, normal sharpening is easily overcooked and messes up your low-level detail.

Agreed, and agree that several of my posted samples in this thread show overcooking with the unsharp mask.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow