Intermediate step before the final bicubic resize, old on the left new on the right:
The intermediate step (50% size) in the new one pretty much preserves the per pixel sharpness of the 100% image, which is the goal of the whole process.
The difference in the scripts:
The 5DII method uses two "Sharpen" commands before starting to resize.
In your crop, I see what you mean, but in the 1/2 downsized images above, the second shot looks way more contrasty. Given that you didn't mention different processing, that leaves the conclusion that the second one is sharpened much more. Are you really looking at the same shots as us? Try opening them in two tabs and flipping back and forth. Look at the masts on the central ship, and the roof of the buildings behind. It is as if 1 belongs to your second crop, and 2 belongs to the first crop.
No, Carsten, the second shot is far more contrasty because the first one is is extremely oversharpened - giving a white outline to every edge. When the final bicubic resize is done the dark and white areas are interpolated resulting in a lower contrast. Or to be more precise, diluted black levels.
Here's a demonstration of sharpening in action, from no sharpening to oversharpening:
denoir wrote:
No, Carsten, the second shot is far more contrasty because the first one is is extremely oversharpened - giving a white outline to every edge. When the final bicubic resize is done the dark and white areas are interpolated resulting in a lower contrast.
Here's a demonstration of sharpening in action, from no sharpening to oversharpening:
Yes, in these photos the effect is again clear. (Erm, I hadn't seen the last two-image comparison when I posted this. I think the point might be clearer in a 1x-2x comparion rather than the exaggerated 0x-3x comparison. Interesting how the dramatically over-sharpened 3x image looks quite good downsized, whereas the 0x image down-sized looks just soft, even softer than the 0x full-size.)
I have to look very hard in the first link to see the ill effects of over-sharpening directly. Only in the blue stripe of the ship on the left, and in a couple of places in the rocks do I see something unnatural. It just looks relaxed and natural. The second link gives a very contrasty impression though. Perhaps now that you have recovered the lost contrast due to down-sizing an over-sharpened image, you could back off on the contrast setting? The shadow detail in the second link gives a much poorer impression. Look at the lost wave shapes in the shadows of the boats, or in the mountain shadow on the right. Do you see what I mean? It may well be an indirect effect, but to the eye it is real.
I think the worst destruction happens in the water below and on the left of the rightmost boat. You get something that looks like a regular grid - almost like noise banding.
Anyway, as you requested, here's one version with the black levels pulled down to standard levels. This is SOOC with default raw settings, no modifications:
carstenw wrote:
In your crop, I see what you mean, but in the 1/2 downsized images above, the second shot looks way more contrasty. Given that you didn't mention different processing, that leaves the conclusion that the second one is sharpened much more. Are you really looking at the same shots as us? Try opening them in two tabs and flipping back and forth. Look at the masts on the central ship, and the roof of the buildings behind. It is as if 1 belongs to your second crop, and 2 belongs to the first crop.
Isn't that a good thing though ? Doesn't over sharpening an image actually kill the contrast ?
Certainly your correct the second shot does look to have more contrast, but it also doesn't look over sharpened, which the first one clearly does. So I would say the second shot looks better on all counts.
carstenw wrote:
Interesting how the dramatically over-sharpened 3x image looks quite good downsized, whereas the 0x image down-sized looks just soft, even softer than the 0x full-size.
That's bicubic interpolation for you. It averages surrounding pixels so for instance the white window frame of the house is mixed with the red of the house giving a blurred impression. The extreme sharpening adds an extra edge that protects the white color from being too much diluted by the red one.
It's a delicate balance. Oversharpening as a middle step works well for coarse detail - such as the window frame but poorly with fine detail such as the waves on the water where the spacing between the elements is small.
Luka, thanks for posting these, I don't even know what bicubic sharpening means
Now that I'm home, I think in your first post, I actually prefer the 5DII look more than the newer version, the 5DII looks more natural, like the 75Cron and the new M9 script looks like Zeiss on steroids.
Now, when I looked at the pics taken on your way to Lofoten, these 3 shots seem to look much more "vivid". The first shot is really beautiful, composition, lighting, color and pp. Somehow it reminds me of one of Charles earlier post at the beach, beautiful colors and I can "feel" a film like smoothness and quality to it. #3 really pops. Do you mind posting #3 with the original 5D Script for comparison?
On your last post (3 pics), I actually still prefer the 5D look, but I understand this is subjective.
Thanks Joe. Bicubic resize is the standard resize that photoshop and other application use. It works by combining each pixel with surrounding pixels. In effect it blurs the image. Hence the need for sharpening to recover the detail lost.
This got me thinking however.. I've mentioned to Carsten before that I've found the 75 Cron to be unappealing at infinity stopped down, although I could not exactly put my finger on what was wrong with it. At 100% things looked fine but my final images were lacking. So I tried the new resize routine on a typically problematic 75 Cron shot..
Luka- how did you go about acheiving your method for sharpening? I am curious as I feel like your images come out so nice and crisp, whereas mine feel like they lack the crispness that yours have.
I just sent in two rolls of film from my trip to SC to get developed and cant wait to get them back to share with you guys!
For now I have a couple shots taken not to long ago with the zeiss 50 sonnar.
Not at all. When looking at the crops I understand why you are asking this, but just look at the photos you posted for us to compare. You resized them for the web. Look at them this way, like we do.
denoir wrote:
I think the worst destruction happens in the water below and on the left of the rightmost boat. You get something that looks like a regular grid - almost like noise banding.
Anyway, as you requested, here's one version with the black levels pulled down to standard levels. This is SOOC with default raw settings, no modifications:
Luka, thanks for explaining bicubic resize, at least I know what it means now
Its intriguing that on that 3rd shot (hut and bench) with both scripts there are not much differences? On the 75Cron shot, I agree, the new version is nicer on the details and "more appealing". You should go back and redo all of the 75Cron shots?
I'm curious, what monitor resolution are you using for your pp work?
Jochen, interesting - I find the regular pattern that looks like noise banding far too disturbing to find the original one acceptable.
Joe, the difference will be evident when there is a lot of fine detail. That's not the case in that particular shot. As for the 75 Cron, I've tried a bunch of images now, but no dice. It's still a soulless hunk of metal With the risk of giving Carsten a heart attack, I consider it about as exciting as an average Canon prime No but it's quite nice for portraits but unfortunately not a very good landscape lens - at least not in my hands.
I have two calibrated HP 24" monitors with 1920x1200 resolution. They are not particularly good for photo work and I'll be replacing them with dual wide gamut NEC PA301W 30" monitors as soon as they hit the stores here. It's something I should have done a long time ago...
Ty, I don't use any magnifiers. I have tried them and I don't like them at all. For me it takes away the overview you have in composing the shot. I still think if you have a great copy of a lens, it is not an issue. My best lenses are the 75 Lux and 90 Cron V3, and no problems getting in focus shots. My 75 Cron AA and 90 Cron AA, are away being calibrated and repaired respectively. These two I have had problems, and hopefully this will be resolved soon. My 90 Cron AA, I have not seen since the beginning of November.
Ryan, great shots! I am loving your shots with the 90 Elmarit
Joe, excellent shot! Seriously great capture
Gilgabo, nice set with the X1! Please keep sharing
Kyle, very nice shots
Luka, stunning shots! Wow...what a difference!!! Thanks for these comparisons!!!
I have been running a similar script for downsizing, but with about half the initial sharpening for the first resize, compared to what I used for the 5DII, and then a very small increment between the next two resizes. Of course this was based on your findings in earlier threads Depending also on the lens used, sharpening can be critical. I find with the 75 Lux and 50 Lux, wide open up f/2.8, can tolerate moderate sharpening, but at f/5.6 I have to be very careful. The 35 Lux II and 75 Cron AA, needs much less sharpening particularly at f/4 and 5.6. Wide open for portraits, moderate levels of sharpening work well.
Seriously, Luka those shots above are superb! Love the paint like rendering that shines through now.
The comparison of the 75 Cron AA shot is much better with the new downsizing script!!! I now find the detail and colour separation really stands out particularly in the smoke plumage which is very subtle to begin with.
Joe, I can definitely vouch for the NEC wide gamut monitors. I have two NEC PA241W wide gamut monitors which run in conjunction with SpectraView II software is a direct hardware calibration, and maintains the viewed colour integrity accurately. These monitors are a lot cheaper than the Eizo's monitors, and can maintain simultaneous wide gamut and sRGB calibrations, alleviating any potential problems viewing images on the web.
Bicubic resize is the standard resize that photoshop and other application use. It works by combining each pixel with surrounding pixels. In effect it blurs the image. Hence the need for sharpening to recover the detail lost.
With the risk of giving Carsten a heart attack, I consider it about as exciting as an average Canon prime 
No but it's quite nice for portraits but unfortunately not a very good landscape lens - at least not in my hands. 
