jfreak wrote: Bicubic resize averages for each pixel the surrounding pixels, smearing the image. So it\'s not a question of altering or not altering - it\'s a question in which way you alter it. - ENLIGHTENMENT!!!
I blamed facebook image upload for not entirely its fault.
Hehe, it was for me as well when I discovered it. To give you an idea of what a difference it makes, take a look at these two samples (open in separate tabs and flip between them):
One is the standard PS bicubic and the other one is using a multiple-step sharpen & resize.
TAGfan wrote:
Wow, that difference is definitely noticeable. If the Canon is indeed focused correctly, I would have thought it would be sharper than that.
The Canon is very sharp, it\'s just that the local contrast is so low that it is difficult to see. It could certainly be improved upon in PP (bumping clarity and USM). The software tricks won\'t of course bring it to the level of the real thing, but still it can be improved a lot in PP.
By the way, that was shot on my balcony with an overcast sky so light was completely flat - that reduces the apparent sharpness as well.
Jun 21, 2010 at 11:45 AM
Previous versions of denoir's message #8589556 « Canon 100mm IS L vs Zeiss 100mm f2 »
