Quote:
Originally Posted by RobC
Mike,
I really don't know what you are on about trying to discredit PI's deconvolution procedures.
|
Huh? wha tha? I'm not
sorry if you have misinterpreted this Rob, that was not my intention, it is mostly just the amount/settings that get used, or how it is blended in with unfiltered data, same as for any filter in any piece of software.
Quote:
There are many schools of image enhancement. You have yours , and there are many others. None has the insight to know how an object should appear so there are many interpretations. To imply one interpretation is false is nonsense. 
|
I am not implying that an interpretation is "false" just that the detail can be manufactured from essentially corrupted data and this is inherent in the whole sharpening deal no matter what the software. It's just that some filters/processing techniques can be a bit obvious if not careful and usually we try to avoid this or it looks unnatural. The only way to really completely avoid unnatural looking sharpening routines is to have perfect optics under perfect seeing. If the filters used on an image can be identified then that is probably a sign that they may have been applied a little too hard, that's all.
Mike