32 Replies Latest reply on Aug 15, 2010 9:37 PM by ACRFREAK

    Converting Directly to Upsampled Resolution Still Valid?

    Noel Carboni Level 7

      Quite a while back I discovered that converting raw files directly to resolutions higher than the native photosite count of the camera yielded cleaner, better data for processing. 

       

      Some of this is simply because, given sufficient computer resources, working at an upsampled size allows for a bit finer control.

       

      But I always felt it was a bit more than that.  I felt that allowing Camera Raw more space to put its rendered pixels yielded a bit less loss of information as it made the translation between photosite measurements and interpolated color imagery from them.  Simply put, more information was rendered yielding better looking results.

       

      My question is this:

       

      With the 2010 process, does it still make sense to convert directly to an upsampled size?

       

      Behind the scenes, does Camera Raw actually convert directly to an upsampled output image, or does it simply do a conversion to an image that's the same size as the number of camera photosites, then upsample to the requested pixel count?  I have heard the latter is the case, but have not verified it.

       

      Operationally, it's a bit hard to tell...  I *think* converting to an upsampled size is yielding visually better results - e.g., I typically convert 10.1 MP Canon 40D images to 5120 x 3413 (17.5 MP) pixels.

       

      Thanks for any insight into the Camera Raw internals you can provide.

       

      -Noel

        • 1. Re: Converting Directly to Upsampled Resolution Still Valid?
          Jeff Schewe Level 5

          I think you are over complicating the question...

           

          If you have a Fuji camera, you definitely want to oversample to the next higher resolution in the Camera Raw Workflow Options.

           

          But, whether or not you should automatically upsample any raw captures to an oversampled state isn't cut and dried...first off, what are your final output requirements? The output dictates the size and resolution for a given print. If you need to print large, sure, go ahead and upsample at the ACR stage...but unless you know for a fact that you will be pushing the envelope of size/resolution, I think upsampling is not called for.

           

          As for the questions regarding what Camera Raw is doing, well, the resampling in ACR is an adaptive bicubic algorithm. For upsampling it'll use regular bicubic up to a point and then adapt to bicubuc smoother for upsampling. Same deal with downsampling...bicubic adapting to bicubuc sharper.

           

          As for what you should do...you really need to test things for yourself with your captures and your output requirements and decide for yourself...

          • 2. Re: Converting Directly to Upsampled Resolution Still Valid?
            Manovi Level 1

            Jeff

             

            I remember ACR and LR used the Lanczos algorithm for resample. Things are changed or I didn't remember well?

             

            The adaptative bicubic You are saying about, is more like the "smoother" side or the "sharper" side?

             

            Thank You

             

            Massimo

            • 3. Re: Converting Directly to Upsampled Resolution Still Valid?
              Jeff Schewe Level 5

              Manovi wrote:

               

              I remember ACR and LR used the Lanczos algorithm for resample. Things are changed or I didn't remember well?

               

              Things changed when ACR 5.2 was released. The move to modified forms of adaptable bicubic improves up and down sampling and doesn't have some of the ringing effects that Lanczos had and upsampling is improved over the previous resampling.

              • 4. Re: Converting Directly to Upsampled Resolution Still Valid?
                walterono Level 1

                "I typically convert 10.1 MP Canon 40D images to 5120 x 3413 (17.5 MP) pixels."

                 

                Noel, you should upgrade to a Canon 7D. My previous camera was a 40D also.The 7D is out of this world. Best camera I've ever had. Plus you have 18 megapixels to start with.

                1 person found this helpful
                • 5. Re: Converting Directly to Upsampled Resolution Still Valid?
                  Manovi Level 1

                  Thank You for Your info Jeff.

                   

                  I support the thesis that upsampling in ACR can be useful only for a very limited range of uses. If the output size or print resolution is unknow, is better not to change "a priori" (before anything else) the original size of the image. Even the output sharpening should be applied at the very last phase of the processing, and after the final resizing, if any, being based on output type and size.

                   

                  Only in some "fast" workflows that directly use the output from ACR, a straight resizing in ACR itself can be useful.

                   

                  Massimo Novi

                  • 6. Re: Converting Directly to Upsampled Resolution Still Valid?
                    Yammer Level 4

                    I've been using ACR for enlarging for stock photo submissions. Just one size up from 12Mp transforms a 35MB file into a 50MB file which is perfectly acceptable for QC.

                    • 7. Re: Converting Directly to Upsampled Resolution Still Valid?
                      Noel Carboni Level 7

                      Thanks for the input.

                       

                      I was really hoping for one piece of insight that none have provided, though Jeff's answer comes enticingly close:

                       

                      There is a fundamental difference between a conversion algorithm feeding an output dataset at a higher pixel count -vs- developing to the same pixel count then upsampling.  In the former case, more information may be retained during the translation.

                       

                      Is (or is not) ACR upsampling after developing pixels to the "native" camera photosite count, or is it feeding data directly into a larger dataset?

                       

                      As far as whether I, personally, want to convert directly to an upsampled resolution, prior to recent times I had determined that there was a definite improvement in image quality in doing so, for virtually every use (and thus I set my defaults).  At this point I simply haven't done enough research to determine if this is still true, and the defaults are still set.  It's kind of a moot point, because I find no particular problem in working with images this size.

                       

                      And yes, I definitely have my eye on the 7D.  Of course, I'd probably upsample 7D images to an even larger pixel count if I got one. 

                       

                      -Noel

                      • 8. Re: Converting Directly to Upsampled Resolution Still Valid?
                        Jeff Schewe Level 5

                        Noel Carboni wrote:

                         

                        Is (or is not) ACR upsampling after developing pixels to the "native" camera photosite count, or is it feeding data directly into a larger dataset?

                         

                        Irrelevant since you, as a user, have no direct control.

                         

                        The exact order that Camera Raw does what process is not published. Some people know some stuff and other stuff is disclosed in the DNG spec but there's really no reason you need to know that.

                         

                        What you have been told is that upsampling in Camera Raw is going to be different, by virtue of it's adaptive upsampling, than upsampling in Photoshop afterwards. Whether or not that impacts your image quality is something you'll need to decide for yourself.

                        • 9. Re: Converting Directly to Upsampled Resolution Still Valid?
                          Noel Carboni Level 7

                          If it's a trade secret - fair enough.  Any way you cut it, it will be a matter of experimentation to find out what I like best I suppose.  I have some old images that I processed to what I consider my best result, so I plan to re-develop those images with the new process and see how they come out.

                           

                          function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}

                          Jeff Schewe wrote:


                          Irrelevant since you, as a user, have no direct control.

                           

                           

                          Just FYI, your answer sounds a bit presumptuous (not to mention wrong - users certainly have direct control over the output size).

                           

                          -Noel

                          • 10. Re: Converting Directly to Upsampled Resolution Still Valid?
                            Jeff Schewe Level 5

                            Noel Carboni wrote:

                             

                            Just FYI, your answer sounds a bit presumptuous (not to mention wrong - users certainly have direct control over the output size).

                             

                            But you have no control over the processing order in the Camera Raw pipeline...so at what stage Camera Raw does what step in the process isn't really relevant to you since you can't do anything to change the order. All you have is the original image, the Camera Raw image processing settings and the final Workflow Options output settings...

                            • 11. Re: Converting Directly to Upsampled Resolution Still Valid?
                              Noel Carboni Level 7

                              ...And if I knew that an image was just being upsampled after conversion by Camera Raw I would know it could not possibly be delivering more or higher quality information in a direct conversion to an upsampled image, and I might choose to upsample later using other means.  That's all I'm saying.

                               

                              -Noel

                              • 12. Re: Converting Directly to Upsampled Resolution Still Valid?
                                Yammer Level 4

                                Jeff Schewe wrote:

                                 

                                 

                                Irrelevant since you, as a user, have no direct control.

                                 

                                 

                                I always thought it was useful to know how a car works in order to drive it. Not essential, but useful. Similarly, a broad understanding how ACR processes an image should help you make the best of it.

                                1 person found this helpful
                                • 13. Re: Converting Directly to Upsampled Resolution Still Valid?
                                  Noel Carboni Level 7

                                  Based on my experiments post processing images that have been upsampled a good bit, and comparing to results I had achieved in the past with a similar workflow, I'll say this:

                                   

                                  Everything's subtly different, and as with most things some things seem better and some things not.  Working on several different images I had converted before to upsampled resolution, I found that with some I got better results with the new process and some (a bit fewer) I seemed to get better results with the older process.

                                   

                                  1.  The new process is definitely different.  In some cases I'm seeing less artifacting around edges and overall subtle textures seem to be getting through better (it appears less noise reduction is built-in).  Overall some might say the images as a result may feel more "real".  However you may need to exercise a bit more post processing noise reduction if you really want creamy smooth output.

                                   

                                  2.  In upsampled conversions, while some tiny pixel- or several pixel-sized details seem to be less sharp, edges in some conditions seem more clean and crisp.  In some cases I noticed less artifacting in edges that are slightly slanted.

                                   

                                  3.  There's less "ringing" at edges.  What this means in practical terms is that you can do more aggressive final sharpening without bringing out artifacts.

                                   

                                  4.  Bright things against dark things bloom a hair more.

                                   

                                  Overall I give a slight nod to the new process, and I'm now convinced that converting directly to upsampled results is a good idea with the newer code.  Congratulations on improving something that was already excellent, Thomas!

                                   

                                  Here are a few examples, converted and processed similarly.  Of each pair, the older conversion (done a few years ago) is first, followed by the conversions using the new 2010 process.  Images are Canon EOS 40D 10.1 MP .CR2 files converted to 6144 x 4096 (25.2 MP) size in Camera Raw, and post-processed similarly.

                                   

                                  http://images.ProDigitalSoftware.com/Canon_40D_Image_Fractal_Sharpened.jpg

                                  http://images.ProDigitalSoftware.com/Canon_40D_Image_2010_Conversion.jpg

                                   

                                  http://images.ProDigitalSoftware.com/Canon_40D_Image_2_Fractal_Sharpened.jpg
                                  http://images.ProDigitalSoftware.com/Canon_40D_Image_2_2010_Conversion.jpg

                                   

                                  -Noel

                                  • 14. Re: Converting Directly to Upsampled Resolution Still Valid?
                                    Noel Carboni Level 7

                                    Hm...  I've been experimenting some more and I'll be darned if there aren't a couple of things in the 2003 process that outshine the 2010 process...  Things like white text printed on bright red come out better, and I'm convinced the 2003 process delivers a little more detail.

                                     

                                    I consider ACR's handling of red colors head and shoulders above the competition.

                                     

                                    I may just switch back to the 2003 process sometimes, depending on the image...

                                     

                                    Thanks for keeping the choice available!

                                     

                                    -Noel

                                    • 15. Re: Converting Directly to Upsampled Resolution Still Valid?
                                      Jeff Schewe Level 5

                                      Noel Carboni wrote:

                                       

                                      ...and I'm convinced the 2003 process delivers a little more detail.

                                       

                                      No, not more detail...different detail. Process 2010 will generally provide access to more detail depending on what you do with sharpening and noise reduction.

                                      • 16. Re: Converting Directly to Upsampled Resolution Still Valid?
                                        Noel Carboni Level 7

                                        Finer detail, then.  Sorry, but I call it the way I see it.

                                         

                                        You may be involved with the programming, Jeff, but I'm here to tell you that if the absolute finest detail is desired - e.g., for landscape work - from Canon conversions the 2003 process has a slight edge and that's from empirical testing by someone who knows what he's looking at.  It's a very subtle difference but it's there.  Lens corrections, which I tested with enabled, may also figure into this.

                                         

                                        As I mentioned above, the 2010 process has merits too.  Now I have a better feel when to use one and when to use the other.

                                         

                                        -Noel

                                        • 17. Re: Converting Directly to Upsampled Resolution Still Valid?
                                          MadManChan2000 Adobe Employee

                                          I disagree, Noel. If you are using equivalent numbers when comparing the two, then yes, that would be expected, because of the different radius scale. But for details of landscapes where there are small curves (twigs, leaves, grass blades, etc.), texture (bark, rocks, etc.), using a moderate Amount, small Radius (0.5 to 0.7), and high Detail settings can bring out the details much more clearly with PV 2010.

                                          • 18. Re: Converting Directly to Upsampled Resolution Still Valid?
                                            Noel Carboni Level 7

                                            Yes, I was comparing with equivalent control settings.

                                             

                                            I will admit that it's humanly impossible to try out the interaction of all the controls in one lifetime.  More experimentation is still in order.

                                             

                                            One new realization:  Lens distortion correction does blur detail.  That's not a complaint; it's more of a head bopping exercise for me - I just noticed it when putting conversions from ACR 6.1 over ACR 5 conversions in a single image.  Of course moving the pixels by fractions will blur the result.  Such activity does seem to benefit from the conversion to an upsampled resolution though.  But I do have to re-convert and re-process some of the images again.

                                             

                                            I have to say the 2003 process in ACR 6.1 seems to be an improvement over the process in ACR 5 (with equivalent settings).

                                             

                                            Another realization:  One has to unlearn what the controls do - e.g., the sharpening.  It used to be that I avoided using the sharpening control entirely, simply because I just "knew" what it would do and why I didn't want to use it.  Now with the 2010 process the rules of thumb have to be different.

                                             

                                            You have to know that I'm really splitting hairs in all this comparison work.

                                             

                                            -Noel

                                            • 19. Re: Converting Directly to Upsampled Resolution Still Valid?
                                              Noel Carboni Level 7

                                              I'm not convinced I'm seeing finer detail with the 2010 process, but with the various detail sliders cranked all the way up, and more significant sharpening than I'm used to dialing in, and a surprising amount of noise reduction to compensate for all the grain brought out by that sharpening, the detail seems more accurate.  Thanks for spurring me on, guys.  I've defintely found some new Camera Raw Defaults I like better.

                                               

                                              -Noel

                                              • 20. Re: Converting Directly to Upsampled Resolution Still Valid?
                                                MadManChan2000 Adobe Employee

                                                Thanks for being willing to experiment, Noel. I appreciate that there are many options to explore, but I'm glad to hear you're finding improved defaults to go with. Regarding lens corrections, yes, when you apply the distortion correction there will be a slight loss of fine detail, but usually it can be mostly recovered by increasing sharpening slightly.

                                                • 21. Re: Converting Directly to Upsampled Resolution Still Valid?
                                                  Noel Carboni Level 7

                                                  Here's one result with the detail sliders turned all the way up.  It's a 40D 10.1 MP image upsampled during conversion to 25 MP with some sharpening (and NR) dialed in, then sharpened the rest of the way by me.

                                                   

                                                  http://images.ProDigitalSoftware.com/Mustang_25MP.jpg

                                                   

                                                  I see detail, for example in the yellow parking light lenses, that I did not get at all before with the older process.

                                                   

                                                  I think I'm a convert. 

                                                   

                                                  -Noel

                                                  • 22. Re: Converting Directly to Upsampled Resolution Still Valid?
                                                    Jeff Schewe Level 5

                                                    Noel Carboni wrote:

                                                     

                                                    I think I'm a convert. 

                                                     

                                                     

                                                    Glad you've learned how to fine-tune the controls to get the optimal results for your images...the take away here is that with the addition of Process 2010, the new demosiacing without noise reduction and the new capabilities of the noise reduction in the new process, ALL of the controls have become more important to tune. The way the old controls work are indeed different within the context of the new demosiacing.

                                                     

                                                    I use noise reduction, at least at a low amount, in almost all images with Process 2010 because the built-in noise reduction of Process 2003 is gone. The Detail slider has become VERY tweaky in Process 2010...it's easy to over-drive detail. The radius below 1.0 is also been tuned to be much more accurate, so it's now important to set the radius for high frequency images accurately.

                                                     

                                                    Once you have all the controls properly set for an image, Process 2010 should be capable of considerably more and finer detail than Process 2003. The only are that some people are pointing to is that part of the sharpening tune in Process 2010 has been to roll off the dark halos a bit compared to Process 2003 and modify the way highly saturated sharpening tones are blended in. Some images therefore will seem to have more detail in areas where Process 2003 over-darkens (my opinion) the tone. Also, some highly saturated colors will show less sharpening artifacts (my description) in Process 2010 vs 2003. For some images, people may indeed have a preference of 2003 vs 2010. And, that's exactly why the old Process 2003 is still there. Keeping the old process around have been an enormous effort on the Camera Raw team's part, but they felt it was important to preserve people's ability to match previous renderings.

                                                    • 23. Re: Converting Directly to Upsampled Resolution Still Valid?
                                                      Mike Mander Level 1

                                                      Jeff, I thought I'd quickly chime in here as it seems an appropriate place, although perhaps I should have started a new thread instead?  You may remember the lengthy forum debate we had a few years back where I was disappointed with the way Camera Raw was dealing with high-ISO images and the non-defeatable built-in noise reduction that, to me, seemed to be killing texture detail etc.?

                                                       

                                                      I just wanted to say how incredibly impressed I am with "Process 2010".  With careful tweaking of the many sharpening and NR controls, the level of fine detail, as well as texture detail, that I see in my photos is remarkable.  The new NR controls work wonders on high ISO images, virtually eliminating the need to ever use any third-party tools, and if I want a grainier image, I can dial things down to a very minimal degree - thank you ACR team!  The ability to tweak the NR on high ISO images to find the perfect balance between preserved texture detail and reduction of noise is superb. The improvements are so substantial that it is like buying a newer better camera! For example, high ISO images from an EOS-7D in "Process 2010" looks as good or better than the equivalent images from a 5D Mark II in "Process 2003" from a noise / detail standpoint.  Fine detail rendering at low ISOs, with careful adjustment, can make DSLR images (with anti-aliasing filters) appear to have a similar level of crispness as digital backs that do not have AA filters.

                                                       

                                                      I just finished re-processing some shots in LRv3, which I did on a movie set last year, shot with a combination of a Canon EOS-50D and a 5D Mark II. Although the 50D is a noisy beast, I am now able to get excellent looking results even from it, on those shots where I was forced to use ISO 1600-3200.

                                                       

                                                      The only time I have felt that Process 2003 was slightly better, was in some long exposure (5-8 minutes) ISO 400 shots that I processed from my EOS-7D.  Process 2010 produced a fair number of white specks and no amount of NR control tweaking eliminated them.  Process 2003 just looked a little better, right out of Camera Raw. However, doing a Dust & Scratch filter in PS (radius 1, threshold 50) takes care of the white specks created in Process 2010 and has virtually no impact on real detail.

                                                       

                                                      I suppose that might be one request for ACR / LR: have some sort of a "speck filter" or a hot/dead pixel control slider for those occasional images that might benefit.  I have Photoshop CS5 as well as LR, so not much of an issue, but for some people who only have LR, and thus no ability to additionally post-process, it may be useful.

                                                       

                                                      I plan on making an entry on this topic in my blog as well, that is, about being extremely happy with the latest ACR / LR.  Too often the Internet is used just for complaining - those that are happy don't bother to take the time to say so. To be fair, I feel it is worth a big round of applause and a thank you to the Camera Raw and Lightroom teams (Thomas Knoll, Eric Chan et al) for their efforts in making Adobe raw conversions, in my humble opinion, top of the heap once again.  Raw conversions so good that they should be a benchmark that all others measure against!  :-)

                                                       

                                                      Regards,

                                                      Mike Mander

                                                      • 24. Re: Converting Directly to Upsampled Resolution Still Valid?
                                                        Jeff Schewe Level 5

                                                        Mike Mander wrote:

                                                         

                                                        To be fair, I feel it is worth a big round of applause and a thank you to the Camera Raw and Lightroom teams (Thomas Knoll, Eric Chan et al) for their efforts in making Adobe raw conversions, in my humble opinion, top of the heap once again.  Raw conversions so good that they should be a benchmark that all others measure against!  :-)

                                                         

                                                        Oh, I remember...do you also remember that I said that Thomas and the whole Camera Raw team would leave no stone unturned in order to keep improving the IQ? In part because of the previous issues people had with noise reduction incorporated into the demosiacing in Camera Raw 4.1 (and later) the team put their heads together to keep pushing everything including optimizing the demosiacing, noise reduction and sharpening for Process version 2010. And, as good as ACR 6.1 is in terms of IQ and image optimization (tone, color and lens corrections), don't be surprised at the fact that the boys are still keen on making even more improvements. A great add to the team has been Eric Chan who worked a lot on the noise reduction as well as grain addition (a factor in the IQ capability).

                                                         

                                                        So, don't get a big head or anything, but it is users like you who can PROVE that what ACR is doing isn't yet optimal that pushes the engineers to keep progressing and improving on the image quality potential...

                                                        • 25. Re: Converting Directly to Upsampled Resolution Still Valid?
                                                          Mike Mander Level 1
                                                          Oh, I remember...do you also remember that I said that Thomas and the whole Camera Raw team would leave no stone unturned in order to keep improving the IQ?

                                                           

                                                          Yes, I do remember you saying that at some point in the discussion... and the new Camera Raw certainly validates that statement.

                                                           

                                                          One thing I have to credit Adobe for, is listening to feedback from their users.  I had my concerns a while back and Adobe is a pretty big company so their "momentum" may at times be a little hard to overcome, but the direction they have gone with Camera Raw, which in many ways seems directly in response to user feedback, is indeed very nice to see.  I suppose the Camera Raw programming team is a fairly tight group though when compared to Adobe as a whole...

                                                           

                                                          In any case, I still keep having these "jaw dropping moments" when I go back and reprocess older images with my new Process 2010 presets. Just amazing to see how much it can improve the look of some images!

                                                          • 26. Re: Converting Directly to Upsampled Resolution Still Valid?
                                                            ACRFREAK Level 1

                                                            Jeff said: "But, whether or not you should automatically upsample any raw captures to an oversampled state isn't cut and dried...first off, what are your final output requirements? The output dictates the size and resolution for a given print. If you need to print large, sure, go ahead and upsample at the ACR stage...but unless you know for a fact that you will be pushing the envelope of size/resolution, I think upsampling is not called for.

                                                             

                                                            As for the questions regarding what Camera Raw is doing, well, the resampling in ACR is an adaptive bicubic algorithm. For upsampling it'll use regular bicubic up to a point and then adapt to bicubuc smoother for upsampling."

                                                             

                                                            Can I jump in and ask a question here (as apposed to starting an entire new thread) without hijacking the thread?

                                                             

                                                            5D Mark II files, Landscape, high end enlargements (from 24 inch 300ppi on up to over 70 inch 200ppi) "pushing the envelope" lightjet, flex silver halide prints... so if what I am understanding here is correct,  there may be some advantage in quality detail if uprezzed in ACR (vs Bicubic Smoother after all adjustments are finished - except sharpening - grain simulation) when pushing sizes large?

                                                            • 27. Re: Converting Directly to Upsampled Resolution Still Valid?
                                                              Jeff Schewe Level 5

                                                              ACRFREAK wrote:

                                                               

                                                              ...so if what I am understanding here is correct,  there may be some advantage in quality detail if uprezzed in ACR (vs Bicubic Smoother after all adjustments are finished - except sharpening - grain simulation) when pushing sizes large?

                                                               

                                                              Yes...you should test this for yourself on your own type of images (and the type of output you do). I would argue that Camera Raw's resampling is now better (particularly for digital capture) than Photoshop's resampling at this point in time.

                                                              • 28. Re: Converting Directly to Upsampled Resolution Still Valid?
                                                                ACRFREAK Level 1

                                                                I have devoted a ton of testing to this subject (last year).  Although not scientific, I certainly find that the 2010 rending to present more detail and better less digital looking detail in high to mid frequency areas.  When the new 2010 rendering was only in its beta version found in LR, I found it to produce more detail, and better less digital looking detail, in the shadows up to the upper mid tones.  But in the upper highlights I actually found the 2003 the winner.  That may have changed in ACR 6.0 and 6.1 (I did not re do the testing).

                                                                 

                                                                Also interesting to note (at least to me - an avid interoplation student) I just did a quick interpolation/comparison test.  On an old 1DS Mark II file, on a high frequency landscape shot (trees/aspens abstract) I interpolated the cropped raw file from 12.9MP up to a max 19.5MP in ACR 6.1 (bringing it into PS CS5) and then also brought in the image at its native (cropped) 12.9MP size and uprezzed it to 19.5MP with Bicubic Smoother, and then (as layers on top of each other) I critically looked at the layers zoomed to 100%, 200%, 300%, 400%, 500% and even 600%.  I did this to both a capture sharpened and a non capture sharpened version.

                                                                 

                                                                Results: (i do have better then 20/20 vision) on my monitor set at its highest res, I could so NO difference at all.  Side note (in comparison): a change in even one f/stop in a lens - in my testing - shows a remarkable difference in detail at these zoom levels.

                                                                 

                                                                At 600% I could see the absolute slightest movement in a few pixels, but even still, the detail was the same.

                                                                 

                                                                So, unless my testing is completely faulty I am thinking there is no real world benefit in detail to the max uprez being done in ACR 6.1. If there is, are we splitting the cells of a hair?

                                                                • 29. Re: Converting Directly to Upsampled Resolution Still Valid?
                                                                  Jeff Schewe Level 5

                                                                  ACRFREAK wrote:

                                                                   

                                                                  So, unless my testing is completely faulty I am thinking there is no real world benefit in detail to the max uprez being done in ACR 6.1.

                                                                   

                                                                  Ah, but exactly what were your capture sharpening and noise reduction settings? Upsampling in Camera Raw is done BEFORE the application of the sharpening and noise reduction. Also note that when using the Output Sharpening in either ACR or Lightroom, the sharpening is applied AFTER the upsample so that further optimizes the final image for print. I'll be the first one to point out that doing output sharpening in ACR is at the moment a pain and the usability is in need of a lot of work...something for the future.

                                                                  • 30. Re: Converting Directly to Upsampled Resolution Still Valid?
                                                                    ACRFREAK Level 1

                                                                    As unorthodox as it may seem, Capture Sharpening was set to:

                                                                     

                                                                    Amount 45

                                                                    Radius 0.5

                                                                    Detail to 100%

                                                                    Masking to 60 (which in this shot actually did not mask out a lot - just the shadows and really smooth surfaces)

                                                                     

                                                                    "Upsampling in Camera Raw is done BEFORE the application of the sharpening"

                                                                     

                                                                    So with a big ACR uprez, it uprezzez and then ads the capture sharpening? If that is true, it throws a wrench into my thinking. I thought the capture sharpening benefit is that it was to the native data.

                                                                     

                                                                    BTW, for fine art critical work I don't ever do output sharpening in ACR.  I read yours and Bruce's books till they fell apart...

                                                                    • 31. Re: Converting Directly to Upsampled Resolution Still Valid?
                                                                      Noel Carboni Level 7

                                                                      All I can say is that, for my uses (often involving my own sharpening techniques), upsampling during conversion is giving me the most possible detail in the resultant images.

                                                                       

                                                                      It's pixel-peeping at its finest to work in this rarefied air, but once you've got a workflow that you can count on, and you maximize the results you get with it, then your work starts to stand out from the crowd - and that's what we all want.

                                                                       

                                                                      -Noel

                                                                      • 32. Re: Converting Directly to Upsampled Resolution Still Valid?
                                                                        ACRFREAK Level 1

                                                                        Maybe I will do more tests...

                                                                         

                                                                        I know it is another issue, but I did another test today (again) on capture sharpening with interpolation using Smoother, and it seems pretty clear to me I can not get the same amount of quality detail out of my huge enlargements when I don't carefully capture sharpen in raw at native size then bring into PS as Tiff.  Also the ACR masking is really important it seems to me.  When no masking is done artifacting occurs quick on the smooth surfaces when pushing the sharpening (not to mention shadow issues).

                                                                         

                                                                        The best it gets, in my current opinion is capture sharpen very carefully in ACR, interpolate starting at native size in PS using Smoother (or as you/ Jeff say in ACR) then once the image is at full large size, sharpen custom for output (just a little too much on screen) and then add a touch of grain simulation (at 100% view) just enough to camouflage the artifacting.

                                                                         

                                                                        I should not share my ideas and methods but at the same time by throwing them out I also get introduced to more!