Yeap, you're right. My terminology was sloppy. Thanks for the correction.
Art Laurie Solomon wrote: > Art, > > While I am not refuting you, I wish to elaborate on one detail that you did > not make real clear in your response so that others will not go away with a > misunderstanding. > >>A common trick of the trade is to convert the image to LAB, and then >>only sharpen the monochromic image, leaving the color alone. > > > This might more accurrately be states as "...then only sharpen the L or > Luminescence channel...." > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> >> >>>Has anyone tried sharpening the channels individually for a color >>>image? Since I don't do much color, I never thought of that >>>before...but it seems like it might be advantageous, as you wouldn't >>>lose as much detail in the sharper channels... Any thoughts on this? >>> >>>Regards, >>> >>>Austin >>> >> >> >>A common trick of the trade is to convert the image to LAB, and then >>only sharpen the monochromic image, leaving the color alone. Since >>the human eye responds much more to brightness levels than color (we >>have a lot more rods than cones) that can sometimes be effective is >>reducing color artifacting that USM can create. It's the same basic >>principal that was used with "s-video" and super 8mm video. hey >>increased the frequency on the luma signal, pretty much leaving the >>color signal alone since it is much more prone to noise when "pushed". >> >>Art >> >>-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
