Strange result from straightening
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: A3 Photo Printer choice.
Next: Jupiter
From: Tim Conway on 21 Oct 2009 15:31 "Peabody" <waybackNO784SPAM44(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:_EsDm.311$aD1.60(a)newsfe19.iad... >I took pictures of a friend's paintings with my superb Canon A590IS > at the camera's full 8mp. With mixed results. > > Well, I thought it did ok except for the slight bowing of all the > edges. I guess I should have moved farther away and zoomed in to > reduce that. > > Anyway, one of the pictures was a bit tilted, so I used a program > called Photo! Editor by VicMan Software to straighten the picture, > which seemed to go ok. > > The resolution of the jpeg went from the original 3264x2488 to > 3209x2406, with is about a 5% reduction in pixels as a result of > the straightening. But the file size went from the original 3296kb > down to 1191kb, a 64% reduction. > > I'm hard pressed to see any visual difference. But I don't > understand why not, given the difference in file size. Can anyone > tell me what may be going on? > try PTLens stand alone software. Download the trial version and use it on 10 images free. If you like it, pay $25. http://epaperpress.com/ptlens/
From: More Info on 21 Oct 2009 21:59 On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:43:30 -0500, Peabody <waybackNO784SPAM44(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Please note that I said I used a Canon A590 to take the >pictures. So, not to shock you, but Photoshop isn't in my >budget. Well how about Irfanview? Will it straighten and >resample/resize properly? Or maybe XnView or Faststone? > Don't think less of that camera because of cost. In the hands of a talented photographer any camera can produce excellent results. The Canon Powershots are not to be taken lightly just because of cost. I've won several international awards with the ones I've used. While I've not used XnView, it does contain more advanced features, and even includes a Lanczos resampling option for resizings. (I just checked it. Installed it months ago to see if it's any good, but never played with it til now.) But I'm unaware if Lanczos is used for rotations, where it is the most needed and beneficial to have that option. There is no resampling algorithm option on XnView's rotation tool. But it does have the crop or no-crop options for rotations. There you could see what I was talking about. It sounds like XnView might be a better editor for you. GIMP being the pinnacle of all freeware editors. See this page for other editors you can play with. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_raster_graphics_editors Many of them are excellent freeware and more than most people need. If you can find an earlier version of Paint Shop Pro, v9.x or v10.x for a few dollars (v9.x is often sold for $5, or just shared because it's so old), it has some really nice features. Including geometric lens correction filters (pincushion and barrel distortion correction, one of the problems you mentioned), as well as a very good noise-removal tool and sensor-blooming (color fringing) correction tool. I wish Photoline had that latter one. I keep an earlier version of Paint Shop Pro installed just for that color-fringing correction tool alone. It was implemented so well. I just did a Google search for: plugin freeware pincushion barrel correction You might want to look into this link I found: <http://wareseeker.com/Graphic-Apps/lens-correction-1.0.zip/2e711ae14> or do that Google search for others listed. Though I've never used this plugin it should work fine with XnView, IrfanView, etc. Very few "photoshop plugins" are photoshop-ONLY. Most all of them work with any editor that supports plugins. There are only a rare few specialty plugins that are photoshop specific, and none of the freeware ones are, that I know of. The suggested (by someone else) PTLens plugin is also excellent for lens geometry corrections, but I never use it for that (my editor contains its own geometry correction tools). I use PTLens for its better chromatic-aberration (CA) correction feature. For simple pincushion and barrel distortion correction you shouldn't have to pay for an advanced plugin. >By the way, I did find a freeware lossless jpeg cropper that >crops on 8-pixel boundaries without resampling what's left, >so there is no generational loss from the cropping. Which >is fine so long as those boundaries are acceptable cropping >points. If you really get into photography, again I suggest you look into getting Photoline someday (not bloatware PhotoShop). It's the only editor out there that is capable of doing truly lossless JPG editing. It doesn't put the data through the JPG algorithm again unless you specifically choose a higher compression level than the original. The only data that is changed in the resulting saved file are the pixels that you specifically changed. It doesn't compound compression artifacts during multiple re-loads and re-saves. It also is blind to those JPG 8 or 16 pixel block boundaries. Edit to any pixel dimensions you want and it won't jump to a multiple of 8 or 16 when saved > >Well, at this point the pictures I've produced are far >better than what he had, and plenty good enough for online >use, which is what he wanted them for. If he gets to the >point of making large prints, I would probably suggest he >hire a pro photographer who knows what he's doing and has a >fine camera. For what it's worth, though, I found that >photographing the paintings outside in the shade, with >manual white balance, produced really good results, and the >colors, on my monitor at least, were spot on. > A "pro" could do no better, and might even do worse than what you could do with your gear, when used properly. Lots of people make money, or try to make money, with their cameras but it doesn't mean they should be allowed to ever have a camera. If someone gives a snapshooter $0.25 for a poorly done shot of their baby they can claim they are a "pro". Many wedding parties get scammed daily by self-appointed "Pros". They need nothing more than a printer for their business cards and a fancy looking camera to impress their potential marks (victims). The world (and news-groups) are crawling wall to wall with "Insta-Pros". If you are not yet familiar with it, you might want to check out the software add-on for your A590, called CHDK. It will allow your "lowly" camera to do more than any DSLR on earth. You have more camera-power in your hands than I think you realize. http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
From: Savageduck on 21 Oct 2009 22:24 On 2009-10-21 18:59:07 -0700, More Info <minfo(a)myaddress.com> said: > On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:43:30 -0500, Peabody <waybackNO784SPAM44(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > > >> Please note that I said I used a Canon A590 to take the >> pictures. So, not to shock you, but Photoshop isn't in my >> budget. Well how about Irfanview? Will it straighten and >> resample/resize properly? Or maybe XnView or Faststone? >> > > Don't think less of that camera because of cost. In the hands of a talented > photographer any camera can produce excellent results. The Canon Powershots > are not to be taken lightly just because of cost. I've won several > international awards with the ones I've used. ....and which International awards would those be. Name, date and citation might be interesting to see. The Nobel Fantasy Prize perhaps? -- Regards, Savageduck
From: More Info on 21 Oct 2009 22:24 > >You might want to look into this link I found: ><http://wareseeker.com/Graphic-Apps/lens-correction-1.0.zip/2e711ae14> or >do that Google search for others listed. Though I've never used this plugin >it should work fine with XnView, IrfanView, etc. Very few "photoshop >plugins" are photoshop-ONLY. Most all of them work with any editor that >supports plugins. There are only a rare few specialty plugins that are >photoshop specific, and none of the freeware ones are, that I know of. I was going to get that plugin to see if it was any good, and found that all the download links are dead. However, I did eventually find it here: <http://www.photo-plugins.com/Plugins/Plugins/Lens-Correction.html> Download here: <http://www.photo-plugins.com/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=9&Itemid=43>
From: More Info on 21 Oct 2009 22:40
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:24:27 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >On 2009-10-21 18:59:07 -0700, More Info <minfo(a)myaddress.com> said: > >> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:43:30 -0500, Peabody <waybackNO784SPAM44(a)yahoo.com> >> wrote: >> >> >>> Please note that I said I used a Canon A590 to take the >>> pictures. So, not to shock you, but Photoshop isn't in my >>> budget. Well how about Irfanview? Will it straighten and >>> resample/resize properly? Or maybe XnView or Faststone? >>> >> >> Don't think less of that camera because of cost. In the hands of a talented >> photographer any camera can produce excellent results. The Canon Powershots >> are not to be taken lightly just because of cost. I've won several >> international awards with the ones I've used. > >...and which International awards would those be. >Name, date and citation might be interesting to see. > >The Nobel Fantasy Prize perhaps? Do you honestly think I'd let a useless troll like you enjoy my good photography? Or that I can somehow be manipulated by a loser like you into doing so? You're more stupid than I thought. Wow. Your lack of intellect duly noted. But then, we all already knew that now, didn't we. Even you. |