Unsharp Mask in Version 7.0

[Igor]

We've implemented Unsharp Mask to future PicturesToExe 7.0 This feature works with same quality like Adobe Photoshop.

Unsharp Mask in PicturesToExe works in real time. This means that we apply this filter on the fly 60 frames per second for your AV show.

Why it better to apply unsharp mask in PicturesToExe instead of Photoshop? If you use a graphical editor to apply unsharp mask, you have to resize image to particular size and then apply the sharpen filter. It works well if you display the picture in its original size at same screen resolution. But if your picture is 1920x1200 and display size is 1600x1200? Picture again will be downsampled and it loses its sharpness.

In PicturesToExe you put high quality source image. For example 2300x1533. Then the program downsample picture using Bicubic like filter to screen resolution (new for version 7.0) and then it apply unsharp mask. And display this picture on the screen as is without additional distortions. Users of any screens will enjoy watching your picture with unsharp mask as it designed for their screens natively.

Watch demo here:

http://www.wnsoft.com/test/Unsharp-Mask-PTE-700.zip (20 MB)

I've used unsharp mask with amount about 40% and radius 1 pixel. Images came from Canon 350D and reduced to 2300x1533.

This ZIP file contains two executable shows - with unsharp mask and without to see difference. Also you can compare two pictures in PSD file which has two layers (one with unsharp and one without).

UPDATE: I think this new feature will be a great replacement for so called Original mode used by some users.

UPDATE 2: I've used moderate amount value for unsharp mask to keep natural view of picture. You can apply more easy unsharp mask or even much more stronger.

Illustration from Wikipedia. Three pictures (Original, with slight unsharp mask and with strong unsharp mask).

Unsharping Mask:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsharp_masking

[Lin Evans]

Congratulations Igor! That's a significant (and as far as i know a "Unique") feature which isn't shared by any other slideshow software!! This is a major step for super high quality output for your program which already outclasses anything else available for image quality.

Best regards,

Lin

[Severn Bore]

Hi Igor

That is very impressive. At this rate we shall not need Photoshop!

Andrew

[thedom]

Wow, very impressive, it works perfectly !!

But why do you call it UNsharp mask ?

The filter in photoshop is called sharpen. Shouldn't it be called sharpen mask in PTE ?

Because of its name, I thought that this mask would add a blur effect to the image.

And that's the opposite. But may be this misunderstanding is because I am not fluent in english...

Oh, and an other question : does this mask require a lot of power for the graphic card as the other masks (containers) do ?

[Jean-Cyprien]

Nice tool, thank you Igor.

What about the shimmering, for exemple with the buildung when it is moving through the screen ? Not too bad ??

[Igor]

Jean-Cyprien,

It possible to apply unsharp mask for a AV show with a rich animation. Unsharp mask amount should has lower value than for static pictures to avoid shimmering. However we did much work to vastly reduce shimmering of pictures with Pan/Zoom effects. Image resampling algorithms were significantly reworked in version 7.0 even if you don't use unsharp mask. Currently I don't know other slideshow software who use such image resampling algorithms and unsharp mask in real time.

[Igor]

Dominique,

But why do you call it UNsharp mask ?

The filter in photoshop is called sharpen. Shouldn't it be called sharpen mask in PTE ?

It really "Unsharp Mask", not "sharpen" filter. Unsharp Mask in Photoshop CS3 does exactly same processing. For more details please see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsharp_masking

Oh, and an other question : does this mask require a lot of power for the graphic card as the other masks (containers) do ?

Almost for free. We use hardware acceleration for this. However currently in version 7.0 we did only unsharp mask for entire screen. It allowed keep good performance not depending on a number of objects. But we have an idea how to implement individual unsharp masks for particular objects in future versions. Despite this version 7.0 has a control of sharpness/smoothness for separate objects.

[Jean-Cyprien]

It'll be wunderful ! Thanks again

[stonemason]

Congratulations Igor and team. Igor how will this work if a slideshow is output to mp4 ?

[Cèlou]

Fantastic, huge, PTE is spirit to become a MUST in its class.

I am anxious that this version is finalized so that we can discover its power.

Congratulations to Igor you and your entire team.

[stardealer]

The example shows give a good impression how this feature will deliver more pop pictures, congratulation for implementing it as real time function.

I like it for picture 1 to 6 of 7, it really adds clarity and pop. But picture 7 of 7 with unsharp mask has a really ugly look when viewed on 1920x1200. This single picture is much better without sharpening. What's going on there?

Same impression anyone?

Regards,

Frank

[thedom]

But picture 7 of 7 with unsharp mask has a really ugly look when viewed on 1920x1200. This single picture is much better without sharpening. What's going on there?

Same impression anyone?

I have the same screen resolution but the pictures looks good with my eyes.

[thedom]

But why do you call it UNsharp mask ?

The filter in photoshop is called sharpen. Shouldn't it be called sharpen mask in PTE ?

Because of its name, I thought that this mask would add a blur effect to the image.

I found the answer to my own question :

An "unsharp mask" is actually used to sharpen an image, contrary to what its name might lead you to believe.

Source: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/unsharp-mask.htm

[Lin Evans]

Just a little more information about sharpening in general. There are actually three types of "sharpening" commonly used for photography. The first two: USM (Unsharp Mask) and Sharpening share the common characteristic of adjacent pixel contrast enhancement. What makes USM differ from generalized "sharpening": is that with USM only the edges of outlines of detail are affected. The distance from these edges are adjusted via the "radius" adjustment. With generalized "sharpening" all pixels are affected rather than just the pixels outlining larger detail areas.

Why do we use one rather than the other? Because at times, we want to sharpen only certain areas of an image such as with a portrait. Perhaps we want to bring out the eyes, lips and perhaps hair but keep the skin softer to minimize the appearance of skin blemishes, etc. Or we may want to sharpen only the central portion of a flower and leave the outer petals softer. To do this we use the selection tool in our software such as Photoshop and apply USM or Sharpening (depending on the results desired) to only those areas we have selected.

The third type of sharpening is deconvolution. Deconvolution involves actually moving and removing pixels to obtain a true sharpening effect at the edges of detail objects. For example, were we to photograph a deep black object void of surface features such as a piece of black, smooth plastic against a pure white larger object also devoid of surface features, and we were to examine the photograph at the pixel level, we would see that at the junction where the detail of the black met the background of white, there would be not an abrupt pure white pixel beside a pure black one. What we would see instead, is a gradient of pure white to gray to pure black which would be composed of, depending on the camera used, around five pixels in the transition. What deconvolution does, in effect, is to change this gradient to a steeper one having perhaps three or even only two pixels in the transition. This process actually does truly "sharpen" the adjacent borders of detail objects.

But deconvolution is not nearly as "striking" a change visually as USM or Sharpening because both USM and sharpening effectively create a slight but perceptible "boundary" around the detail which consists of contrasting pixels. Think of painting yellow letters on a red background. Now imagine painting a faint outline of black around each letter. Doing so sets off the letters and makes them look "sharper" to the human eye. This is a rather simplified explanation, but essentially what happens with USM and sharpening. The difference is in degree and extent.

Ideally, a combination of USM and deconvolution can be used to really improve the appearance or sharpness of a photo. Deconvolution has the added benefit of actually being able to correct for a degree of motion blur.

As Igor said, when a photo is resized either up or down using bicubic interpolation, a degree of softening is inherent in the process. So, ideally one would adjust their image and do localized USM and/or deconvolution on the main features of the original. Then when the image is resized by PTE, the USM when applied by PTE will correct only for the changes created by the resizing process.

Best regards,

Lin

[Gérard de Lux]

But why do you call it UNsharp mask ?

The filter in photoshop is called sharpen. Shouldn't it be called sharpen mask in PTE ?

No, in PhotoShop the function used by Igor is called Unsharp Mask.

I would be much interested to know how it is translated in French in Photoshop (masque flou?)

Thank you in advance!

[Aginum]

plus net ...

[davegee]

The five options in Aginum's post are, in Engilsh:

Sharpen

Sharpen Edges

Sharpen More

Smart Sharpen

Unsharp Mask

Since they are listed in alphabetical order on both the English and French versions does the position in the list remain the same top to bottom?

"Plus Net" seems to translate as "No Longer Sharp" and therefore correct.

DG

[davegee]

Going back to the original discussion:

I use a mixture of High Pass Sharpening and Unsharp Mask the proportions of which and the settings for each can vary from image to image.

(I have never been a fan of Batch Sharpening images - 150 identical portraits of the same person under the same lighting would possibly be an exception to this rule).

However, my question to Igor is:

Will we be able to SELECTIVELY sharpen images? (This was touched on by Lin).

e.g. sharpening a sky or foliage is sometimes counter-productive when the image is going to be subjected to PZR so a method of selecting which parts of an image are sharpened and which are not would seem to be important.

DG

[Jean-Cyprien]

Questions :

1 - If I'm right, today in the O&A window of the actual versions, we have to put the zoom at 100% to see the picture with its original appearance (sharpness). With the default « auto » value, the picture is (generally if not always) resized and losses its sharpness .

Will the unsharp mask be applied in the O&A window with the « auto » value or just at « 100% » ?

2 – I suppose the unsharp mask values will be specific for each view and not for all. Right ? (specific to different objects in the future )

Thank you.

[nelson]

The problem that I run into is projection.

I build my shows based on the native resolution of the given projector.

The image may look fine on the monitor but once projected very large it loses sharpness.

So I tend to oversharpen certain images, some more than others.

I ran into a situation last year projecting on a 30 ft screen.

It was a rehearsal and I was dissapointed to see images that I had taken so much care in sharpening look like they needed much more.

Fortunately I had the time to correct this.

This probably has nothing to do with the discussion but I would be interested to see how people sharpen based on projection.

Thanks,

Kieron

Sorry I missed the update in the original post and it may be the answer to my concern.

"UPDATE 2: I've used moderate amount value for unsharp mask to keep natural view of picture. You can apply more easy unsharp mask or even much more stronger"

[Igor]

stonemason,

Igor how will this work if a slideshow is output to mp4 ?

Yes.

Dave,

However, my question to Igor is:

Will we be able to SELECTIVELY sharpen images?

Please see my comment above:

http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=12810&view=findpost&p=82764

And I'm afraid it will complicate the program.

Jean-Cyprien

1 - If I'm right, today in the O&A window of the actual versions, we have to put the zoom at 100% to see the picture with its original appearance (sharpness). With the default « auto » value, the picture is (generally if not always) resized and losses its sharpness . Will the unsharp mask be applied in the O&A window with the « auto » value or just at « 100% » ?

Unsharp mask will be applied at any zoom value in the Objects and animation editor. Moreover you will see unsharp mask in MiniPlayer in the main window of PicturesToExe and even in the Slide list. It's a result of the fact that we can apply unsharp mask on the fly in real time. So it doesn't matter how we display a slide (in Slide list, in MiniPlayer, in the O&A editor, or in EXE file) everywhere we use same high quality rendering (Bicubic interpolation + Unsharp mask).

2 – I suppose the unsharp mask values will be specific for each view and not for all. Right ? (specific to different objects in the future )

Partially I've replied on this question above. In version 7.0 unsharp mask can be applied for entire screen of all slides. Same value for all project. For individual objects you can adjust Smoother/sharper parameter to reduce unsharp effect. In version 7.5 we will try implement individual unsharp mask for individual objects.

[Jean-Cyprien]

I am very happy with the answer to my first question, but very disappointed for my second question. I'm afraid this could be more dangerous than really useful. But the 7.5 will do it so that is a good piece of news.

Thank you Igor, and all your team.

[Picsel]

I would be much interested to know how it is translated in French in Photoshop (masque flou?)

Thank you in advance!

Masque flou => See here : http://www.david-romeuf.fr/Publications/Amateur/MasqueFlou/mf.html

that is a wellknown process mainly used by astronom photographers

[Lin Evans]

Hi Jean,

I believe that the new unsharp mask feature is an "option" which can be selected or not. If I'm wrong - perhaps Igor can correct me.

If it is optional by ticking a box, etc., then we could choose not to use it and everything would remain as it is now. Then if circumstances deem it necessary we have the choice of applying it universally, but could "tone it down" if desired. What isn't clear is whether reducing the amount, etc., would be applicable to individual slides or would apply necessarily to "all" slides?

Best regards,

Lin

I am very happy with the answer to my first question, but very disappointed for my second question. I'm afraid this could be more dangerous than really useful. But the 7.5 will do it so that is a good piece of news.

Thank you Igor, and all your team.

[Igor]

Lin,

I believe that the new unsharp mask feature is an "option" which can be selected or not.

That's right.

What isn't clear is whether reducing the amount, etc., would be applicable to individual slides or would apply necessarily to "all" slides?

In version 7.0 unsharp mask is a global option for all slides of a project. This choice is related with performance issues. In version 7.5 we hope to add individual unsharp mask options for separate objects.