-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Topaz InFocus (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Roy C
- Start date
I've tried out. I didn't see much difference really.
Zackiedawg
Well-known member
Tried it as well. The sharpening aspect looks like it works fine, though honestly no real difference from any other microcontrast sharpener, and arguably no better results than what one can get with USM sharpening. The deblur/focus correction side I could not get to perform well for me...nothing close to the results they were showing in their samples. I dug up an old OOF photo with about as much OOF as the boy-at-the-beach sample they showed, but got tons of artifacts and no improvement...tried some mild motion blur correction - same result - no improvement to the blur and a ton of nasty artifacts. It might take a lot of practice, or it might not meet claims...either way, I'm not ready to bite on it as I still prefer USM sharpening and the focus/blur correction wasn't something I can make work.
Overread
Hunting birds with a canon
I've been reading about their new DeBlur tool and from what I've been able to test and read about nobody has been able to get results like the boast in their video and website examples. That coupled with the really low price (for now) makes me think that they know its not all its hyped up to be.
A few people have expressed the thought that its maybe aimed at JPEG editing rather than fullsize shots from the RAW editing - however I still think its a case that they've seriously over expressed the tools abilities.
A few people have expressed the thought that its maybe aimed at JPEG editing rather than fullsize shots from the RAW editing - however I still think its a case that they've seriously over expressed the tools abilities.
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
Having played with InFocus for a few days now I do not think I will be buying it. I did have one image that was slightly OOF and it worked well with that one but I tried a few more OOF shots from the past few days and results were not so good. The best thing to do with OOF shots is to bin them at the first cull IMO.
As a sharpening tool I cannot see that it is any better than my current method of duplicating the layer and sharpening the luminosity channel via USM.
Nothing lost by downloading the free trial though. BTW I have purchased Topaz DeNoise which I find excellent.
As a sharpening tool I cannot see that it is any better than my current method of duplicating the layer and sharpening the luminosity channel via USM.
Nothing lost by downloading the free trial though. BTW I have purchased Topaz DeNoise which I find excellent.
Ashley beolens
Breeding the next generation of birders.
Not tried the sharpening tools yet, but the noise reduction tool works well in my oppinion.
Zackiedawg
Well-known member
Their noise reduction tool is excellent. I've had Topaz Denoise since version 3...and version 5 is my absolute favorite noise reduction tool. I also enjoy playing around in Adjust. I am generally a fan of Topaz products and use them regularly...I just couldn't get InFocus to work as advertised. Maybe some tutorials may help, maybe new versions in the future will be better...I don't hold it against the company as I've found their products very good. I just didn't find this one worth purchasing, so far. I too use USM in layers and find it works best for me for sharpening...and for blur or OOF, I haven't found anything credible worth my time or effort, so I have always just deleted those.
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
I agree, purchased DeNoise 5 about a month ago - cracking piece of software.
Can someone tell me what USM is please?
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
Unsharp Mask
Zackiedawg
Well-known member
Sorry, inags...we get used to certain terms that become familiar with those who use it, and forget that others may not be familiar with the acronym!
Unsharp mask is one of the most popular sharpening techniques in more advanced editing software such as Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro, etc. Results are superior to standard 'sharpen' tools that come with basic editors. Combining the superior and less artifact-riddled USM style of sharpening with stacked layers when editing allows you to apply sharpening only where you want to apply it, or pare back the effects of haloing along heavy contrast edges and overdefining noise and grain.
Unsharp mask is one of the most popular sharpening techniques in more advanced editing software such as Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro, etc. Results are superior to standard 'sharpen' tools that come with basic editors. Combining the superior and less artifact-riddled USM style of sharpening with stacked layers when editing allows you to apply sharpening only where you want to apply it, or pare back the effects of haloing along heavy contrast edges and overdefining noise and grain.
I've also given up on the InFocus trial, not one of their better products.
As a large number read threads about sharpening, it may be an idea to link to different methods used, such as Roy mentions with USM. I'm still using the High Pass filter as that seems to suit what I do, not saying it's the best way but it just suits me.
As a large number read threads about sharpening, it may be an idea to link to different methods used, such as Roy mentions with USM. I'm still using the High Pass filter as that seems to suit what I do, not saying it's the best way but it just suits me.
Thanks for that. I've just downloaded a Photoshop Elements trial, I'll investigate further.
Musoman
PETE - Nikon/Sony Shooter
I tried Topaz DeNoise too, as people were singing its praises, but NN seems to do just as good a job, so i declined on the Topaz software.
As for Infocus and Deblur, I dont think i'm going to bother based on the results i got with DeNoise. Good tools no doubt, but no reason to change if i didnt see any benefit over NN
I use Focus Magic for deblur and sharpening, and this has stood me well these last couple of years. Its a plugin for CS, but the software for each action seperates depending on what you want to do
As for Infocus and Deblur, I dont think i'm going to bother based on the results i got with DeNoise. Good tools no doubt, but no reason to change if i didnt see any benefit over NN
I use Focus Magic for deblur and sharpening, and this has stood me well these last couple of years. Its a plugin for CS, but the software for each action seperates depending on what you want to do
I thought I'd give the 30 day trial on DeNoise a go.
Installed plugin ok on PaintShop Photo Pro 3X - I use this for most tasks except any RAW adjustments.
I must say, after finding a few noisy images to play with I am very impressed indeed so may go ahead and purchase later.
I keep thinking of maybe going to Photoshop Elements but each time I look at maybe buying it, a new version comes along. They seem to chuck out a new version every 6 months or so!
Installed plugin ok on PaintShop Photo Pro 3X - I use this for most tasks except any RAW adjustments.
I must say, after finding a few noisy images to play with I am very impressed indeed so may go ahead and purchase later.
I keep thinking of maybe going to Photoshop Elements but each time I look at maybe buying it, a new version comes along. They seem to chuck out a new version every 6 months or so!
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
Yep, I have both NN and neat image but must say that I prefer DeNoise which I purchase about a month ago after a free trial.
NoSpringChicken
Well-known member
I have DeNoise too and really like it. I would wait for as long as possible before purchasing it, as they regularly have 20% off special offers.
Ron
Zackiedawg
Well-known member
I would tend to agree that there's not a huge difference between Denoise and NN, Neat Image, or other decent noise reduction programs when dealing with light noise removal. If you already use one of these, and need to remove very light blue-sky noise or lower ISO noise, I wouldn't see enough difference to switch either.
Where I've found Denoise to jump significantly ahead of NoiseNinja, Helicon, and Neat Image at least for me, it is in extreme high ISO NR. When dealing with RAW or JPEG photos shot at ISO6400, 12800, or more, in extremely dark, underexposed conditions, the removal of noise while retaining detail is nothing short of amazing, as well as nice touches like black level correction. For those in doubt on Denoise's ability, try it out on a really nasty noisy photo or extremely high ISO.
I'd love to see InFocus live up to the samples they've shown - maybe future updates might make it possible to achieve those results. So far though, my results are so far from anything close to what they showed in their samples that it just doesn't justify itself for me. Essentially, only the sharpening seems to be of any value, and it doesn't really seem to sharpen any better than other sharp tools. Until I can get the focus blur correction to work as advertised, I won't be buying this product.
Where I've found Denoise to jump significantly ahead of NoiseNinja, Helicon, and Neat Image at least for me, it is in extreme high ISO NR. When dealing with RAW or JPEG photos shot at ISO6400, 12800, or more, in extremely dark, underexposed conditions, the removal of noise while retaining detail is nothing short of amazing, as well as nice touches like black level correction. For those in doubt on Denoise's ability, try it out on a really nasty noisy photo or extremely high ISO.
I'd love to see InFocus live up to the samples they've shown - maybe future updates might make it possible to achieve those results. So far though, my results are so far from anything close to what they showed in their samples that it just doesn't justify itself for me. Essentially, only the sharpening seems to be of any value, and it doesn't really seem to sharpen any better than other sharp tools. Until I can get the focus blur correction to work as advertised, I won't be buying this product.
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
Same here, Justin - DeNoise just seems much better at dealing with more "challenging" noise.
As to InFocus though: I actually thought, when I first got my email about it, that for at least one of the examples they'd taken a properly sharp, focused image and Gaussian blurred it to create what they then presented as the "before" image, with the unblurred original image as "after".
The simple fact is that you can't polish a turd, and out of focus is out of focus, no matter how clever the software purports to be.
As to InFocus though: I actually thought, when I first got my email about it, that for at least one of the examples they'd taken a properly sharp, focused image and Gaussian blurred it to create what they then presented as the "before" image, with the unblurred original image as "after".
The simple fact is that you can't polish a turd, and out of focus is out of focus, no matter how clever the software purports to be.
H K
Well-known member
I have used plenty of the topaz plugins . While people try to turn water into wine with Infocus , it's only a 10 pixel sharpening gain . So the low res. files do get a better sharpening . You basically need to use a few plugins together to get good results . A few of their sharpening samples are near impossible to duplicate .
Here is about the limit of combined plugins . It works well to bring some Pop back to a soft telephoto image .
Here is about the limit of combined plugins . It works well to bring some Pop back to a soft telephoto image .
Attachments
Last edited:
Similar threads
