Yes, except for vocabulary, unless I’m wrong, the concepts are similar.
1 Like
That statement makes no sense at all. He seems to be unaware that tone mappers exist… 
(I know you are just quoting - not implying you make no sense!)
That sounds very interesting and maybe worth it to help those with potato computers? I mean, only if you wanted to do it because it sounds like you were doing the work on that. If you don’t feel it was worth it, no problem! But the Diffuse or Sharpen module can’t be used by all Darktable users…
1 Like
So, I know this is controversial for some, but if your not interested in pixel peeping, just ignore it. I’m mainly writing this, because I noticed interested into the topic in other threads.
I did print the Lago di Garda image in larger size (60x40cm) on a nice paper, and I’m pretty happy with the result. The details a really shining.
Here is my final call regarding the diffuse or sharpen settings. I did watch APs 2h video again and did a revised preset for very fine details (see below). You can compare the results in these 100% crops. I show the ART version, the original version with the standard sharpen demosaic no AA filter preset, the version of @123sg and my refined preset (which I’m happy about, because IMO its at least as good as the ART version). Compare for yourself, but be sure to watch in full size.
For those interested in the DoS settings, here is a screenshot:
You probably can’t apply these settings blindly. Must tune them per picture, mostly with edge sensistivity and edge threshold, I think. If to strong, reduce iterations. Also combines very well with the detail threshold in the parametric mask settings.
Have fun!
5 Likes
Did you apply your preset to the same base as Steven’s? Somehow, I think I see not only sharpness but tonal differences, which then also influence perceived sharpness.
Yeah, all three DT version are just with other DoS settings.
1 Like
I’m actually quite liking DoS and even just using the 4th order speed to sharpen works quite good. I did notice if I use Contrast Equalizer and in Luma bump up the center section a bit on long telephoto shots of say a city and buildings it really messes up the sharpness of the buildings.
1 Like
That’s effective! Well done. Thanks for sharing the settings too.
1 Like
Interesting. I’ve pasted the “noAA” image over Steven’s and yours, and set them to difference mode. Yours shows more differences (differences emphasised using the Levels tool):
Yet, I perceive Steven’s as sharper, more detailed. Or was your aim to replicate ART’s Capture Sharpening as exactly as possible? In that case, you did a very good job! Differences emphasised:
Without Levels:
1 Like
This is interesting. I actually perceive @qmpel’s new version as more detailed, although I don’t think there’s much difference in actual resolving power, so as to speak. Possibly finer detail would be more descriptive.It also looks cleaner, less ‘artifact-ish’.
This is viewing at 100%… that makes a difference to, obviously.
I was curious so I tried that preset proposed by @qmpel on a recent photo shared of the bee.on the flower… earlier in the thread and it wasn’t the best out of the gate… I was in a rush this morning and just took a quick look so I should check again… But I have found just recently that I use an approach not like I have been before where I basically accepted the preset and then tweaked the iterations for the most part… I now feel that you can essentially apply a strong effect… say alternating -100 -50 -100 -50 settings or something like this ie quite strong to sharpen and then its very easy to dial it down and tweak it to a very nice result by using the two edge settings and opacity… I have also started to put an instance of astrodenoise in front of D&S so that I can tweak a bit of the grain/fine noise before D&S see’s the data…You can also try the other way for sharpening and just use a small effect on the sliders but slowly drop the threshold slider to a negative value… This has a strong impact on edges and might be more bang for the buck than bumping iterations… Finally the details slider can be used if you enable the parametric mask for even more fine tuning… so there are for sure a lot of small things that one can try to get the look that suits the individual…
1 Like
Yes - it’s not the effect that’s generally accepted as “sharpening”. I would call it a deblurring of the finest details (won’t get much smaller than a radius of one, I’d think).
So, I can understand @kofa , if he perceives the other version as “sharper”. I wonder how it looks like on a 4K Monitor, myself viewing on 2560x1440 with relatively large pixels. Will probably have to upgrade sooner or later 
And yes, @kofac I did try to mimic the ART way closely, as for my taste it provides a very fine level of detail…
I think that’s a pretty solid way to go. Just leave the grain level out of the sharpening process. It’s more or less what ART does, i think (the contrast threshold slider for the capture sharpening).
Thanks @agriggio for cleaning up the thread 
(as for edit No. 4, note to myself: proofread before posting 
)
3 Likes
I’ve also checked on a laptop with a Full HD panel - but because of the smaller screen, the pixel density is closer to that of the main display (1080p on 15.6" vs 2160p on 27"). Again, I find Steven’s version to be the sharpest. On all the others, the bushes appear mushy to me. This could easily be due to my less-than-perfect eyesight.
I don’t usually bother much with sharpening, as I export at 2K x 2K (encouraged by Pixls and enforced via downscaling on Facebook, which is my primary destination for sharing experiences with family and friends). Later, I might ask my kids to do their own comparison, simply asking which version looks ‘better’, without mentioning sharpness or ‘detailedness’ (the spell checker tells me there’s no such word; ‘having more details’, ‘being more detailed’, perhaps; surely not ‘detailedity’ :-D).
2 Likes
OK, so I’ve asked my younger daughter who’s into visual arts.
I only asked her:
Let’s refer to the the pictures by these numbers:
1 2 (ART; dt with the noAA preset)
3 4 (dt with @123sg’s preset; dt with @qmpel’s preset)
Which one do you like most?
I displayed the image at 1:1 magnification in geeqie.
She said she preferred 1 & 4. 2 and 3 are ‘blurry’, without details. She said maybe 4 had a tiny bit more detail, she preferred the colours of 1.
When I told her I found #3 the sharpest by far, she said it looked ‘pixelated’.
My other daughter first said they were all the same; #1 had slightly different colours. When I asked her specifically about sharpness, she also preferred #1.
So there. It’s probably my eyes that make me prefer the ‘pixelated’ version.
Edit: I asked my wife. Her vision is also so-so. She preferred #2 (dt with the noAA preset) for colours and sharpness. Weird. I’ll stop.
4 Likes
Thanks for the experiment. That’s exactly what I see.
Thanks for sharing the results of the experiment. 
Interesting. I should ask my sister, some to think of it. She’s not really into photography but knows the basics so would be interesting to get another opinion.
I think they don’t need to know anything about photography, just decide which picture looks best. They don’t have to say ‘it has artefacts’, ‘there are halos’ or anything like that.
1 Like
I asked her.
She liked no. 1 (ART) best, with no.3 (sg123 settings) in second place.
I asked what she didn’t like about the others and it was mostly about a lack of ‘clearness’ and also the colours being less good.
I’m baffled. 
1 Like