spent 4hours -_-
a temp result post #65701
a temp result post #65701
Looks good to me..thanks midzki :D
There is some obvious loss of detail, but you did a pretty good job in 4 hours.
Quick attempt, post #65733...
You've done a good job at preserving the frills.petopeto said:
Quick attempt, post #65733...
this frills are what I want to get :)petopeto said:
Quick attempt, post #65733...
I thought I should reduce noises on the shadow areas to align noise levels on the whole image, then tried to erase screening..
here is what I did.
on gimp,
dupulicate layer > desuturate (luminosity) > levels (50,250) > blur > color to alpha (white) > alpha to selection > delete layer > neatimage.
it did quite good job on the shadow areas, but filtering against the remains after this process might not good.
Greyc (-dt 10 -p .3 -a .5 -alpha 0 -sigma 3 -fast true) > SGB (r1,maxD25) > Greyc (-dt 20 -p .4 -a .6 -alpha1.2 -sigma 3 -fast false)
it modified frill patterns :(
- duplicate layer
- top layer, greyc -dt 150 -p 0.6 -a 0.5 -alpha 1.5 -sigma 1 -gauss 0.8 -fast -alt
- top layer, -dt 80 -p 0.6 -a 1 -alpha 1 -sigma 1 -fast -alt
- bottom layer, -dt 200 -p 0.8 -a 0.6 -alpha 1 -sigma 1 -gauss 0.4 -fact 2 -fast -alt
- bottom layer, -p 0.8 -a 0.6 -alpha 0.5 -sigma 1 -fast -alt (subtle, just reduces noise very slightly)
- mask away the top layer over the frills, blush, etc.
The main (top) filtering still shows some screening, but it's not very intrusive. If I bring it up further it starts to smear a lot of edges.
If you're looking closely, the graininess of the bottom layer is visible. To get rid of that I'd have to filter the bottom layer more, which would just start to blur out the frills again, and it doesn't seem too bad.
I posted the layer mask (post #65772); maybe it'll save someone time if they want to try something similar. I didn't spend time cleaning it up. In Photoshop, create a layer mask, alt-click it and you can paste it in.
- top layer, greyc -dt 150 -p 0.6 -a 0.5 -alpha 1.5 -sigma 1 -gauss 0.8 -fast -alt
- top layer, -dt 80 -p 0.6 -a 1 -alpha 1 -sigma 1 -fast -alt
- bottom layer, -dt 200 -p 0.8 -a 0.6 -alpha 1 -sigma 1 -gauss 0.4 -fact 2 -fast -alt
- bottom layer, -p 0.8 -a 0.6 -alpha 0.5 -sigma 1 -fast -alt (subtle, just reduces noise very slightly)
- mask away the top layer over the frills, blush, etc.
The main (top) filtering still shows some screening, but it's not very intrusive. If I bring it up further it starts to smear a lot of edges.
If you're looking closely, the graininess of the bottom layer is visible. To get rid of that I'd have to filter the bottom layer more, which would just start to blur out the frills again, and it doesn't seem too bad.
I posted the layer mask (post #65772); maybe it'll save someone time if they want to try something similar. I didn't spend time cleaning it up. In Photoshop, create a layer mask, alt-click it and you can paste it in.
(By the way, I didn't just come up with those settings now; I started with what I used for Super Lollipop and tweaked those, and those were a tweak from what I used for pool #366, and so on.)
http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/3865/clipboard1.pngpetopeto said:
I posted the layer mask (post #65772); maybe it'll save someone time if they want to try something similar. I didn't spend time cleaning it up. In Photoshop, create a layer mask, alt-click it and you can paste it in.
Collaboration =D
(just a try)
midzki
Is it possible to remove screening on poor prints without damaging Tinkle frills ?
need some suggestion :)