| msnevil |
10-03-2006 08:13 AM |
Agian Vidpro, I'm no expert. The expert's are not found on this forum. The expert's are found on Website's Like Dai's. They not you nor me, Are the pro's.
I have had a discussion with them in the past on this subject. Thier input, Which I value over most anybody. Simply stated, What You and I Do is Fake to them.
My problem is that people are Claiming these as "Real". Not fake's. And a certain friend of mine is in the process of getting sued for making such a claim. (On a celebrity x-ray.)
And I'm not getting sued for a claim that I believe is "dishonest."
With that stated, What you listed below appears to get better results. Then what I did, Bravo!
May I ask, How does hue Help with with the x-ray appearence? Saturation, and light. I understand. Hue appears only to change the color to a more natural appearence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidpro
I think your software doesn't produce as good of results as mine does. If you are generating results like this from primarily auto-levels and contrast adjustment, you're going to have a hard time enhancing the luminance levels. When the results are pixelized to that degree, I recommend reducing the work area (like I did) so that you don't have to exagerate the differences between so many pixels. Iv'e included a more basic example of what my software does when using just basic functions, along with the results of your auto-levels and contrast.
I went a slightly different route:
Polygon Lasso tool (focused on a more limited area) -> Contrast +50 -> Hue -20 -> Manual levels, darkened mid-range 30% -> Brightened +25, did not underline anything, did not run any additional enhancement tools I normally do.
|
|
