NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Processing & Publication => Topic started by: elsa hoffmann on October 11, 2015, 18:15:31
-
Anyone using this?
http://piccureplus.com/
piccure+ is a powerful program to correct optical aberrations and camera shakes causing a loss in detail. It is the only software solution that does not need to rely on any predefined lens profiles to correct lens softness but capable of determining the unique optical imperfections of your equipment. This means: piccure+ is probably the cheapest way to significantly upgrade your equipment. piccure+ can be used for every camera and lens combination and is available as a standalone program with a powerful batch processing functionality. piccure+ also installs as a plugin for Adobe® Photoshop®, Photoshop Elements® and Lightroom®. With piccure+ you will not need to spend a fortune on expensive lenses any longer.
Your license will activate two computers. It does not matter whether you are using Windows or Mac or both. Our support will help you out in case you need a new license (e.g. you changed your equipment).
-
So far I can only be certain that the module nearly brings my powerful computer to a halt and that it gives a new understanding of the phrase "slow as molasses". Does it work? No idea. Perhaps in an hour or so when the program completes the first test image?
Do note the program installs "phone home" components and won't install if you deny it such access.
-
The first test image was a total fiasco. Piccure+ only made it much less sharp.
-
Thanks Bjørn - much appreciated.
The only feature I would be interested in - is the "de-haze" which is in the new CC anyway (not that I have CC yet....) and I would be interested so see how the two process the same image.
cost in Sa is roughly $140 - not exactly cheap
-
Original to left, Piccure+ to the right. Not what I would call an improvement :D
(and yes, I gave it a tough case to match to elevated claims of the makers).
-
ouch!
-
My own words are not suitable for the web.
Suffice it to say Piccure+ failed miserably on this image file. That after locking up my computer for nearly 15 minutes - on a 16 MPix image....
-
Ah. That is clear. Thanks for the test, Bjørn.
-
I assume the program does better on other less exacting files, though.
-
well if you look at the examples they posted - you would have expected a LOT more.
-
If one is willing to pay $140, yes indeed expectations should be higher. I just happened to work with a file having tons of optical aberrations so naturally thought to test the claim that you could "save thousands of dollars" by using a mediocre lens and then run the images through Piccure+.
Reality bites, as usual. There is no free lunch, literally, here. Even were the program to improve image quality, you do have to take the processing time into account. Surely this will make any decent work flow grind to a halt if every image is to be run through Piccure+.
-
absolutely - there is no point in waiting 15 minutes to process one image. By then you could have gone out and photographed the subject again!
well at least we now know ! Nothing ventured - nothing gained.
-
Never heard of Piccure, so I was curious and downloaded it. Upon installation one of my protection programs warned me that Piccure wanted an obscure and indecipherable command to run each time my computer started. I denied of course, and the program quit installation. Fine with me, I deleted all traces of it.
-
Bjørn J: that was the phoning home component.
-
Bjørn J: that was the phoning home component.
Good thing I stopped it then :D
I hate that phone-home and activation nonsense. Actually I have cracked my fully legal Photoshop to avoid contact with the Mothership. When it comes to computers I have plenty paranoid characteristics - don't get me started ;D
-
I'll try it on one more file, then uninstall and ensure the program is completely wiped off my machine.
-
OK, this is the final test for Piccure+. I bravely navigated the stupid user interface and managed to run the program again. On a tangential note, one should think there wouldn't be much to go wrong when there are so few things to click on, but then you are sadly mistaken. This program is idiosyncratic and you have to do the steps in a fixed yet unspecified order otherwise you cannot get it to work or save the processed file.
Took the program 6 minutes to completely destroy the image smoothness and detail. I'm binning it right away. What a bad joke. Paying for the "pleasure" is even worse.
(in case you wonder, the grainy rendition on the right is the output from Piccure+).
-
Well, yikes, Bjørn !! What do you *do* to these apps anyway ?? ;D
FWIW, my test example ran in 18 seconds and seemed to clean up a joggled shot fairly well. (See remark in #3 below.)
Piccure settings were Motion/Quality(middle setting)/Shake=Medium/Sharp=27/DeNoise=None.
While I suppose there might be rare scenarios where a motion rescue is needed, I don't think I would make enough actual use of this app to warrant the $140 outlay. When shooting the pink flowered shrub, I knew right away that I had moved the camera. So I just made new shots right then and there.
I did not try the lens aberration rescue tonight, but might do so before the trial is over.
[1] Original Photo
[2] Unresized excerpt from original
[3] Unresized extract after running Piccure.
Some 'ghosts' of the doubled stamens can still be seen but they are quite a lot fainter.
-
there is no point in waiting 15 minutes to process one image.
Welcome to the color[wet] darkroom, circa 1975.
-
Welcome to the color[wet] darkroom, circa 1975.
I wont even begin to admit I know what you are talking about - WAY BEFORE MY TIME HAHA
-
I tried it
It ran in a few seconds with the full 36mp image on my laptop - win 7 8gb ram
it produced slightly better results on images from the 24-85 @f8 than images from the 50 f1.8 wide open
the results also produce some oversharpen artifacts that would need to be masked
Thanks but no thanks, I have uninstalled it
-
Yes! But does it cure bokeh fringing, e.g. of my AF-S 105/2.8G ED Micro-Nikkor? I'm bird sitting today and I get about 90% higher in focus eye (one on each side) with this lens compared to a manual focus 105.
Dave
My friend is a bit paranoid and won't let me post photos of her bird. It's a wild and silly hook bill type.
-
Can this evil program be made to phone 127.0.0.1 and still work (such as it does/ doesn't)?
-
Identify the URL it's trying to reach, then map that in a HOSTS file to 127.0.0.1.