PICCURE anyone?

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I'll try it on one more file, then uninstall and ensure the program is completely wiped off my machine.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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+).

[Andrea B.]

Well, yikes, Bjørn !! What do you *do* to these apps anyway ?? 

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.

[pluton]

there is no point in waiting 15 minutes to process one image.

Welcome to the color[wet] darkroom, circa 1975.

[elsa hoffmann]

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

[armando_m]

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

[David H. Hartman]

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.

[David H. Hartman]

Can this evil program be made to phone 127.0.0.1 and still work (such as it does/ doesn't)?

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Identify the URL it's trying to reach, then map that in a HOSTS file to 127.0.0.1.