Stale

Resolved

Marcus Pollard

Resolved

Marcus Pollard

Request: Crop. 68.120.71.43 (talk) 09:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s): By a process of elimination and scrolling right to the bottom of the page I can see that Zac Sunderland must be the man standing next to Arnold Schwarzenegger, however this group photo contains 6 different men, any of which could be Marcus Pollard or Laurence Sunderland (or Frank Macmanus, Gerard Douglas, Pete Gigglesworth, Toby Wanamaker, Zebadiah O'Brien or any other man's name you care to invent). Put yourself in our shoes for a second. Who the f*** is Marcus Pollard, right? If you want help you'd better learn to use more than one word, otherwise your requests may simply be deleted. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 13:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requests won't be deleted unless there is genuine cause for deletion... however, cryptic/lazy requests may of course end up being ignored. – JBarta (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Done as requested. Compare with Marcus Pollard. PawełMM (talk) 10:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Sunderland

Resolved

Laurence Sunderland

Article(s): Laurence Sunderland

Request: Crop. 68.120.71.43 (talk) 09:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s): Who? nagualdesign (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Done as requested. Compare with Laurence Sunderland. PawełMM (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World Economic Forum 1975 images

Resolved

Jean Rey
Olivier Giscard d'Estang

Article(s): Jean Rey (politician), Olivier Giscard d'Estaing

Request: These appear to be scans from printed material, can anything be done to reduce the dotted effect resulting from this? January (talk) 10:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s): Done: Result is poor because of bad source files (big dots). PawełMM (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should be re-done using an FFT filter to remove the halftone patterns. I tried to do it myself but I'm rubbish at it. nagualdesign (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried both images, and it the result wasn't much better (saved 1st one just to show) - very unfortunate frequency and intensity of the pattern. FFT produced a bit sharper images but couldn't remove all noise, and the image quality is such that I can't selectively filter some image part after FFT. Materialscientist (talk) 05:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xerox scans

Resolved

Article(s): Maurice A. Preston, William V. McBride, Louis T. Seith

Request: Remove noise. Thanks. – Connormah (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s):

I've done FFT-assisted noise reduction. Some defects/moire might still be there, I just haven't got energy to do more (got some flu). Materialscientist (talk) 05:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded new versions of these images. I simply blurred them slightly. IMO this simple approach resulted in a better and more consistant looking image all the way around. – JBarta (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you blurred my versions (I applied only mild blurring) or talked to me about what could be done better. I noticed now in high magnification that while removing moire and defects (that you haven't done) I introduced some unnatural pattern - a lesson for me. Admittedly, I work fast, often on crippled PCs, and often make obvious errors, but your habit of silent overwriting work by others only shows your rudeness. Adieus. Materialscientist (talk) 04:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relax chief. Silent overwriting? Seems to me my comment above wasn't exactly silent. Rude? Depends on who you ask I suppose. Anyhow, nothing had been done to them for a while, and quite honestly I didn't think they were all that great and didn't think starting from your versions would yield a decent result. That said, if you feel you can upload a better version, you're always welcome to. I might be "rude", but I'm fair and reasonable and always happy to see a better job. – JBarta (talk) 07:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take yours and mine versions side by side. In a 200px thumb yours are worse because you haven't removed the moire pattern. In full width (some 1500px) yours are better because I haven't applied high-frequency filter and blundered with some local blurring (this can be repatched from nearby areas or from your version). In about 600px thumb, yours are much worse because beside moire, they contain various stripes, blotches on suits and foreheads. You probably understand that for every image of these you were overwriting a work of half an hour with a one-minute patch. Materialscientist (talk) 07:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did a couple of them two ways, one with FFT and one without. To my eye there was almost no difference. Others may achieve better results of course. And yes, the images can always be touched up further. Plus, on at least one (the fourth I think) it looks as if you had treated the subject and the background differently with what looked like a rather sloppy cutout job. Now you may think crying about working fast or on crippled PC's (whatever that is) is some sort of special exception for you, but it's not. It's irrelevant. As far as time spent I would suggest if the time were really that well spent, I probably wouldn't have dived in with my effort. All that said, this is easily remedied. If you really feel yours is better, then revert back to yours. I'll disagree, but I'll let it go. At the very least I would suggest your responsibility would be to work at a reasonable pace on a decent PC and do a better job and the whole job. And if that makes me rude, then so be it. – JBarta (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there was some sloppiness in No4 on my side, which I didn't notice (won't complain why). In such cases (very high-frequency noise), in practice, a simple frequency filter is as efficient as FFT - the difference in final sharpness is hard to notice. I've tweaked my versions and merged with yours, except for No3, where our versions were too close to merge (except for blotches/stripes). Materialscientist (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]