Capture Sharpening for Canon 1Ds II

Hi.  I have been away from my photography for some time and am slowly coming back up to speed on things new.  For now my focus is on capture sharpening for images shot with my 1Ds II.  Previously I used Photokit with variable results and an action combining Smart Sharpen and the sharpen feature embedded in Reduce Noise.  (I had, in fact, had a number of discussions with Bruce Fraser a long time back about the results I was getting with Photokit and the 1Ds II. It was my disappointment with the results from Photokit that led to a preference for the results of the SS/RN action.)
I've just read the following thread with interest:
http://forums.adobe.com/click.jspa?searchID=250337&objectType=2&objectID=1207380
It seems things have moved along a lot.  I currently have CS3 (ACR 4.6, the latest I believe).  My question is have things have moved on beyond the discussion contained in the above thread? I am not focused, at this point, on upscaling/downscaling but rather simply on getting the best full pixel base image.
Is there anything in CS4 (ACR 5.x) which would improve capture sharpening?
(BTW I have previously used Photozoom to upscale.  The thought of scaling in ACR seems incompatible with then image-editing independent of output size so that the final work can then be output to any desired size at any point in time.)
Finally, for output sharpening I used Photokit.  I have not yet purchased Lightroom. I have yet to fully evaluate the benefits although these seem to be purely workflow oriented rather than 'functional'. One thing in the above thread piqued my interest though and since it's related I will ask: are there significant advantages to output sharpening in Lightroom versus Photokit?
Thanks in advance
Steve

Steve Kale wrote:
Only if one can get an image to final output satisfaction are they useful.  I suspect that's a minority of cases but maybe ACR has developed way beyond my current impression.
Well, I guess you haven't downloaded the demo and actually used ACR 5 yet huh? Many, many photographers find with the addition of local tone/color control the numbers of images that MUST go through Photoshop has been drastically cut. So, for those people who can do most everything in ACR, there's the useful ability to do output sharpening. Very handy when you are doing a batch save of a bunch f images intended for a web page or prints at a lab. The only caveat is that for the output sharpening to be effective, you must be able to spec the final size in ACR. That's a bit crude at the moment but should improve in the future...
As for Photoshop having output sharpening as well...I don't disagree...but that's a separate business issue that I can't really get into. Hopefully we will be able to work something out down the road.
The issue with Advanced B&W printing is an Epson issue to fix...it can't be fixed by Adobe (or at least shouldn't be). However, it works just fine if you use intentional double color management and set the CS4 to handle color management and send the driver Adobe RGB (as the output profile) and then also set the driver to Advanced B&W. This works for CS4 and Lightroom 2.x.

Similar Messages

  • Lost camera raw support for canon 1ds markI in mountain lion

    I seem to have lost system support for camera raw files for the original Canon 1ds (what you might call the markI). There's been two recent raw support updates, and I'm not sure if it occured with the first for those two updates or with update to Mountain Lion itself (which I recently clean-installed). I noticed it after the first raw support update (Digital Camera RAW Compatibility Update 4.01) but it could have happend with Mountain Lion install and I just didn't notice. In any case, I definitely don't have support for the camera raw files, finder shows only the generic TIFF icon thumnail (the raw files from the markI 1ds were of the extension .TIF, before canon moved on to .cr2 format..). Preview and Aperture can preview the file but without any custom white balance or other info stored with the raw file from camera.
    Anybody else experience this or know fix?
    Thanks!
    For anyone wanting and willing to test on their machine, I'll post a link to a test raw file.... hmm, apparently this support forum does not allow for the linclusion of a link to an image file, but I'll see if it allows for a link to a zipped folder with image inside... I suppose I wouldn't download a .zip file myself but for anyone braver than I:
    http://laglj.com/2012hirez/1dsTestFile.zip
    Thanks,
    Lane
    laglj.com

    Lane,
    That latest raw update also shows supported devices. The EOS-1Ds is still shown as supported by Mountain Lion in the knowledge base article that accompanies it. Bump!
    I wonder if using Disk Utility and verify/fix permissions may restore your RAW capability.
    Don't have Aperture or Lightroom.
    I installed the recent raw updates into 10.8.2. The DB5W2360.TIF file has a generic Preview icon. Graphic Converter 8.3.1 opens .cr2 files, and it opened this TIF file nicely as well. GC is willing to modify white balance with a condition that it cannot be done in place, and must be exported to a different format.
    Not much help, I know.

  • Shutter actuations for Canon 1Ds Mk III

    How can I determine the total number of shutter actuations for my 1Ds Mk III ?  Does it really require getting some specialty software ?

    michaelPH46 wrote:
    Every where I searched I got incorrect advice from everyone. Seems people like to hear themselves talk when they cannot answer factually and accurately. If you want the shutter count on a canon eos 1ds mark 3, go to this site. I got an accurate count there.  http://shuttercounter.com/
    Not to be argumentative (and I wouldn't dream of offering you unsolicited advice), but given the uncertainty that seems to dog this issue, how exactly do you know that the count you got from that site is accurate?
    Bob
    Boston, Massachusetts USA

  • Premiere Pro CS5 -capture settings for canon 30f/24f?

    Latley I have been using a canon xha1 for some simple work projects. I am new to the HDV workflow, and I am very thrown off by the XHA1 formats and how to properly capture them.
    I have not been able to find the proper way to set up a sequence for 30f settings. Knowing that the 30f is not really progressive which settings should I use. (also what would the proper settings be for 24f?)
    PP CS5 seems to have the Canon XF MPEG2 presets. as well as the standard HDV settings. Below is a screen shot of what I assume I should be capturing with.
    Lets say the footage is 30f. Which of the following should I use. Or is it netiher due to the 30f being interlaced. Any help would be grealty appreciated.
    (Premiere Pro CS5 on windows 7)

    function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
    Colin Brougham wrote:
    You'd use the HDV 1080i30 preset for both; they're both interlaced.
    That's not really true.  These formats carry the flags to tell the NLE which frames to drop.  It is progressive.
    I use an HV40 with "f" mode all the time and Premiere reads it correctly as progressive.  Even after dropping a clip on the make a new item icon.

  • Capture settings for Canon XL2 shot in: 16:9 24p 2:3:3:2

    I just boght the XL2 and FCP, and need to capture a four hour interview I shot today in 16:9 24p 2:3:3:2. I just don't know how to set up the capture settings correctly.
    Thanks guys,
    Wes
    iMac G5   Mac OS X (10.4.7)   2.0 GHz, 400Gb Hard Drive, 2Gb Ram, 250Gb External

    Well, 2:3:#:2 pulldown refers to the way your camera flags the frames while they're recorded, in other words there's not real 24P recording while using tape, because video runs @ 29.97fps ,(what the camera does is to tell to your editing machine that it has to spread the 1st frame over the two first fields the second frame over the next three fields the third frame again over three fields and so on, from there it why it's call 2:3:3:2 pulldown) so in fact to capture true 24P for editing you have to remove the pulldown and remember,if you later are going to edit to tape you'll have to re-apply the pulldown so it prints well to a 29.97 device.
    Hope I was clear enough

  • Capture Sharpen (and other questions)?

    I have been a very big advocate of capture sharpening for fine art workflow for more than a few years now (landscape fine art gallery enlargements). I was under the impression that in ACR (7.1) by using the Radius to the left (0.5) and Detail to the right (100) I was maximizing the deconvolution aspect of sharpening and maybe even drawing out a hair more real detail from the raw file.
    Today I did a test on a high frequency raw image (trees) and had my settings at Amount 45, Radius 0.5, Detail 0, and masking at 20. But then I also did it on the same image, this way: I brought a second version of the raw file into PS with no capture sharpening, and saved it as a tiff, then I brought that tiff back into ACR 7.1 and then did the capture sharpening. In Photoshop CS6 I put them on top of each other as layers (one raw sharpened and one tiff sharpened) and at all viewing distances they were exactly the same to my eye (I did notice that the histograms of each were very, very slightly different).
    But I could not see a single pixel or edge change anywhere in the image even at 1600% viewing distance. This seems to blow away my impression about deconvolution sharpening actually drawing out more real detail from a raw file. I totally understand that sharpening is not real detail, but on this forum years ago I came to believe that somehow a bit more real detail might be accessed in raw by the aforementioned settings. Any thoughts?
    Second question: do you really think there is a quantitative quality difference in detail (or the illusion of) in an image that has capture sharpening applied in ACR (7.1) at its native size, then is enlarged substantially with further rounds of sharpening and grain simulation in the end (versus just sizing it up soft and doing all the sharpening at the end)?  I did testing on this years ago and it seemed to be noticably better overall. I guess I'm just second guessing it again.
    My basic workflow is capture sharpen Radius 05. / Detail 100, then upsize with Smoother (40, 50, 60, 70 inches...) then do some moderate high pass, then advanced use of unsharp mask (LAB - L channel - or Luminosity - RGB - also blending/blend if sliders for fall off if necessary) then ACR grain simulation (on a seperate layer - not to create grainy photos - but create the illusion of more detail and to camouflage artifacting).  I believe after years of testing and practice this seems to be about as good as it gets for my content.
    Lastly, smart sharpen... I have not used this much, but do you think this workflow might benefit from using it instead of USM (with the more deconvolution - lens blur/more accurate) type of sharpen near the end)?
    Side note: for those involved with focus bracketing (for increased depth of field with the sharpest f/stop) it is common knowledge that capture sharpening at the raw stage (before the Auto Align and Auto Blend in PS) confuses the auto blend algorithm as to what are the real sharper pixels. So, we don't capture sharpen those images (this is common practice).
    And after blending the images (Auto Blend) we usually just size up (for enlargement) and go.  Now I am thinking that after the focus blending is finished and the file is flattened it might be a good idea to bring that tif file back into ACR and apply a little bit of capture sharpening before the upsize. Does that make sense to you?
    Cheers for your time and feedback!
    Message linebreaks added by: PECourtejoie

    Disclaimer: I did not entirely understand the original post, and maybe some of this does not apply in your multi-step process, so take with salt...
    ACRFREAK wrote:
    With low ISO shots (100) I always try to use the least noise reduction possible in ACR (less is more approach) which means on correctly exposed images ("to the right") on Canon cameras, my ACR settings are often 0 on luminance and 0-5 on color noise.
    At ISO 100, I rarely use any luminance noise reduction, however my experience is that even under ideal circumstances including low ISO, a modicum of color noise reduction is still essential for optimum image quality. - it is almost never desirable to set color noise reduction to zero, IMO - YMMV. (Note: in NX2 - you don't even get a choice about it - (true) color noise reduction will be applied, as Nikon sees fit).
    Note: ACR's color noise reduction algorithm is image adaptive (it's more "aggressive" on higher ISO shots). You shouldn't see much (if any real) detail loss with color noise reduction at 25 on ISO 100 shots, eh?
    ACRFREAK wrote:
    My theory is that I am trying to keep a much of the fine detail as possible. Also the reason I like the 0.5 radius and 100 detail.
    In my opinion, ideally, the sharpen settings should depend on the photo - type, and inherent focus... (.5/100 may be great for ultra-clean, ultra-sharp landscapes, but may not be appropriate for portraits...)
    But different strokes for different folks. (and I don't know what kinds of photos you mainly (or only) shoot).
    Rob

  • Detail slider in capture sharpening

    Does this slider work like the radius slider in high-pass filter in PS?

    AlperTonga wrote:
    Can DXO Pro automatically apply optimum capture sharpening for a given lens + camera pair by using the deconvolution algorithm? Is it possible? I don't think that it has such a feature. Does it have?
    It's automatic, however, DxO measures parameters like lens softness, CR, Distortion as well as the inherent noise in camera sensors, all at a variety of test points. In lenses, the corrections are applied with respect to focal length and  aperture.
    If you want to see how it looks, go to www.slrgear.com and check out the tested lenses ( a good site to check before you buy). As I understand it, at least when I first started using their site, they use software from DxO to make the measurements.
    DxO supplies modules for your camera and lenses which you download after installing the software.
    DxO says it's sharpening algorithm is deconvolution but how it is applied isn't well stated. Of course, variations between samples might need additional corrections and in this case, back to eyeballing (pixel peeping), but you are starting from a fixed base that is pretty close.
    I made acquaintances with a particular support person at DxO (talk about over qualified! He has a PhD in physics!) who told me that the average test time per item is about 30 man-hours.
    I could go on, pros and cons, but this isn't a DxO site nor a general public site.

  • What are the settings for capturing video from Canon HV20

    Hi All,
    I want to capture video from Canon HV20 with Premiere Elements 11. What kind of settings should I use to capture the video with full information?
    Here is what I did:
    1) According the manual, I went to Capture settings panel (Edit > Project Settings > Capture) and selected HDV as capture format, because my video is at high definition.
    2) In addition, I checked "Capture to Timeline" and "Split Scenes by cotent".
    Are these settings enough?
    Thanks.

    HV20user
    Sounds reasonable, using Add Media/HDV Camcorder, but....
    Have you reviewed the Adobe write up on Premiere Elements 11 DV and HDV capture firewire into it.
    http://help.adobe.com/fr_FR/premiereelements/using/WS5CDA0F91-60F1-4b79-ABF6-E9E75F498DB2. html#WS2AF26FB5-4C63-4c46-9DB3-7249558F6528
    The mention of Get Media instead of Add Media makes me wonder if the video's instructor was demo'ing from Premiere Elements 10, but...
    Major factors have always included having Premiere Elements project preset set correctly to correspond to your camera settings...For HDV data capture firewire...
    NTSC HDV HDV 1080p30 or PAL HDV HDV 1080p25 depending on if you are targeting a NTSC or PAL area where frame rates are typically a consideration.
    I had not done any DV or HDV data capture firewire into Premiere Elements. But, Premiere Elements 11's take over of the project preset setting would encourage me to encourage you to verify your project settings before the capture.
    There are probably many more, but the following is online discussion of one Canon HV20 issue
    http://forum.videohelp.com/threads/316970-video-capture-problems-HV20-camcorder-is-control led-but-no-video-capture
    If you experience difficulty with the HDV capture fireware into Premiere Elements 11, you might consider what some others have done in this regard, that is, use HDVSplit for the capture firewire and then import the split (.m2t) clips "Add Media" into Premiere Elements 11 with the appropriate HDV HDV 1080p (1440 x 1080 HD anamorphic 16:9) project preset.
    Please update us on your progress when you get a chance.
    Thanks.
    ATR

  • Too much resizing for capture sharpening?

    For images that will be offset printed 2.25" wide by various lesser heights, is there a disadvantage to shooting large raw captures? At first I wanted to keep a large original 3008 x 2000 ppi as a master in case we wanted a larger print. But I'm not sure if exposure and other develop settings are degraded when image is resized too much. Would capture sharpening be less effective if image is reduced so much? I'm trying to test whether I should set a smaller file size when shooting, or hold certain develop settings till after resizing.
    Thank you,
    Tim

    Tim, I think that Stu may have misunderstood your potential workaround. If I understand correctly, your plan was to:
    1. capture sharpen in LR
    2. export from LR at the new size
    3. re-import the newly resized version into LR
    4. Use the sharpening tools on the resized version to output sharpen
    5. Export the output sharpened resized image at "full-size" (i.e. no further resizing on export)
    And your question was "if both LR and PS are being used to sharpen the same re-sized image, what can PS do that LR cannot," right?
    Well, I have also been experimenting with this workaround and have found it to be satisfactory for many images. From what I can tell, USM in Photoshop is different in at least these potentially significant ways:
    1. PS has Threshold which, from what I can tell, works differently than Detail. You should play with each to get a feel for when it might be advantageous to use each. I have found threshold to be most useful for keeping PS from applying sharpening to fine-grain noise in the image. However, most fine-grain noise will be "averaged out" when downsizing, so this might not be an important difference.
    2. PS can apply a much greater amount of sharpening. Your need for huge amounts of sharpening will depend on the image.
    3. PS can use radii less than 0.5, which can be very useful for small thumbnail-size images.

  • What is a good video converter for iMac?  Premiere 6 will not capture from the Canon VIXIA HF G20.

    What is a good video converter for iMac?  Premiere 6 will not capture from the Canon VIXIA HF G20.

    Rather than convert, you'd be better off capturing with a more current version of the program -- one that supports AVCHD video. Otherwise, you're in for a lot of headache. A converter isn't going to solve your problems.
    BTW, when you say Premiere 6, do you mean Premiere 6 -- which is over 10 years old? (There was no Premiere Elements 6.)
    Trust me on this: Capture with a Mac version of Premiere Elements 11 or 12 and your video will be perfectly compatible with any Mac program.

  • Capturing from a Canon HV20 for CS5.5 on a Mac

    Hi everyone,
    Never had this problem on any version of the CS system and now all of a sudden I can't capture from the Canon HV20 anymore.  It keeps telling me to check the settings but they all seem ok. 
    Any ideas?
    Many thanks
    Jo

    Mark, by any chance in your interviews, did you use a combination of mikes on 2 different channels? For example, did you use a boom on one channel and a lav on the other? If so, and you are importing as stereo, you might be having phase problems between the two mikes, making it sound weak. Try turning off stereo pair under the modify pulldown and turn one of the tracks off.
    Does that improve thinga?
    Of course you might just have had an idiot for an engineer...

  • Input (capture) sharpening workflow in ACR 4.3.1

    At the suggestion of another member, I'm posting this here in addition to posting on Windows Photoshop forum:
    I shoot raw, always, and have avoided using Camera Raw in my workflow until recently (4.3.1), because so much time and organization effort is now saved by including Camera Raw 4.3.1 in my workflow, where it wasn't in previous versions.
    My problem is that I had been trained in numerous Canon tutorials to always perform input sharpening as the first step in the workflow, using a radius of 0.3 and an amount of 300 in Photoshop CS2, in order to remove the effects of the camera sensor's anti-alias filter.
    This is only possible in Photoshop, since the Camera Raw controls limit those parameters to 0.5 and 150. My workflow is first forced into Photoshop proper followed by Camera Raw, if I am to follow Canon's recommendation, which means I lose one of the principle benefits of using Camera Raw 4.3.1.
    I have reviewed many posts and tutorials relating to sharpening in Lightroom, Camera Raw, and Photoshop, and none of these documents refer to input sharpening as part of the workflow, but to the use of sharpening as a creative tool in image manipulation or for optimizing for media, etc.
    Thanks for any advice.

    Guy,
    first thing to note, the Amount and Radius parameters in ACR and in Photoshop's USM filter are on different scales; you cannot compare their numerical values directly (Jeff, please correct me if I'm wrong!).
    Second thing, of course you're never supposed to apply Sharpening for Source first (in Photoshop) and then take the file back to ACR to tweak it further. If you don't want to use ACR's new capture sharpening feature then disable it and fully develop your raw image in ACR, applying white balance, exposure, brightness, saturation, noise reduction, and lens correction settings as required---and THEN, to the fully developed TIFF, PSD, or JPEG file, you'd apply Sharpening for Source first thing in Photoshop.
    By the way, I don't like ACR's new sharpening feature too much. Lately I developed the notion that Sharpening for Content (as presented in Bruce's four-stage sharpening workflow, i. e. Source, Content, Creative, and Output; see his book "Real-World Image Sharpening") conceptually belongs into one category with Creative Sharpening, not with Sharpening for Source. So the concept of Capture Sharpening---which combines Sharpening for Source and Sharpening for Content into one single sharpening stage---seems reasonable technically but not conceptually. The parameters for Sharpening for Source depend solely on the properties of the image-acquiring device (i. e. scanner or digital camera). The parameters for Sharpening for Content and for Creative Sharpening both depend on image content as well as on the author's taste and intentions. In my opinion, Sharpening for Content *is* a sort of a kind of Creative Sharpening---so combining Sharpening for Source and Sharpening for Content into one Capture Sharpening stage makes sense only when processing one image at a time (for the one-image-at-a-time workflow, I do like, and use, ACR's capture sharpening feature).
    When processing a whole batch of raw images which come all from the same source, it usually makes sense to automatically apply the same degree of Sharpening for Source to all of them but to apply any further sharpening (namely for Content and Creative) individually to each image. That's why I usually disable ACR's sharpening altogether and stick to Bruce's four-stage sharpening workflow, applying Sharpening for Source via Photoshop's batch automation.
    -- Olaf

  • ACR 4.41 capture sharpening

    Hi I have a question for the experts here. I have XP SP3 PSCS3 ACR 4.41 I am learning Raw with the wonderful Real World Camera Raw with CS3 by Bruce Fraser and Jeff Schewe.
    In the book it is recommended to do my capture sharpening with ACR. Currently I have been using the excellent Photokit Sharpener (1.2.6) plug in for PS,after finishing all of my editing in Raw and converting to PSD. Can anyone suggest equivalent settings in ACR 4.41
    Amount radius, detail masking options.
    for each option in the digital hi-Res capture sharpening set?
    superfine, narrow, medium and wide edge
    I have an idea that Jeff Schewe might be involved in Photokit too??
    Any help is greatly appreciated.
    Kind regards
    Geoff

    >No, there really is no set of settings since it depends on the source capture and the subject matter...the best bet is to make it look "good" at 100%...
    It seems strange to me that useful presets are possible with PKSharpener but not with the new ACR sharpening work flow, since both are based on the same principles: Bruce Fraser's sharpening methods.
    While some degree of fine tuning is always desirable, Jeff does give some suggestions for landscape and portrait sharpening presets, both in the ACR with PSCS3 book (pages 170-184) and in the Camera Raw tutorial. I think these are for Canon 1DsMII resolution.
    In his seminal sharpening book (Image Sharpening with CS2), Bruce Fraser discusses in some detail the settings for source (radius according to camera MP count and amount according to the strength of the blur filter). He also discusses sharpening for subject content in some depth. The OP implied high resolution, so Jeff's suggestions would be a good starting point in building presets for a given camera and subject matter, and the theoretical basis given in Bruce's book goes a long way into how to make rational adjustments.

  • Capture sharpening and  radius setting?

    While I am getting better at sharpening per the Fraser-Schewe approach, I certainly still have a lot to learn.
    I understand that landscape shots should usually have a radius in the range of 0.5 to 0.8 for capture sharpening (source + content) in ACR.
    What are the most important factors to consider in selecting a radius in this range for capture sharpening of landscape shots? I don't think this topic was really addressed in the Real World Camera Raw - CS3 book.
    Yes, I will continue to experiment on my own, but some guidance would be most useful.
    BTW, my raw captures average 6MB (Canon Powershot S60, small sensor) and for landscape capture sharpening in ACR I am using radius=0.7, amount=60, detail=40.

    Joseph one advantage of ACR over other RAW converters is the visual feedback, at least with a fairly fast computer. I would advice to practice more and not to rely on recommended settings. These are a good starting points to shorten the practice period but image content can be more important than blanket statements like "settings for landscapes".
    Leaves were mentioned above so let me give an example. A desert shot will qualify as landscape but so will a golf course with grass and various foliage. Green foliage can give strange sharpening effects and often requires very different settings than say red sand and sandstone.
    In some cases selective sharpening of selected image areas may be required for best results. Not necessarily as a start but perhaps worth the trouble for "best shot".

  • Capture Sharpening in Aperture

    Is there a good source for information about capture shapening within Aperture? Using edge sharpening, it seems to do a reasonable job for files that will not be enlarged much, but when I try to print even 16x20 from a 6 MP file, the images seem either soft, or if I boost the sharpening, I see artifacts and crunchy pixels. If I export files without sharpening and use Photokit Sharpener for capture and output sharpening, all is well. I have been using Lightroom since it was in beta, and I am very happy with the capture sharpening there. I'd like to get similar results from Aperture if I am going to use it regularly. (Perhaps the rumored 2.0 update will take care of that)

    There really isn't an Aperture equivalent to Photokit and its one of the big drawbacks of Aperture for me. The problem is that to do "Bruce Fraser" type sharpening you need to do output sharpening at the desired output resolution. There is no way to do this in the current version of Aperture.
    However, I have a workaround that sort of works. I alter the sharpening in Raw Fine tuning to do capture sharpening and then I use Edge Sharpening for output sharpening. I got the settings by starting with unsharpened raw images. I exported them to Photoshop and used Photokit to do capture sharpening. I then went back to Aperture and adjusted the sharpening in raw fine tuning to match ( as well as I could) the results in Photoshop.
    Output sharpening was harder because it depends on the size you will print at, but I followed a similar procedure except in this case I tested parameters by exporting the file from Aperture at various sizes after sharpening and then comparing to a version sharpened with Photokit. I did this at two sizes, full size and roughly half-size at 300 dpi.
    I went through this because I was doing an Aperture book and I didn't want to have to export each photo in the book to Photoshop for sharpening. It worked pretty well both with Apple printing and SharedInk printing.
    The settings I used are below, but they were created for a 6 Megapixel DLSR ( a Canon D60). You would have to alter the settings for different cameras, though the approach to finding the settings would be the same:
    Capture Sharpening:
    Wide Edge
    Intensity:0.60
    Edges:0.63
    Medium Edge
    Intensity:0.60
    Edges:1.0
    Output Sharpening;
    Using Edge Sharpen:
    Full size
    Intensity:0.5
    Edges:1.0
    Fall off:0.7
    Half-size
    Intensity:0.5
    Edges:1.0
    Fall off:1.0
    The settings worked better for full size than half-size.
    If Apple is listening then I would suggest that they read Bruce Fraser's Real World Sharpening book and allow Aperture to match the multi-pass sharpening approach he outlines. That would primarily involve changes in edge sharpening, by allowing it to be done at final output resolution and allowing edge sharpen settings to be sensitive to output resolution.
    -Will Rabinovich

Maybe you are looking for