Jump to content

SentieriNatura

Members
  • Content count

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. SentieriNatura

    Macro and Filters

    cAnother example: 1. Open a large image (for example a GH5 image of 5138 x 3888 pixels) but any large image will be OK 2. Start macro recording 3. Resize proportionally to a classic 1024 x 768 pixels 4. Set Filter/Sharpen/Clarity to 0.3 5. Stop, save the macro and close the image without saving 6. Open the same image 7. Play the macro stopping at the second step to inspect the Clarity value 8. You will se in the dialog a value of 1.5 If you compare the results obtained with the macro and the same operations performed manually you will see a clear difference.
  2. SentieriNatura

    Macro and Filters

    Ok, I understand the behaviour... but consider this scenario: Open a large camera image (5000 px on the long side) and start recording a macro: Step 1: Bicubic resize to 1024 px Step 2: set Filter/Sharpen/Clarity 0.3 Stop recording and save the macro. Now open a new image and run the macro Tha Macro resizes the image to 1024 and then applies a Clarity with value 1.5. Probably (?) because layer dimensions are evaluated at start of the macro. But at step 2 the image is already resized and the Clarity value should be 0.3 as recorded. Don't know if I was able to expose my problem correctly, hope so...
  3. SentieriNatura

    Macro and Filters

    I made some other tests and it seems that filter values, stored during the recording, are related to image size and change if you run the macro on a differente size image (??). I think this is not correct and drives to non predictable results...
  4. Hello I need some explanations on macro recording. I am a new user (I registered the software a couple of days ago) I would like to record in a macro two simple operations starting from a camera picture of about 21 megapixels: a Bicubic resize to 1024 pixels and a Filter/Sharpen/Clarity of 0.3 All goes well during recording but when I play the macro to a new image the Clarity applied is 1.5 and not 0.3 as recorded. So if I compare the final image obtained with the macro with the image obtained with manual operation, I don't get the same result.... Can someone explain this behaviour?
×