Why such poor results with Background Erase?

For some reason, I thought background erase had boundary detection logic that made it easy to isolate images. But my experience over a dozen uses has left me doubting the processing and/or the methods I use.

I'm following exactly the steps show in this article:
http://support.xara.com/index.php?/K...ckground-erase

But my resulting images never have the sharp boundaries it implies I can get.

Admittedly, the range of color (mostly grays) in the image I'm currently working with is low. Nonetheless, there is a clear edge to the image. And I've had artifacts show up even on images with dramatically darker backgrounds. Up to now, I've resorted to tediously outlining an image to get a decent result.

Is there a setting or method I should try?

Thanks in advance for any suggestions.


Attachment 109968

Here is a video that may help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angelize

Here is a video that may help.

---

Actually, I had watched that very video before I made my post. It does give a good result, but the page I referenced certainly gave me the impression that a few "identifying swaths" were all that's needed ... and the software would do the rest.

Rather than try "detailed swaths", I'd much rather outline the object and be certain of what I'll get.

I was just expecting more from Xara.

Thanks for responding.


Attachment 109969

I do not know about the software that can fulfill wishes. Xara removes background is not worse than the other software.
White background can be easily removed with "select colors" tool too.

I personally prefer the shape tool. It takes not much longer than the masking. But the clean result is guaranteed.

A lot of Contours problems are caused by using a JPEG original (the blocky artifacts are typical of JPEG), but this can be got around by erasing close into the foreground. For example I was able to produce a pass-able background erase of a simular image in a few minutes.
Attachment 109970

The image I used in my video was a jpeg but it was a fairly high resolution image.

Also, Angelise, you got close into the edges exactly as I described!

There's definitely a knack to getting good results with this tool that experience can hone. I still feel that this tool is too trial-and-error though with its current implementation. Having to undo, retry, and hope you get a good result. It would be more accessible I feel if it you could refine the result in a live way before committing to a final result. Photoshop's refine edge functions pick out hair strands better I feel too, especially as you can alter saturation etc during the process to give a better looking result.

I don't know, I've only used it a couple times, both with excellent results, though the originals had 300 ppi resolution, perhaps that was the difference. I seldom use photos as-is in my cartography work, more often using photographs as vector image fills - all my shapes used in my work are vector objects. So I have little use for the tool myself, though I indeed see its practical application.

Thanks for all the responses. At least I know that I’m not just missing something.

Regarding magic software, we’ve had features like red eye reduction for years ... and I’ve seen some pretty amazing effects: object remove ... blending ... stitching ... content aware scaling. Even snap to objects surprises me sometimes about what it can “see”. So accurately isolating objects in an outline fashion certainly seemed feasible.

But given the realities of the current Xara feature, I’d like to see it changed it as follows:

• use the current brush method to loosely mark the object and the background
• have the software put up a dashed outline of the object it thinks it sees
• let you adjust the outline in any way that's needed, using the same tools as you would use if you had created the outline

This would let the software accomplish what it can ... and the user easily take care of the more difficult instances. And as the software improved in each new version, the user would do less and less. Plus, it’s a merging of the editing methods.

In the meantime, I’ll go with the mask + outline method for most of my uses.

Thanks, again.

That's absolutely marvelous, and actually fun angelize! Thanks for that tutorial video. I accidentally found a quick way to trim bits of unintentional eraser and mask painter is to hold down the shift key - the brush gets a minus sign in it and it becomes a deleter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaydear

hold down the shift key - the brush gets a minus sign in it and it becomes a deleter.

---

That's an excellent tip. It makes it much easier to try a "broadbrush draft" of the process ... then Undo and tune as needed.

Thank you.

Trying to remove grey background from a grey/desaturated image is trickier. I find the more contrast in colour the easier it is and less you have to do. For tricky ones I normally run along as close to the edges as possible and then fill in the rest as much as possible, takes a little more time but still much quicker and handier than tracing all of the edge exactly and usually get very good results. Though that plane nose shape would be pretty quick to just do with the shape tool too.

My preferred method is to trace around the shape with the shape tool but occasionally I use the mask/erase background option. On completion of the erase background image I "Create Bitmap Image" transparent png, place a high contrast rectangle below this and then use the eraser tool to further remove unwanted background artifacts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Egg Bramhill

place a high contrast rectangle below this and then use the eraser tool to further remove unwanted background artifacts.

---

Not sure I follow Egg.

Larry, I recently did a Drop Cap for Q that used an image of people lined up in a queue. Tracing with the Shape Editor tool, just to retain the people but not the background, wasn't going to be a viable option, so I used the Mask/Erase background method.

This worked fairly well but some of the background was still retained and required further cleaning. I could see some dirty remnants of the background but against a white backdrop they weren't clear, thus my comment:

Quote:

---

place a high contrast rectangle below this and then use the eraser tool to further remove unwanted background artifacts

---

In other words, it's not just a one step process if there's a lack of original contrast between foreground and backdrop. It may need two or three clean ups.

I have to say I find the background removal tool too time consuming. For years I used magic wands in Paintshop Pro where you do 1 or 2 pixel reductions of the mask with one click to remove fringe. I like playing with the Xara tool and sometimes have received good results but don't find it as useful as I had hoped. That is why Xara allows you to add your own raster program which I have done.

I use both methods, erase background and also shape tool > slice image, feather a little. Both methods need a little patience :D

Stygg

I recently discovered that paint.net has an excellent magic wand tool that is good for removing backgrounds from bitmaps. You can interactively adjust the tolerance and the source colour for the best selection then hit delete. It is also quick and easy to do a number of selections for more complicated backgrounds.

Just another option, albeit outside of Xara.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sadler

I recently discovered that paint.net has an excellent magic wand tool that is good for removing backgrounds from bitmaps. You can interactively adjust the tolerance and the source colour for the best selection then hit delete. It is also quick and easy to do a number of selections for more complicated backgrounds.

Just another option, albeit outside of Xara.

---

Most image editors: Photoshop, GIMP, Paint.net, etc. can do exactly that.