Image Cutouts in EZ Mask

EZ Mask is a Digital Film Tools plug-in positioned as an easy to use interactive image-masking tool capable of extracting almost any object in an image–even if you are dealing with fine hair detail, smoke, or reflections. This extraction process creates what is known as a mask–essentially a black and white cutout.

Interface and tools

{mosimage popup=1}

EZ Mask interface is extremely easy, intuitive and user friendly. Maximum space in the plug-in window is taken by the image you are working with. All the tools and options are situated in the top bar and the left side panel. There is no menu as all the options are presented by a limited number of pictograms.

The left side panel contains all masking tools. There are three masking brushes – Foreground, Background, and Unknown. These are the main tools you are working with. The Eraser is needed for corrections. The Bucket is used in the Fill mode masking. You also can adjust the Brush size and the overlay opacity. All the buttons have rather telling pictograms on them.

The workflow options are put on the upper bar and arranged in groups. You can save and load the trimap that is the outlines of the mask. Makes sense with something elaborate that you cannot finish at one sitting.

The next group allows choosing one out of four view modes (Fore ground, Background, Mask, and Composite). Then the Zoom controls come: the Zoom can be operated by Zoom in, Zoom out, and fit to view buttons. You can also set the view magnification in percents. Or simply use the mouse weal.

{mosimage ch=150 align=right}The rest is more or less standard: Undo and Redo buttons, settings for the color of the masking lines and the background, preview quality.

Once you think the masking is complete, you press the Process button. The result can be reviewed and the mask corrected. The corrections are best to be done in the mask view mode, where the erased areas are black, the retained – white and the transparent ones – grey. If the resulted mask shows transparences in unwanted places of the foreground image or keeps the chunks of background, you make additional strokes in those places and process the image again.
Corrections of the mask in the mask view

When the mask is all ready, the pressing of Done   takes you back to Adobe PhotoShop where you will have your image cut out on a new background you selected earlier or on a transparent background.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

{mospagebreak title=Image Masking, Modes and Methods}

Image masking

Let’s have a look at the performance of the program. The main feature of EZ Mask is that it works with the transparency of the foreground image. The plug-in iteratively estimates the transparency value for every pixel in the image, based on a small sample of foreground (what you want to cut out) and background pixels marked by simple strokes on the image and the edges of the masked object are half-transparent and ready for the new background. Thus, ideally, you don’t need any additional smoothing or feathering of the edges either in the plug-in itself or the photo editor.

{mosimage align=right}{mosimage align=right}While most selecting plug-ins require just an additional layer for working with the image, in EZ Mask you need a few more preparation steps. You either have an underlying layer with the background or should unlock the foreground image layer first. Then you add a mask to the foreground layer. Finally, you should have the foreground image, and not the mask active when activating the filter. The procedure is well explained in the manual but may need a few iterations to be remembered. And keep in mind that the original image would be changed and make a copy of it before starting the mask.

{mosimage cw=200 align=right}In the plug-in itself you have a choice of two strategies – Stroke or Fill method. The method may somewhat influence the procession time, but not much.

According to the manual, the rendering time is based on the size of the image, size of the object being extracted, stroke (slower) vs. filled (faster) trimap, and whether you have a single or multi-processor machine.

As for me, I could not notice any considerable difference in procession time. May be the image was too small, though. The processing is quite long and requires a lot of memory in any case.

{mosimage cw=200 align=right}The difference between the two methods is in the quantity of the pixels referenced to one of the three zones: Foreground, Background, and the Unknown.

In the stroke method you make only the outlines of the foreground and background areas, the rest is rendered as unknown. The program then takes into account only the information from the pixels under the strokes.

When Fill method is used, the three zones are defined and filled completely. Thus, the plug-in gets more information about the image pixels.

{mosimage cw=150 align=left}{mosimage cw=200 align=right} Fill method is probably more convenient for more complicated images, with hair, for example. In the image on the right, I was masking the orangutans using the fill mode. The first step was to mark the edge with Unknown Brush. Then I filled the foreground the Background and the image was ready for processing.

Once the image is processed, but you see drawbacks, as in the fragment below, you can make corrections in either of the view modes and repeat processing.

{mosimage cw=70 align=left}In the orangutan picture, I only added a few Foreground strokes at the back fur to remove extra transparency.

The absence of transparent background view should be mentioned though. It is only accessible when you have no underlying layer as with the orangutan picture. And without it, it is somewhat difficult to correct the processed selection.

{mosimage cw=150 align=right}And the low quality of the preview should be mentioned: you can’t evaluate the quality of the mask sometimes.

Even after pressing Done and returning to PhotoShop you are able to return to EZ Mask and continue from the place you stopped. To do that you should choose ‘Yes’ in answer to ‘Use the previous trimap?’ question.

{mosimage cw=100 align=left}{mosimage cw=200 align=right}There is a peculiarity in this, however. When previous trimap is used the masked image loses transparency of the edges. It is especially well seen in the Mask View mode where the mask has no grey edges. And the image itself looks strange. That is EZMask has this option but I can hardly see the practical use of it.

On simple images, the difference between the masks made with different methods was minimal.

{mosimage cw=250 iy=top ix=right}	{mosimage cw=250 iy=top ix=left}
{mosimage cw=70 iy=top align=left}Stroke method is used	{mosimage cw=70 iy=top align=left}Fill method is used

{mosimage cw=150 align=left}{mosimage cw=150 align=right}The key strategy in the fill method is, of course, to be as close to the edge as possible. EZ Mask also works better where the contrast between the foreground image and the background is high. Where the colors are very close and/or the image is not sharp enough, there would be leakages of background color into the hairy image as in the example.

{mosimage cw=150 align=center}

Again, the drawbacks are coming forward on a single color background and may not be seen when you insert the cutout into another image. Like with the dog collages below.

{mosimage cw=200}

{mosimage cw=200}

The dog picture is complex because of fur and the closeness of foreground and background colors on the left side.

The girl picture below is complex due to lots of loose hair in the image. Fill method looked to me as the best strategy here as well. And it did work but for some half-transparent areas around the tails, which are concealed by rather dark background. However, EZ Mask did make a good job with hair anyway. You can see it in the fragments below.

{mosimage cw=140}

{mosimage cw=140}

{mosimage cw=140}

{mosimage cw=140}

There are some blotches of background in the first and second fragments. They can be done with, though, by fine ‘tuning’.
The third fragment shows a very good job of the plug-in, lose hair are very well seen there.

{mosimage ch=100}

{mosimage ch=100}

{mosimage ch=100}

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

{mospagebreak title=Image Masking, Smoke and Reflections}

Masking smoke was another target for EZ Mask adverts claim the ability of the plug-in to deal with smoke images. The main issue for me was how to mask smoke. Below are the three approaches with the results they issued. The last one proved to be the most successful. As the smoke in the picture is transparent almost everywhere I marked as Foreground only those very sparse areas where the white color of the smoke has the most density. The black background color, on the other hand, was lined heavily but not filled. I could have filled it all the same, though. The third result is as close to the ideal one as possible to my mind.

The only ‘trouble’ with this example is the smooth one color background.

{mosimage cw=200}	{mosimage cw=200}	{mosimage cw=200}
{mosimage cw=200}	{mosimage cw=200}	{mosimage cw=200}

When the background is as complex as in the following photo, masking does not work at all.

{mosimage cw=200}

{mosimage cw=200}

Why one would try to extract smoke from such complex background is another issue, of course.

I tried also to mask a reflection with the use of Fill strategy. I find the result satisfactory.

{mosimage cw=200 align=right}

{mosimage cw=200 align=left}

{mosimage cw=250 align=left} {mosimage cw=100 align=right} EZ mask does not have any post masking tools like history brush or feathering tool. All you can do to improve the mask is to reprocess the image giving the plug-in more precise ‘instructions’ on what you consider to be the background and what the foreground. In the image of the trees and the water I had to add Paint Background strokes to remove grayish halo around the trees.

All in all EZ Mask is a good tool, especially for those who make lots of masking all the time. With good quality images of average complexity, EZ Mask will work fast and with more than satisfactory results. With some patience, you can get results from rather complex or amateur photos of medium quality as well. Though processing takes some time the masking itself is rather quick and easy. With a few tools EZ Mask has a performance comparable to the programs with a more substantial and diverse tools-set.

The plug-in has a good manual explaining not only the tools and their work but giving tips on a better outlining strategy. The interface is almost self-explaining. And the price is not high.

You can download the program at www.digitalfilmtools.com for $150. Mackintosh and Windows versions are available. There is also a trial period when you can use the program without registration.

Look also at the  comparison of selecting tools and selection results and at the rating of the plug-ins.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}