Did Adobe just resurrect our Epson RD1 cameras?

I'm not sure if it there yet quality wise, since I've never used it. However in the future, this will exist more and more and probably work really well (if it isn't already). It is an interesting thought which cameras will be resurrected and used again in the digital realm. It could help some digital cameras become classics.
 
Tried it with some files yesterday - it's pretty incredible. Effectively doubles the resolution with my Fuji x-t1 with no noticeable artefacts or issues. If anything the bigger file looks slightly better. Far far better than normal methods of upsizing.

Doesn't work amazingly with film scans - the grain trips it up a bit.
 
I think the "super resolution" Enhance function is also available with LR Classic v10.2 (latest update 16MAR2021). I haven't played with it yet, but Control-Click on a raw file presents the same enhance function, that behaves the same way, as what Julieanne Kost presents in the video on Camera Raw.

I've already made 20x24 inch prints with my ancient 5Mpixel Olympus E-1 that satisfy me. I don't know how much more satisfying "super resolution" is going to be. :)

G
 
Godfrey said:
I think the "super resolution" Enhance function is also available with LR Classic v10.2 (latest update 16MAR2021). I haven't played with it yet, but Control-Click on a raw file presents the same enhance function, that behaves the same way, as what Julieanne Kost presents in the video on Camera Raw.
Click to expand...

Seems to be...
 
Very useful for cropped photos.

What’s the cheapest way to do this? I don’t have an Adobe subscription.
 
Huh, interesting! With LR I "enhanced" a 29mb DNG file and turned it into a 121Mb file! :D Only took about 5 sec of computation time for the new file to appear. Almost imperceptible difference when viewing them at 200%. But there is a small improvement in apparent detail. Thanks for the hint, Godfrey!

Edit: In my street photo I had picked up a bit of Moire on a manhole cover. I didn't expect the enhanced photo to render that moire any differently, and it didn't.
 
Ok I tried both Lightroom and Photoshop with Sony & Fuji raw files and the results are not as great as I thought they would be.

My LR has just enhance whereas PS has the super resolution available. Thus PS is slightly better. But the improvements are very small if any. For example with LR if you up the texture for BOTH the enhanced and the non-enhanced files, the two images and the PS version are almost identical.

Not sure if I am missing something, but I would consider this just another "intelligent" sharpening.
 
Ok got me interested and started looking a bit more for examples. I see there is a lot of hype, but if we just take the more critical tests with proper comparisons it clearly shows that adobe's super resolution is lacking quite a bit compared to other solutions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfTbrJP5TXs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBrVN-UK2_k

While I don't upsample that often, my way of doing it matches this technique that has rarely disappointed me and produces very good prints:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc_W6gINFho

That you can pretty much replicate with any decent program.

But maybe next time I have cropped the hell out an image and need to have a decent sized output, I might consider replacing the normal photoshop upsampling with enhanced details 2.0 with the super resolution. But after that, noise reduction followed by noise is critical to get a not that fake looking image.
 
I've now tested the enhance tool on several photos. The results are good, but not better in a measurable sense than just upsizing with new horizontal and vertical dimensions that are SQRT of 2 to get double the number of pixels. Whatever woo woo magic they're supposedly applying seems to be just a clean resampling algorithm.

A useful tool, not a quantum leap. My old cameras remain old cameras. :D

G
 
I've done a little testing of this, "enhancing" on an M8 file with Lightroom alone, and then taking the same M8 file into Photoshop/CameraRaw and doing the SuperResolution there. I had little to no improvement with LR alone, but noticeable effect with SuperRes. Some results shown in a nearby thread here:
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=56080

The difference is particularly noticeable where the algorithm sharpens up the detail in the out-of-focus area, not maybe so desirable!
 
Godfrey said:
The results are good, but not better in a measurable sense than just upsizing with new horizontal and vertical dimensions that are SQRT of 2 to get double the number of pixels.
Click to expand...

Doug said:
The difference is particularly noticeable where the algorithm sharpens up the detail in the out-of-focus area, not maybe so desirable!
Click to expand...

With upsampling, the types of artifacts were either due to aliasing and/or over sharpening but what I see now with this method are random tiny lines inserted at random places where I am guessing there was no clear prediction of the algorithm.

Modern deep learning algorithms can do much better than this, not sure what is the deal with Adobe. Maybe they didn't want to overdo it and then have people complain that this was not a real photo any more?
 
I just updated to the latest version of Topaz Sharpen AI and it added some nice functions.

This is with a Nikon 500mm F4P w/TC-301 on A7RII. I missed focus ever so slightly.

51136496329_b7d1e05cda_o.jpg


This is with Sharpen AI auto setting itself to Focus mode.

51135043892_3886c3e684_o.jpg


It did a nice job on the swan but the sharpening looks weird in the water.

The new feature is a mask function with auto detect of objects. After pressing detect object (and processing for a bit) it ended up telling me there was a bird in the photo and selecting that masked the sharpening to only the swan.

51136828760_036e8d4321_o.jpg


For any of the above click on them for full size.

The slight exposure changes are from Topaz taking the RAW, sharpening it and then saving it as DNG. It looks like lightroom has a slightly different default for the DNG compared to the RAW.

Shawn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom