Enhancement

Gosh that’s strange with your computer.

My iMac is from 2006 and it works just fine with CS4.

When I had my business, I made wedding albums using a service that mounted seamless pages. Easy to make panos and the lab I used printed them for me then I would ship the pages to Pictobooks. I did my layouts with layers and would have a fair amount of layers, one for each photo, plus backgrounds and it still works just fine.

The reason I bring this up is are there programs running in background eating up your ram?

It doesn’t seem like your computer is that old. Just trying to help and have you save some bucks!
 
I tried the Enhance Details feature on some X-Trans files. At 100% the difference is significant in a highly detailed photo. But I had a hard time finding images in my catalog that I felt would benefit. I guess I don't take the kind of photographs that would be made stronger by optimizing detail.

John
 
Peter Wijninga said:
I'm still waiting for your pictures.
Click to expand...

Don't bother.

I could choose pictures made at F 11 of subjects low levels amounts of detail and you would see no difference.

Or I could choose pictures from lenses set at their sharpest aperture with highly detailed subject matter and you would see a difference.

Ad-hoc testing based on pictures would not be very useful.

Here are some initial results from controlled experiments.

These experiments show the FUJIFILM GFX 50S and GF 110/2 lens' MTF 50 is not improved by Enhanced Details.

A different set of experiments with the same camera/lens using a Siemens star test image show a significant reduction in false color artifacts.

These initial results indicate Enhanced Details minimizes false color artifacts in subject matter with high detail levels.

Note: The GFX 50S has a Bayer color filter array.
 
Is there a simple tutorial that explains enhancement? The RAW therapee has 15 choices for Demosicing an image (Bayer). Adobe has one (I think) so what is really going on.
 
charjohncarter said:
Is there a simple tutorial that explains enhancement? The RAW therapee has 15 choices for Demosicing an image (Bayer). Adobe has one (I think) so what is really going on.
Click to expand...


You don't choose the model. The AI CNN chooses. When Enhanced Detail rendering is used, Adobe computes a demosaicking algorithm optimized for each image. So the number is of demosaicking models is unlimited.

This is from an Adobe blog post I linked earlier in this thread. "Enhance Details uses an extensively trained convolutional neural net (CNN) to optimize for maximum image quality. We trained a neural network to demosaic raw images using problematic examples, then leveraged a new machine learning frameworks built into the latest Mac OS and Win10 operating systems to run this network. The deep neural network for Enhance Details was trained with over a billion examples."

So, before the raw data is demosaicked, the data is analyzed for potential artifacts. Then a demosaicking algorithm is computed to minimize demosaicking artifacts.

These artifacts are caused by edge interpolation errors.

"False colors—When a demosaicing algorithm mis-interpolates across, rather than along, a sharp edge, you can see abrupt or unnatural shifts in color.

Zippering—At the edges of an image, where you lose half the pixels you would normally use to interpolate your color data, you can see edge blurring."

Images without regions with high amounts of detail or repeating patterns cannot benefit from Enhanced Details. The subject matter itself may not have detail. Or, mis-focus, flare, aperture diffraction, subject and, or camera motion may degrade object detail. Many raw files will not benefit from Enhanced Details.
 
William thank you for that interesting explanation. I guess I'm wrong by a factor of infinity. I thought one solution when it is really infinite. I wonder if Adobe will have a different solution or a variation of there AI model for Pixel Shift or if their choice will also work for PS.

EDIT: I liked your Survivors of Mid-Century America.
 
charjohncarter

Thanks. Most of that work was done in St. Louis. In some ways the region peaked in the late mid-century. There is ample material.

Here in Charlotte there seems to be much less mid-century subject matter. The region has grown at a rapid rate over the past 20 years. So it's more of a before/after story.
 
More Test Results

More Test Results

Here's an example where there is significant improvement in detail rendering.

These images were made with a Nikon Z7 and the 50 mm f/1.8 Nikkor S at f/4.

False color artifact levels were significantly reduced.

Then, to minimize the effect of false color rendering on perceived sharpness, images were made with blue and red lens filters. The blue image had increased perceived sharpness.

Again, Enhanced Detail improvements are image dependent. This level of demosaicking artifacts will not be present in most images and will not be apparent in typical crops or print sizes.
 
willie_901 said:
charjohncarter

Thanks. Most of that work was done in St. Louis. In some ways the region peaked in the late mid-century. There is ample material.

Here in Charlotte there seems to be much less mid-century subject matter. The region has grown at a rapid rate over the past 20 years. So it's more of a before/after story.
Click to expand...

William, the mid-century wasn't the only series I liked, it just hit home with me. Here in California we are lucky to have last decade survivors. Even though my town isn't that old, we still have a few spots of interest, and of course the central valley is rich.

I might try your printed paper test and use it with normal and AMaZE on RAW Therapee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom