Chuck Nacke Posted March 18, 2021 Share Posted March 18, 2021 Just wondering if anyone has played with this: Adobe Camera Raw now includes a new feature that will be coming soon to both Lightroom and Lightroom Classic. It’s called Super Resolution and it’s essentially a machine learning AI-powered method of upscaling that offers massive image upscaling benefits at the push of a button. Well, you have to push it a couple of times and check a box in a dialogue, but then it’s at the push of a button. Sounds interesting. Chuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Lowe Posted March 19, 2021 Share Posted March 19, 2021 (edited) Just had a quick play with it. The crop on the left is a normal bicubic enlargement by the same amount as in super Resolution (x2 in each dimension). The middle crop is Super Resolution without enhancement, which shows a slight improvement, but the enhanced version seems to introduce a lot of artifacts. I might use it without enhancement if it's really critical though I doubt that will be very often, if at all (certainly with my present 6 year old computer anyway - it said it would take 5 minutes to render). I think the enhanced option would guarantee a QC fail at Alamy. Here's the source image - the screen shots above were using the original raw file..... Edit - just to add: original res. is 6000x4000 px, Nikon D7200 Edited March 19, 2021 by Vincent Lowe To add uncropped image Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MizBrown Posted March 19, 2021 Share Posted March 19, 2021 (edited) deleted. Edited March 20, 2021 by MizBrown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nacke Posted March 19, 2021 Author Share Posted March 19, 2021 20 minutes ago, Vincent Lowe said: Just had a quick play with it. The crop on the left is a normal bicubic enlargement by the same amount as in super Resolution (x2 in each dimension). The middle crop is Super Resolution without enhancement, which shows a slight improvement, but the enhanced version seems to introduce a lot of artifacts. I might use it without enhancement if it's really critical though I doubt that will be very often, if at all (certainly with my present 6 year old computer anyway - it said it would take 5 minutes to render). I think the enhanced option would guarantee a QC fail at Alamy. Here's the source image - the screen shots above were using the original raw file..... Thanks Vincent, Chuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Woods Posted March 20, 2021 Share Posted March 20, 2021 PixImperfect did a review of it on his (excellent) photoshop Youtube channel. He drew the same conclusions as Vincent, but he did use another web based program called imglarger.com that did a better job. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Harrison Posted March 22, 2021 Share Posted March 22, 2021 Review by Martin Evening here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted March 22, 2021 Share Posted March 22, 2021 3 hours ago, Harry Harrison said: Review by Martin Evening here. His example of the flower is jaw-droppingly awful, or am I missing something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Crean Posted March 22, 2021 Share Posted March 22, 2021 42 minutes ago, spacecadet said: His example of the flower is jaw-droppingly awful, or am I missing something? No! It's rubbish😬 Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Harrison Posted March 22, 2021 Share Posted March 22, 2021 3 hours ago, spacecadet said: His example of the flower is jaw-droppingly awful, or am I missing something? The bottom one, the 'before', is ghastly, I have an X-E1 and I've been trying to see the worm effect and failed so far, never seen anything like that. Given that the top 'after' shot is at 400% it looks like a major improvement. Martin Evening is very much an Adobe ambassador but even so he finds it hard to praise 'Enhance details' (though it is very good for Fuji RAW files, but not as good as Iridient Developer, thank you Phil), He seems to think a lot of Super Resolution though, not enough to make me subscribe though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 (edited) 13 hours ago, Harry Harrison said: The bottom one, the 'before', is ghastly, I have an X-E1 and I've been trying to see the worm effect and failed so far, never seen anything like that. Given that the top 'after' shot is at 400% it looks like a major improvement. Martin Evening is very much an Adobe ambassador but even so he finds it hard to praise 'Enhance details' (though it is very good for Fuji RAW files, but not as good as Iridient Developer, thank you Phil), He seems to think a lot of Super Resolution though, not enough to make me subscribe though. It wasn't clear that that was the "before" example. In my book "before" goes first. But I wouldn't consider it acceptable anyway. Edited March 23, 2021 by spacecadet 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Lowe Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 But the 'ghastly' one actually says 'Enhanced' on the preview - so that's the 'after' one surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Harrison Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 40 minutes ago, Vincent Lowe said: But the 'ghastly' one actually says 'Enhanced' on the preview - so that's the 'after' one surely? I don't have that option so can't play with it. However the lower image exhibits very extreme 'worm effects' so it's hard to believe that this could be 'after' and similarly I can't see how the top image could be the same as the bottom one except with less magnification. it's not clear certainly, however the post is more about the 'Super resolution' function. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Lowe Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 I had the same 'worm effects' when I tried it - see the screen shots in my first post in this thread - so I can certainly believe it was 'after' so-called enhancement. But I agree that Martin Evening's review isn't clear. Frankly, I don't understand his conclusions. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Harrison Posted March 23, 2021 Share Posted March 23, 2021 38 minutes ago, Vincent Lowe said: But I agree that Martin Evening's review isn't clear. Frankly, I don't understand his conclusions. It is odd, maybe some injudicious sub-editing got in the way, or lack of space in the magazine meant that the 'before' shot hit the cutting room floor when all presumably might have been revealed. 'Enhanced detail' is however definitely recommended as a solution to the previously dodgy processing of Fuji RAW fills in Lightroom & Photoshop on certain types of image, it may even have been the reason they introduced it since they're hardly likely to admit that their treatment of Fuji files up to then had been less than perfect. https://blog.thomasfitzgeraldphotography.com/blog/2019/2/lightroom-introduces-enhance-details-finally-improves-fuji-x-trans-raw-conversion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted March 24, 2021 Share Posted March 24, 2021 (edited) Anthony Morganti did a detailed comparison between Gigapixel and Photoshop here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6Mmope9eh0 I'll stick with Gigapixel, thanks. There is a 30 day trial for anyone who wants to try it for themselves. Edited March 24, 2021 by Rico 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted March 24, 2021 Share Posted March 24, 2021 Ah, rubbish. I need no more rubbish in my work flow. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Chapman Posted March 24, 2021 Share Posted March 24, 2021 (edited) I've also experimented with the "super-resolution" and found that, like many "AI based features", the results can be unpredictable. Sometimes it seems to work well (I was amazed at the first couple of images I tried). But, on other images there's no benefit and problem (artefacts) maybe introduced. And, when it does work, the image needs checking carefully all over to check it hasn't caused problems in some areas. The beauty of the conventional resize using bicubic etc. is the results are more predictable. They do what they say on the tin. Mark Edited March 24, 2021 by M.Chapman 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now