In article <9dbebb53-fba9-464f-898b-d4fc571c2accn@googlegroups.com>, RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:

> I remember when we ridiculed this in P&S cameras, because all it did was re-frame the image at the same linear resolution. A crop in other words so you could avoid doing it out of camera. A time saver really. But no extra resolution was possible in any given area of the image.
> Now, it's possible they've improved this function (despite its "bending the laws of physics" feel) so that resolution increases have been achieved. Or it could just be A.I. at work.
> You have to view the image here at the "Large" size setting on Pbase to see it all, then "Original" for full resolution.
>
> https://pbase.com/image/173740288

There is no difference between the smaller image at 200% and the converted image. There is no additional resolution.
But you're right, it would have to defy the laws of physics to be otherwise.

--
m-m
www.mhmyers.com

Am 01.07.2023 um 04:54 schrieb m-m:
> defy the laws of physics to be otherwise

Or the camera would have to use some generative AI algorithm to create
new detail. Maybe such a feature will be added in future cameras, who knows.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On Saturday, 1 July 2023 at 7:05:08 pm UTC+10, Alfred Molon wrote:
> Am 01.07.2023 um 04:54 schrieb m-m:
> > defy the laws of physics to be otherwise
> Or the camera would have to use some generative AI algorithm to create
> new detail. Maybe such a feature will be added in future cameras, who knows.
> --
> Alfred Molon
>
> Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
> https://groups.io/g/myolympus
> https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

Have any of you played around with Topaz Gigapixel AI? I've played with it a few times when I've cropped in drastically and then wanted to enlarge the result back to a reasonable size. Sometimes (well, mostly) it works; sometimes, not so much. My thoughts are that up to 2x is OK. Much beyond that and I'm not as happy.

Cheers,
Magani.

On 02/07/2023 01:20, Magani wrote:
> Have any of you played around with Topaz Gigapixel AI? I've played with it a few times when I've cropped in drastically and then wanted to enlarge the result back to a reasonable size. Sometimes (well, mostly) it works; sometimes, not so much. My thoughts are that up to 2x is OK. Much beyond that and I'm not as happy.
>
> Cheers,
> Magani.

No, I've not played with that.

There are well known "super-resolution" techniques which (IIRC) Roger Clark has
used. He used to contribute here a lot with valuable knowledge. Here's his
Web site:

https://clarkvision.com/index.html

--
Cheers,
David
Web: https://www.satsignal.eu

Am 02.07.2023 um 02:20 schrieb Magani:
> On Saturday, 1 July 2023 at 7:05:08 pm UTC+10, Alfred Molon wrote:
>> Am 01.07.2023 um 04:54 schrieb m-m:
>>> defy the laws of physics to be otherwise
>> Or the camera would have to use some generative AI algorithm to create
>> new detail. Maybe such a feature will be added in future cameras, who knows.
>> --
>> Alfred Molon
>>
>> Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
>> https://groups.io/g/myolympus
>> https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
>
> Have any of you played around with Topaz Gigapixel AI? I've played with it a few times when I've cropped in drastically and then wanted to enlarge the result back to a reasonable size. Sometimes (well, mostly) it works; sometimes, not so much. My thoughts are that up to 2x is OK. Much beyond that and I'm not as happy.

I've tried the resolution enhancement of Topaz Photo AI, which in theory
includes Gigapixel AI, but noticed that it doesn't generate more detail.

To make an example, I tried to upres the picture of the head of a girl.
The resulting image had more pixel, but instead of showing more
individual hairs, it made each individual hair fatter. It looked as if
the girl, instead of hair, had spaghetti on the head.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 04/07/2023 09:04, RichA wrote:
> If super resolution techniques worked, they wouldn't be constantly inventing new methods of imaging with microscopes and telescopes that actually increase resolution. Faking grass detail on a photo is fine, photo people won't care if it's fake. But below the resolution of a lens, there is nothing.

But the MFT of the lens can be compensated for, resulting in an improved
appearance of the images. And it can be overdone, of course!

--
Cheers,
David
Web: https://www.satsignal.eu