End of road for MF/LF...

[jtk]

 

[AgX]

?

 

[jtk]

https://topazlabs.com/gigapixel-ai/

Will try the free test with highly detailed file of an Arizona strip mine (plenty of detail already, printed at 13X19, shot both from film and from old dslr).

Might be convincing when I inspect @ 200%.

This is the sort of application used in China to identify individuals in crowds...that's not just facial recognition.

Can't imagine someone serious about landscape photography who wouldn't try the free test. I don't want to pay $99 for the app yet...II'm not much into landscape photos.

My current 28MP APSC almost-pocket-size digital camera, which already rivals 120 film, should be even more astounding with Gigapixel-ai. Not necessary to my current goals, but might be fun...

I will inevitably pay for this application (assuming the free version of Gigpixel convinces): I have a large collection of turn-of-century family photos as well as a vintage collection from Harbin China, bought from gypsies years ago.

If this works the way Topaz claims...

 

[Lachlan Young]

For the idiot technofetishists with a drooling obsession with 'resolution' above all else.

 

[StepheKoontz]

For the idiot technofetishists with a drooling obsession with 'resolution' above all else.

Exactly.

 

[perkeleellinen]

Could this be useful if for example you have a 6x4 family photo but no negative and want a large print of it?

 

[Rick A]

So, is the OP trying to justify this to himself, or convince the rest of us that we should abandon what we enjoy. Hey jtk, if you believe digi is up to the task or better than film, send me your film gear and enjoy your new life.

 

[DWThomas]

Gosh -- the end of the road is usually where the challenges and fun begin! Considering that people today are painting with encaustic, pigments in hot wax as was used by the Egyptians to decorate mummy cases, I suspect film photography will be with us a while yet. (Some of the aforementioned Egyptian work is still pretty viable after three or four thousand years too.) I suspect once manufacturers recover from the insufficient demand to support monster machines in continuous production by setting up efficient and flexible small batch operations, even roll films could stay with us. That's pretty much what Harman and one or two others have already done.

It seems a bit dubious to "up rez" digital files, as it's essentially creating data that isn't there, but within some limitations it works -- at least enough to fool the eye.

 

[ic-racer]

Research and development of sharpening filters has been going on since the first digital images were created. Nothing new here. https://patents.justia.com/patents-by-us-classification/382/263
In terms of things being at the 'end of the road' I'd say digital is nearly there. With billions of digital files being uploaded every day, digital imaging has already collapsed under its own weight as an artistic medium.

 

[jtk]

Looks like nobody actually spent a few moments with the site.

Photography is an "artistic medium" but film isn't...everybody knows that.

Small cameras (such as pocket size) will survive, since most recent designs now produce very good video.



Check it out.

 

[jtk]

For the idiot technofetishists with a drooling obsession with 'resolution' above all else.

As in Hollywood 70mm blockbusters?

 

[jtk]

Gosh -- the end of the road is usually where the challenges and fun begin! Considering that people today are painting with encaustic, pigments in hot wax as was used by the Egyptians to decorate mummy cases, I suspect film photography will be with us a while yet. (Some of the aforementioned Egyptian work is still pretty viable after three or four thousand years too.) I suspect once manufacturers recover from the insufficient demand to support monster machines in continuous production by setting up efficient and flexible small batch operations, even roll films could stay with us. That's pretty much what Harman and one or two others have already done.

It seems a bit dubious to "up rez" digital files, as it's essentially creating data that isn't there, but within some limitations it works -- at least enough to fool the eye.

"Fool the eye" is arguably what photography has always been about.

 

[warden]

Could this be useful if for example you have a 6x4 family photo but no negative and want a large print of it?

I'm wondering the same. Downloading the free trial now.

The website says "Upscale your photos by up to 600% while perfectly preserving image quality" and any marketing that uses the word perfect is bullshit of course, but I do have some old family photos without negatives and it will be interesting to see what it can do. Doesn't cost anything to try. The results shown on the website aren't perfect, but it's impressive nonetheless.

@jtk thanks for the pointer.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I might try it out - not because I make giant enlargements - but just to see if the software can effectively help compensate for the slight loss of sharpness that results when I copy a 35mm negative with a digital camera. The old copy of a copy problem.

That is, my goal would be only to get my digital file back up to the approximate sharpness of the analog negative.

"Fool the eye" is arguably what photography has always been about.

So true.

 

[warden]

I just tried it. It's okay, but Photoshop is better at upsizing images in my opinion so if you happen to use Photoshop already I wouldn't bother with Gigapixel. I gave both apps a crop of one of my scans and upscaled it 400% in Photoshop and Gigapixel. Photoshop was the winner.

 

[jtk]

Research and development of sharpening filters has been going on since the first digital images were created. Nothing new here. https://patents.justia.com/patents-by-us-classification/382/263
In terms of things being at the 'end of the road' I'd say digital is nearly there. With billions of digital files being uploaded every day, digital imaging has already collapsed under its own weight as an artistic medium.

The app has little to do with sharpening.

 

[Lachlan Young]

As in Hollywood 70mm blockbusters?

No. What you seem to be attempting to claim is rather like someone claiming that some sort of 'lossless' digital recording sounds 'better' than an LP. Or that an electric motor is 'better' than a horse. Or that a piece of literature is worthless because it wasn't typed on the latest Apple product. You're rather ignoring the importance of tangibility, process and perfect imperfections of analogue processes to the end user. 70mm has a beauty and grandeur, but isn't 'perfect' - and while it came out of technical necessity, it is largely an artistic choice/ statement today. That the technical shortcomings of UHD streaming are forcing a move up in sensor size to minimise noise/ grain to try and paper over the unpleasant compression artefacts is rather amusing.

 

[jtk]

I just tried it. It's okay, but Photoshop is better at upsizing images in my opinion so if you happen to use Photoshop already I wouldn't bother with Gigapixel. I gave both apps a crop of one of my scans and upscaled it 400% in Photoshop and Gigapixel. Photoshop was the winner.

Gigapixel won't save every old negative but I want to see what it will do with a couple of nice negs from 1900, already scanned. Ifind PS fun and easy but this app claims also to take steps beyond PS and sharpening. I have no need for bigger prints ...that's not the point of Gigapixel.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Just another tool. An addition. Not a replacement.

 

[pentaxuser]

Why might it be only the end for MF/LF and not 35mm?

pentaxuser

 

[jtk]

Why might it be only the end for MF/LF and not 35mm?

pentaxuser

My guess is that since film is a commercial product, and since a small minority shoots MF and a microscopic minority shoots LF, a struggling manufacturer (Kodak) might decide to economize by eliminating marketing to people who use those products. 35mm is a vastly larger market.

On the other hand, Kodak is/was an astoundingly stupid company, as we've seen....maybe they'll bring back dye transfer . .

 

[Vaughn]

No need for this tool for me. Think I'll keep playing with MF, LF and ULF beyond the end of the sidewalk...

 

[jtk]

Just another tool. An addition. Not a replacement.

Not a replacement for film...not for 35...a replacement, for many/most, for MF and LF...

 

[Vaughn]

That is like saying hand lotion and a copy of Playboy replaces sex.

 

[Ian Grant]

Well I'm trying it and it's hung at 1%. I have excellent resizing software works well up-sizing but my use id for downsizing for Internet use.

Reminds me of the people in the 60's & 70's who said using micro film in a 35mm camera gave LF quality, and then Tech Pan would make LF obsolete, they were so naive because Tech Pan was also available as LF sheet film

So if this miracle software actually worked (still 30+ mins at 1%), I could use it to up-size my 10x8 negative scans (already 1gb and B&W)

Ian