I know you're trying to make some kind of point, but you've clearly not thought about the potential of this kind of app.
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.
That is like saying hand lotion and a copy of Playboy replaces sex.
That's basically what I tried, but with a modern film. I'll share my method and if someone else has a different or better way to test it I'll look forward to seeing their results.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.
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
That's basically what I tried, but with a modern film. I'll share my method and if someone else has a different or better way to test it I'll look forward to seeing their results.
Here's the original scan of a random 6x7 slide:
A 100% crop (unsharpened) of the badge looks like the image below:
I then took that same area of the image and reduced it to 25% of its original size, which looks like this image below:
I gave that smaller image to Photoshop and Gigapixel, and set each to 400% enlargement, which will get us back to the original size, but with some image degradation of course. First here's the Photoshop attempt below:
And then the Gigapixel attempt:
I tried Gigapixel using automatic and manual controls and this was the best it could do. Photoshop has more controls when making enlargements and does a better job because of it. "Beautiful photo enlargements using machine learning" is what they're saying Gigapixel does so that's what I tried to do.
Either way though it's just hard to enlarge images using software, and it's better to start with more information on a big negative rather than less. I'm going to go ahead and call it: This is not the end of the road for MF/LF.
Good that somebody on Photrio actually gave it a try.
I don't mean to suggest people should stop using PS, or stop using MF/LF. But...if it works many people will stop using larger formats.
It's dramatic your examples (above) that Giga whups PS. Maybe you posted a mistake?
Correct. I don't choose to use MF/LF because of superiority. I do so because it fits my vision, and the relationship I want to have with my work.You're rather ignoring the importance of tangibility, process and perfect imperfections of analogue processes to the end user.
On my screen, too. The giga looks much better.It's dramatic your examples (above) that Giga whups PS.
Not a replacement for film...not for 35...a replacement, for many/most, for MF and LF...
On my screen, too. The giga looks much better.
On the money.That is like saying hand lotion and a copy of Playboy replaces sex.
Well, it's replacement for nothing.Not a replacement for film...not for 35...a replacement, for many/most, for MF and LF...
Well, it's replacement for nothing.
Did you intend to contribute ?Disagree.
It is a sharpening filter. Know you facts before posting about digital technology in what you may think is a naive film-oriented forum.The app has little to do with sharpening.
How does Topaz Labs' AI Technology Work?
To summarize, we train an Artificial Neural Network with millions of blur-sharp image pairs. The neural network will eventually “remember” what the sharp image should look like if it sees a blurry image. After months of training, we then upload a blurry image to the neural network and ask it to sharpen it. The network will recall what it has learned from all the image pairs it trained with and will attempt to apply the same changes to the new blurry image that it saw in previous sharp images.
As I said it replaces nothing, it's in its own field. And as fake as they come.Have you read the webpage?
For perspective my main guitar is a vintage Django style acoustic from France. I suspect some on Photrio play no acoustic instrument at all.Looks like digital is going to do to film what photography did to painting, quartz watches did to mechanical ones, and synthesizers did to musical instruments.
In other words, they opened up possibilities and increased access but didn't elimante the need. It makes more sense to compare apples to oranges if you've never seen an orange before. But if you're familiar with both, you realize they both have their place, and while they're very similar in many ways, one does not replace the need for the other.
Some might disagree, but I think what you have shown here is proof, can't fake it undetected.That's basically what I tried, but with a modern film. I'll share my method and if someone else has a different or better way to test it I'll look forward to seeing their results.
Here's the original scan of a random 6x7 slide:
A 100% crop (unsharpened) of the badge looks like the image below:
I then took that same area of the image and reduced it to 25% of its original size, which looks like this image below:
I gave that smaller image to Photoshop and Gigapixel, and set each to 400% enlargement, which will get us back to the original size, but with some image degradation of course. First here's the Photoshop attempt below:
And then the Gigapixel attempt:
I tried Gigapixel using automatic and manual controls and this was the best it could do. Photoshop has more controls when making enlargements and does a better job because of it. "Beautiful photo enlargements using machine learning" is what they're saying Gigapixel does so that's what I tried to do.
Either way though it's just hard to enlarge images using software, and it's better to start with more information on a big negative or big sensor rather than less. I'm going to go ahead and call it: This is not the end of the road for MF/LF.
everything about photography is as fake as it gets. photographs aren't memories or realityAnd as fake as they come
It does on my screen as well. So much so that when I saw jawarden's apparently opposite conclusion I wondered if I had mistaken the order of the picturesOn my screen, too. The giga looks much better.
+1 definitely!It is a sharpening filter. Know you facts before posting about digital technology in what you may think is a naive film-oriented forum.
It does on my screen as well. So much so that when I saw jawarden's apparently opposite conclusion I wondered if I had mistaken the order of the pictures
pentaxuser
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?