End of road for MF/LF...

[jtk]

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.

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.

 

[jtk]

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

That didn't occur to me. But of course, I've always lived among women.

 

[warden]

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.

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.

 

[jtk]

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

I can't help you with your technical problem. Doesn't matter what this reminds you of, does it? I'm sure some on Photrio will continue to make good use of glass plates and ULF.

 

[jtk]

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?

 

[warden]

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?

The last image of my post was the Gigapixel image. I think it's not as successful as the PS image directly above it, but we could differ there.

And I think you're right, when software can take a tiny image and make it into a compelling larger image that will be amazing, and tempt people away from large cameras just as cell phones have tempted people away from "real" cameras of any size. It just hasn't happened yet imho.

As an aside, I see Gigapixel is making color changes to the image that I didn't expect. There are no color adjustment controls in Gigapixel that I could see.

 

[eddie]

You're rather ignoring the importance of tangibility, process and perfect imperfections of analogue processes to the end user.

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.

 

[eddie]

It's dramatic your examples (above) that Giga whups PS.

On my screen, too. The giga looks much better.

 

[jim10219]

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.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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

Disagree.

 

[warden]

On my screen, too. The giga looks much better.

What I'm seeing on the giga image is sharpening and noise reduction applied after the enlargement, as if while using Smart Sharpen in Photoshop you cranked up Amount, Radius, and Reduce Noise sliders all at once. Photoshop can create the same effect (I just did it) but giga seems to be doing it behind the scenes and with less ability for the user to control it. Giga is also blowing hilights and dropping shadow detail that Photoshop doesn't and I'm not sure why that would be.

But both apps are forced to make up more information than exists in the original image and I'd prefer to avoid that as much as possible by using a large enough sensor for the job.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

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

On the money.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

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

Well, it's replacement for nothing.

 

[jtk]

Well, it's replacement for nothing.

Have you read the webpage?

 

[jtk]

Disagree.

Did you intend to contribute ?

 

[ic-racer]

The app has little to do with sharpening.

It is a sharpening filter. Know you facts before posting about digital technology in what you may think is a naive film-oriented forum.

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.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Have you read the webpage?

As I said it replaces nothing, it's in its own field. And as fake as they come.

 

[jtk]

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.

For perspective my main guitar is a vintage Django style acoustic from France. I suspect some on Photrio play no acoustic instrument at all.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

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.

Some might disagree, but I think what you have shown here is proof, can't fake it undetected.

 

[faberryman]

Topaz Gigapixel has been around for years and it hasn't replaced MF/LF film. Don't know why it would today just because found out about it.

 

[removed account4]

i don't typically need to uprez things but it looks useful who needs that done.

And as fake as they come

everything about photography is as fake as it gets. photographs aren't memories or reality
or anything else, but fakery.

 

[pentaxuser]

On my screen, too. The giga looks much better.

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

 

[Kodachromeguy]

It is a sharpening filter. Know you facts before posting about digital technology in what you may think is a naive film-oriented forum.

+1 definitely!

 

[warden]

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

I wasn't actually looking for which image "looked better" as a finished image, but rather which had more fidelity to the original image, whether it looked good or not. For me Photoshop produced a superior file to use as a starting point for sharpening and further adjustments, and it did so without blowing hilights, losing shadow detail or heavy handed sharpening that I saw in the giga file. These are subjective traits of course, except the parts about losing detail which would be a deal breaker for me.

Giga is much less expensive compared to Photoshop, so for those interested it's certainly worth your while to give it a free trial.

 

[jtk]

+1 definitely!

Know your facts before you click your heels