Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Adobe Photoshop's 'super resolution' made my jaw hit the floor

petapixel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 171 posts

Re: Adobe Photoshop's 'super resolution' made my jaw hit the floor

#31

Post by etrautmann »

social_quotient wrote: post #18
ISL wrote: post #6

As a metrologist (and photographer), the difficulty with these techniques is that they can over-represent the information contained within an image; they present an image of what was "probably" there, rather than representing what was. These aren't so different from our own brains, which remember what we thought we saw, rather than the light that reached our retinas. These methods are already in extensive use (most s…

It’s like systems that add zeros (floating point math) to the right of the decimal. 18.00000 is not the same as 18. Thoughts?

No - 000000 is not based on a statistical model of what’s most likely to be right if the decimal place. In natural images - the statistical structure allows for this image upscaling but without revealing any previously hidden detail - just using know statistics of the world to show what might be there.

Re: Adobe Photoshop's 'super resolution' made my jaw hit the floor

#32

Post by sweezyjeezy »

ISL wrote: post #6

As a metrologist (and photographer), the difficulty with these techniques is that they can over-represent the information contained within an image; they present an image of what was "probably" there, rather than representing what was. These aren't so different from our own brains, which remember what we thought we saw, rather than the light that reached our retinas. These methods are already in extensive use (most s…

If you're using this to try and enhance super grainy CCTV footage to get a face or license plate I'd agree. Purely in the context of this article, the author is just upscaling an already high-definition image 2x. There's very little artifice that can be really added at this level that a human could perceive IMO.

Re: Adobe Photoshop's 'super resolution' made my jaw hit the floor

#33

Post by gmfawcett »

social_quotient wrote: post #18
ISL wrote: post #6

As a metrologist (and photographer), the difficulty with these techniques is that they can over-represent the information contained within an image; they present an image of what was "probably" there, rather than representing what was. These aren't so different from our own brains, which remember what we thought we saw, rather than the light that reached our retinas. These methods are already in extensive use (most s…

It’s like systems that add zeros (floating point math) to the right of the decimal. 18.00000 is not the same as 18. Thoughts?

That's not how floating point math works? At least not for standard floats (IEEE 754), and except for very large integers (near 2^m, where m is the mantissa of the FP type). Floats have an exact representation for integers within their mantissa range -- i.e., '18' is exactly the same as '18.0000'.

Re: Adobe Photoshop's 'super resolution' made my jaw hit the floor

#34

Post by jrockway »

ISL wrote: post #6

As a metrologist (and photographer), the difficulty with these techniques is that they can over-represent the information contained within an image; they present an image of what was "probably" there, rather than representing what was. These aren't so different from our own brains, which remember what we thought we saw, rather than the light that reached our retinas. These methods are already in extensive use (most s…

I think this is probably good for what people use photos for; it lets them show a crop without the image looking pixelated. That means if they just want a photo to draw you in to their blog post, they don't have to take a perfect photograph with the right lens and right composition at the right time. And I think that's fine. No new information is created by ML upscaling, but it will look just good enough to fade into the background.

I personally take a lot of high resolution art photos. One that is deeply in my memory is a picture I took of the Manhattan bridge from the Brooklyn side with a 4x5 camera. I can get out the negative and view it under magnification and read the street signs across the river. (I would link you, but Google downrez'd all my photos, so the negatives are all I have.) ML upscaling probably won't let you do that, but on the other hand, it's probably pointless. It's not something that has a commercial use, it's just neat. If you want to know what the street signs on the FDR say, you can just look at Google Street View.

(OK, maybe it does have some value. I used to work in an office that had pictures blown up to room-size used as wallpaper in conference rooms. It looked great, and satisfied my desire to get close and see every detail. But, you know you're taking that kind of picture in advance, and you use the right tools. You can rent a digital medium format camera. You can use film and get it drum scanned. But, for people that just need a picture for an article, fake upscaling is probably good enough. The picture isn't an art exhibit, or an attempt to collect visual data. It's just something to draw you into the article in the 3 milliseconds before you see a wall of text and bounce.)

Re: Adobe Photoshop's 'super resolution' made my jaw hit the floor

#37

Post by nwienert »

qayxc wrote: post #10
kristiandupont wrote: post #3

...I guess the enhance jokes were just rendered void! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxq9yj2pVWk

Absolutely not. If there's not enough information available, there's not enough information, full stop. Plausible (i.e. "good looking" or "believable") results are not the same as actual data, which is why enhance wouldn't work on vehicle licence plates or faces for example. Sure, the result might be a plausible looking face or text, but it's still not a valid representation of what was originally captured. That's th…

No there certainly is a chance for ML to improve here.

Let’s take the classic example of enhancing a blurry photo to get a license plate.

Humans may not be able to see much in the blur, but an AI trained on many different highly down-res’d images could at least give you plausible outcomes using far less data than a human brain would be able to say anything with confidence.

You wouldn’t hold it up as the absolute truth, but you’d run the potential plate and see if it matched some other data you have.

So yes, it wouldn’t magically add any more information to the image, but it could be far better at taking low information and giving plausible outcomes that are then necessary to verify.

Re: Adobe Photoshop's 'super resolution' made my jaw hit the floor

#38

Post by t-writescode »

oblio wrote: post #7

I like how he realizes the impact for pro cameras but doesn't highlight the elephant in the room: phone cameras. This means that soon for many people digital cameras outside of their smartphone will become an even more niche product.

This is already the case. I rarely have a need to take out my SLR - it's just too bulky to have a reason for it, unless I'm going on an adventure where photography is one of the or the main purpose.

I've gone on hiking trips where my "challenge" was to only use my phone camera. It wasn't much of a challenge for landscapes.

Re: Adobe Photoshop's 'super resolution' made my jaw hit the floor

#39

Post by nerbert »

frereubu wrote: post #19

Pixelmator did this a while ago (December 2019): https://www.pixelmator.com/blog/2019/12/17/all-about-the-new... Can't comment on the quality of either because I haven't used them, but they both seem to go to 200%.

I use it regularly (for my personal photos) and it depends on the photo. My observation is that pictures of natural elements (clouds, water, stars) tend to yield better results than for example a family picture in my house.
Post reply on HN