So what happens if you take a tiny 10x10 image and run it through "super resolution" about 8-10 times?
Adobe Photoshop's 'super resolution' made my jaw hit the floor
41–50 of 171 posts
Re: Adobe Photoshop's 'super resolution' made my jaw hit the floor
#42Hm. So I took the example image, upscaled by 200%, applied a sharpen filter (all in Paint.NET) and compared the result to the AI upscaled image. TBH, I couldn't see a difference. 2x upscaling isn't all that impressive to begin with (e.g. produce 4 pixels from 1) and can be done in fairly high quality using traditional non-learning algorithms. I'm much more impressed by 4x and 8x super-resolution. I'm really not sure…
Same here. Playing a bit with CLAHE, microcontrast and sharpening gives visually the same if not even better results.
Re: Adobe Photoshop's 'super resolution' made my jaw hit the floor
#43As 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?
You probably want go with 0.1+0.2 != 0.3
Re: Adobe Photoshop's 'super resolution' made my jaw hit the floor
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
I concur, the second surfer example - the enhanced image looks a lot like blowing up the original 2x and applying careful sharpening.
> and applying careful sharpening That alone makes it worthwhile, surely? No careful application required.
For sure, but the title is quite an overstatement and reads like it's from someone who haven't really been paying attention to the many existing open source super resolution offerings.
Re: Adobe Photoshop's 'super resolution' made my jaw hit the floor
#45As 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 point is worth pushing on a bit harder, which is to say that the "additional details" in the picture are guesses by the software, not actual additional details. The data present in the picture is fixed, the software uses that data to build educated guesses on what was actually there. If the photo doesn't contain enough data to actually determine what a given piece of text in the image says, the software…
This “guessing” is nice for the sake of artistry, but we’ve got to be careful when knowing what actually was there is important—like when photos are submitted as evidence in court cases, or when determining the identity of a person from a photo as part of an investigation.
Re: Adobe Photoshop's 'super resolution' made my jaw hit the floor
#46So what happens if you take a tiny 10x10 image and run it through "super resolution" about 8-10 times?
https://openaccess.thecvf.com/content_cvpr_2018/papers/Yu_Su...
stuff like this - assuming it's a GAN under the hood it just tries to guess a 'plausible' possible interpolation, but if you're giving it very little information about what's in the original image, there will be a wide range of plausible images it could have arisen from, so the output can be very far from the truth.
Re: Adobe Photoshop's 'super resolution' made my jaw hit the floor
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 trut…
Actually the opposite. These algorithms are more susceptible to noise, they may generate sharp perfect license plate numbers (that are totally fabricated and completely wrong) from a blurry image. But by no means should you even consider the results to have hints of truth.
GAN produces totally different results if you slightly change the input.
So, as others are also saying, these "enhances" are great for decoration and absolutely should be ignored as facts or truth (specially when it comes to face and license plate and others used by the law enforcement).
Re: Adobe Photoshop's 'super resolution' made my jaw hit the floor
#48...I guess the enhance jokes were just rendered void! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxq9yj2pVWk
CSI and the like were just ahead of their time edit: I was joking, but people pointing out that you still can't create something out of nothing etc might not be thinking big enough. I think this technology absolutely has the potential to help. police are literally still using artists impressions - photofits, to find perpetrators
I think the artist impression has a lot more value than a highly realistic generated face. If you see an artistic impression, you will see the facial features that were noticeable. Such as a mole, the shape of the nose, or the thickness of the eyebrows. Then you have a template that your brain uses to match those features with any face that you see.
However, if I show you a highly realistic face, your brain will take a different impression. Your brain is trained on faces for thousands of years. It will try to match the face perfectly.
An artist impression tells the audience that it is inaccurate. A realistic photo tells the audience that this is _exactly_ who we are looking for.
Re: Adobe Photoshop's 'super resolution' made my jaw hit the floor
#49As 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?
I dont think you mean for floating point, but for mechanical tolerances. Many times, you dont want to pay an extra $50,000 for the 5 digits of precision... but sometimes you do. Shitty system if it automatically messed up all your part tolerances.
Re: Adobe Photoshop's 'super resolution' made my jaw hit the floor
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this point is worth pushing on a bit harder, which is to say that the "additional details" in the picture are guesses by the software, not actual additional details. The data present in the picture is fixed, the software uses that data to build educated guesses on what was actually there. If the photo doesn't contain enough data to actually determine what a given piece of text in the image says, the software…
This “guessing” is nice for the sake of artistry, but we’ve got to be careful when knowing what actually was there is important—like when photos are submitted as evidence in court cases, or when determining the identity of a person from a photo as part of an investigation.
I hope such photos are submitted as camera takes them. With our without this new feature, photoshopping a photo before presenting it to court must be illegal.