121–130 of 171 posts
Is that Ryan Gosling? There's definitely something going on there. https://petapixel.com/2020/08/17/gigapixel-ai-accidentally-a...
...wait, THAT'S NOT MY FRIENDS!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What worries me is that COTS photo equipment increasingly comes with these algorithmic retouches that "over-represent" the data - or, put another way, bake its own interpretation into image, in a way that cannot be distinguished from source data. It's nice for a casual Instagrammer, but then a lot of science and engineering also gets done using COTS equipment. I worry that at some point, a lot of money will be burned…
It has already happened. Back in 2013, Xerox had a copier that changed numbers, for similar reasons. https://www.theregister.com/2013/08/06/xerox_copier_flaw_mea...
Often enough it will look worse than bicubic interpolation. Chroma noise get's crazy most of the time.
What's remarkable at: pattern cloth, straight lines with large contrast (electric wires against a blue sky, dark glasses mount against white skin, etc).
Nice to have option all in all.
Is it just me who found the article immensely frustrating for lacking same-region-crop side by side comparisons?
No, it's not just you. An overlay with a slider is pretty much the standard way of comparing two near-identical images these days, but this article not even having a side-by-side is just downright lazy.
Neat. If only Adobe would do away with their absurd pricing models. I'll never use an adobe product again after trying to end my subscription with them.
Yeah, a monthly payment forever is ridiculous...
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 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…
I don't. Everyone knows this already and it seems like a lot of people are just saying it over and over to look clever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has already happened. Back in 2013, Xerox had a copier that changed numbers, for similar reasons. https://www.theregister.com/2013/08/06/xerox_copier_flaw_mea...
That was due to compression, however, not upscaling. Related, but not similar :)
Topaz Gigapixel is quite good though despite the negative comments in the article. I'd rather give my money to Topaz for this one feature than keep paying Adobe subscription fees indefinitely
Because they're David to Adobe's Goliath, I also feel compelled to mention that I've just recently discovered/purchased this and am incredibly impressed with it.