I 4x'd a 367x479 stamp-sized photo through 8 upscaling models
1–10 of 14 posts
Re: I 4x'd a 367x479 stamp-sized photo through 8 upscaling models
#2Full disclaimer: the Enlarger app is something I did.
Fuller disclaimer: this kind of a "postmark"-sized pic blowup test case is borderline unfair to every model in the comparison, mine included.
Re: I 4x'd a 367x479 stamp-sized photo through 8 upscaling models
#3Full disclaimer: the Enlarger app is something I did. Fuller disclaimer: this kind of a "postmark"-sized pic blowup test case is borderline unfair to every model in the comparison, mine included.
Enlarger's ear lobes are molting!
Most any upsize looks better if you toss hue protected noise back in; you've made good use of that point.
Re: I 4x'd a 367x479 stamp-sized photo through 8 upscaling models
#4Full disclaimer: the Enlarger app is something I did. Fuller disclaimer: this kind of a "postmark"-sized pic blowup test case is borderline unfair to every model in the comparison, mine included.
Enlarger's ear lobes are molting! Most any upsize looks better if you toss hue protected noise back in; you've made good use of that point.
Thanks. Yeah, I used to do the tug-and-pull of scaling, then adding noise and sharpening, scaling a little more, adding more noise, adding more sharpening, etc. to ad nauseam. And photoshop sharpening was too much always for my taste.
At scale, this tool should speed that process up a "bit". Let's say 100s of photos.
Re: I 4x'd a 367x479 stamp-sized photo through 8 upscaling models
#5A human face is the easiest target - because AI upscalers can make up a "fake" face realistic enough to fool most people.
Especially something as standardized as a passport photo.
See this article shared on HN a week ago:
https://blog.jimgrey.net/2026/06/30/what-happens-when-the-in...
Re: I 4x'd a 367x479 stamp-sized photo through 8 upscaling models
#6On mobile it shows a zoomed in version of the image. It shows the small details even more. I was not really agreeing with the author on the superiority of Enlarger.
With the full images, the comparison is much more to the advantage of Enlarger.
Re: I 4x'd a 367x479 stamp-sized photo through 8 upscaling models
#7Full disclaimer: the Enlarger app is something I did. Fuller disclaimer: this kind of a "postmark"-sized pic blowup test case is borderline unfair to every model in the comparison, mine included.
Enlarger's ear lobes are molting! Most any upsize looks better if you toss hue protected noise back in; you've made good use of that point.
I can only see a mouth and nose on mobile
Re: I 4x'd a 367x479 stamp-sized photo through 8 upscaling models
#8Is it me, or do all upscaled photos look like it's a video game, or the face is made out of smooth plastic?
Re: I 4x'd a 367x479 stamp-sized photo through 8 upscaling models
#9Pet peeve: people who use "4x" instead of "quadrupled".
Re: I 4x'd a 367x479 stamp-sized photo through 8 upscaling models
#10Full disclaimer: the Enlarger app is something I did. Fuller disclaimer: this kind of a "postmark"-sized pic blowup test case is borderline unfair to every model in the comparison, mine included.
You could have also disclosed the fact that the model that you call "Enlarger — Base" is a free, open-weights model named 4xNomosWebPhoto, given that this post is apparently comparing the models. You seem to even explicitly claim it as your model in this comment.