I have it and already noticed that the "before" picture in the preview actually gets made worse than it is, also it is very specific, some carpet patterns or furniture it gets really clear while other stuff just gets sharpened or something. So I do batch processing and let it run trough a folder for a night, and next day have usable pictures and also stuff that is not useful. Some stuff that comes out is impressive I have to say. But I also think they have to fix the business model, I got ads in the product to tell me I have to buy the product I already had or something on toughs lines if I remember correctly, and had to put my Key in a few times after updates and such. But hey it didn’t costs Photoshop-money so I don’t complain.
Sharpen and Gigapixel AI are legit amazing. I have saved images I originally thought were throwaways. Having used those, not super impressed by this at all. Great job Adobe, years late as usual...
5:33 I dunno... maybe it's because of RUclips compression, but the enhanced image looks better to me. The one you modified has weird dithering around the pupil, and the eyelashes are thicker, but not sharper. Eyelashes look way better on the right.
Enhance does work, I've tested and confirmed on A7R IV with Canon 200mm F2. It creates results that you can't achieve with regular camera raw/lightroom sliders.
@@hiawrj depends on the photo. I just did a photo of a hawk in bright daylight. A7RIV, with a Tamron 2.8 and it added distortion to the beak when otherwise was perfectly shot. Not impressed.
Got to say, in my testing it’s been super impressive. Street images - things like tiny text on shop displays genuinely come up like a higher resolution original. Really great on clean lower res images - tried it on some 8Mpix Canon 20D images from years back and it’s great.
It seems to me that the ultimate point of this tool is to facilitate making larger prints and/or tighter crops, thus improving PS's ability to upscale an image without sacrificing (much of) the detail. Therefore it seems that the test should have been to take the original portrait, upscale it 2x in each dimension, and then try to edit that upscaled image to match the output of the "Super Resolution" tool.
Any modern camera from the past 10 years can already make massive prints that still look good, though. Maybe for someone who wants the absolute best it might have some niche uses, but for nearly everyone else normal files are more than adequate.
@@asterisk606not really, even cameras from a few years ago only capturing 12 mp resolution photos end up hitting a wall with printing size (14" x 9" @ 300 dpi).
@Michael Whyte everything you have pointed out is correct. I do print at 300 dpi for anything that will be displayed. And while billboards are not printed at anything like that, as you noted, a 12MP camera still wouldn't capture a photo that would render an acceptable image for that use.
I used a raw file of a landscape photo from my D850 and enhanced it, then I viewed at a ridiculously large print size of 60x90 inches to compare with the original raw file at the same print size. I noted huge improvement in the details after using Super Resolution, it was also noticeable at a more reasonable print size of 30x45 inches. I'm convinced that Super Resolution will be very useful for printing large landscape photos shot with my Nikon equipment.
It makes much more sense to enhance images from 20MP cameras (e.g. R6) instead of already HiRes images from cameras like the Sony. My experiance with R6 images and ACR enhance resolution is EXCELLENT!
For me It's working great I've been a week on it and it's amazing. Photos of the EOS R look like it was taken with a 5DSR or a similar super-resolution camera, it's cool. I got to the level that it looks like an R5 and even cleaner and sharper with some post tweaking using 'Reduce noise'
Yeah, me too. I grabbed some of my old 20D 8mpix images to try out and the effect was amazing. Especially things like straight lines and text in street scenes - really small heavily pixelated words it made legible. I've got an R and was wondering if I should upgrade to an R5 or R6 (R5 a bit expensive though). I'm kind of thinking that this pushes me towards the R6 because I can get a useful up-res effect if I find I need to crop.
I think there's some benefits here that are missed. Having this kind of upscaling means that I can go out and purchase a used camera on a much smaller budget that may only shoot 16mp, but I can now utilize that file to create larger prints. This kind of tech (not just the adobe product), should make all of us pretty excited about being able to have older systems remain relevant and competitive.
I am STUNNED that you could not see the very good enhancement on the original 2 eyeballs!!!!! The edge of the blue in the UNenhance is rough and dotty... It's considerably smoother on the enhanced version! On the right of the eyeball, the tiny red veins are significantly more clear with the enhanced version! The upper left eyelashes are again smoother and have greater detail and slightly less "noise." The eyeball itself is also sharper and more detailed than the Unenhanced one!!!! I've been photographing all my life, but have nowhere the skill you do, but I'm am truly taken aback at you not being able to see the difference here... I'm working on an OLD MONITOR and viewing thru RUclips and just now looking into this enhance feature - I have no connections with anybody or any company BUT I CAN SEE A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THIS NEW FEATURE...
Thanks Tony, but this is perhaps the first video of yours I felt that didn’t go deep enough. The two images you showed us were already pretty high resolution. I would have liked to see the difference (if any) with something like a 3-5 mb image - using a heavily cropped bird in flight for example. I did hear you say towards the end you tried it with all sorts of images, low and high Rez but no details provided. And it would have been more impactful to use a low Rez image for the video demonstration.
The interesting thing is nVidia's latest graphics cards can do this feat in real time, in games that are delivering images at 60+ frames per second. This makes me think that, with appropriate use of a gfx card, one could super-rez video with little in the way of additional render-time.
If you're talking about Dynamic Super Resolution, it's an entirely different use-case and technology. DSR renders the 3D _model_ in double resolution and then downsamples that to the monitor resolution. Since the model is essentially a mathematical representation of the scene, there is no inherent limit on the resolution it can be rendered at, beyond the precision of the mantissa of the vertex data (at least 24 bits). At no point is DSR dealing with fixed-resolution raster image, as the Photoshop filter is.
It's not that simple. Nvidia uses supercomputers to train a deep learning network for each game separately, then this trained neural network is used by the graphics card for upscaling. Adobe needs to process a huge number of images to create anything close to dlss.
@@Chopper153 Thanks for clarifying. I do wonder though, what would stop Adobe from doing just that, processing a huge number of images, to create a neural network solution similar to nvidia's. The cloud-based nature of their software should make utilizing the resulting neural network solutions by client apps doable.
@@davidbierbaum4881 I can bet that Adobe (and the major tech companies) are training several deep NNs with billions of images. But these things require a lot of time and computation. Even my small image processing project for college required thousands of images.
This is made to take a 12 mp image and make it a 48 mp image mainly so now your a7s iii is an a7r iv. It's not meant to make your image better. I don't even know what he is rumbling about...
As a test, take a photo from any camera, open it and process as usual, then the same picture process it the same but add the enhance part, now print the parts you want to check in photographic paper and then compare. Screens usually show a lot of artifacts, but printing somewhat don't show that much and at the end for an "enhanced" picture you may want to blow up a file to make a bigger print.
I’ve used it on a few Sony RAW images already. I’m struggling to see any improvement that justifies adding an extra step to my work flow and decreasing my already tight storage space. Hoping that’s this is just a first iteration and we will see improvements made in the coming releases. Strikes me as a bit of UAT from Adobe at present. If they were fully happy with it surely they would be having it front and centre in Photoshop and Lightroom.
Hi, you mention Lr as your preferred tool to enhance your pictures. I used Lr until version 5.7.1 when they changed to monthly subscription to their Creative Cloud. Being only an amateur, the usage I made of Lr didn't justify the cost. So, I still use my old version of Lr for it's library module and now use DXO Photolab 4 for it's development module. What do you think of DXO Photolab 4? Did you made a video on that? Thanks.
Thank you so much for your review. I came to the same conclusion, owning only Sony cameras, as you did. The number of other reviewer’s praising this new feature and saying how good it works on JPEG’s was mine blowing to me after trying.
Tony I would have to respectfully disagree with your assessment. I've tested both Canon R6 and Sony A7sIII files, and was able to get substantially more detailed or sharp images when cropping in after using Super Resolution. Of course, it really depends on how your image is from the beginning. I've noticed that with High ISO images, it is not as useful, but for clean images, I've been able to upres the Sony A7sIII 12mp images up to 48mp and have some nice results. Honestly I would not test this with the Sony A7rIII, as that's a bit of a different animal and why would you want up res an already high resolution camera?? To me this is more useful for lower resolution cameras like the Sony A7sIII, or perhaps older RAW files that had lower res MP. Did you try this with any other cameras besides the ones you mention? I'm not saying this is the end all be all tool to makes everything sharper and better, but I have found this to be more useful than you articulate in this and have found other cameras besides just X-Trans to be work-able within this new feature. Also...there are other RUclips videos that showed actual image differences as opposed to marketing images repurposed.
I totally agree, it's like he doesn't even understand what upscaling means, as if anyone needed upscaling on a A7rIII image, like seriously... It's meant to make your A7S iii an A7r iv that's the whole point
@@troywalt4834 Yeah...I don’t know why he chose that approach. What’s funny is his results with Fuji were more favorable for him not because it was an X-Trans sensor but because it was a lower resolution camera. But he never really responds to comments so I doubt he even read this. It’s really too bad because tons of people will think it doesn’t work and it simply is not true.
Hi. I just want to comment about previous video. I remember that J. Lanier predict that this is end of DSLR , and mirrorless are the future , but on that time no many people would like to believe in this, and now they probably regret.
Great, I was hopping someone was going to actually test it and test it against the competition, but people just repeat what adobe say and forget about other tools, making the. "reviews" useless. That does not mean that it's useless, even if the performance is not better than other tools it's great for people that already has the Adobe Cloud. I will suggest testing low resolution images too.
I've tested Adobe Camera Raw's Enhance feature on highly cropped macro shots of flowers where the cropped Jpeg image had a size of around 1500 X 1500 px. Result: no discernible improvement. Then I repeated the test with both BigJpg and ImgLarger's software increasing the resolution by 4x. Both software packages did a better job than Adobe Camera Raw's "Enhance" feature. But still only a small improvement in image quality.
Instead of just changing the scale in LR Navigator, It would've made more of a real world comparison to upsample another version in PS with Image Size and compare that back in LR to the Super Res, both viewed at 100%
I don't know about free online enlargers, but every tine I've tried Topaz Gigapixel, it misses spots. Like the whole image will be nicely sharp and great but there will be random patches throughout that it literally just didn't do anything to that are blurry. Maybe some pictures it wouldn't, but if it does it even occasionally, that is totally unusable in my book. If Photoshop can even marginally improve on their original enlargement process - which is what I always used for upscaling to 300 DPI for large prints - I'm grateful. I won't be processing with Adobe Camera Raw. I'm a Capture One user. Adobe Lightroom and ACR are total garbage for raw processing. But I'll totally use it if needed once I'm done retouching. When Topaz enlarges an area successfully, it is beautiful, as are several online enlargers I've seen demoed. But when they don't, it's fatal to the whole image. I for one am far more eager to get my hands on a Canon R5s and start shooting at 90 megapixels.
This was present in the ACR not so long ago :) and it worked just like now. They removed it and now they are bringing it back like a new feature :D ... There was also AI oversample algorithm in "image size" in photoshop called "Enhance details 2.0" it disappeared in CC 2020 and I expect it to come back as a new feature pretty soon :D
Tony, there is a dedicated software for upscaling images and ''enhance'' them manually (as for example : adding sharpening only where you want it etc..) it's called On1 Resize. Could you add it to your test pls?
How about comparing it to Topaz GIGA PIXEL. That software uses real AI and auto layering and resamples both layers in Photoshop. If an area is over done.(i.e. over sharpened or has artifacts), an eraser of varying opacity can be used to erase the top layer. For those of us who print large, the results can be amazing.
I use Capture One largely because it does so well with the raw files from my Fuji X-T2. I would be interested in a comparison between using Capture One and Photoshop's enhance details feature on Fujifilm X-trans files.
I understand that adding more resolution to a sensor typically increases the resolution of scaled down images too, but maybe not if they want it faithful to the original image. Some might consider it a feature if it doesn't change the image if viewed at lower resolution. I'd like to see how this compares to previous methods at higher zooms. Could you compare to other algorithms like bicubic interpolation?
I've got a Threadripper 3970x running 2 x Geforce 2080Ti's using Topaz Labs tools like Denoise AI, Gigapixel AI and it's really fast doing 6x upscaling and Denoising my images.
To bad you completely forgot the fact this isn't a tool to make your images look better, rather it's to print them larger. Don't bash something for doing what is was designed to do with unwarranted expectations.
Tony, Perfect review. My conclusions exactly. From Adobe's "false" hype and other internet reviewers poor analysis (sad to say). We tested it extensively and didn't see any true improvement. And we specialize in printing large format for customers and ourselves. We did try some AI programs but their limit of 2000 px has been a problem. But the online AI programs are substantially better. We tried Vance AI.
When PS changed to the new version with the enhanced feature, my PS did not work. It seems to have something to do with my graphics card which is 11 years old. But Tony said the feature only seems to be using the processor not the graphic card. Did anyone else have a shut down of their PS when they went to the new version? I had to delete and go back to previous version. Now I have no problem.
I can't justify paying monthly for Adobe products. I use DXO PureRaw to denoise, demosaic, and make optical corrections. It uses the GPU and is fantastic. I also use ON1 Photo Raw instead of Lightroom. ON1 has some nice "AI" features, but in practice they have limited use. AI Portrait has issues on people with glasses. Regardless, I'm happy with the software and don't have to pay the Adobe tax.
Great video. We really need to see it vs Topaz Gigapixel. Specifically gigapixel and their AI sharpen combined would be a good test. I’ve used both but not together. AI sharpen does some crazy great things to remove motion blur! I was blown away at the images it saved that were trash.
I really have to disagree with Tony's assessment of the eye detail shown at around 5:25 of the video. Look at the enhanced version on the right. The eye iris and blood vessels clearly have a ton more detail and sharpness.
Why is it that game engines can upscale in real time so convincingly with DLSS (deep learning super sampling) but Adobe still hasn't figured it out for images?
For those that rent abode for their work, fine but for everyone else there are other programs that have been doing this for a while. And with real AI - Gigpixel as an example. It would be interesting to see ho you got on with the Topaz suite
I've seen four other videos about this, and I find it so odd that everyone is acting like this is some new and never-before-seen thing (and comparing it to those "enhance" scenes), even though programs like Topaz's Gigapixel AI have been around for years. Is there a reason - that I'm simply missing - for this conspicuous incongruity?
I’ve long been a customer and huge fan of your work. And this video affirms my longstanding impressions of the value you provide: objectivity, integrity and, consequently, thorough analysis that can be trusted. Thank you for all your tremendous efforts - they’re greatly appreciated. Keep up the great work!
Heya Tony, interesting video. Are you familiar with the mobile app called Remini? It's fascinating to use and although it certainly has its limits, if used correctly it has some pretty impressive results. I'd love to hear your views on it
I've stumbled across many viewers not entirely understanding what's going on here & what's certainly not happening. There is more to it than pixel peeping & for images or textures you wish to preserve one is a true tool while the other is.. I'll let you see for yourself lol. So I figure I'd like to hell elaborate briefly. In the days of "old", for video gaming if you had a 1080p monitor but a beefy graphics card, you could do 'super resolution'. It's a fancy way of simply making the game render at a higher resolution than the display can actually output.. Resulting in some smoother edges overall. Despite Adobe mentioning *machine learning*, it quickly falls apart when you see that it is doing more of the same old "quick & dirty" trick as opposed to using AI to fine-tune & upscale to several different resolutions as well as values (ex: 1.50x/2x/etc.). This is considered the most barbaric method of all, because you are just taking those same pixels & stretching them across, thus resulting in fuzziness, nothing is actually being processed & analyzed, since it is also saying the scaling will be at 2x/200% of the original, it should be an immediate tell-tale that this is what it is going to do. The only suspicion I'd hold as to why any machine learning is involved for the Adobe Super Resolution is so as to attempt to maintain a sort of "threshold", so that the end result is at least a little less fuzzy than resizing it in Photoshop.. If it sounds lackluster, it's because it is coming from a giant like Adobe. As for Gigapixel AI, as the name itself implies it takes a direct approach to analyzing the scene itself using the pre-installed accelerated AI 'kit' built into your Nvidia GPU driver. This is why it doesn't need an internet connection to use AI as it's not something that's being streamed, it's all being done within the respective AI cores assigned to it. Speed. Speed is a point of confusion for many here because you must take into consideration that unlike Photoshop or Lightroom, Gigapixel (& it's whole suite of AI tools) leverages the direct hardware you use. Which is to say if you have a graphics card that's several years old & it's a low end one as well, it will appear to be a worse "performance hit" than doing the Ps Super Res route except that it's because it's actually performing calculations & essentially allowing you to tweak & tune that AI upscaled image to your heart's content. Granted, the moment you have a better/newer/higher end GPU, all of this becomes irrelevant.. Because the speed at which you are able to quite literally AI upscale a batch of photos surpasses that of the poor "25 seconds" estimated using the Ps method lol... So, is it noticeable? Of course. Should you care? It depends. This isn't a question of do you want the, "best".. Rather do you want to use a tool that *actually* intelligently & dynamically upscales the image using AI or do you just want to go with that same old cheap trick? Truly, using the inbuilt plugin for the respective app (in this case Gigapixel) it's not actually a "hassle". If anything you have control over what otherwise Adobe does not have, does not support, nor seem to be willing to invest into *for you, Creative Cloud user..* if it seems messed up, it's because it's Adobe at the end of the day lol. However, it's great when there's competition albeit one would've thought they would've done something as opposed go just bake in an old actual upscaling 'solution' derived so closely from the days of super resolutions for games... With only minute tweaks so as to not be as bad as it already kind of is on its own lol. Cheers. I hope it helped.
I have my D850 and take a 25mp image of a tree covered in frost, I adjust it in photoshop to bring out sky colours, looks lovely and sharp. But even when exported to Tiff file the image has lost some of it’s sharpness, as some branches look unsharpened. Hard to store raw files and show from storage drive as not all work with raw only tiff, jpg,png
Yeah 99% of the time I pull an image into Photoshop is after I've done base adjustments in Lightroom. I'm curious to know if their algorithm is less effective when working with a non-raw file.
I think 10-bit color is going to provide more image quality improvement than ever increasing megapixels. After all, at a 24" viewing distance our eyes can only resolve roughly 100 px to the inch or thereabouts. 1920x1080 on a 24" monitor actually only presents 2MPX so all of the advantage of a 45 mpx camera will go into the over-sampling used to form the presentation. The ASUS/WQHD monitor I'm using now is 27" and 2560x1440 resolution. The Radeon RX570 graphic card can produce 10 bit color and this is reported in Windows-10. To get 10-bit color though I think I'll need to convert the CR2 data into HEIF format rather than .jpeg I have ACDSee Pro installed in Windows; I'll have to check and see if it can export into .heif format. Editing the .cr2 data though ought to be able to take advantage of the 10-bit coor depth. hmmmmm. anyway, I thought I'd just post a few notes on this topic here as it might be an interesting topic to explore. Say Hi to Chelsea !
Tony, could you "please" do a video showing why Lenses for smaller sensors are not actually the labeled "f" rating? There is much confusion about this and it is largely glossed over or ignored by many including professionals.
In the Adobe article it says it “only uses the GPU”, and not the CPU, opposite of what you said. Who’s right? It’s probably only valuable on like my 3-10 megapixel dance competition shots from the mid 90s!
I am trying to get more bang from my buck. I can’t justify the R5 so was thinking of getting the R 6 and using enhance to upscale the few landscape photos I will take for printing A3 + pictures. Will this work ? I have an 80D now and am invested in Canon lenses
It seems to me that "enhance" is somewhat misleading. This looks like a superpowered "enlarge" tool. The comparison I would like to see is how an "enhanced" 12MP image compares to an unenhanced 48MP image. And then how does it compare with other enlarging tools.
All cameras produce different raw files, they are not equal. I had many cameras and they give very different colors and different amount of details. Some fuji cameras have xtrans sensor, the others bayer sensor, google it
The Fuji sensors (with some "X-Trans" branded pixel coloring pattern) are prone to artifacts and quality degradations, so that you (or actually, your software) is stuck between striking a least painful balance between - blurriness (waxy skin or waxy foliage) and - worminess (of noise or other grainy structures). So, X-Trans would probably benefit more than traditional sensors from some higher amount of software "intelligence" to have these X-Trans specific problems/risks mitigated.
@@tubularificationed worminess is only present in LR and ACR. Capture one does not have this problem at all, and squeezes out more details and usually less noise from other compatible cameras too
@@tubularificationed ACR and LR degrades the image quality of some cameras, maybe on purpose, not sure. I have a old 5D classic, I just love it, and it looks terrible in ACR and LR, noisy and posterised at ISO100!!! But it is absolutely great in Captur One and Rawtherapee and I can push ISO1600 images to 3200 and it still looks great!
Just tried it with my A7RIV files, don't really see any improvement, in fact it appears to add in more color noise. Will try again with a7SIII files, maybe do an A7SIII enhanced versus A7RIV.
Tony looks as if someone would've drawn his contours with a thick black pencil. This video might look just as good if not better if it was shot on the Pentax K-01.
hmm i dont really see improvments special the yellow that apeared on the skin tone looked weird it might be something to upscale a old low resolution picture
The Sony images look identical to me. If there is a difference, it is imperceptible to me. It's possible that my 10 year old 1080 monitor cannot pick up tiny differences. I could see a minute difference in the Fujifilm images, but I had to stare at it a long time to see the barely perceptible difference.
Could this be a fix for the X-trans sensor's infamous worm like artifacts when exported/worked on in LR and Ps as the are optimized for Bayer sensors? Won't need to use something like Iridient x-transformer now!
Thanks Tony, I wasn't aware of the new enhance feature. I tried it after seeing this review on a few birds and it actually did wonders (Long-tailed tit, Robin, Ring Necked Parakeet). I did hover noticed that if there's fringing in the photo, it emphasize it as well. Photo taken with SonyA7SIII (Yes I know it's mainly for video, but I also use it for photography :) ).
I was hoping you'd mention how this worked on NEF's. Could it help us who are still using the "sucky" AF systems? Or are you not allowed to mention Nikon anymore?
Tony...Long time ago you mentioned reviewing alternatives to Lightroom classic - where’s the video dude? Many of us enthusiasts/hobbyist can’t justify a subscription based software when we’re only using it a few days a month.
I’d like to see you trying Topaz Gigapixel AI and Topaz Sharpen AI!
I have it and already noticed that the "before" picture in the preview actually gets made worse than it is, also it is very specific, some carpet patterns or furniture it gets really clear while other stuff just gets sharpened or something. So I do batch processing
and let it run trough a folder for a night, and next day have usable pictures and also stuff that is not useful. Some stuff that comes out is impressive I have to say. But I also think they have to fix the business model, I got ads in the product to tell me I have to buy the product I already had or something on toughs lines if I remember correctly, and had to put my Key in a few times after updates and such. But hey it didn’t costs Photoshop-money so I don’t complain.
Sharpen and Gigapixel AI are legit amazing. I have saved images I originally thought were throwaways. Having used those, not super impressed by this at all. Great job Adobe, years late as usual...
Gigapixel ai is hands down better than Enhance acr.
Exactly! Topaz runs loops around this feature in Adobe.
@@TechVidGuy it seems to mess up more than this though
5:33 I dunno... maybe it's because of RUclips compression, but the enhanced image looks better to me. The one you modified has weird dithering around the pupil, and the eyelashes are thicker, but not sharper. Eyelashes look way better on the right.
Enhance does work, I've tested and confirmed on A7R IV with Canon 200mm F2. It creates results that you can't achieve with regular camera raw/lightroom sliders.
@@hiawrj depends on the photo. I just did a photo of a hawk in bright daylight. A7RIV, with a Tamron 2.8 and it added distortion to the beak when otherwise was perfectly shot. Not impressed.
Yea, errors like that are clearly bad. :)
Got to say, in my testing it’s been super impressive. Street images - things like tiny text on shop displays genuinely come up like a higher resolution original. Really great on clean lower res images - tried it on some 8Mpix Canon 20D images from years back and it’s great.
It seems to me that the ultimate point of this tool is to facilitate making larger prints and/or tighter crops, thus improving PS's ability to upscale an image without sacrificing (much of) the detail. Therefore it seems that the test should have been to take the original portrait, upscale it 2x in each dimension, and then try to edit that upscaled image to match the output of the "Super Resolution" tool.
I am also a little confused about the comparison as you have described...
Any modern camera from the past 10 years can already make massive prints that still look good, though. Maybe for someone who wants the absolute best it might have some niche uses, but for nearly everyone else normal files are more than adequate.
@@asterisk606not really, even cameras from a few years ago only capturing 12 mp resolution photos end up hitting a wall with printing size (14" x 9" @ 300 dpi).
@Michael Whyte everything you have pointed out is correct. I do print at 300 dpi for anything that will be displayed. And while billboards are not printed at anything like that, as you noted, a 12MP camera still wouldn't capture a photo that would render an acceptable image for that use.
@Tony & Chelsea Northup Can you compare it with Topaz Lab's Gigapixel AI? I recall you having a video on it previously
Compared to topaz Gigapixel it is not as impressive detail wise.. . But superresolution looks way more natural!
I used a raw file of a landscape photo from my D850 and enhanced it, then I viewed at a ridiculously large print size of 60x90 inches to compare with the original raw file at the same print size. I noted huge improvement in the details after using Super Resolution, it was also noticeable at a more reasonable print size of 30x45 inches. I'm convinced that Super Resolution will be very useful for printing large landscape photos shot with my Nikon equipment.
Let's talk more,,,,+,,,,1,,,,,,7,,,,,,4,,,,,,0,,,,,8,,,,,,9,,,,,3,,,,,9,,,,,,4,,,,,,8,,,,,, 2...✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅
@@oraclecryptotrader8715 Tony, Someone is trying a scam using the above reply.
It makes much more sense to enhance images from 20MP cameras (e.g. R6) instead of already HiRes images from cameras like the Sony. My experiance with R6 images and ACR enhance resolution is EXCELLENT!
For me It's working great I've been a week on it and it's amazing. Photos of the EOS R look like it was taken with a 5DSR or a similar super-resolution camera, it's cool.
I got to the level that it looks like an R5 and even cleaner and sharper with some post tweaking using 'Reduce noise'
Yeah, me too. I grabbed some of my old 20D 8mpix images to try out and the effect was amazing. Especially things like straight lines and text in street scenes - really small heavily pixelated words it made legible.
I've got an R and was wondering if I should upgrade to an R5 or R6 (R5 a bit expensive though). I'm kind of thinking that this pushes me towards the R6 because I can get a useful up-res effect if I find I need to crop.
In your example the outer circle of the iris is looking substantially better with super resolution.
I agree with you, very noticeable.
He is Not talking about the Iris but of overall Image quality. He showed also that Skin looks terrible
I think there's some benefits here that are missed. Having this kind of upscaling means that I can go out and purchase a used camera on a much smaller budget that may only shoot 16mp, but I can now utilize that file to create larger prints. This kind of tech (not just the adobe product), should make all of us pretty excited about being able to have older systems remain relevant and competitive.
yes Tony completely missed the point, he is trying to upscale an A7r iv photo, like seriously?
Dad? Did u just show my skin and pimples in 400% to few thousand people?
I am STUNNED that you could not see the very good enhancement on the original 2 eyeballs!!!!! The edge of the blue in the UNenhance is rough and dotty... It's considerably smoother on the enhanced version! On the right of the eyeball, the tiny red veins are significantly more clear with the enhanced version! The upper left eyelashes are again smoother and have greater detail and slightly less "noise." The eyeball itself is also sharper and more detailed than the Unenhanced one!!!! I've been photographing all my life, but have nowhere the skill you do, but I'm am truly taken aback at you not being able to see the difference here... I'm working on an OLD MONITOR and viewing thru RUclips and just now looking into this enhance feature - I have no connections with anybody or any company BUT I CAN SEE A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THIS NEW FEATURE...
Thanks Tony, but this is perhaps the first video of yours I felt that didn’t go deep enough. The two images you showed us were already pretty high resolution. I would have liked to see the difference (if any) with something like a 3-5 mb image - using a heavily cropped bird in flight for example. I did hear you say towards the end you tried it with all sorts of images, low and high Rez but no details provided. And it would have been more impactful to use a low Rez image for the video demonstration.
Let's talk more,,,,+,,,,1,,,,,,7,,,,,,4,,,,,,0,,,,,8,,,,,,9,,,,,3,,,,,9,,,,,,4,,,,,,8,,,,,, 2...✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅
The interesting thing is nVidia's latest graphics cards can do this feat in real time, in games that are delivering images at 60+ frames per second. This makes me think that, with appropriate use of a gfx card, one could super-rez video with little in the way of additional render-time.
If you're talking about Dynamic Super Resolution, it's an entirely different use-case and technology. DSR renders the 3D _model_ in double resolution and then downsamples that to the monitor resolution. Since the model is essentially a mathematical representation of the scene, there is no inherent limit on the resolution it can be rendered at, beyond the precision of the mantissa of the vertex data (at least 24 bits). At no point is DSR dealing with fixed-resolution raster image, as the Photoshop filter is.
It's not that simple. Nvidia uses supercomputers to train a deep learning network for each game separately, then this trained neural network is used by the graphics card for upscaling. Adobe needs to process a huge number of images to create anything close to dlss.
@@Chopper153 Thanks for clarifying. I do wonder though, what would stop Adobe from doing just that, processing a huge number of images, to create a neural network solution similar to nvidia's. The cloud-based nature of their software should make utilizing the resulting neural network solutions by client apps doable.
@@PeteC62 No, he was talking about DLSS, the complete opposite of DSR.
@@davidbierbaum4881 I can bet that Adobe (and the major tech companies) are training several deep NNs with billions of images. But these things require a lot of time and computation. Even my small image processing project for college required thousands of images.
Have you tried to apply it 2, 3, 4, 5 times sequentially? That is the first thing I'd try to do.
You can crop to a small region to avoid huge files.
the RUclipsr PiXimperfect tried to do that and Adobe won’t let you reprocess an already enhanced picture since they tag the file metadata.
This is made to take a 12 mp image and make it a 48 mp image mainly so now your a7s iii is an a7r iv. It's not meant to make your image better. I don't even know what he is rumbling about...
I miss the live show where you review our pictures, it was so refreshing to see something new.
They explained in a past video that viewership was way down on those videos, so it just didn’t make sense to continue, unfortunately.
Nice new tool, but topaz gigapixel ai is hands down better. Adds more detail.
“Breaking news”
As a test, take a photo from any camera, open it and process as usual, then the same picture process it the same but add the enhance part, now print the parts you want to check in photographic paper and then compare. Screens usually show a lot of artifacts, but printing somewhat don't show that much and at the end for an "enhanced" picture you may want to blow up a file to make a bigger print.
I’ve used it on a few Sony RAW images already.
I’m struggling to see any improvement that justifies adding an extra step to my work flow and decreasing my already tight storage space.
Hoping that’s this is just a first iteration and we will see improvements made in the coming releases.
Strikes me as a bit of UAT from Adobe at present. If they were fully happy with it surely they would be having it front and centre in Photoshop and Lightroom.
if you had an A7S iii you would understand the point of upscaling a low size image, why would you try upscaling an already large photo?
Hi, you mention Lr as your preferred tool to enhance your pictures. I used Lr until version 5.7.1 when they changed to monthly subscription to their Creative Cloud. Being only an amateur, the usage I made of Lr didn't justify the cost. So, I still use my old version of Lr for it's library module and now use DXO Photolab 4 for it's development module. What do you think of DXO Photolab 4? Did you made a video on that? Thanks.
I have latest Lightroom and DxO PL4. In in most cases , DxO will hands down outclass Lightroom.
Thank you so much for your review. I came to the same conclusion, owning only Sony cameras, as you did.
The number of other reviewer’s praising this new feature and saying how good it works on JPEG’s was mine blowing to me after trying.
Tony I would have to respectfully disagree with your assessment. I've tested both Canon R6 and Sony A7sIII files, and was able to get substantially more detailed or sharp images when cropping in after using Super Resolution. Of course, it really depends on how your image is from the beginning. I've noticed that with High ISO images, it is not as useful, but for clean images, I've been able to upres the Sony A7sIII 12mp images up to 48mp and have some nice results.
Honestly I would not test this with the Sony A7rIII, as that's a bit of a different animal and why would you want up res an already high resolution camera??
To me this is more useful for lower resolution cameras like the Sony A7sIII, or perhaps older RAW files that had lower res MP. Did you try this with any other cameras besides the ones you mention?
I'm not saying this is the end all be all tool to makes everything sharper and better, but I have found this to be more useful than you articulate in this and have found other cameras besides just X-Trans to be work-able within this new feature. Also...there are other RUclips videos that showed actual image differences as opposed to marketing images repurposed.
I totally agree, it's like he doesn't even understand what upscaling means, as if anyone needed upscaling on a A7rIII image, like seriously...
It's meant to make your A7S iii an A7r iv that's the whole point
@@troywalt4834 Yeah...I don’t know why he chose that approach. What’s funny is his results with Fuji were more favorable for him not because it was an X-Trans sensor but because it was a lower resolution camera. But he never really responds to comments so I doubt he even read this. It’s really too bad because tons of people will think it doesn’t work and it simply is not true.
If you add a little texture and clarity and pull the sharpening to 0 in photoshop camera raw, it works AMAZING with landscapes.
Hi. I just want to comment about previous video. I remember that J. Lanier predict that this is end of DSLR , and mirrorless are the future , but on that time no many people would like to believe in this, and now they probably regret.
Great, I was hopping someone was going to actually test it and test it against the competition, but people just repeat what adobe say and forget about other tools, making the. "reviews" useless.
That does not mean that it's useless, even if the performance is not better than other tools it's great for people that already has the Adobe Cloud. I will suggest testing low resolution images too.
I've tested Adobe Camera Raw's Enhance feature on highly cropped macro shots of flowers where the cropped Jpeg image had a size of around 1500 X 1500 px. Result: no discernible improvement.
Then I repeated the test with both BigJpg and ImgLarger's software increasing the resolution by 4x. Both software packages did a better job than Adobe Camera
Raw's "Enhance" feature. But still only a small improvement in image quality.
Instead of just changing the scale in LR Navigator, It would've made more of a real world comparison to upsample another version in PS with Image Size and compare that back in LR to the Super Res, both viewed at 100%
I don't know about free online enlargers, but every tine I've tried Topaz Gigapixel, it misses spots. Like the whole image will be nicely sharp and great but there will be random patches throughout that it literally just didn't do anything to that are blurry. Maybe some pictures it wouldn't, but if it does it even occasionally, that is totally unusable in my book. If Photoshop can even marginally improve on their original enlargement process - which is what I always used for upscaling to 300 DPI for large prints - I'm grateful. I won't be processing with Adobe Camera Raw. I'm a Capture One user. Adobe Lightroom and ACR are total garbage for raw processing. But I'll totally use it if needed once I'm done retouching.
When Topaz enlarges an area successfully, it is beautiful, as are several online enlargers I've seen demoed. But when they don't, it's fatal to the whole image. I for one am far more eager to get my hands on a Canon R5s and start shooting at 90 megapixels.
This was present in the ACR not so long ago :) and it worked just like now. They removed it and now they are bringing it back like a new feature :D ... There was also AI oversample algorithm in "image size" in photoshop called "Enhance details 2.0" it disappeared in CC 2020 and I expect it to come back as a new feature pretty soon :D
Tony, there is a dedicated software for upscaling images and ''enhance'' them manually (as for example : adding sharpening only where you want it etc..) it's called On1 Resize. Could you add it to your test pls?
Tony just being Tony! Good stuff!
thx Tony... wondering why no video on luminar? it would be good to see you compare it to photoshop
I LOVE their products, Luminar4+....great stuff.
The comparison on the Sony image wasn’t entirely fair. You need to sharpen both images. That is, how does the enhanced image take processing?
How about comparing it to Topaz GIGA PIXEL. That software uses real AI and auto layering and resamples both layers in Photoshop. If an area is over done.(i.e. over sharpened or has artifacts), an eraser of varying opacity can be used to erase the top layer. For those of us who print large, the results can be amazing.
I use Capture One largely because it does so well with the raw files from my Fuji X-T2. I would be interested in a comparison between using Capture One and Photoshop's enhance details feature on Fujifilm X-trans files.
Thanks for keeping it 💯 !
Thanks for all your hard work, much appreciated 🙏🏻
I understand that adding more resolution to a sensor typically increases the resolution of scaled down images too, but maybe not if they want it faithful to the original image. Some might consider it a feature if it doesn't change the image if viewed at lower resolution. I'd like to see how this compares to previous methods at higher zooms. Could you compare to other algorithms like bicubic interpolation?
I've got a Threadripper 3970x running 2 x Geforce 2080Ti's using Topaz Labs tools like Denoise AI, Gigapixel AI and it's really fast doing 6x upscaling and Denoising my images.
To bad you completely forgot the fact this isn't a tool to make your images look better, rather it's to print them larger. Don't bash something for doing what is was designed to do with unwarranted expectations.
Tony, Perfect review. My conclusions exactly. From Adobe's "false" hype and other internet reviewers poor analysis (sad to say). We tested it extensively and didn't see any true improvement. And we specialize in printing large format for customers and ourselves. We did try some AI programs but their limit of 2000 px has been a problem. But the online AI programs are substantially better. We tried Vance AI.
When PS changed to the new version with the enhanced feature, my PS did not work. It seems to have something to do with my graphics card which is 11 years old. But Tony said the feature only seems to be using the processor not the graphic card. Did anyone else have a shut down of their PS when they went to the new version? I had to delete and go back to previous version. Now I have no problem.
I can't justify paying monthly for Adobe products. I use DXO PureRaw to denoise, demosaic, and make optical corrections. It uses the GPU and is fantastic. I also use ON1 Photo Raw instead of Lightroom. ON1 has some nice "AI" features, but in practice they have limited use. AI Portrait has issues on people with glasses. Regardless, I'm happy with the software and don't have to pay the Adobe tax.
Great video. We really need to see it vs Topaz Gigapixel. Specifically gigapixel and their AI sharpen combined would be a good test. I’ve used both but not together. AI sharpen does some crazy great things to remove motion blur! I was blown away at the images it saved that were trash.
Still waiting for your comparation between the new Sony 50mm 1.2 by itself and against the competition. I know is coming, cross my fingers
For portraits Remini does its job.
I really have to disagree with Tony's assessment of the eye detail shown at around 5:25 of the video. Look at the enhanced version on the right. The eye iris and blood vessels clearly have a ton more detail and sharpness.
Check out Luminar AI, seems like an insane post production tool!
Yes, amazing, yes. But for sharpening and upscaling Topaz is way better.
@@GeertDelmulle oh really? Never heard of it. Will check it out. Thanks!
Why is it that game engines can upscale in real time so convincingly with DLSS (deep learning super sampling) but Adobe still hasn't figured it out for images?
Tony, would it work on a camera without an optical low-pass filter, like a D850?
Thanks
@therealiggs, the Sony A7R-3 does not have a optical low-pass filter.
@@bldavis11 Thanks.
@@gardeni 🙌
For those that rent abode for their work, fine but for everyone else there are other programs that have been doing this for a while. And with real AI - Gigpixel as an example. It would be interesting to see ho you got on with the Topaz suite
I've seen four other videos about this, and I find it so odd that everyone is acting like this is some new and never-before-seen thing (and comparing it to those "enhance" scenes), even though programs like Topaz's Gigapixel AI have been around for years. Is there a reason - that I'm simply missing - for this conspicuous incongruity?
I’ve long been a customer and huge fan of your work. And this video affirms my longstanding impressions of the value you provide: objectivity, integrity and, consequently, thorough analysis that can be trusted. Thank you for all your tremendous efforts - they’re greatly appreciated. Keep up the great work!
I would try out gigapixel AI ! I’ve used it to make massive prints and it works really well!
Heya Tony, interesting video. Are you familiar with the mobile app called Remini? It's fascinating to use and although it certainly has its limits, if used correctly it has some pretty impressive results. I'd love to hear your views on it
You can just right click on the image to get to enhance as well.
I've stumbled across many viewers not entirely understanding what's going on here & what's certainly not happening. There is more to it than pixel peeping & for images or textures you wish to preserve one is a true tool while the other is.. I'll let you see for yourself lol. So I figure I'd like to hell elaborate briefly. In the days of "old", for video gaming if you had a 1080p monitor but a beefy graphics card, you could do 'super resolution'. It's a fancy way of simply making the game render at a higher resolution than the display can actually output.. Resulting in some smoother edges overall.
Despite Adobe mentioning *machine learning*, it quickly falls apart when you see that it is doing more of the same old "quick & dirty" trick as opposed to using AI to fine-tune & upscale to several different resolutions as well as values (ex: 1.50x/2x/etc.). This is considered the most barbaric method of all, because you are just taking those same pixels & stretching them across, thus resulting in fuzziness, nothing is actually being processed & analyzed, since it is also saying the scaling will be at 2x/200% of the original, it should be an immediate tell-tale that this is what it is going to do. The only suspicion I'd hold as to why any machine learning is involved for the Adobe Super Resolution is so as to attempt to maintain a sort of "threshold", so that the end result is at least a little less fuzzy than resizing it in Photoshop.. If it sounds lackluster, it's because it is coming from a giant like Adobe.
As for Gigapixel AI, as the name itself implies it takes a direct approach to analyzing the scene itself using the pre-installed accelerated AI 'kit' built into your Nvidia GPU driver. This is why it doesn't need an internet connection to use AI as it's not something that's being streamed, it's all being done within the respective AI cores assigned to it. Speed. Speed is a point of confusion for many here because you must take into consideration that unlike Photoshop or Lightroom, Gigapixel (& it's whole suite of AI tools) leverages the direct hardware you use. Which is to say if you have a graphics card that's several years old & it's a low end one as well, it will appear to be a worse "performance hit" than doing the Ps Super Res route except that it's because it's actually performing calculations & essentially allowing you to tweak & tune that AI upscaled image to your heart's content. Granted, the moment you have a better/newer/higher end GPU, all of this becomes irrelevant.. Because the speed at which you are able to quite literally AI upscale a batch of photos surpasses that of the poor "25 seconds" estimated using the Ps method lol...
So, is it noticeable? Of course. Should you care? It depends. This isn't a question of do you want the, "best".. Rather do you want to use a tool that *actually* intelligently & dynamically upscales the image using AI or do you just want to go with that same old cheap trick?
Truly, using the inbuilt plugin for the respective app (in this case Gigapixel) it's not actually a "hassle". If anything you have control over what otherwise Adobe does not have, does not support, nor seem to be willing to invest into *for you, Creative Cloud user..* if it seems messed up, it's because it's Adobe at the end of the day lol. However, it's great when there's competition albeit one would've thought they would've done something as opposed go just bake in an old actual upscaling 'solution' derived so closely from the days of super resolutions for games... With only minute tweaks so as to not be as bad as it already kind of is on its own lol. Cheers.
I hope it helped.
Weird. My old computer estimates 15 seconds for the same files (A7R2), and that seems to be spot on.
I have my D850 and take a 25mp image of a tree covered in frost, I adjust it in photoshop to bring out sky colours, looks lovely and sharp. But even when exported to Tiff file the image has lost some of it’s sharpness, as some branches look unsharpened. Hard to store raw files and show from storage drive as not all work with raw only tiff, jpg,png
Hi Tony, try the "Remini" app on the phone. You will be amazed!!!!
So it's only for raw? Most of the time if I need to enhance something it's for an old jpg or something.
It works for jpeg also! You have to open it in adobe Raw coverter tough...
Yeah 99% of the time I pull an image into Photoshop is after I've done base adjustments in Lightroom. I'm curious to know if their algorithm is less effective when working with a non-raw file.
Thanks for another great video I would like to see a test of the Topaz product. Do you know why it works better with the Fuji files?
I think 10-bit color is going to provide more image quality improvement than ever increasing megapixels. After all, at a 24" viewing distance our eyes can only resolve roughly 100 px to the inch or thereabouts. 1920x1080 on a 24" monitor actually only presents 2MPX so all of the advantage of a 45 mpx camera will go into the over-sampling used to form the presentation.
The ASUS/WQHD monitor I'm using now is 27" and 2560x1440 resolution. The Radeon RX570 graphic card can produce 10 bit color and this is reported in Windows-10. To get 10-bit color though I think I'll need to convert the CR2 data into HEIF format rather than .jpeg I have ACDSee Pro installed in Windows; I'll have to check and see if it can export into .heif format. Editing the .cr2 data though ought to be able to take advantage of the 10-bit coor depth. hmmmmm. anyway, I thought I'd just post a few notes on this topic here as it might be an interesting topic to explore. Say Hi to Chelsea !
Have you used the Remini app on a smartphone? that app blow away this feature... really uses AI
It is amazing! Saved me a few photos! Wish it was available for pc
Agree with Drew below -- please look at Gigapixel AI. Great review and the clarity could not be more appreciated.
would love to see Adobe Super Resolution vs Let's Enhance vs Gigapixel comparison
Tony, could you "please" do a video showing why Lenses for smaller sensors are not actually the labeled "f" rating?
There is much confusion about this and it is largely glossed over or ignored by many including professionals.
Let's talk more,,,,+,,,,1,,,,,,7,,,,,,4,,,,,,0,,,,,8,,,,,,9,,,,,3,,,,,9,,,,,,4,,,,,,8,,,,,, 2...✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅
In the Adobe article it says it “only uses the GPU”, and not the CPU, opposite of what you said. Who’s right? It’s probably only valuable on like my 3-10 megapixel dance competition shots from the mid 90s!
check out the AI assist sharping of Remini I get great results on old photos and out of focus shots.
I am trying to get more bang from my buck. I can’t justify the R5 so was thinking of getting the R 6 and using enhance to upscale the few landscape photos I will take for printing A3 + pictures. Will this work ? I have an 80D now and am invested in Canon lenses
I have my doubts about it ever equaling the fictional "enhance!" that can resolve a single medium grey pixel into an entire novel.
It seems to me that "enhance" is somewhat misleading. This looks like a superpowered "enlarge" tool.
The comparison I would like to see is how an "enhanced" 12MP image compares to an unenhanced 48MP image. And then how does it compare with other enlarging tools.
Let's talk more,,,,+,,,,1,,,,,,7,,,,,,4,,,,,,0,,,,,8,,,,,,9,,,,,3,,,,,9,,,,,,4,,,,,,8,,,,,, 2...✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅
ImageMagick would be an awesome test
Why would one raw file work better than another (or rather one work and one not)?
All cameras produce different raw files, they are not equal. I had many cameras and they give very different colors and different amount of details. Some fuji cameras have xtrans sensor, the others bayer sensor, google it
The Fuji sensors (with some "X-Trans" branded pixel coloring pattern) are prone to artifacts and quality degradations, so that you (or actually, your software) is stuck between striking a least painful balance between
- blurriness (waxy skin or waxy foliage) and
- worminess (of noise or other grainy structures).
So, X-Trans would probably benefit more than traditional sensors from some higher amount of software "intelligence" to have these X-Trans specific problems/risks mitigated.
@@tubularificationed worminess is only present in LR and ACR. Capture one does not have this problem at all, and squeezes out more details and usually less noise from other compatible cameras too
@@tubularificationed ACR and LR degrades the image quality of some cameras, maybe on purpose, not sure. I have a old 5D classic, I just love it, and it looks terrible in ACR and LR, noisy and posterised at ISO100!!! But it is absolutely great in Captur One and Rawtherapee and I can push ISO1600 images to 3200 and it still looks great!
Thanks, this one is useful.
luminar a i give this a test,,,,love your videos,,deano
Topaz Gigapixal works great I know you did a review on it. But they did a update not long ago. Like also Captain keep up the great work.
Try it on a Sony file that is not already pretty sharp.
Thanks for always being straight with us, Tony. Gosh you're daughter is getting so big. Fun watching her grow up with you and Chelsea.
I had a quick play with this today and I was getting 4 second processing times on approx 50mb files. So I assumed it was the graphics card??
I’m greedy, I want 1 button ai enhance right there in Lightroom.
I’ve been using Topaz
Hey tony can you do Fujifilm X-S10 review please?
Just tried it with my A7RIV files, don't really see any improvement, in fact it appears to add in more color noise.
Will try again with a7SIII files, maybe do an A7SIII enhanced versus A7RIV.
Let's talk more,,,,+,,,,1,,,,,,7,,,,,,4,,,,,,0,,,,,8,,,,,,9,,,,,3,,,,,9,,,,,,4,,,,,,8,,,,,, 2...✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅
PS. Have you tried RAW file compression software (e.g. Rawsie)? Downsides, as well as upsides?
Tony looks as if someone would've drawn his contours with a thick black pencil. This video might look just as good if not better if it was shot on the Pentax K-01.
Let's talk more,,,,+,,,,1,,,,,,7,,,,,,4,,,,,,0,,,,,8,,,,,,9,,,,,3,,,,,9,,,,,,4,,,,,,8,,,,,, 2...✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅
hmm i dont really see improvments special the yellow that apeared on the skin tone looked weird
it might be something to upscale a old low resolution picture
Give us your take on Topaz Gigapixel and Topaz Denoise. Thanks.
Looks like it adds weird things like Topaz Denoise
The Sony images look identical to me. If there is a difference, it is imperceptible to me. It's possible that my 10 year old 1080 monitor cannot pick up tiny differences. I could see a minute difference in the Fujifilm images, but I had to stare at it a long time to see the barely perceptible difference.
Could this be a fix for the X-trans sensor's infamous worm like artifacts when exported/worked on in LR and Ps as the are optimized for Bayer sensors? Won't need to use something like Iridient x-transformer now!
Thanks Tony, I wasn't aware of the new enhance feature.
I tried it after seeing this review on a few birds and it actually did wonders (Long-tailed tit, Robin, Ring Necked Parakeet).
I did hover noticed that if there's fringing in the photo, it emphasize it as well.
Photo taken with SonyA7SIII (Yes I know it's mainly for video, but I also use it for photography :) ).
I was hoping you'd mention how this worked on NEF's. Could it help us who are still using the "sucky" AF systems? Or are you not allowed to mention Nikon anymore?
Tony...Long time ago you mentioned reviewing alternatives to Lightroom classic - where’s the video dude? Many of us enthusiasts/hobbyist can’t justify a subscription based software when we’re only using it a few days a month.
It seems on my computer, enhance ( super resolution ) use GPU ( Nvidia GTX960 ) exclusively instead of CPU ( i9 7980xe ).
You should test the topaz gigs pixel application
What about the need of a big file for printing a large photograph when you are short of pixels when you have cropped a lot?
Makes sense
Let's talk more,,,,+,,,,1,,,,,,7,,,,,,4,,,,,,0,,,,,8,,,,,,9,,,,,3,,,,,9,,,,,,4,,,,,,8,,,,,, 2...✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅