• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Digital Processing Issues and Fixes: Topaz A.I. Gigapixel challenge: Upsizing film scans

I spent a lot of time testing A.I. Gigapixel with challenging lower-res digital images from the last decade and a half, but then I realized that scans of even older film-based images might see some benefit.

See the results in my latest blog post.

Hi Mike,

Yes, some interesting examples from film scans on your blog.

I've also been doing some testing with some of my earliest 4 MP digital camera images (Canon G3). I can now make very decent 8 x10 inch / 20x 25 cm prints from those. Also, some repros of small family album snaps can now be reprinted (despite the missing negatives) at a higher quality than before, e.g. in a digital photo book.

Cheers,
Bart
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hi Mike,

Yes, some interesting examples from film scans on your blog.

I've also been doing some testing with some of my earliest 4 MP digital camera images (Canon G3). I can now make very decent 8 x10 inch / 20x 25 cm prints from those. Also, some repros of small family album snaps can now be reprinted (despite the missing negatives) at a higher quality than before, e.g. in a digital photo book.

Cheers,
Bart

So Bart,

For my previous vintage Canon 1DII files, just 8MP, but in original RAW format, how large could we reach and maintain intimate detail of eyes, hair and skin?

Asher
 
Asher, you'll need to convert the RAW to TIFF first, but Gigapixel should do a really good job of this type of up-res.

Do a crop of an eye and do a 600% render.
 
So Bart,

For my previous vintage Canon 1DII files, just 8MP, but in original RAW format, how large could we reach and maintain intimate detail of eyes, hair and skin?

Hi Asher,

As Mike said, it's better to use a Raw conversion to e.g. a TIFF file, even though AIG can handle Raw files as input.

The benefit of first doing a Raw conversion is that you can use the best Raw converter you have, and also remove some Chromatic Aberrations, and do Capture Sharpening and other adjustments and corrections that AIG won't know how to do.

Once you have a Raw converted image, you can increase its linear dimensions by up to 600%. So, the output of your Canon 1DII files @ 3504 x 2336 pixels, could become 21024 x 14016 pixels, or 294.7 MPx. That also means that you won't cross the 4 GB maximum dimensions for TIFF files, even if you upscale to 16-bit/channel TIFFs. That would allow to even add a flavor of output sharpening to the print file, if the image editor can gracefully handle such file sizes.

Cheers,
Bart
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hi Asher,

As Mike said, it's better to use a Raw conversion to e.g. a TIFF file, even though AIG can handle Raw files as input.

The benefit of first doing a Raw conversion is that you can use the best Raw converter you have, and also remove some Chromatic Aberrations, and do Capture Sharpening and other adjustments and corrections that AIG won't know how to do.

Once you have a Raw converted image, you can increase its linear dimensions by up to 600%. So, the output of your Canon 1DII files @ 3504 x 2336 pixels, could become 21024 x 14016 pixels, or 294.7 MPx. That also means that you won't cross the 4 GB maximum dimensions for TIFF files, even if you upscale to 16-bit/channel TIFFs. That would allow to even add a flavor of output sharpening to the print file, if the image editor can gracefully handle such file sizes.

Cheers,
Bart

Superb, that means life size people!

Thanks for the advice.

And which software do you now feel is best for RAW processing and what settings for the two sharpenings?

Asher
 

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
I agree with bart, but you have to be careful with the sharpening of the raw file, do not create potential articfacts, because they will be increased!
Sharpening, as Bart wrote, must be a "Capture Sharpening", final sharp' must be achieved once the file is enlarged.
BTW 600% is a challenge as with such enlargements the output file must be perfect! otherwise all defaults will be also enlarged…

As it has always been, a bad image at the start can't be superb at the end…
This app doesn't make miracles, do not dream, it's simply does better enlargements that previous plugins or sw, and that's, by itself is a superb feature!
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I agree with bart, but you have to be careful with the sharpening of the raw file, do not create potential articfacts, because they will be increased!
Sharpening, as Bart wrote, must be a "Capture Sharpening", final sharp' must be achieved once the file is enlarged.
BTW 600% is a challenge as with such enlargements the output file must be perfect! otherwise all defaults will be also enlarged…

As it has always been, a bad image at the start can't be superb at the end…
This app doesn't make miracles, do not dream, it's simply does better enlargements that previous plugins or sw, and that's, by itself is a superb feature!

Can I omit Capture sharpening or logically can you explain what is the safe and prudent approach?

Asher
 
Superb, that means life size people!

Thanks for the advice.

And which software do you now feel is best for RAW processing and what settings for the two sharpenings?

My personal favorite Raw converter is Capture One. The colors with their stock camera profiles are excellent overall, and the Raw conversion quality is possibly the best there is (hardly any artifacts and yet very high resolution). It also has some brilliant features like (optional) automatic Diffraction correction, by means of deconvolution sharpening.

But it doesn't support other (competitive) Medium Format camera files besides their PhaseOne products. Which is a pity, but also kind of understandable if they make more money selling their hardware than their software. They don't want their competitor's files to look as good as their own files.

I rarely use the other sharpening settings in C1 for maximum size output, although it does offer a very useful correction for lenses that exhibit strong sharpness falloff towards the corners. In such a case I might use a very low amount of its more USM kind of sharpening (while trying to avoid sharpening halos). Instead, my Capture sharpening is usually done in Photoshop or Affinity Photo, with a separate Photoshop plugin called FocusMagic.

With a special Blend-If layer, that Capture-sharpening can be applied while avoiding the risk of introducing clipping artifacts. With the right of 'Amount' and 'Blur Width' settings, it can avoid sharpening halos by using deconvolution sharpening of detail in the more mid-tone range of the image.

But for the sake of this thread, it's important, as Nicolas knows better than most others due to the size of some of his printed output, to do an almost perfect job of Capture sharpening. Because shortcomings will be enlarged in size (and impact) by upscaling them to such a size that they become impossible to miss.

Cheers,
Bart
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
BTW, one can use C1 with non supported camera by first converting to a DNG file.

I will take to heart your advice on C1. I have been recently more comfortable with Adobe Camera RAW adding my profiles made with the color passport.

“With a special Blend-If layer, that Capture-sharpening can be applied while avoiding the risk of introducing clipping artifacts. With the right of 'Amount' and 'Blur Width' settings, it can avoid sharpening halos by using deconvolution sharpening of detail in the more mid-tone range of the image.”

That is most intriguing and you may have already given us the details many months ago. I will do a search!

But, yes, the key is to limit artifacts at the early stages!

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Bart,

Coming out of this discussion, the critical question of magnifying artifacts: perhaps AI looks out for this and as it’s “unnatural”, works around it to limit it’s deleterious effect downstream. In fact it would appear to be an a priori necessity to address this potentially serious problem in high level enlargements.

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Mike, Nicolas,

Can you possibly review your extensive testing and be on the lookout, for example, for any possible halo or perhaps even jpg “step” artifacts in your original pictures and see how the AI program dealt with them?

Much appreciated,

Asher
 
“With a special Blend-If layer, that Capture-sharpening can be applied while avoiding the risk of introducing clipping artifacts. With the right of 'Amount' and 'Blur Width' settings, it can avoid sharpening halos by using deconvolution sharpening of detail in the more mid-tone range of the image.”

That is most intriguing and you may have already given us the details many months ago. I will do a search!

Hi Asher,

It's been more than a few months ago, so here it is again (in the form of screenshots):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/kcddne6uqqrzucs/Non-clipped-sharpening.png?dl=0

And here is it's more recent similarly functioning version for Affinity Photo:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1bwq2uyfr1zp1r8/APh-non-clipping-sharpening.png?dl=0

These are basic settings that can be further tweaked for specific image content.

Cheers,
Bart
 

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Hi all
I began yesterday night some trials with 645D files, I tried 600% as it was in subject here, but after 2 hours for processing the tif file issued from a Pentax 645D, the sw achieved the process but the image was not completely… see below the black stripe at bottom and upper right corner.
Also I could process 8 bit file only as 16 bit exceed the 4 Gb size… :(
The boat is blurred as it is a new model and I'm not allowed to show it for now…

Topaz.jpg


I can't continue the tests as I'm leaving tomorrow for another week of shoots and work at the Cannes Yachting Festival…
When I'll be back my trial version will be obsolete…
I'm not sure that I'll buy a sw that don't work with my files.

As for raw developper, as Bart said already, I cannot use anymore C1 since 2013…
All I can say is that I'm used and happy with LR which I use intensively everyday.
When I have to re use an old Canon file, I reprocess it with L LR…R and the results are much better than the original output from C1…
That's maybe I compare processing with a 2013 version of C1 and also because I really (well, I guess…) used of LR…
So the answer to the question to which software is the best, the answer might be the one you use…
 
Nicolas, can you provide me with a generic subject image file from your camera so I can test it with my computer setups to see what happens?
 

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Nicolas, can you provide me with a generic subject image file from your camera so I can test it with my computer setups to see what happens?

Hi Mike, I will but I don't have any by me tonight (night here… ;) and I'm leaving early tomorrow for a week of shoot and work… So that's gonna be next week…

I forgot to say that all my tes are done with a :
MacBook Pro (Retina, 15 inches, mid-2015)
16 Gb 1600 MHz DDR3 ram
Intel*Iris*Pro 1536 Mo video card.

My office computer, a Mac Pro (end 2013) is not compatible…
Even allowing more CPU processing and less GPU processing
macpro-late2013-240.png

Processor 3,5 GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon E5
RAM 24 Go 1867 MHz DDR3 ECC
Video card 2 X AMD FirePro D300 2048 Mb
 
Last edited:
In the meantime, I have an example I'm willing to share. It's of a ship, but one rather unlike the modern superyachts that Nicolas tends to shoot (amongst various other subjects).

It's of a replica of a Dutch VOC merchant ship, The Batavia, from 1628 that was shipwrecked on its maiden voyage off the coast of West-Australia during a storm. The ship was rebuilt in the Netherlands, from 1985-1995, amongst others as a project to preserve knowledge about old craftsmanship. Almost all tools and materials used were the same as the ones used at the time. Materials such as ropes, and the wooden ornaments and tools, were all (re)made with traditional techniques on the shipyard itself.

The base image is one that I produced while researching optimal resampling techniques, and it is a vertical panorama, downsampled to 30% of its original stitched size. That means that I could produce even higher resolution output if I wanted to. But this downsampled version has lots of intricate detail to challenge the A.I. because there is now plenty of detail that's smaller/narrower than a single pixel. So that could become interesting to see what AIG makes of that.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/kpps4axc14itsao/0920_Tr_30pct.jpg?dl=0

From that, I upscaled two versions with the AIG version 1.1.0, because while my graphics card is on the "not-supported hardware list", Topaz added a switch to that version, allowing more CPU processing and less GPU processing in order to enable more machines with older hardware to still use the application, albeit at a much slower pace.

I also made these two upscaled versions available to allow others who cannot get the software working, to still be able and judge what AIG is capable of with this type of subject matter. It might convince them to invest (again) in more powerful hardware, which is going to be more expensive than the software.

The two versions are compressed TIFFs at 300% and 600% upscaling.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jhr74lruhcss4cu/0920_Tr_30pct_Gpx110Mod300pct.tiff?dl=0 (28.8 MB filesize!)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wp6ji82ab376wtl/0920_Tr_30pct_Gpx110Mod600pct.tiff?dl=0 (93.5 MB filesize!)

Both of these resulting files have not yet been sharpened, only upscaled by Topaz A.I. Gigapixel with the "Moderate" setting for "Reduce Noise and Blur".

This also raises an interesting dilemma for the protection of copyright on images that are posted on the internet. It was already difficult to avoid people stealing images, it has just become much more difficult to protect, but also for image banks with stock photography that will start selling the cheaper/smaller versions because the customers can rescale them themselves for the purpose they needed them for in the first place.

Cheers,
Bart
 
Thanks Bart, that's such a nice shot.

And good point about stock photos... I guess a watermark becomes that much more important now.
 
Top