Multishot superresolution software

[MichaelEzra]

I tried PhotoAcute (photoacute.com) for stitching multiple exposures of the same static subject to get a higher resolution image. While this provides wonderful results for smaller original files (MUCH cleaner final image and REAL increase in resolution), this software fails on large images. I could not even load TIFF images created from Mamiya ZD raw files.

Is there any other superresolution type software that would allow obtaining higher resolution files from multiple shots of the same subject?

Any info greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

[Thomas Krüger]

You may try the 64bit version of Hugin:
http://linuxappfinder.com/package/hugin

[MichaelEzra]

You may try the 64bit version of Hugin:
http://linuxappfinder.com/package/hugin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142044\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Isn't it for stitching slightly overlapping images into larger panoramas?
I am looking for software that would use 100% overlapping images to increase file resolution due to sub-pixel defferences between original captures.
Thanks,

[feppe]

I am looking for software that would use 100% overlapping images to increase file resolution due to sub-pixel defferences between original captures.
Thanks,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142047\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sub-pixel differences? I smell a long and tedious thread coming about that claim.

I've read about a concept which creates higher-resolution images from video images. The idea is to exploit the camera movement to get more information out of the stream than is possible from just one frame. But creating higher-resolution images from 100% overlapping images sounds with sub-pixel differences sounds like something out of a marketing brochure for snake oil.

[Mort54]

Is there any other superresolution type software that would allow obtaining higher resolution files from multiple shots of the same subject?

Photoshop CS3 does a fantastic job of stiching my P45+ files together (each file is 39 MP, or 234 Megabytes). I've successfully stiched four files together. It even handles stiches where each file has different degrees of perspective distortion (for example, if you shoot a tall building with a wide angle - as you tilt further up, you get more distortion - CS3 handles this like a charm).

Edit: Michael, it's possible I've misunderstood your original post. I thought you were asking about stiching images, but after reading some of the later posts, I'm wondering if you are talking about some kind of subpixel merging???

[Natasa Stojsic]

Isn't it for stitching slightly overlapping images into larger panoramas?
I am looking for software that would use 100% overlapping images to increase file resolution due to sub-pixel defferences between original captures.
Thanks,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142047\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Guillermo Luijk's No Noise software does something similar to what you want without increasing the size of the file.

However, as you know all of us are waiting, it's up to him.

[jpjespersen]

Photoshop CS3 does a fantastic job of stiching my P45+ files together (each file is 39 MP, or 234 Megabytes). I've successfully stiched four files together. It even handles stiches where each file has different degrees of perspective distortion (for example, if you shoot a tall building with a wide angle - as you tilt further up, you get more distortion - CS3 handles this like a charm).

Edit: Michael, it's possible I've misunderstood your original post. I thought you were asking about stiching images, but after reading some of the later posts, I'm wondering if you are talking about some kind of subpixel merging???
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142059\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

He is not talking about stitching.  He is talking about multiple capture of the exact same image to do something similar to what I believe Leaf backs do. On the stitching subject.  CS3 is amazingly better at stitching than CS2.  I have stitched over 30 images together to create this panorama which is attached.  I didn't even have to really level the camera or be as anal as I would when creating a panorama with CS2.
The result is a 10 foot by 3.5 foot  print. Shot with a D2X.  It took less than 5 minutes to shoot.
[attachment=3403:attachment]

[d-max]

I tried PhotoAcute (photoacute.com) for stitching multiple exposures of the same static subject to get a higher resolution image. While this provides wonderful results for smaller original files (MUCH cleaner final image and REAL increase in resolution), this software fails on large images. I could not even load TIFF images created from Mamiya ZD raw files.

Is there any other superresolution type software that would allow obtaining higher resolution files from multiple shots of the same subject?

Any info greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I use PTGui  to stitch panoramas from my ZD camera with no problems. The website can be found at [a href=\"http://www.ptgui.com/]http://www.ptgui.com/[/url]
I have even had great success without the use of a pano head.

Regards, Joel

[Photomangreg]

There are two back manufacturers that make multi shot backs, Sinar and Hasselblad.  Sinar is a 22(i think) and 31mp and Hasselblad is 22 or 39.  the Hasselblad 22 will do a 4 or 16 shot capture that will give up to about a 528mb file, the 39mp will only do single or 4X giving up to a 234mb file.

[Graham Mitchell]

The result is a 10 foot by 3.5 foot  print. Shot with a D2X.  It took less than 5 minutes to shoot.
[attachment=3403:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142061\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That print must look fantastic!

[Graham Mitchell]

I am looking for software that would use 100% overlapping images to increase file resolution due to sub-pixel defferences between original captures.
Thanks,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142047\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Michael, I haven't heard about this technology but I assume that it takes advantages of minute shifts in the camera between shots. In other words, the images have to be 99.99% overlapping but not 100%.

It sounds like a much less precise version of multi-shot, but with enough shots, sufficent sub-pixel movements between frames, and sophisticated software, I believe you could achieve a noticeable gain in resolution.

[jpjespersen]

That print must look fantastic!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142070\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

PhotoZ.. means a lot coming from you.
It does look great.  The detail is amazing.  I can hardly wait to do something like this with my new P45+
Here is the 7 foot version.
Although this photo of the print was taken with my IPhone.  Not the best quality.
[attachment=3404:attachment]

[SeanPuckett]

I've spent way too many hours (at least 10) over the past couple of weeks evaluating PhotoAcute.  My assesment is -- "cool, but not cool enough."  Using CS2 or CS3's photomerge to align shots taken panorama-style provides much more bang for your buck.  A four shot overlapping "2x superresolution" in PhotoAcute turns out an image significantly inferior to a 2x2 shot panorama stitched up in Photoshop.  Especially in CS3, the panorama stitching is almost mindlessly easy.  I see no advantage to PhotoAcute.  Especially when shooting a 3x3 panorama is almost as easy, and provides an incredible amount of data.  

It is fun to play with PhotoAcute, I admit, but it is not technology I can use for customer benefit.

N.B. the 1x noise reduction feature does work -- so if one was to be crazy, one could shoot a 2x2 panorama and double or triple up each exposure, running each tile through PhotoAcute to clean up the shadows, then running that result through CS2 or CS3.  But I think that's overkill.

[MichaelEzra]

THank you all for your comments. The reason I am after this technology is to be able to capture my negatives using a macro lens at a resolution that is higher that the sensor's resolution in the camera (Mamiya ZD in my case).

Basically I am after the software that makes multishot backs work, it certainly is not exactly 100% match between coverage of "identical" captures, but very close to that number.

As far as panoramic stitching, I use AutoPano Pro, and was able to stitch images about one gigapixel, using tiff files from Fuji S3 and Mamiya ZD raw captures. Results are good, but this will not help me to digitize negatives.

I have tried using NIkon Coolscan 8000. The dynamic range of this scanner is poor. I need at least 2 exposures to cover the full dynamic range my B&W negatives. So this becomes extremely time consuming, especially if using wet scanning. Silverfast Ai studio has multi-exposure (2x) capability, but I find this software buggy (I used Win version).

I have used PhotoAcute to get superresolution output from small crops of multiple scans. The results are great, you DO get REAL higher resolution, not interpolation, yet, PhotoAcute dies a quick death on even a 100MB file...

Hence is my search.

Thanks,

[Dustbak]

Why not get a used Imacon scanner, use it to scan your negatives/positives and get rid of the thing again when you are done?

It can cost you a bit, maybe even not but it saves you a lot of time compared to fooling around with bellows/ slide copiers, software, etc..

[SeanPuckett]

2x superresolution does indeed find extra data.  My assesment is that you don't really get an effective 2x bump, but you do get some extra.  That, combined with the multi-shot noise reduction, is very appealing technologically, particularly for your purpose as I imagine.

Still, if the darn thing doesn't work, then there's probably not much you can do.  The PhotoAcute developers seem more interested in bulk sales to P&S camera owners (where the "win" is even bigger) than in fringe high-resolution uses.  

Speed is an issue, too.  It takes a long, long time to run on 10mpx images.  Get a cup of coffee long.  You might be better served for time efficiency, as well as better scans without fiddling, to as Dustbak suggested "rent" a good quality scanner from eBay.  They hold their value well, so depending on how well your sell-it-forward auction goes, you could break even on the use of it.

I'm not standing in your shoes, and it seems like you've tried a lot of options so far.  I mostly am doing multi-shot stitched Repro work (very successful with this), which is a far cry from negative scanning.

Good luck!

[Graham Mitchell]

Why not get a used Imacon scanner, use it to scan your negatives/positives and get rid of the thing again when you are done?

+1

[jpjespersen]

+1
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142191\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

it does seem a bit rediculous to shoot be negs with a camera.  How about an Epsom flatbed, mine does great v750.

[MichaelEzra]

it does seem a bit rediculous to shoot be negs with a camera.  How about an Epsom flatbed, mine does great v750.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142220\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I am trying to get a reasonably good digital backup for 1000+ negatives.
Shooting negs with 22 megapixel ZD is supposed to be very quick.
Again, this is for backup and safe keeping only.

Scanning will certainly produce better results at the expense of time, and will certainly be used for production of prints. Of course not all negs would need to be scanned then;)

[Jonathan Wienke]

How about using a DSLR to shoot the negs to get a "thumbnail", and then do an actual scan of the keepers? You'll index your film a lot fastger, and get better digital versions of your "keepers" than futzing with superresolution software.