Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: andyptak on January 09, 2022, 10:42:31 am
-
Is there any point in using Super Resolution if you don't intend to produce large prints etc?
-
it's all well explained by one of the lead engineers here:
https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2021/03/10/from-the-acr-team-super-resolution#gs.l9viji
And:
https://business.adobe.com/blog/the-latest/enhance-details
-
Is there any point in using Super Resolution if you don't intend to produce large prints etc?
I occasionally shoot black-and-white film—with a rangefinder manufactured in 1937!—and I've found Super Resolution to be useful in producing noticeably "crisper" results than many of my original film scans even when I export the images with small dimensions: e.g., for display on the Web. Some examples here (https://www.flickr.com/photos/chriskernpix/51755801103/in/datetaken/) and here (https://www.flickr.com/photos/chriskernpix/51750311243/in/datetaken/).
For obvious reasons, Super Resolution is particularly useful if you're going to print larger than, say, 10x15 inches (~A3) from 35mm film. To my surprise, it preserves film grain quite faithfully while simultaneously providing more pixels to work with and improving fine edge contrast.
The benefits for digital captures are well-described in the two articles cited by Andrew Rodney. When using Super Resolution to demosaic raw files, you get the additional benefit of what Adobe calls Raw Details.
-
Is there any point in using Super Resolution if you don't intend to produce large prints etc?
Hi Andy,
Super resolution can be useful for retouching purposes, e.g. for creating more accurate masks or more detail to work with (like selective sharpening). This can then be downsampled for final use with more limited output-sizes. An application like Qimage can also slightly increase printed output resolution/quality beyond native printer resolution based on oversampled source files (AKA "Overdrive mode").
Cheers,
Bart
-
I didn't know about this.. (And those of you who have been using it for a year will be thinking "Where you been, Behr?" about now.)
I just tried it on a raw file taken on my trusty, old 20MP, 1"-sensored Panasonic FZ1000. It works. The improvements I could see were better-resolved details and lower noise, a DOUBLE win. File was twice as high and wide for 4 times the total pixels...all for FREE!
-
Is there any point in using Super Resolution if you don't intend to produce large prints etc?
NO, If you don't need the resolution there's no point.
It's not a fast process and takes a lot of disk space, a 29mb raw CR2 goes to a 293mb DNG. Worst of all it can introduce some horrible artefacts that are worse than just doubling the resolution in Photoshop. See https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=137874.40
Try it for yourself and make a judgement with your own files. A waste of time and resources in my experience.
-
I've used it to good effect on heavily-cropped images (as Eric Chan mentioned in the link digitaldog gave). It doesn't help on all images, but when it does work it can be really good.
Would I use it on an uncropped image of 30+ Mpixels? Probably not unless I wanted a huge print.
-
The correct answer is (should be) you only need it when you need it, YMMV and you should test this on an individual image by image basis.
Of you can kind of jerk your knee and tell folks; it doesn’t work, don’t try the above, its all smoke and mirrors from Adobe and they are trying to fool you.
As for the final size of the process, if it works well you for, that’s not much overhead thanks to the cost of disk storage. If it doesn’t work for you, discard the DNG.
My very first HD was 45MB and cost $1000. So yeah, a 29MB going to 239MB DNG would be an issue; today it isn’t.
-
In a word, yes there's a good reason to use it -- if you need it. I have a client who routinely takes images shot horizontally for web banners (with my R5), crops them into verticals for store posters. It takes a lot of the extra work out of the enlargement. I have Gigapixel, which usually does a very good job, but is slower for a modicum more detail and better noise control.
-
I use it on every image I intend to print. I like it. Sharper images, better tonal range. It does introduce a funny sort of artifacting in smooth skies if you aren't careful with clarity and dehaze.