Open Photography Forums  
HOME FORUMS NEWS FAQ SEARCH

Go Back   Open Photography Forums > Digital Darkroom > Image Processing and Workflow

Image Processing and Workflow RAW, DNG , TIFF and JPG. From Capture to Ready for Publish/Display. All software and techniques used within an image workflow, (except extensive retouching and repair or DAM).

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 7th, 2018, 11:12 PM
Mike Bedford Mike Bedford is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 117
Default 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.
__________________
Free digital imaging ezine archive and photo blog:
www.plugsandpixels.com
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old September 8th, 2018, 06:15 AM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,053
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Bedford View Post
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
__________________
If you do what you did, you'll get what you got.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old September 8th, 2018, 08:55 AM
Mike Bedford Mike Bedford is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 117
Default

Thanks for your feedback Bart! You remind me that I should test with scans of old prints as well.
__________________
Free digital imaging ezine archive and photo blog:
www.plugsandpixels.com
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old September 8th, 2018, 09:28 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart_van_der_Wolf View 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
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
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old September 8th, 2018, 09:31 AM
Mike Bedford Mike Bedford is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 117
Default

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.
__________________
Free digital imaging ezine archive and photo blog:
www.plugsandpixels.com
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old September 8th, 2018, 03:20 PM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,053
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
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
__________________
If you do what you did, you'll get what you got.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old September 8th, 2018, 05:09 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart_van_der_Wolf View Post
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
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old September 9th, 2018, 01:12 AM
Nicolas Claris Nicolas Claris is offline
Administrator/Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Bordeaux
Posts: 5,738
Default

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!
__________________
WEBSITE - FACEBOOK - INSTAGRAM
Please do no repost my images elsewhere than OPF without my permission.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old September 9th, 2018, 03:58 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicolas Claris View Post
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
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old September 9th, 2018, 04:28 PM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,053
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
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
__________________
If you do what you did, you'll get what you got.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old September 9th, 2018, 04:56 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,396
Default

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
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old September 9th, 2018, 05:00 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,396
Default

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
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old September 9th, 2018, 05:04 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,396
Default

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
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old September 10th, 2018, 05:33 AM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,053
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
“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/kcddne6uqq...ening.png?dl=0

And here is it's more recent similarly functioning version for Affinity Photo:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1bwq2uyfr1...ening.png?dl=0

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

Cheers,
Bart
__________________
If you do what you did, you'll get what you got.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old September 10th, 2018, 08:17 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,396
Default

Appreciated!

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old September 10th, 2018, 11:03 AM
Nicolas Claris Nicolas Claris is offline
Administrator/Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Bordeaux
Posts: 5,738
Default

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…



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…
__________________
WEBSITE - FACEBOOK - INSTAGRAM
Please do no repost my images elsewhere than OPF without my permission.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old September 10th, 2018, 11:45 AM
Mike Bedford Mike Bedford is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 117
Default

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?
__________________
Free digital imaging ezine archive and photo blog:
www.plugsandpixels.com
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old September 10th, 2018, 12:03 PM
Nicolas Claris Nicolas Claris is offline
Administrator/Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Bordeaux
Posts: 5,738
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Bedford View Post
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

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
__________________
WEBSITE - FACEBOOK - INSTAGRAM
Please do no repost my images elsewhere than OPF without my permission.

Last edited by Nicolas Claris; September 11th, 2018 at 10:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old September 10th, 2018, 12:16 PM
Mike Bedford Mike Bedford is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 117
Default

No problem, whenever you're ready.

I have access to Hackintosh, fusion iMac, black Mac Pro's and iMac Pro (besides my trusty MBP).
__________________
Free digital imaging ezine archive and photo blog:
www.plugsandpixels.com
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old September 10th, 2018, 03:52 PM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,053
Default

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/kpps4axc14...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/jhr74lruhc...0pct.tiff?dl=0 (28.8 MB filesize!)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wp6ji82ab3...0pct.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
__________________
If you do what you did, you'll get what you got.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old September 11th, 2018, 07:32 PM
Mike Bedford Mike Bedford is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 117
Default

Thanks Bart, that's such a nice shot.

And good point about stock photos... I guess a watermark becomes that much more important now.
__________________
Free digital imaging ezine archive and photo blog:
www.plugsandpixels.com
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old September 11th, 2018, 10:05 PM
Nicolas Claris Nicolas Claris is offline
Administrator/Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Bordeaux
Posts: 5,738
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Bedford View Post
Thanks Bart, that's such a nice shot.

And good point about stock photos... I guess a watermark becomes that much more important now.
Not only stock photos, all images posted on the Internet, websites, blogs, OPF etc.
__________________
WEBSITE - FACEBOOK - INSTAGRAM
Please do no repost my images elsewhere than OPF without my permission.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Digital Processing Issues and Fixes: NEW Topaz upsampling product: A.I. Gigapixel Mike Bedford Image Processing and Workflow 27 September 18th, 2018 04:38 PM
Digital Processing Issues and Fixes: JUST RELEASED: Topaz Gigapixel 1.1.0 (CPU friendly) Mike Bedford Image Processing and Workflow 0 September 6th, 2018 01:18 AM
I was looking through some old scans Mike Shimwell Film, Platinum, Polaroid & other Analog media 1 January 25th, 2010 02:00 PM
Architectural film scans - churches Scott Keating Architectural - Industrial 5 October 8th, 2009 06:06 AM
New software, better scans? Dean Jones Introduce Yourself 1 March 11th, 2007 09:38 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:50 AM.


Posting images or text grants license to OPF, yet © of such remain with its creator. Still, all assembled discussion © 2006-2017 Asher Kelman (all rights reserved) Posts with new theme or unusual image might be moved/copied to a new thread!