Redo of 11-year-old images of Dragonfly
Oct 3, 2022 00:41:19 #
These shots of the dragonfly were taken with an old Panasonic DMC-FZ18 which was introduced in 2007. I bought it in 2008 and used it for some years after that. In 2011, I was on a business trip to South Korea and had a day to go out on my own and found this dragonfly that loved to return to the same landing spot - over and over and over again.
Being a 2007 camera, this was 8.3M pixels and was a CCD sensor. And it is an 18x early bridge camera (28 - 504mm equiv.)
For the redo's, I used Topaz's Sharpen AI followed with Gigapixel AI in with I cropped and resized.
I did try the new Topaz Photo AI, but I didn't like the results as well, so I reverted back to the original Sharpen AI and Gigapixel AI. Photo AI works well with many images, but not all images.
Being a 2007 camera, this was 8.3M pixels and was a CCD sensor. And it is an 18x early bridge camera (28 - 504mm equiv.)
For the redo's, I used Topaz's Sharpen AI followed with Gigapixel AI in with I cropped and resized.
I did try the new Topaz Photo AI, but I didn't like the results as well, so I reverted back to the original Sharpen AI and Gigapixel AI. Photo AI works well with many images, but not all images.
Oct 3, 2022 01:14:23 #
Oct 3, 2022 09:04:37 #
Oct 3, 2022 10:12:46 #
Oct 3, 2022 10:28:03 #
The images look great, but I question the necessity of up-sizing to 8 to 10MP? Do you plan to print these? Have you looked at the pixel-level details to confirm the possibility of the printed results? Have you looked at the edges of the wing-tips, the halo around the hairs of the body, especially below the body, at the lack of detail in the 'smoothed' eyes?
The embedded thumbnails from the UHH page nearly fill my laptop's 1920px wide screen. What is the benefit / purpose of a digital image nearly 4000px wide (the top image) or 3432px wide for the 2nd image? As discussed in the link below, images sized to 2048-pixels wide are more than enough for October 2022 digital display technology. This is less 'up-sizing'; and therefore: a) less invention of AI pixels, and more importantly b) less softening of the resulting details as viewed at the 1:1 pixel-level details.
Recommended resizing parameters for digital images
Both dragons look great at the full-screen level, just 1920px wide. It's the details, the mostly invented details, where the limits of the AI technology shows the limitations. You might consider just the sharpening pass, and skip the gigapixel, or limit how many pixels are added to up-size to just large enough for digital display purposes.
The embedded thumbnails from the UHH page nearly fill my laptop's 1920px wide screen. What is the benefit / purpose of a digital image nearly 4000px wide (the top image) or 3432px wide for the 2nd image? As discussed in the link below, images sized to 2048-pixels wide are more than enough for October 2022 digital display technology. This is less 'up-sizing'; and therefore: a) less invention of AI pixels, and more importantly b) less softening of the resulting details as viewed at the 1:1 pixel-level details.
Recommended resizing parameters for digital images
Both dragons look great at the full-screen level, just 1920px wide. It's the details, the mostly invented details, where the limits of the AI technology shows the limitations. You might consider just the sharpening pass, and skip the gigapixel, or limit how many pixels are added to up-size to just large enough for digital display purposes.
Oct 4, 2022 05:58:57 #
Oct 4, 2022 07:00:08 #
So, "a 2007 camera, this was 8.3M pixels" with the aid of AI becomes a modern high resolution camera, amazing huh. My old 1961 print example brought a Kodak DC 4800 3.1 mp camera image, a JPEG at about 500 kb to new life. Jim your dragon looks alive with the help of AI.
AI makes old cameras new.
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-753293-1.html
AI makes old cameras new.
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-753293-1.html
Oct 4, 2022 08:42:29 #
Oct 4, 2022 09:02:15 #
These are really very nice, artistically and technically. I like the simplicity of composition. The dragonfly, the plant, and a non-distracting background. (I would have darkened it a tad.) Thanks for posting.
The only thing I quibble with is resizing. It is unnecessary. People waste their time and money to do so.
The only thing I quibble with is resizing. It is unnecessary. People waste their time and money to do so.
Oct 4, 2022 11:28:42 #
charlienow wrote:
Very nice. I would love to see the originals for comparison.
Chuck
Chuck
Here you go. I will start with the original, 3264 x 2448 pixels, which was shot in RAW, and converted to JPEG with no adjustments. Then I will show the Sharpen AI where I used Motion - Very Blurry Model, and then the cropped Gigapixel AI version.
Original
(Download)
Sharpen AI Version
(Download)
Cropped Gigapixel AI 1.5x version
(Download)
Original
(Download)
Sharpen AI Version
(Download)
Cropped Gigapixel AI 2.0x version
(Download)
Oct 4, 2022 11:35:46 #
JimH123 wrote:
Here you go. I will start with the original, 3264 x 2448 pixels, which was shot in RAW, and converted to JPEG with no adjustments. Then I will show the Sharpen AI where I used Motion - Very Blurry Model, and then the cropped Gigapixel AI version.
Beautiful, especially the last image.
Oct 4, 2022 12:31:24 #
JimH123 wrote:
Here you go. I will start with the original, 3264 x 2448 pixels, which was shot in RAW, and converted to JPEG with no adjustments. Then I will show the Sharpen AI where I used Motion - Very Blurry Model, and then the cropped Gigapixel AI version.
Thanks. I think it was well worth the resizing.
Chuck
Oct 4, 2022 16:00:06 #
JimH123 wrote:
Here you go. I will start with the original, 3264 x 2448 pixels, which was shot in RAW, and converted to JPEG with no adjustments. Then I will show the Sharpen AI where I used Motion - Very Blurry Model, and then the cropped Gigapixel AI version.
Great job 🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆
Oct 15, 2022 00:26:38 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.