Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-14-2021, 03:49 PM   #1
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
AggieDad's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Houston, TX
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,440
Pixels, Pixels, Pixels

On a rainy Sunday in Texas...

It seems that at any given moment you can find a discussion about pixels someplace on the forum. "I want more pixels." "you really don't need more." "How am I going to print large?" "Large prints? Stand farther from them." Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Very recently Adobe introduced Enhancement for Camera Raw which will use "machine learning" to quadruple the number of pixels of an image (doubling each side). Thus a 6000 x 4000 pixel image becomes a 12000 x 8000 pixel image. In 2020, Pixelmator (Mac only) introduced Pixelmator Pro with its own machine learning up-sampling that would go so far as to triple the pixels on each side for an image as much as nine times as large.

For someone with little to do on a rainy Sunday, it only made sense to me to compare Adobe and Pixelmator and also to just "go for the gold" by first enlarging with Adobe Camera Raw and then enlarging the enlargement with Pixelmator Pro.

Here's the results.

The original photo was taken with a K-3II and the plastic 35mm lens. Settings were 35mm, f/11, 1/160 sec, and ISO 250. The only processing done to the photo was to click the Auto Adjust Button and the Lens Profile corrections in Camera Raw.

The final images are as follows:
  • Original Image – 6000 x 4000 pixels
  • Adobe Image – 12000 x 8000 pixels
  • Pixelmator Image – 18000 x 12000 pixels
  • Adobe/Pixelmator Combo – 32000 x 21277 (Pixelmator maxes its up-sampling at 32,000 so it is not 36000 x 24000)

I have included 2 sets of crops: The first set of crops are a 5 x 7 crop of the exact same area. The size of the crop of the original image is 872 x 1221 px. The other crops have been reduced to 1429 x 2000 px for this post. Their original dimensions are noted. It's worth noting that the original 5 x 7 crop of the huge combo enlargement is actually larger than the original image.

The second set consists of 1000 x 1000 px crops from each of the enlargements. For comparative fairness I have also included a 2000x2000 pixel crop of the very largest image.

Here is the original photo with a red rectangle around the area that was used for the crops.




5 x 7 CROPS


Original Image – 872 x 1221 px


Adobe Camera Raw (2x) – 1756 x 2458 px


Pixelmator (3x) – 2651 x 3711 px


Camera Raw/Pixelmator Combo (5.3x) – 4640 x 6496 px



1000 x 1000 PIXEL CROPS


Original Image


Adobe Camera Raw


Pixelmator


Camera Raw/Pixelmator 1000 x 1000


Camera Raw/Pixelmator 2000 x 2000

03-14-2021, 04:08 PM   #2
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Washington Cascades
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,991
Thanks for doing that. I've been wondering about the new Adobe announcement.
03-14-2021, 05:13 PM   #3
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
Interesting...

The tech is similar to that which is used to "fill in" presumed detail when pulling shadows in Lightroom or ACR. I might suggest that a point of comparison might be to the actual detail in the subject to help separate the actual from artifice.

Note: For some reason, my browser is scaling (down-sampling) the second set to 800x800. It may be necessary to right click and "view image" for actual comparison.


Steve
03-14-2021, 06:09 PM   #4
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
AggieDad's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Houston, TX
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,440
Original Poster
You are right. When I measure with a screen ruler I get 800 px. I download from the post and the download is 1000 px.

When I open an image in another tab (in Safari) I get it at 1000 px.

03-14-2021, 06:16 PM   #5
Veteran Member
kh1234567890's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,653
QuoteOriginally posted by AggieDad Quote
For someone with little to do on a rainy Sunday, it only made sense to me to compare Adobe and Pixelmator and also to just "go for the gold" by first enlarging with Adobe Camera Raw and then enlarging the enlargement with Pixelmator Pro.
Try Topaz Gigapixel.
03-14-2021, 06:29 PM   #6
Pentaxian
rpjallan's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 994
How large do most people need to upscale their images? The largest prints I typically do these days are 12" x !8". It has been said that this latest Adobe Camera Raw "Super Resolution" setting is typically going to be more useful for older cameras with lower resolution sensors. I have seen some images that people have put online, YouTube etc. which look amazing. On my own test with a photo of a wedge tailed eagle taken with my *ist D (with a lot of fine feather detail) and enlarged with the super resolution setting compared to just up-ressing in the image size dialogue box, I could barely see any difference at all. Certainly not enough difference that I would expect to show up in a large print.
03-14-2021, 07:04 PM   #7
dms
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: New York, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,192
I don’ t usually print greater than 8”x12” but I did make some 24”x36” for theatre display, and I upscaled from 12mp to 48 mp with bicubic smoother in photoshop (CS2 or CS6). The photos were typical theatre plays and had detail/close ups of faces, etc. and to me they looked as good as the 8”x12”, but they likely would not have been tack sharp.

I suppose for large static scenes with tripod to remove motion blur, etc. there could be room for improvement in upscaling, but I also think, for most of us/most of the time, they are trying to create a need where one likely does not exist. Of course the same is true (for the same reasons) of huge sensor resolution.

03-14-2021, 07:08 PM   #8
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
AggieDad's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Houston, TX
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,440
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by rpjallan Quote
How large do most people need to upscale their images? The largest prints I typically do these days are 12" x !8".
You are right. There are only so many places we can put large prints. That is part of what makes this interesting. How many pixels does one need?

Using the Camera Raw up-sizing, you could print up to 40" x 26" and with Pixelmator's up-sizing your print could be as large as 60" x 40". How many places can you hang these prints?
03-14-2021, 11:07 PM   #9
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Mooncatt's Avatar

Join Date: May 2020
Location: Wisconsin
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,369
QuoteOriginally posted by kh1234567890 Quote
Try Topaz Gigapixel.
My thought as well. I don't use it, but I love their DeNoise program, and is a one time fee unless you want a longer update schedule. I'd be interested in seeing how it compares.
03-14-2021, 11:12 PM   #10
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Mooncatt's Avatar

Join Date: May 2020
Location: Wisconsin
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,369
QuoteOriginally posted by rpjallan Quote
How large do most people need to upscale their images?
I think the most common use of this type of program would be for people that want to do a tight crop of a larger image, then blow that cropped area up for display. I know I tend to shoot wide with my racing photos to make sure I get the action in frame, then crop in as needed. I could make use of a better upscaling program if I printed a lot.
03-15-2021, 06:26 AM   #11
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,321
This is one of the technologies used by the Hubble telescope.
03-15-2021, 09:13 AM   #12
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Central Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,033
QuoteOriginally posted by kh1234567890 Quote
Try Topaz Gigapixel.
I've had Gigapixel since it was first released. Great software and it's been a very useful program for use at work with large-format as well as at home for cropped prints. I used Adobe's super res for the first time yesterday and my first impression is...
damn it's fast compared to Topaz

I'll have to look at my upscaled images in more detail but Adobe's new product looks to be as good to me in the initial results. TBH I'm excited to seriously try this out on some customer files.

Last edited by gatorguy; 03-15-2021 at 09:22 AM.
03-15-2021, 09:20 AM   #13
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Central Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,033
QuoteOriginally posted by rpjallan Quote
How large do most people need to upscale their images? The largest prints I typically do these days are 12" x !8".
For me personally it's not uncommon to print as large as 120"(or more)x60" in-house. That's in a commercial setting of course. For print-from-home images I have done up to 19x13.

This may have limited use for most people, perhaps for a cropped section of a larger image which is something I regularly do. For large-and grand format printers it may be a great addition.
03-15-2021, 10:36 AM   #14
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Flagstaff, Arizona
Posts: 1,626
QuoteOriginally posted by gaweidert Quote
This is one of the technologies used by the Hubble telescope.
Huh?

If you are a Hubble user (i.e. approved for a project that takes images with one of the Hubble instruments), what you get back is/are the pretty much raw images in pixel format.

My wife is a Co-I on one of the HST instruments (Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph - STIS: Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph - Wikipedia.) Here's a shot of her car from when she was a professor at UNLV.
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
HP PhotoSmart 318  Photo 
03-15-2021, 02:39 PM   #15
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
AggieDad's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Houston, TX
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,440
Original Poster
To me, one of the things that is interesting about this technology (be it Adobe's or Pixelmator's or whoever) is that when you have this capability, it sort of removes the urgency for more pixels in the camera. I think it will allow a print of any size you will likely have in the house.

And when that eagle is just a little farther away than you would like, using this type of intelligent (for want of a better term) up-scaling can allow me to crop the image enough for the bird to be front and center.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
adobe, camera, crop, crops, image, photography, photoshop, pixel, pixelmator, pixels, px
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hot/ Dead pixels in CMOS vs CCD Cameras? PocketPixels Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 5 11-02-2020 07:39 PM
Image quality when zoomed - am I supposed to see pixels? K1 Mark II + 24-70 mm f2.8 MaiaM45 Pentax K-1 & K-1 II 17 10-13-2020 11:17 AM
Hot (bright) pixels with long exposures Sevilla Pentax DSLR Discussion 14 09-03-2020 06:52 AM
Small pixels, large pixels compared beholder3 General Photography 11 12-17-2019 07:38 AM
More pixels or Bigger pixels - That is the question ... R. Wethereyet Pentax K-5 & K-5 II 13 06-06-2018 10:49 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:03 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top