What you gain with the stacking method is not so much in resolution but in reducing artifacts (oh I cut off the part with the moiré, but yo can see a hint of this around the cables).ĪCR superres looks impressive - way better than conventional upscaling - until you compare it with the picture from the 85mm lens, or what I would call Reality as opposed to The World Invented By An Algorithm. When you look at the comparison at 100% or more, you'll notice: I ran the raw file from a) through Camera Raw's new superresolution feature (which took ages) and, again, scaled it down to fit the picture taken with the 85mm lens (85%)Īnd finally took a picture with the 85mm lens (Z-Nikkor at f:5,6 - I didn't compensate for the diminishing dof but that hardly matters here) and did not resize. I took another 16 pictures and combined them into a superresolution file according to, then scaled it down to fit the picture taken with the 85mm lens. I took a picture with the 50mm lens (Nikon Z7, 50mm 1,8 S Nikkor at f:5,6, you see a crop from the center), upscaled it to 170% (so that the crop had as many pixels as the same crop when taken with the 85mm lens), applied unsharp mask etc - that's about as good as it gets, conventionally. I wanted to know whether theses pixels are any good and, on a slow business day, did this: Adobe claims that this doubles linear resolution, or gives you four times the pixels. So I tried this new feature in ACR, machine-learning based superresolution.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |