4 ms·
> it makes some images look better than the original! It seems to reduce local contrast which works well for skin (photos 1, 2 and 5) It's better than the loss
by pbowyer 6y ago
> it makes some images look better than the original! It seems to reduce local contrast which works well for skin (photos 1, 2 and 5)
It's better than the lossy JPEGs but I strongly disagree it's better than the original - or even close. Examining image 1 closely, the loss of contrast and the regularising of the texture of the skin make the HiFIC image feel fake when I look at it. I downloaded and opened the images at random on my computer to get rid of the bias of "the right one is the original" and it was the original I preferred each time.
Regardless, it's impressive work and I look forward to future developments!
- ricardobeat 6y agoThat effect is very close to what a photographer would aim for with manual editing. It is not about fidelity but that blemish-free look which you'll find on any magazine. The authors also mentioned that in their research most users preferred the compressed one!
- pbowyer 6y agoTo me the effect looks like when heavy chroma noise filtering is applied, leaving luminance noise. This is particularly noticeable in image 2 all over the face; it's nothing like the blemish-free look we strive for when post-processing portraits or fashion photography.
- CamperBob2 6y agoHow about image 2? On both of my monitors, the colors in the regenerated image have a striking subjective advantage over the original. I'd be surprised if 95%+ of observers didn't favor the compressed version of image 2.
- pbowyer 6y agoChecked on 2 monitors here (one color calibrated) and I see the HiFiC version of image 2 has slightly more muted colours than the original. Unclear what you're seeing to get "striking subjective advantage" but it's not visible here.