3 ms·
Hm. So I took the example image, upscaled by 200%, applied a sharpen filter (all in Paint.NET) and compared the result to the AI upscaled image. TBH, I couldn't
by qayxc 6y ago
Hm. So I took the example image, upscaled by 200%, applied a sharpen filter (all in Paint.NET) and compared the result to the AI upscaled image.
TBH, I couldn't see a difference.
2x upscaling isn't all that impressive to begin with (e.g. produce 4 pixels from 1) and can be done in fairly high quality using traditional non-learning algorithms.
I'm much more impressed by 4x and 8x super-resolution. I'm really not sure what the big deal is with 2x.
- formerly_proven 6y agoI concur, the second surfer example - the enhanced image looks a lot like blowing up the original 2x and applying careful sharpening.
- afavour 6y ago> and applying careful sharpening That alone makes it worthwhile, surely? No careful application required.
- ShamelessC 6y agoFor sure, but the title is quite an overstatement and reads like it's from someone who haven't really been paying attention to the many existing open source super resolution offerings.
- FpUser 6y agoSame here. Playing a bit with CLAHE, microcontrast and sharpening gives visually the same if not even better results.
- crazygringo 6y agoCame here to say the same thing. I was expecting the upscaled image to have extra "invented" detail from the supposed ML, as I've seen elsewhere. But looking at these upscaled images, there isn't any at all. There's no extra texture, nothing. I can't find any difference at all, like you say, from just some bicubic interpolation with sharpening. No jaw dropping here, unfortunately.
- megablast 6y agoThe examples in this post are awful and useless for showing anything at all.