10 ms·
It is unclear from the images shown what the ML is actually adding to the enhancement that couldn't be achieved by just loading the image into your favourite ph
by mnw21cam 6y ago
It is unclear from the images shown what the ML is actually adding to the enhancement that couldn't be achieved by just loading the image into your favourite photo editing software and fiddling with the brightness. To fix this, it would be a good idea to show images that have been adjusted in this way instead of the black images. Then we can see the difference between non-ML adjustment and ML enhancement.
- jonplackett 6y agoI thought this too - so I just tried it. It's significantly better than using photoshop. The colours are MUCH better and the edges are also more accurate, you would guess it was a higher resolution image. edit: Thought I should share my workings: https://ibb.co/dLjvcmW https://ibb.co/dLjvcmW Possible that I get worse results because of the jpg compression of those smaller images though...
- fock 6y agowell, I just looked at your image and if you run some blur over your "best", it looks a lot better and it's not like there's a huge qualitative difference in actual resolution/visible detail - even when you are comparing your improvement on the posted mini-image with the ML-generated one supposedly from a non-compressed/scaled image. And in high-res you then would see the inevitable artifacts of "one-filter-fits-all-CNNs"...