5 ms·

I'm curious what they specifically do besides handwaving away the fact that they use machine learning for debanding. In particular, are they using the exact sam

I'm curious what they specifically do besides handwaving away the fact that they use machine learning for debanding. In particular, are they using the exact same bit depth? The traditional way to do this with old Photoshop workflows was to accept the fact that if you were working with low contrast gradients over large spaces, and you were getting banding, it was probably because you were operating in a lower-bit bit depth. So, what you'd do is simply move up bit depth for larger color ranges. There's no "machine learning" required. What I'm getting at is, is this marketing wank? Because it sounds like marketing wank, unless they can do it without increasing file size, and staying in the same bit depth, by using some perceptually lossless dithering technique. Thus, handwavy "machine learning." Edit: color space/bit depth

gamegoblin 4y ago
If I gave you a heavily compressed JPEG, and asked you to make it look better, could you remove the compression artifacts without much manual effort? You don't have access to the original uncompressed image.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dahart 4y ago
> is this marketing wank? I don’t think so. There are lots of ways to end up with banding even if you try to keep it high bit depth. Photoshop quietly dithers (usually invisibly on a monitor) when going from 16 or 32 bits per channel to 8. Last time I checked, Image Magick didn’t have that option, nor do other non-Photoshop options. I feel like I vaguely recall Image Magick doing blur in 8 bits, even when working in 16 bits? Cameras can sometimes spit out banded images as well. Certainly if you didn’t control the image, someone else might have added the banding. There’s a lot of 8-bit imagery out there, and no reason to assume that everyone in the world is working in 16 bits and is banding aware. On top of that, removing banding is obviously going to be difficult to do well, since it has to differentiate between which edges to blur and which to leave alone. This will definitely be useful and save time for working design/photography professionals.

gamegoblin 4y ago

If I gave you a heavily compressed JPEG, and asked you to make it look better, could you remove the compression artifacts without much manual effort? You don't have access to the original uncompressed image.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

dahart 4y ago

> is this marketing wank? I don’t think so. There are lots of ways to end up with banding even if you try to keep it high bit depth. Photoshop quietly dithers (usually invisibly on a monitor) when going from 16 or 32 bits per channel to 8. Last time I checked, Image Magick didn’t have that option, nor do other non-Photoshop options. I feel like I vaguely recall Image Magick doing blur in 8 bits, even when working in 16 bits? Cameras can sometimes spit out banded images as well. Certainly if you didn’t control the image, someone else might have added the banding. There’s a lot of 8-bit imagery out there, and no reason to assume that everyone in the world is working in 16 bits and is banding aware. On top of that, removing banding is obviously going to be difficult to do well, since it has to differentiate between which edges to blur and which to leave alone. This will definitely be useful and save time for working design/photography professionals.