3 ms·
It must be. The amount of detail is incredible, and even trying to extract data from the before picture, it doesn't come close to what you see in the newly proc
by imdsm 1y ago
It must be. The amount of detail is incredible, and even trying to extract data from the before picture, it doesn't come close to what you see in the newly processed image.
My attempt: https://i.imgur.com/QZDDEB5.png https://i.imgur.com/QZDDEB5.png
- xandrius 1y agoOf course because you don't have access to the original data. Imagine: 1. Film -> Method 1 -> Photo #1 2. Film -> Method 2 -> Photo #2 Instead you tried: 3. Photo #1 -> Method 3 -> Photo #2 Which instead gives you a badly edited Photo #1. You don't have the source code, so to speak.
- kiicia 1y agoAbsolute least they did is to rescan original film with newer type of scanning process/device into higher resolution and bit depth „digital negative”. You cannot replicate that from low quality jpeg image.
- ncr100 1y agoI keep seeing a small dog in the helmet. Looking at it "correctly" the man's image is obvious. I enjoy image-art for this 'eye of the observer' opportunity.
- qingcharles 1y agoThis is my 30 second attempt with Photoshop: (original on left, mine on right) https://imgur.com/a/YC2iBHX https://imgur.com/a/YC2iBHX