Staggering quality improvement using AI Gigapixel on MP2 Files

[CanadaDrone]

I'm pretty convinced now if you want even more out of your MP2 images (noise/details) then run them (as in a TIFF) through AI Gigapixel and you will have a better result than any standard image editor or RAW convertor can provide to the point I would say it "gives back" the quality some would say has been lost in the MP2 images. That's been my findings at least.

You are talking about two separate things which I think may be confusing for some.

The up-res software is not an alternative or separate option compared to properly editing the image in a good RAW editor. You can do both, and that would definitely be giving you a better result than simply feeding a RAW through Topaz Gigapixel and doing nothing else to it before/after since that RAW image has no curves applied, no sharpness added, no saturation added, no WB correction, etc. I would much rather look at a well processed image than one that had simply been fed through an up-res program, so you will still want to both.

Whether or not you feed the image though an up-res program has nothing to do with with how it is otherwise processed - just to clarify. If you like the up-res software, by all means use it, but just understand that it does not mean that you can't still process the RAW file as normal.

 

[Bussty]

You are talking about two separate things which I think may be confusing for some.

The up-res software is not an alternative or separate option compared to properly editing the image in a good RAW editor. You can do both, and that would definitely be giving you a better result than simply feeding a RAW through Topaz Gigapixel and doing nothing else to it before/after since that RAW image has no curves applied, no sharpness added, no saturation added, no WB correction, etc. I would much rather look at a well processed image than one that had simply been fed through an up-res program, so you will still want to both.

Whether or not you feed the image though an up-res program has nothing to do with with how it is otherwise processed - just to clarify. If you like the up-res software, by all means use it, but just understand that it does not mean that you can't still process the RAW file as normal.

No arguments there. But point is whatever way you do it measuring all aspects of image quality, colour, tone, dynamic range, details, noise, contrast if you run your best developed RAW (i.e a TIFF) through AI Gigapixel you will increase image quality above what just a RAW convertor can do. When I talk about the benefits AI Gigapixel offers I'm really talking about wiping noise but increasing detail, historically a tricky thing to do well.

What I have yet to experiment with is what gives the better result? Developing a basic RAW image to TIFF really only doing what RAW does best and bring out the best dynamic range and then pass that through AI Gigapixel then edit for colour, local adjustments etc in standard image editor OR is it better to develop your best RAW to TIFF image then just whack that through AI Gigapixel. I suspect the second option will be worse as you are applying two separate noise reduction processes.

 

[brettbrandon]

I suspect the second option will be worse as you are applying two separate noise reduction processes.

Just don't do noise reduction while processing the raw file.

 

[kilomikebravo]

Just don't do noise reduction while processing the raw file.

Brett: No NR and these are the settings I used:

if you run your best developed RAW (i.e a TIFF) through AI Gigapixel you will increase image quality above what just a RAW convertor can do.

I used a still that I shot with the M2P in Normal some weeks ago just before sunrise. The shot is looking to the North with the sun coming up off frame to the right. This is the image that I ran through AI GIGA (trial) using the settings above which is what I think you were using.

FYI, I'm a long-time user of Topaz plug-ins and have (and love) nearly every one of them so when I learned from you guys that the software was from Topaz, my interest increased significantly for a couple reasons. The first is obvious, the M2P images, but also for its upsampling abilities. I used Genuine Fractals for years and years (until they went away or were bought, I don't know,) for any large print jobs I needed.

That said, while I didn't spend hours pixel peeping, first off, do you know why the brightness/exposure is so much higher in the .TIFF? I DID do some pixel peeping for noise and I must be doing something incorrectly because when viewing the 200 percent .TIFF at 100 percent and, the .DNG at 200 percent (which I THINK brings them to the same zoom view. But whatever the numbers, the images are to scale side by side in PS.) Anyway, what am I missing because I see virtually the same noise in the sky on both images and the .TIFF certainly isn't way better, to coin a phrase.

HELP, dude.

PS. Here are the images. (OneDrive)

As you can guess, that uncompressed .TIFF is darn near as large as some video clips so I hope you have some decent downstream bandwidth. The upsampled TIFF is 492mb.

 

[CanadaDrone]

FYI, I'm a long-time user of Topaz plug-ins and have (and love) nearly every one of them so when I learned from you guys that the software was from Topaz, my interest increased significantly for a couple reasons. The first is obvious, the M2P images, but also for its upsampling abilities. I used Genuine Fractals for years and years (until they went away or were bought, I don't know,) for any large print jobs I needed.

Genuine Fractals was acquired by OnOne (another software company) in 2005. It was renamed "Perfect Resize" and in it's current form is called "ON1 Resize 2018", if you're curious.

 

[kilomikebravo]

CD: I am familiar with those companies but I did not know about the acquisition, thanks and I WILL check it out.

 

[brettbrandon]

Brett: No NR and these are the settings I used:

View attachment 55240





I used a still that I shot with the M2P in Normal some weeks ago just before sunrise. The shot is looking to the North with the sun coming up off frame to the right. This is the image that I ran through AI GIGA (trial) using the settings above which is what I think you were using.

FYI, I'm a long-time user of Topaz plug-ins and have (and love) nearly every one of them so when I learned from you guys that the software was from Topaz, my interest increased significantly for a couple reasons. The first is obvious, the M2P images, but also for its upsampling abilities. I used Genuine Fractals for years and years (until they went away or were bought, I don't know,) for any large print jobs I needed.

That said, while I didn't spend hours pixel peeping, first off, do you know why the brightness/exposure is so much higher in the .TIFF? I DID do some pixel peeping for noise and I must be doing something incorrectly because when viewing the 200 percent .TIFF at 100 percent and, the .DNG at 200 percent (which I THINK brings them to the same zoom view. But whatever the numbers, the images are to scale side by side in PS.) Anyway, what am I missing because I see virtually the same noise in the sky on both images and the .TIFF certainly isn't way better, to coin a phrase.

HELP, dude.

PS. Here are the images. (OneDrive)

As you can guess, that uncompressed .TIFF is darn near as large as some video clips so I hope you have some decent downstream bandwidth. The upsampled TIFF is 492mb.

Looking at the raw file it could have used about a stop more exposure and that would have reduced some of the noise. The output tiff file looks messed up. The first thing I notice is there is some kind of lens correction or something distorting the photo. It is not like that in the raw file. The white ballance is off, it looks blurry, ect... I am not the one who uses Gigapixel (although I will be checking it out), but heres a uncompressed tiff file I exported from the raw file in Lightroom. Its only a little over 100 meg.
http://brett-brandon.com/DJI_0323test.tif

 

[Lon Denard]

You should be able to get all those same details back with 30 seconds of PP if you don't want to run it through Topaz.

You're essentially comparing a RAW (no sharpening or adjustment whatsoever) with a processed RAW, so of course the processed version looks better

The straight out of camera RAWs from the M2P are pretty bad, as is expected - they are designed to be fully processed.

10-4

 

[Bussty]

10-4

Can you show us?

 

[Lon Denard]

Can you show us?

What, that you can get a good photo from the M2P without using your program? Just go on Skypixel...

 

[Bussty]

We all know you can get great images from the MP2 but I suspect you are saying that you can get just as good images from the MP2 in 30 secs on a Raw converter than you can if you run them through a program like AI Gigapixel. All I'm saying is if you have demanding needs and want to blow you images up and put them on the wall or if you want to really smash noise and bring out seemingly fine details that just don't appear to be there then from my experience AI Gigapixel is doing a pretty good job.

 

[Lon Denard]

We all know you can get great images from the MP2 but I suspect you are saying that you can get just as good images from the MP2 in 30 secs on a Raw converter than you can if you run them through a program like AI Gigapixel. All I'm saying is if you have demanding needs and want to blow you images up and put them on the wall or if you want to really smash noise and bring out seemingly fine details that just don't appear to be there then from my experience AI Gigapixel is doing a pretty good job.

Oh okay, fair enough. To be honest, the 30 seconds part is a stretch for me but I was agreeing that the platform takes excellent pictures and that the idea that this program is "necessary" to get great pictures was not accurate. Sorry I literally typed "10-4" which isn't exactly a lot of information for you to go on, is it?

 

[Bussty]

Oh okay, fair enough. To be honest, the 30 seconds part is a stretch for me but I was agreeing that the platform takes excellent pictures and that the idea that this program is "necessary" to get great pictures was not accurate. Sorry I literally typed "10-4" which isn't exactly a lot of information for you to go on, is it?

Lol.... I agree too some of the shots I have seen from the MP2 are amazing and end of the day it's that initial impression whether it's 600x400 or 5000x4000 that counts. When it's staring back at me day after day on the wall and it's big that's when I want it to withstand a bit of critical "pixel peeping" if you like. I must be getting old but all I can think about when you say 10-4 is that "Convoy" song by C.W. McCall that came out in the 70's??

 

[Lon Denard]

Lol.... I agree too some of the shots I have seen from the MP2 are amazing and end of the day it's that initial impression whether it's 600x400 or 5000x4000 that counts. When it's staring back at me day after day on the wall and it's big that's when I want it to withstand a bit of critical "pixel peeping" if you like. I must be getting old but all I can think about when you say 10-4 is that "Convoy" song by C.W. McCall that came out in the 70's??

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Bussty]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

And guess what pops in the first couples of lines

 

[kilomikebravo]

Busty: No comments on my #44 post? I saw no assistance with noise in AI Giga but then, the advice was to leave the NR option in "None" which is somewhat confusing given what you said about it removing noise while upsampling>

Sure would appreciate some insight as to what I may be doing wrong.

Looking at the raw file it could have used about a stop more exposure

Brent: Yep, that image was intentionally underexposed due to the time of day.

 

[brettbrandon]

Brent: Yep, that image was intentionally underexposed due to the time of day.

With a DSLR, that wouldn't matter much but with this camera it needs all the help it can get to keep the noise level lower.
I could push that pic about a stop before the sky started peaking. Just a suggestion but with this camera, exposing as bright as possible without blowing out highlights is part of its noise reduction....
I leave that black and white bar thingy (technical name) on showing white value peaks. That way I can make sure I'm getting as much light as possible.

 

[kilomikebravo]

but with this camera it needs all the help

Thanks for that, Brett. I am a reasonably experienced image editor and I hear what you're saying but my main purpose for initially responding was to get Busty to help with AI Gigapixel. I'm still a skeptic because I cannot understand how upsampling an image can reduce noise but Busty seems to have figured out some magic and I would very much like to learn how.

 

[brettbrandon]

Thanks for that, Brett. I am a reasonably experienced image editor and I hear what you're saying but my main purpose for initially responding was to get Busty to help with AI Gigapixel. I'm still a skeptic because I cannot understand how upsampling an image can reduce noise but Busty seems to have figured out some magic and I would very much like to learn how.

Cool.
My guess would be when you upsamle something, the software has to interpolate what is supposed to fill the gaps when stretched. Now if you reduce the image back down, there will be more detail to work with even though some of it is created by the software...
I haven't tried Al Gigapixel yet but will be soon.

 

[brettbrandon]

Thanks for that, Brett. I am a reasonably experienced image editor and I hear what you're saying but my main purpose for initially responding was to get Busty to help with AI Gigapixel. I'm still a skeptic because I cannot understand how upsampling an image can reduce noise but Busty seems to have figured out some magic and I would very much like to learn how.

OT
I just noticed you user name is made up of the call letters KMB...