I've been testing this feature. Maybe it's just my pictures, but I don't see a huge increase in quality, they're already pretty high quality. Even though I crop my photos a lot. What I was worried about is that it would stretch the pixels and the higher resolution version would end up looking blurry, but this has not been the case at all.
I've used this feature quite a few times for portrait photography with my Z6 files that I needed to deliver. It helps clean up the image more and bring out some more details. This is definitely a use-by-case tool, but it's an awesome feature when you want to get the most out of a photo, especially when you have to crop in here and there to perfect the framing
Cool tool. Due to storage I think I'll rarely use it. Even though most of my files are from ~20mp cameras. Good for making large prints, or saving extreme crops. At least a little.
Great discussion of the topic. As you said, start with the best resolution. Which I translate into, make sure you need this as little as possible ;). There is quite a bit of AI involved, I guess, and I underline the word artificial in AI. Because this version of raw processing not only must invent missing colors but also missing pixels (a raw file doesn't have RGB pixels, but monochrome photosite data. Raw processing turns your 14 bits monochrome data into max 9+9+9=27 bits RGB for the best cameras. The reason we are so happy with raw over marginally worse 8+8+8=24 bits JPEG RGB, is that we can influence how the raw processing is done.). As to megapixels (MP) we should remind ourselves that MP are an area unit, like square feet or square millimeter. And human perception of detail resolution relates to linear magnification. This means - ceteris paribus - that we need 96MP if we want to see 2 times the detail resolution of a 24MP shot. Because we need 2 times linear magnification, which applies to both sides of an area thing, so we end up needing 2x2=4 times more area resolution. Which explains why we frequently say, relative to 24MP, that those 12MP cameras of the past weren't as bad, or why we may be disappointed with the detail gain of, say, 46MP. We should also be aware that, in printing, generally we print larger than the camera's resolution and at a very fine dots-per-inch (DPI) printer setting. Take a 6,000*4,000=24MP shot and print it at 12" x 8" and 1,200 DPI: 14,400*9,600 are required. Or print at A3 size and 1,440DPI and you need 23,811*16,838 dots. Which means that your big prints have had a lot of pixel invention applied before they could look as great as you think they look. Somewhere in the software stack between Camera Raw/Lightroom and the printer. With static subjects like the car shots that Dan used here, if we know giant prints are needed, I would take my sharpest lens (a 50mm) and shoot a multi-row "panorama" shot, potentially focus shift shooting the individual frames, if more depth of field is needed than what I get at, say, f/8. The subsequent stacking and stitching - my experience - is best done in Photoshop.
Your review woke me up about Super Resolution. I'm going back and up-resing all my old 12 mpg shots from back in the day. I never tried to enhance any photos because I made the mistake of listening to several reviewers who apparently only tested hi-res photos as they totally poo-pooed this new feature. I'm excited now. Thanks.
I haven't tried Super Resolution yet but good to know how it might help with files from the RX10iv and A7Siii. I normally rely on my higher res cameras but there are times I prefer using the lower res cameras and I love the storage I save. Have you tried crop mode images from the A7Riv with Super Resolution?
Excellent Review of this feature. 👍🏼 However, I couldn't quite see what you were showing even on my large monitor. Perhaps the next time you create something like this you can zoom in to 200x or even 400x to overcome the visual limitations of RU-vid.
Very helpful Dan. Thank you. Would you suggest cropping an image then enhancing or enhancing then cropping? Would be interesting to see if there is a difference
It's really not. As someone who owns a Canon R5 and A7RIV, I can tell you I've NEVER wished those had even higher resolution. But I've often wanted to push low resolution images up either for printing, making it easier to scale larger, or just to not deliver a 12mp image to a client since they might feel that's not PRO enough
@@learningcameras yeah that's what I mean. You showed both the upscaled images. I feel it would have made alot more sense to show the low Res files and the upscaled file. So we can see the difference. Unless you're saying there's no difference except the file size?
@@thearabicdp upscale means the file has increased size without loss of resolution, so there really shouldn't be more detail per-say in an upscaled image. Super resolution is adding more detail and clarity to an image and makes the edges of things crisp and not pixelated. Seems like the same thing but it's not.
Thanks! I have not tried Gigapixel yet. I would actually expect more from it if I had to pay an extra $100 for it vs having it added to software I already have lol
The best Ai enhancer for mac is PhotoAi ( orange icon ) and it is far better than Gigapixel etc. Why? Because, the writing, the lines, the colour are very good and there is no rainbow effect in Ai enhancer. Gigapixel was good at 2019 and 2020, but they downgraded and have also rainbow effect.
Then at least this video helped you know that lol. The lower resolution your starting image, the more this feature helped. I'm looking at it uncompressed on a 32" 4k Monitor so I probably noticed the differences more than you
@@learningcameras Yea, might look better in person but real world use is non existent. No one zooms in 200% and pixel peeps photos on 32 inch monitors. People look at your work on 4-5 inch phone screens these days. Thanks for the video though.
