Welcome aboard!

Glad you enjoyed it!

Thanks!

Glad it was helpful!

My pleasure!

Glad you liked it!

You're very welcome!

You are welcome!

It's a pity KZfaq does not allow editing videos to add 'addendums' or updates. All I can say is that I have now made 30" x 20" prints from my D-Lux 12MP file - the one in the video - and it's way better than simply upscaling in the Lightroom print module. The image looks like it was shot on a 24MP camera.

Thanks for sharing!

Hope everything is well at the land down under. Stay safe!

Fair point and I understand how this is limiting - however my ATEM MIni Pro only outputs in 1080p so it's not possible to screen-record at any higher res. using that capture hardware. I minimised the compression on upload but I cannot control what KZfaq does, sorry. As I type this I might have thought of another way to do this so will bear it in mind in future.

@@LeicaCameraAustralia What if you took the native 1080p video and upscaled it to 4k? Sure, it won't actually improve the quality, but KZfaq will recognize the video as 4k and compress it accordingly.

That's an interesting idea. We might try that in the future. Thanks.

Glad you liked it!

You're welcome!

No problem 👍

Glad you enjoyed it

Our pleasure!

The publishing industry around the world still commonly works in inches and the standard resolutions generally used in offset printing are defined in pixels per inch or ppi. 300ppi is much easier to work with than 118ppc (pixels per centimetre). Hard to shift 'tradition' especially when it's actually quite convenient.

True when it comes to printing. I was talking about sizes though which are easier to understand for most people when they are expressed in the metric system. For exemple, a Mile is 1760 Yards. A Yard is three Feet. A foot is 12 inches and an inch has 16 equal divisions. Mind boggling. Compare that to a kilometer which is 1000 meters or 1000 000 millimeters etc. Easy to calculate and understand.

No they don't, the app seems to be mostly concerned with preserving edges and reducing aliases lines (jaggies).

it is difficult for a digital algorithm to distinguish between noise and detail - both are pixel-level differences. All up-ressing software works best with crisp edges which is why the best results will be seen in cameras with no anti-alias filter. if you are having trouble mixing strong edge detail with subtle smooth tones then, in Photoshop, simply layer the same image twice, one Super-Resolutioned and one simply sized up in Photoshop to match the size. Then, you can use a layer mask to combine the best parts of both images. When this is introduced to Lightroom you can do the same thing by making a visual copy, Super-Rezzing one, then select both and then choose Photo > Edit In > Open as Layers in Photoshop. Then mask as needed.

@@LeicaCameraAustralia I think this is a good tip. By and large I regard Super Resolution as a great tool but I have found it struggles on certain areas of repeating patterns such as fabric. It works well until you reach folds where the material both changes tone and transitions out of the plane of focus. I see smearing and blocking up in those areas. Portraits and landscapes though, it seems to work astonishingly well.

Good advice, thanks.

It's another tool to add to one's bag of tricks. An Adobe blog post by Eric Chan mentions successfully enhancing cropped images - good for wildlife if you don't have a big enough lens!

True that!

Good question. In theory it should not matter but, unless I find out different from the Adobe engineers, I would do it first. If your computer struggles with the bigger file you could always do your edits on the smaller original then sync those settings to the bigger file. Sharpening and noise reduction might need to be different but other settings should translate well.

ACR Super Resolution does not seem to affect out of focus areas and blur, but it can pick up noise at high ISO. I don't know what ESRGAN is, sorry, so cannot comment on any comparisons.

If you start with a bigger file you will just end up with even more resolution. The lower one might match the bigger one after processing, but if you start with the bigger sensor then you get even more resolution. 26 --> 104; 42 --> 168.

Yes, double the resolution and thus necessarily four times the file size - I was not clear about this in the video.

@@LeicaCameraAustralia Adobe also mentioned doubling the file size, so I was a bit surprised to see my Z7 file becoming about 185mp... But it works quite nice. I wonder how a file like this, when brought back to 100mp, will compare to a "true" 100mp file, like from the Fuji GFX100. Great to have this in Camera Raw!

16 bit output from ACR will not make any direct difference to the effects of Super Resolution itself because it has already worked its magic on the raw data and thus is already working in 12,14 or 16 bit depending on the camera. Any further processing might well benefit from staying in 16 bit mode. In fact that's what I usually do. It was probably still set on 8 bit because I had been checking out some Multi-shot files from the SL2 and they each end up being about 1.1GB in 16 bit, thus 4.4GB after rezzing up!

@@LeicaCameraAustralia Thank you Nick for your explanation. I'm new to ACR but have worked with RAW (NEF) files from my Nikon camera using Nikon's Capture NX2. I have a Drone that produces DNG files and I'm processing them with ACR. It appears that ACR effectively outputs an 8 bit image regardless of the 8 / 16 bit setting since there appears to be no additional dynamic range to be gained in Photoshop. The lesson learned is that ACR (or LightRoom) is the only tool that can take advantage of the dynamic range afforded by raw images. Forgive me for taking the discussion off of Super Resolution!

Ah, no, you misunderstand what 16 bit gives you. It's just kind of a bigger box to put your data in - it does not change the 'size' of the data. An 8 bit file cannot describe 10 stops of dynamic range, 16 bit file can, but it's still 10 stops of DR, just in a bigger box is all. And to confuse you more, it's not really a bigger box - 16 bit files simply have more, therefore finer, gradations between the darkest and lightest parts of the original capture. Not quite the same thing. Basically bit depth and dynamic range are not directly related. You could have a 10 stop DR image in a 2 bit format file (four really, really big steps. You could also have 2 stop DR image made up of 32,000 tiny little steps (16 bit file).

Super Resolution is not in Lightroom (yet). It's only in ACR 13.2.

@@LeicaCameraAustralia yes i know, but thought, that you can open the superresolution dng file in Lightroom, so like any other dng file.

Good point, I had not tried that. Might be worth looking on the Adobe Forums for the answer and maybe post it here if you find out.

@@LeicaCameraAustralia Yes, and if you import the super resolution dng in Capture One 21, the dng file has the old resoluion....only 6.000x4.000 instead of 12.000x8.000. my example is by using Nikon Z nef (raw) files, not Leica dng.

Interesting. I'll post an update when I find out more from the Adobe engineers.

You will need to force the image to open in Camera RAW. You can do this from Bridge or open in Photoshop but change the File Format to Camera RAW at the bottom of the File>Open dialog box.

I don't know why what you see is different - the Open button is clearly on the lower right. I'm assuming you are using the latest version of Photoshop?

@@LeicaCameraAustralia Hi Nick, I am also perplexed. I am running Photoshop CC 2017 via Windows 10 Home, and downloaded and installed ACR 13.2 approx 3 3 weeks ago. The button layout is different in the lower right hand corner. From left to right I have 'open' then 'cancel' and in the very corner, 'done'. After running enhance, I get the two files in the filmstrip, exactly like you do - the orginal NEF (Nikon RAW file) and the enhanced.dng file, with the 'Nef' file pre-selected. If I click on the enhanced.dng file, right click or left click, the 'open' button greys out and becomes un clickable. If I click on the 'nef' file the open button lights up again. If I Ctrl=click on both files, in either order, raw first, or raw last, the same problem. As soon as I try to select the dng file, I lose the open button by greying out. On the positive side, the DNG enhanced file is saved to the folder the original NEF file was called from - so if I move to that folder in windows explorer etc, and double click it there, the enhanced DNG opens with no trouble at all. What made me wonder was that your three buttons, open, cancel, and done, are in a different order to mine, even though I am definitely running ACR 13.2. When I saw you open both images in ACR I thought how handy that would be sometimes, but alas, for some reason, my system isn't having it. Thanks for your attention, maybe someone else will see this problem here, and have found a way to fix it. I have gone through all the ACR options and settings but nothing in there seems to influence the opening of two images. I prepared screen shots for you but can't find a way to put them in here to show you so you'll just have to accept my description being as accurate as I can make it.

I am using Photoshop 2021, I didn't know the current version of ACR (13.2) would even work with older versions of PS. As to the greyed out button, I think you will need to consult the Adobe forums to troubleshoot this. I suggest you upgrade to Photoshop 2021 (V22) - that would eliminate one variable.

Use Adobe Bridge and choose "Open in Camera RAW". You can open raw files as well as Jpegs and tiff flies in Camera RAW.

It would be interesting to hear about a comparison. My experience with the Genuine Fractals up-sizing algorithms was less than satisfactory, it being no better than normal up-sizing in Photoshop but, admittedly, that was a few years ago.

@@LeicaCameraAustraliaThe On1 version works fine but yes i would love for someone to do a comparison. I still have and use Light Room 6, would you know if Adobe camera raw works with that ?

ACR has nothing to do with Lightroom, different products, even if they use the same algorithms. Right now you need Photoshop/Bridge to use Super Resolution and you must have the latest version.

Interesting point, but downrezzing is pretty straightforward in Photoshop. Just remember to re-sharpen.

Soon... :-) LR Classic 10.2 can recognise the DNG files generated by ACR using Super Resolution.

You are correct, it's doubling the pixel dimensions so quadrupling the file size. It depends on what you mean by size! I don't really care what the file size is, my interest lies in how big a print I can make and the pixel dimensions are more useful. Therefore doubling the size of the print is easier to communicate than quadrupling the area of the print. A 50cm print becomes a 100cm print.

I meant to say Great.

Four times the file size is indeed double the resolution because resolution is a linear measurement not an area - a single dimension vs two dimensions. 1000px to 2000px is doubling the resolution along one axis only, but you have to do the calculation on image width AND height, so if you double both you get four times the file size. You can see this clearly if you look at the Image Size dialog in Photoshop.

Thanks for sharing. The file size should be 4x the original as the pixel dimensions are doubled both for height and width - that would be for PSD, DNG and TIF files; for Jpegs it's harder to say.

@@LeicaCameraAustralia Super Resolution saves files as DNG and they seem to be very porky... I started with a 6-megapixel/10-megabyte file, and it blew up to 24-megapixel/87-megabytes! However, when I re-saved the DNG file as TIFF with lossless LZW compression, it shrank back down to 20 megabytes, which would be more typical of what I'd expect for a 24-megapixel image. I don,t know what Adobe is feeding its DNG files, but it definitely makes them fat!

The compression is the key here. 6MP will always increase to 24MP due to the doubling of linear resolution, but the compression will keep the file size under control. Personally I don't use compressed tiffs because I prefer to stay with a DNG workflow but that's just me!

@@jlwilliams yes i tried it on an old jpeg pic that was about 6mb in size and ended up with something over 100mb !! Crazy!

Gigapixel can do a better job, this is true. But not for all images and you do have to pay UD$99 for it. It's also glacially slow, taking about 20 times as long to process a file. But having said that, on some images it's amazing what it can extract, particularly for architecture, so for some it will be worth the cost and the wait.