Here is a couple of tests I made of the https://letsenhance.io/ tool. It basically lets you upload an image and get a 4x upscaled version after a few minutes of processing time, all thanks to the magic of neural networks.
Currently you can upload just a few images for free (3? 5?), and then the paid version kicks in. You can choose between the “boring” or “magic” upscaling presets. The “magic” one is where the real magic begins. Suddenly textures are magically recovered from the areas which are otherwise blurry (even in the original image), and more details are visible. You basically get an image generated in 4x higher resolution, or using a camera with 4x more mpx.
I think this is really interesting for upscaling photos and renders for print, especially renders, where RAM may be an issue at some point. You can get a pretty much lossless version of your image in 4x the original resolution, which can be then used for printing or display in super high res.
“ori” is a crop of the original image upscaled by 400% in Photoshop using the “automatic” supersampling option
“boring” is the result of using the “boring” preset, then cropped to show the same region
“magic” is the result of using the “magic” preset, then cropped to show the same region
Discuss. I am also curious about your tests!
Note: this tool is not related to Corona in any way, that’s why I am writing in the “General CG” category.
I suggest middle mouse button clicking on the thumbnails below to open the examples in tabs one by one.
Is this paid persion, that you tested with? I’m asking because i tested that exact service few weeks ago (free version) and my results was disapointing - it created many double lines and “enhanced” image with creative “details” wherever there was noise in original picture. Also in my case there was barely observable difference between “magic” and “boring” methods, but in your examples, the difference is very obvious.
I am using the free version. I don’t think there is any difference in terms of quality between free and paid. Paying just gives you more slots to upload images.
They upgraded to version 2.0 today (I think), so maybe that’s the difference. I also did not test with noisy images. But I also tried this much earlier and had similar results, so maybe it just depends on the image.
They should give you free slots after this update.
If not, then you can contact them and I am sure they will give you something, they are pretty responsive.
I think mixed is the right word. Some parts of an image after their magic enhance looks definitely better than photoshop’s bilinear upscale and some parts looks actually worse. But look what’s happens when you downscale both images (bilinear and “magic”) back to original. Ewww!
The missing features are being “hallucinated”.
This thing should be trained for normal maps etc. and we don’t have to bake large things anymore.
Not perfect but worked quite well in some areas of my test image.
Often the SU models, I receive, have poor mapping images. However, it is the ‘look’ they want. Attached is a typical map- notice how well this magic process worked.
It works especially well with high quality content. Or with down-resized photos.
Works less well with noisy, grainy, low detail pics.
Original = the original resolution image
then I took this and resized it down 400% (so I can have a well defined low grain image) and I up-scaled it back up 400% with the website and with photoshop.
The website algorithm seems to be able to “make up” or invent new details, including grain and surface detail so it closely match the original image. And it’s better than the new “preserve detail 2.0” photoshop algorithm. And much better compared to some sharp bicubic or lanc algorithm.
Some parts of the up-scaled image look almost the same, or even better than the original, even though it’s missing like 75% or something of original image content.
It offers 30-day trial with no image limit (?). From my initial tests it seems it is slightly worse than letsenhance, but offers more options (e.g. 600% upscaling).
It would be interesting if you could apply this to an image sequence (a movie).
I sent a message to the letsenhance people about it but I got no reply. It would be expensive anyway. But probably programs like these who invent new details for resizing would probably not have temporal coherence, I’m guessing it would flicker from frame to frame.
