and I just don't believe that's the case. Why do I mention this? Well, it's been said in these forums that tools like Gigapixel AI offer a viable alternative to upgrading from a lower resolution camera to a higher one. but sometimes even the most careful use can result in unwanted artefacts or unusual results. With careful use - and, often, some manual editing after the fact - they can work wonders. That just doesn't feel right to me.Ī few weeks back I bought the Topaz AI suite of DeNoise, Sharpen and Gigapixel at a very reduced deal price - and I have to say, they're useful to have in my post-processing toolbox. but I have a hard time getting my head around the fact that the end result isn't an enhanced version of what the sensor captured, but a facsimile - a whole new rendering. Now, if the end result looks good, there's a perfectly reasonable argument that says " why should that matter?" - and to some extent, in some situations, I'd agree. Instead of using noise reduction, sharpening, scaling and other pixel-for-pixel processing techniques to get the best out of what's already there, they'll analyse the scene and actively replace chunks of it based on what they " think" the content should be. In my view, whilst the results can be amazing, what they give you is content replacement rather than enhancement. For some time I've had a "thing" about AI image processing tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |