Adobe ACR "Enhance"

Discussion in 'Casual Photo Conversations' started by sjmurray, Mar 17, 2021.

  1. I just noticed this new addition to the latest version of Adobe's ACR. I loaded it up and so far it looks pretty good. I wonder if anybody else has experimented with it. Its nice because I can take my 6 mp D70 files and make them 24 mp with no loss of detail or additional noise or grain! Use Raw Details and Super Resolution in Adobe Camera Raw
    inoneeye likes this.
  2. I've been able to get more detail. I'm not sure about the "no additional noise" claim. the one image I used wasn't suited to testing that.

    It's a bit of work to compare the before and after because the after files are larger, so you can't simply enlarge them to a given % in Lightroom side by side.
  3. Shame I've only got an old standalone copy of Photoshop that won't accept the latest ACR version.
    And the need for Windows 10? Really?
    Noooo way am I loading that collection of 'backdoors' onto my computer! Even if it is offline.
  4. Joe is it possible that you actually understand my affinity for film and just wonโ€™t say so?:)

    Rick H.
  5. Here's an example. First is full frame shot with D70 iso 200 1000 wabasha bridge.jpg (2005)
  6. crop of same image at 100% original 6 mp DSC_0031 crop.jpg
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2021
  7. crop of same image at 100% enlarged too 24 mp with Enhance in ACR DSC_0031-Enhanced crop.jpg
  8. original 6 mp image enlarged in PS to 24 mp using "Image Size" DSC_0031 enlarged orig.jpg
  9. But there's a noticeable scale difference between ACR's exact 2x linear enlargement, and the resized version. So it's to be expected that a partial interpolation of pixels is going to look a bit 'rougher' than a simple doubling.

    For example: the maths required to get 2.2 pixels out of every original pixel is more complicated than to just interpolate one more pixel from two adjacent ones. That's a simplification, but I hope you get the point.

    So, why is there a scale difference between the two? Because it doesn't make it a like-for-like comparison.
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2021
  10. I'm not sure what you are asking. Both the enhanced enlargement and the resized enlargement were scaled to 13x20 in at 300 ppi, which is what you get when enlarged to 24mp. The scale is the same for both, exactly. The 100% enlargement of the 6 mp version was only 6.6 by 10 inches enlarged to 300 ppi. so the crop of the center is quite a bit smaller.
  11. Except they obviously aren't.
    The PS scaled image shows far more of the scene in the crops above, and therefore must be scaled smaller than 200%.

    The ACR enhanced resolution can only scale by 200% apparently.

    Using print sizes for scaling isn't the way to do it. Simply select percentage in the Image Size box and type in 200%. Might be worth trying different scaling algorithms as well.
  12. Both the enhanced image and the resized original resulted in images that were about 4000x6000 pixels, no matter how you do it in PS Image Size. I resized the original both with percent and inches. The center crop examples above were just random sized crops out of the center of each image. If you measure the size of the buildings in both examples, they are the same! What is important to note is that the Enhanced image, which is a 4000x6016 pixel image from the original 2000x3008 pixel file, dose show more image detail. I've used it on several old images from the 6 mp D70 and the results are more detailed than if I just upsized the image using PS Image Size.
  13. Pretty impressive! I am going to dig out some of my D70 images and do some experimenting.
  14. Yeah Tim, I think you will be impressed! New life for the D70 files. Note you do have to have the latest version of ACR and PS with Windows 10 since it is a new product.
  15. OK. That makes sense now.
    I thought that the inline thumbnails were each the same number of pixels wide and high.

    In which case the ACR Enhance does result in a cleaner upsizing.
  16. Enhance works very well enlarging jpgs or tiffs too, if you don't have a dng or raw file. You have to do some settings in PS, described in the link in my first post.
  17. Interesting. I would have thought it needed access to the sub-pixel data that can only be got from a RAW file.

    Processing software is getting cleverer all the time!

Share This Page