Can we get like real Image Upscale?

It would be great if Photoshop used an Ai function to upsclale images. Yes it won't "Improve" or add details. 

Isn’t AI upscalers adding details their point? 

And as mentioned previously that can be fine in some use-cases but in others it would be disqualifying. 

I love how so much commentry in these forums are ...

"I'd like a thing" or "This doesnt work for me"

and the responses are, - no you dont need that, or you're doing it wrong. 

It would be great if Photoshop used an Ai function to upsclale images. Yes it won't "Improve" or add details. 

But as someone in wide format print it would be super-duper handy to have a function that gives images that would otherwise be pixelated or blurry at scale a sharper look.

At the end of the day, most of us are professionals just trying to get a job done. 

So if you can finally give me the 'enhance' button my clients seem to think exists - please do. 

There are many instances where generated AI content is not accepted, in some cases due to the potential for false detail to be put forward as real, and in others due to the ongoing legal arguments over copyright ownership of AI generated images.  AI upscaling is inventing content not in the orginal image a simple upscale of two times in height and width results in 75% of the image content having been artificially generated. Whilst the result can look visually very good, it is no longer the content of the original image and therefore not acceptable in those industries where AI content is barred.

The point made by D Fosse is that a lot of upscaling is done (both pre and post AI) where it is simply unnecessary. Larger images tend to be viewed at greater distances, additional pixels are not needed in those cases.

Dave

That is false.

You might be misunderstanding. 

Those AI-upsampling results may look great and in many contexts they may serve the purpose but … the result is not a photograph anymore, it is digital artwork. 

As you stated yourself: »I can clearly see how AI adds details to wood, paper, glass, skin and what not.«

Those details do not actually represent the details of the actually photographed objects, they are »added details«. 

Like I said that may be fine in some contexts, in others not. 

Conssider the old »help me improve surveillance camera footage to make the license plate readable«-issue. 

AI might create a plausible looking license plate with readable numbers but they might not be the actual numbers at all. 

That is false. You may think AI upscaling may never improve anything, but you are so wrong. Actually I cannot tell you the service I pay to get the upscaling I need, because the administrator removes it (I can see Adobe does not like any rivals, even if are 10000 times smaller company's) But I will tell you that I pay 10 euro a month and get ULTRA cool upscaling which I have never seen in Adobe product. The results are getting better and better all the time, and lately, I can clearly see how AI adds details to wood, paper, glass, skin and what not. What I'm saying is the upscaled image I get at the end is way better then the low resolution original. You are so missing out. And yet Photoshop still does not have adequate upscaling feature. 

There already is an AI-based upsampling algorithm. It's called Super Resolution and is available in ACR and Lightroom. It's primarily intended for raw files. It will also work on RGB files, but the best results are on raw data.

To be clear, upsampling will never improve anything, whatever the method or application. It still has to invent pixels out of thin air. What AI can do is minimize the damage to the point where you can get away with it for special purposes.

People often upsample when they don't really need to, and in almost all cases you will be better off not doing it. It will simply look better as it is. About the only legitimate reason for upsampling is to avoid visible pixels.