New "Enhance>Super Resolution" -Over promised, under delivered?

[FauxtoGuy]

I just tested the new Enhance>Super Resolution feature, then compared the results to Upsampled versions of the same image that was NOT enhanced via Super Resolution. The results are DIFFERENT, not BETTER. The Super enhanced version is slightly softer, with less pronounced grain, but not sure if it would make a BETTER large print (which I assume is the primary benefit). There are multiple upsample algorithms available in Image Resize. I suggest comparing those options to a Super Res copy of the same image.

EDIT: I test on a better quity image. (tripod, ISO 100) and there is a slight, but noticable improvement in the Super Resampled version over the Image resize -Bicubic Smoother Enlargment version. 

So please test & share your opions/results. I have attached the Super Resample & Bicubic resize cropped versions.

I do appreciate the name selected for the feature: "Enhance" -which is a tip of the hat to the memorable scene in Bladerunner: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHwjceFcF2Q&t=2s

[D Fosse]

My guess is this works best with a high quality image that needs higher resolution to make an oversze print with. A soft, grainy or otherwise poor quality image would be a less likely candidate for success with this tool IMO.

By @FauxtoGuy

That's pretty much my impression too. You have to start with a high quality image. Garbage in, garbage out.

But the main purpose isn't to make big prints. You normally shouldn't upsample just to make big prints. There's nothing to gain by that under any circumstances. If the file is of good quality to begin with, it will always look best by leaving the pixel structure undisturbed. It will be seen from farther away, so the optical resolution will be the same.

The purpose is to get workable files out of very small originals. The typical use case is a tight crop because you couldn't get close enough, or files from an old camera with perhaps a 6mp sensor - but otherwise well exposed and razor sharp.

It will not improve a poor original.

[JJMack]

Interpolation will not improve any images quality. What is important is which interpolation method will produce the better print.  When Printing Large print sizes. I would think an interpolated image will produce a better print then a none interpolated image printed with a low ppi resolution.  I do not have a large printer to test with or have a desire print huge prints.   My Canon 16MP image print 12" x 18" at a 272ppi resolution. I do know if my 80 year old eyes can do 272ppi.  I do not interpolate may images unless I'm creating a small image for the web.

[Trevor.Dennis]

I've only tried it a couple of times, but both gave good results.  This is the first time using a RAW file. You will need to expand the image to see it properly, and maybe even paste into Photoshop to view it at 100%

The camera was a Canon 5DS which produces 50Mp files, so this is crazy big.  In fact it must have been cropped a wee bit as the 5DS native resolution 8688 pixels on the long side.  I'll see if I can find a OOF image to try it on.

[davescm]

Some comments here from Eric Chan who worked on the development:

https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2021/03/10/from-the-acr-team-super-resolution.html#gs.vmuprs

Dave

[JJMack]

Dave I read the blog and it seems the confirm what I posted before. Super the resolution feature is design for printing huge wall size prints.  For other image image size application super resolution is more a performance hindrance  than am asset.  I more apt to reduce the number pixels am image has for the web the increasing the number of pixels for printing.   My printer can only print on paper up to 13" wide.  I have no need for super resolutions,