Has anyone tried "PhotoAcute" Studio with a "consumer" scanner, such as the V-750 Pro

[yaredna]

I have looked at the description of the algorithm behind "PhotoAcute" Studio, but I have not yet tried it. I was wondering if any of the digital experts on this forum has tried it with a scanner. The slight "mis-positioning" of the film on the scanner in successive scan will allegedly allow the software to derive computationally additional resolution.

You might want to check their web-site for additional information:
http://www.photoacute.com/studio/index.html

The way I understand it, in simple terms:
. We need to scan the same film 5 to 10 times. May be try replacing the film on the scanner plate, allowing for slight misalignment between the different scans
. Feed all the scanned images to the "PhotoAcute" software
. The software will then "crunch" a better resolution image.

I have not purchased the software yet, but they seem to have a downloadable trial version. If no one has tried it before, I can volunteer and give it a try with my Epson V-750 Pro, and publish the results.

Thanks
Yaredna

[Witold Grabiec]

This is like straight from astrophotography and the widely used photo-stacking. BTW, I don't think they imply deliberate camera movement (as you seem to suggest), in fact they say "try to shoot steady, although tripod is not required and no special precautions for shake-free shots are needed". They're marketing it for cameras only, scanner is not the same thing, but it's probably worth trying.

[Kirk Gittings]

It is not unlike some other sofware out there, perhaps taken a step further. It is worth looking at. I emailed them a question about its possible value for scanning.

[Witold Grabiec]

Here is one review of PhotoAcute (scroll down a bit) and it appears that camera/lens profiles are required for it to work properly.

And here is a word on the technology from Wikipedia.

And how about some "smart" paper on the technology ?

And more here, this one looks really smart. Anyways, I'm gonna stop here. As I suspected this has been utilized in astro-imaging. Technology isevolving and holding a lot of promise. Google "super-resolution" to see what's there.

[yaredna]

OK.

So I took the time, and I did a simple test. One of the posts above mentioned that the software requires a couple camera+lens listed. That was my surprise. I did however work around it, by selecting a Canon EOS DSLR 1Ds Mk II, and a 50mm f/2.5 macro lens. Just to see if the software is still capable of doing something.

I scanned a Velvia 50 (the new version of Velvia 50, shot taken 2 weeks ago in my backyard), using my Epson V-750 Pro. Resolution: 2400 dpi, no sharpening.

I then selected a small portion of the photo, to make the test faster. I enclosed here below a reduced version of the entire photo, all darkened except for the area that was tested.

I then scaned it 8 times, and loaded the JPEG into PhotoAcute. Tricked PhotoAcute to believe this is a Canon DSLR. Processed for 2x superresolution.

The results are attached. I included a screen capture from the software, the photo as saved by the software in 2x resolution, and one of the 8 scans.

I am not an expert in scanning, so I will not comment on the results. Anyone wants to comment, please feel free (I meant: not comment on my focusing capabilities with the view camera ).

Oops, I needed to crop the files, and save in lower quality JPEG to fit the attachment criteria.

Thank you

[yaredna]

I also resized the output file down to 1x (50%) using bicubic sharper (debatable choice). Resulting file attached.

Question: is this simply a glorified sharpening algorithm, or does it really resolve more details or texture ?

Regards
Yaredna

[Witold Grabiec]

yaredna,
Could you post "straight" results (no manipulation) outside forum with a link to it? If you have no web space, email me those directly and I'll do it for you.

Having read a little bit on the technology, it is little else but a sophisticated algorithm that searches patterns is subsequent photographs and figures out where the extra detail is meant to be. From your quick scans it looks (to my eye) no better than the Fractals resizing.

--------------------------------------------------------
Just to clarify my Fractals reference: I meant the quality of detail, but quite impressive nevertheless, especially considering the "quickness" of this test.

[Kirk Gittings]

I assume we are looking to compare the third one in the group of 4 and the single below with the watermark? The improvement looks like sharpening to me as there are some feint halos around some of the finer branches, but there may be something here worth some more investigation.

[Witold Grabiec]

OK, here are images as YAREDNA got them.

Acute001.jpg

Acute001_08.jpg

Photo_Acute_Screen_Capture.jpg
-------------------------------------------------------------

Two more added:

Acute015.jpg

Acute015_21.jpg

And I agree, not much over sharpening. However, let's see if a better test can be provided. This software comes up with camera profiles, and that could be part of the problem. However, super-resolution is still "just" a mathematical problem and how it's modeled. According to the "smart" people it has future potential. By then we'll be driving cars on tap water though.

[Kirk Gittings]

Seems like a pretty modest gain, which looks very much like what simple sharpening would do to me.