2.15
#... |
|---|
opaz labs enhancement software did absolutely nothing for my solar images. (processing wise) I downloaded it on a trial basis and used it with several DSOs and it did nothing for me, however, compared to most if not all of the professionals here, my images are subpar so this is no surprise. It probably can improve an extremely high quality image. Mine dont qualify. |
2.41
#...
·
 |
|---|
| I don't see RC's products included in this discussion. StarX, NoiseX, and BlurX all use the same AI technology. They were just fine tuned on space pics instead of terrestrial ones. |
2.41
#...
·
|
|---|
|
The only way I see AI becoming a game changer in AP, is when a single click tells the AI to capture and adjust capture settings based on seeing and gear, stacks and processes the image without any user input after the click. At that point then well, it isn't art. I agree with others here about Topaz DeNoise, it is not a game changer, but a huge step up from PS's built in NR. |
1.91
#...
·
|
|---|
| I have not watched the presentation (yet), but do have to question the use of the word "ethics" when talking about astrophotography as an artistic "product" (I dislike this word but anyway ...). Where do "moral principles" apply to this form of Art (i.e., Photography) specialising in capturing the inhuman cold hard Universe, especially when throwing artificial intelligence (i.e. a tool) in the mix which is, in and of itself, amoral? |
1.81
#...
·
|
|---|
| I am a scientist - my astrophotography isn’t science, it’s much more akin to art inspired by science - which is why so many of us go to great lengths to learn about the object we are imaging - that’s part of the wonder. As such I’m less worried about how faithfully I reproduce the object. As for AI tools adding data, how is that different from debayering an OSC image which also interprets missing data based upon expectations from surrounding pixels? |
7.61
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
Dave Rust: That’s because the last post (before yours) was in 2020…… |
