Upsizing film scans for print | Gigapixel AI review

[@SimonGarnier]

Interesting. I guess the real test would be to check prints made with both Photoshop and Gigapixel AI upsized pictures. Can we still see a difference there?

[@Zetaphotography]

Yes, do it. Let us know

[@KyleMcDougall]

Great idea. I’ll put in an order for one right now and can check it out in the follow up video.

[@SimonGarnier]

Great! BTW, where do you order your prints from? I can print 13x19 pictures at home but I also want to get wider prints for some of my Xpan pictures.

[@KyleMcDougall]

I’ve been using ‘WhiteWall’ and have been really happy with their prints and pricing.

[@SimonGarnier]

@@KyleMcDougall Thanks!

[@danielmalter3373]

On a large tablet or laptop, it is impossible to tell the difference between the 100% zooms.

[@VariTimo]

Depending on the viewing distances 3000p is can be fine for prints of any size. 2K is enough resolution or normal viewing distances. With 4K you’ll be able to upscale it to pretty much everything you need.

[@davidolson7048]

Hey, just wanted to check back and see how the Print turned out?

[@michaelcarrithers6811]

Welcome to the UK! And thanks a lot for this vlog. The photo makes me nostalgic for that border between the Rockies and the Great Plains where I grew up. The space, the space, the light! One question: since I've given up on film recently (sorry -- too expensive), I'd like to know how Gigapixel works with purely digital files. Do you think the scans are good representatives of originally digital images, so I can judge from there?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Hey Michael, I feel like this program would work great with digital files, especially because most 20mp + files already have a ton of detail to work with, so upsizing would probably work great.

[@timg244]

Is this real life zoom and enhance?

[@KyleMcDougall]

😂

[@behindeachfilmgrain]

I have GigaPixel for a month now and I absolutely love this software! As a graphic designer, I always receive small files from clients that tell me that what they have is the largest format they have. Thank goodness I found this amazing software to help me in times of need!

[@KyleMcDougall]

That's awesome. Glad to hear you've had good success with it. I've been impressed!

[@guillermoperezsantos]

Did you also get tiny logos in a .doc file?????

[@behindeachfilmgrain]

@@guillermoperezsantos Yes,,, Power Point files and Word Perfect Documents that just made me laugh all day long! Hahaha! Thanks for asking. :)

[@guillermoperezsantos]

@@behindeachfilmgrain My brother from another mother!!! I can feel your pain bro, I used to have those kind of clients

[@chickenpasta7359]

I wanna see someone use this on a GFX 100 file just to see what it'll do

[@philipculbertson55]

Hey Kyle, I missed if there was a followup video to check out the print. Did I miss it? What was the result?

[@albertogarcia1386]

Thanks for the video Kyle. From my point of view I rather chose the one that has not been processed with Gigapixel. It looks to me like the gigapixel one has gone through the high pass filter in Photoshop and I am not a fan of this process. Maybe a mix between both of them might look better to me.

[@surreallife777]

There’s a program called Perfect Resize. One lady in the US who owns a lab wanted to make a large print from a cell phone image so she use this program and it looked pretty impressive. Are you using any kind of program like this? Also, if programs like this exist, you don’t really need a 50 megapixel camera. Correct?

[@Zlin0035]

Interesting piece of software, think ill rebuild my workstation PC for this one to take alook at.

[@PasqualeEttorre]

i'm always amazed by your editing. It's something that i have to try for my video on my channel

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thank you.

[@MSTrusAgent]

I was watching it on my phone and the screen is too small for me to notice any difference. I was waiting for you to zoom 200% or 300% 😁 Maybe next time do us all phone users a favor. I will rewatch it on my PC later. Thanks for sharing this software to us, this will be handy!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Noted. Will zoom in more next time m!

[@photonfantastic]

Hey! That’s one of the photos I ordered!

[@jacksonmowry]

Has the follow up video been made with the prints?

[@KyleMcDougall]

It was in my channel update which I believe was the video after this one.

[@tedmanasa907]

Great video, @kyle McDougall, thanks! Did you ever get those prints back to compare? I'm going to print a cropped 24 MP on 50"x30" aluminum and am considering upsizing before I do. Your comments would be helpful!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Hey there, yep, I reviewed one of the results in my channel update video shortly after this video. I was very impressed and think the software did a great job.

[@tedmanasa907]

@@KyleMcDougall Ah I couldn't find it. But I went ahead and upsized my print and sent it off to the lab. Very excited to see the result. I only wish you had had a coupon code so I could let Topaz know that I bought their product because of your review!

[@otniel58]

How many gigabyte of RAM on your system?

[@CornishMotorcycleDiaries]

But photoshop DOES have AI upscaling. It's not enabled by default, so you have to open preferences and it's under technology previews. I used it to produce a monster 45 inch print from a 24megapixel file and the results were good.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Very interesting. I didnt know that. Thanks!

[@johnhaynes9910]

Nice one Kyle, will give that a go.

[@FSUvinny]

Is this something you see yourself becoming ... "addicted to"? reliant upon?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Definitely not. I think it's a really useful and capable tool, but I'd still always rather try and get my images scanned at a higher resolution when possible. I think it'll be most useful for 35mm scans, which are more of a challenge to scan at a higher resolution at home using something like a flatbed.

[@jen43072]

Did you ever get this print back? I am using a 35mm film camera and hoping to print something bigger than film scans I will get back. Hoping this works for you (and me!) :) Hope you and your family are all safe and well. Also, noticed you got tiffs... how much of a difference do you see with editing between tiffs and the regular scans you get back?

[@KyleMcDougall]

In my latest monthly review video I show the print from this video. Really impressed with the results! And thank you!

[@ahmadalazme3106]

how big can u print from 35mm film ?? thx

[@KyleMcDougall]

Depends on what it was scanned with. A flatbed would generate the best file. That being said, I don't have much experience with large 35mm scans, so someone else may be able to answer that better than me.

[@JP1050x]

GERo station a 35mm film negative can hold about the equivalent of 80 megapixels. But, usually, the limiting factor is in the increase in film grain size to get a useable image. .... there is virtually no limit to the print size, if you don’t mind viewing it far away like how billboard prints are viewed.

[@JP1050x]

Btw, a lot of theater movies have been made on 35mm size film. So, it will project to huge theater screens without any issues.

[@ahmadalazme3106]

@@JP1050x even with epson v850 ? can i go like 30X20 ich ?

[@JP1050x]

GERo station yep! You just need to do the math between digitized file resolution and printer DPI . People have even made huge art exhibition prints with low quality iPhone screen shots.

[@ShawnBrezny]

This technique will be useful for Pakon 135 scanner users. Though I usually just re-scan any negatives on my Epson V600 if I need to print very large. Good to have options.

[@Zetaphotography]

Why scan once and then scan again. Why not just scan once on whichever scanner you chose?

[@ShawnBrezny]

@@Zetaphotography I'm not sure how familiar you are with the Pakon 135 scanner but it is very automated and super easy compared to using something like the Epson v600 series. I use the Pakon to scan 99% of my 135 film because it is so much quicker and easier, and I don't need very high resolution on every negative. IF I need really high resolution on a negative, lets say I want to add to my top 10 portfolio and print very large, then I may re-scan to achieve the higher resolution offered by the Epson. Hope that helps.

[@JP1050x]

Shawn Brezny I’ve never used a Pakon, but I hear great things about it. Are color profiles available for it, to match the color of individual film stock? V600’s are cool, but the maximum optical resolution can be limiting. They net about a 12MP film scan for 35mm, which I guess is about double what is achievable by a Pakon (Medium format is ~6MP with V600). Personally, if I wanted a high res scan, I’d probably digitize with a digital camera and process using negative lab pro.

[@KyleMcDougall]

I've heard great things about the Pakon, Shawn. Correct me if I'm wrong, but resolution out of a Pakon is around 3000px?

[@JP1050x]

Kyle McDougall Pakon scanned resolution is 3000 x 2000 pixels, which equates to 6 megapixels. It’s about half the net optical resolution of the V600 when scanning a 35mm frame. But you get the obvious disadvantages of using a flatbed scanner.

[@renepirolt]

Great video as usual Kyle. Interesting software, I'll have to check it out. Although it was a bit hard to see the difference on the KZbin video.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks Rene, yeah, KZbin compression is always unpredictable. The original video it's quite apparent. I'm going to order another print from the PS upsized version, and we can compare.

[@gbee8888]

8:30 If both are displayed at 50% here why is the new x2 version not displayed x2 bigger?

[@KyleMcDougall]

I believe the software is upsizing the original using traditional methods on the left. That's my guess.

[@TheMPhotography]

Cool. Haven’t heard of this software yet. What makes me curious would be if it does a better job than let’s say an interpolated Scan of an epson scanner. F.e. I scan my negatives typically at 3200 DPI. How would a 6400 DPI scan (where the scanner upscales) compare to enlarging the file via the software magic you were showing?

[@KyleMcDougall]

I feel like this program would do a better job. That’s based purely off of the results I’ve experienced the few times I’ve scanned at 6400dpi.

[@TheMPhotography]

Kyle McDougall cool. I will check it out. Thanks a lot!

[@jennifergrainger2480]

Morning Kyle, Hope all is well in England. Just wanted to give you the heads up about the #1000stepschallenge on my other favourite channel. I nominated you on #oddbjornaustevikfoto channel if you can go out and want a fun photo challenge. If you cant, I wanted to introduce you to his channel anyway. I love the trips he takes in the snow in Norway.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks Jenn. I’ll check it out!

[@michaelj7069]

Already trying it. Looks pretty cool. Thanks for demo.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Hope you enjoy!

[@klaww2845]

Interested in the monitor you're using here! What are you looking for in a monitor? (Currently in the market) : )

[@KyleMcDougall]

Currently using the LG 5k Ultrafine. It meshes really well with the MBP, and everything is really nice and crisp with it set to Retina mode. I also own a BenQ QHD 32" which is a great monitor, and definitely more affordable. The LG is great though out of the box. Very accurate.

[@jordysanchez2815]

What are your opinions on scanning your own negatives with a dslr and using those files for print? Any drawbacks that you want to add?

[@KyleMcDougall]

I’ve never done it, but I know a lot of people are really happy with that method. From what I understand it’s just time consuming.

[@michael_house]

Interesting review. Thank you!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Glad you liked it!

[@lensman5762]

Interesting. Thanks.

[@jcaldrey1039]

Awesome video

[@jasonblake5576]

Great work!!

[@RyanTrostle]

How do you get your color grads so soft and beautiful!?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Little bit of editing here and there. Just what ever feels right.

[@BackwardsScrewdriver]

Really interesting video, super cool to see what AI can do to in terms of resizing 🤖

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks for watching.

[@cdlmlcsjv]

is your wall white or grey painted?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Light grey.

[@streetskier]

Hey Kyle, Did you end up making a follow up video with the print? I'm debating buying this software to do the very same thing and would love to hear your thoughts on the final print. Cheers!

[@KyleMcDougall]

I did show the print in my monthly update video which was the one right after this video. I was definitely impressed with the results.

[@matrix26uk]

Don't! Tried it. All I got was an error message every time I tried to save a file.

[@neilgenower9950]

Have you tried printing at 180 PPI? with a 30 inch print, you may not tell the difference at suitable viewing distances.

[@KyleMcDougall]

I haven't. The lowest I've gone is about 200 or 220. But yeah, agreed, the larger the print the further away people will be looking at it (unless it's another photographer).

[@davidromano2421]

@@KyleMcDougall I've found the ppi VS viewing distance math to be very accurate. The lowest I've printed at is 143 ppi for a 12x18 image and 153 ppi for a 16x24 image. At close viewing distance of course you can see the pixels, but at a couple of feet away you can't. I bought GP AI to play around with and found it does a great job overall, but having both sliders at zero was never the best. However if you do any Remove blur, you have to do some Suppress noise or it will sharpen the noise. Also, be aware of fine lines that appear as artifacts due to the algorithms. Inspect the image throughly for these, but even just a slightly different enlargement size can make them go away.

[@neilgenower9950]

@@KyleMcDougall True, but never listen to photographers :)

[@RS-Amsterdam]

Nice video. You do know that LR has the WORSE sharpening out there, glad you don't use it, but I just wanted to point it out ! I hoped you made a print in this video and see the results but we have to wait hehehe

[@KyleMcDougall]

I thought about waiting and making the entire episode once the print arrived, but figured I'll just do a follow up, as the results on screen are still pretty impressive.

[@RS-Amsterdam]

@@KyleMcDougall Yes, but the real deal is always the best. Have a subscription so I will follow. Try Nik's Sharpener Pro 3, so much better than LR (but then what isn't hehehe)

[@jen43072]

Kyle McDougall Can't find if you got this back

[@davidlewis1787]

Did topaz upscale your arm hair?

[@KyleMcDougall]

😂

[@kygirlo528]

Yeah the _whole _*_company_* upscaled his arm hair

[@TrentGamingCo]

woah this is a game changer for 35mm film

[@KyleMcDougall]

Yep, it’ll be a huge help for those smaller 35mm scans.

[@TrentGamingCo]

@@KyleMcDougall so the only difference i was able to attain from this was the one you put through the program has a more 'coarse' grain, was this because you reduced the denoise in the program? if you were to make an update video with a 35mm negative, zoom in more, display the effects of that noise tool, and maybe make a print id be ecstatic

[@Frisenette]

Could you zoom in to pixel level and let us have a real look at it? Your comparisons are virtually useless on a KZbin video. Especially on smaller screens. We only have your description to go off.

[@michaelj7069]

I'd suggest a better monitor. Quite the difference to me. And guess what? You too can download the trial.

[@Frisenette]

Michael Jandavs Oh please! Just zoom in! Why make it subtle when you can make it clear? We watch these videos on wildly different devices. When you *can* accommodate them why not do it?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Hey Helge, the difference was definitely noticeable on my screen, but fair enough. Thanks for letting me know it was hard to see. In the follow up video I can look at a few more examples zoomed in to 200% or 300%.

[@dmacrolens]

@@Frisenette 💩

[@Frisenette]

D Mac, same to you Mac.

[@mitchellsummers9096]

Love the vintage feeling intro!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks.

[@toulcaz31]

Do you feel that process is more gratifying than getting into larger format cameras and adding more controls to your photography stage?

[@KyleMcDougall]

For me, definitely not. I’d rather work with a larger format.

[@JP1050x]

Great video! I’ve been wanting to play around with up-res software. Another trick for folks who don’t have sophisticated software, is to play around with print DPI. ... If the printer native DPI is 300, most ~6MP scans will look good up to 8X10 at 300dpi within an arms length distance. To get a good 16x20, you would divide DPI to 150. 20x30 might look ok dividing DPI again to 75. The trade off, is that the printed photo viewing distance would double with each respective DPI division. But, who the heck would look at a poster print within arms length anyway (other than me)? LoL Heck, if the individual dots were printed big enough, and spaced far enough apart, then you’d be able to see the print from space! Haha

[@Zetaphotography]

what is a 6MP scan?

[@JP1050x]

Reuben Zuazua it’s the actual resolution you net after an image has been digitized. For example, if the resolution dimensions you end up with is 2,000 x 3,000 pixels, then you end up with a 6MP digitized image. ~6MP is what most labs deliver for medium resolution 35mm film scans.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Yep, viewing distance is really important. As a photographer, at times it’s easy to forget that not everyone will be looking at your print from 6 inches away.

[@JP1050x]

Kyle McDougall so if we pixel peep a print, would that be dot peeping? LoL

[@ralphandersonphotography]

Good tip! Can't wait to see the results