There were some very critical comments today, regarding "Easy Photo Unblur 4.0", because it is using potentially fake before/after pics on SoftOrbit's product page. Why were they removed? I think the users of this website should know it if software vendors are "cheating".
Why were critical comments removed?
(4 posts) (2 voices)-
mikiem2
ModeratorWell, it happens... Someone using the name "Turre Borreliosis" said essentially the same thing about the photos being faked. I replied with a more lengthy rebuttal, and that never made it either. So it's not because you were critical -- if that was true, then my rebuttal, in favor of the developer, should have made it. ;)
Purely FWIW...
If the *un-blurred* portion of the photos were actually untouched, they certainly weren't very sharp like you'd expect from a decent camera. What they do show is the effects of exaggerated contrast at object edges, which is what sharpening filters do, increase the contrast at edges. I won't claim that those displayed were average user results -- the photos were most probably cherry picked and worked with for hours -- so it's OK to be a little skeptical. But if you've seen enough decent quality pictures, if only those published by magazines on the web for example, you can see the difference between the fixed images and photos that were good to start with.Posted 4 years ago # -
RevX
Membermikiem2, what my deleted comment below "Turre Borreliosis" contained:
I have found one of their "after"-pictures (used on their website for "before/after" examples) on a stock photo site (the one with the cat).
So I have really big concerns that SoftOrbit's examples were fake regarding before-after, and I also think Turre was right when he assumed that the after pictures actually were the before pictures.Posted 4 years ago # -
mikiem2
ModeratorI have found one of their "after"-pictures (used on their website for "before/after" examples) on a stock photo site (the one with the cat).
*Maybe* a slight bit off topic -- has nothing to do with why comment was not approved -- but interesting nonetheless. It looks like you are correct... I took a snapshot of the cat using the Opera browser [softorbits[.]net/unblur-photos/], matching it using Google image search to: cdn.pixabay[.]com/photo/2019/10/16/21/46/cat-4555523_960_720.jpg
Maybe as, or even more interesting, comparing the photos side-by-side the background is slightly different, and the copy from SoftOrbits site is not as good, with the un-blurred half noticeably less sharp than the photo from pixabay. Personally, if I were the developer, I would have used original photos rather than stock images -- cheap cameras are not that hard to come by -- to avoid exactly this debate. To me it seems naive, so I never would have expected it from a dev that's been around a while. So the question in my mind is, did the dev find a lower quality copy of the stock photo, then fake the demo -- if I could save a lower rez copy of the photo from the Pixabay site, anyone else could too, adding it to their own online collection -- or did the dev license the original & then degrade the entire image for his before & after demo? And that's a question that we may never see answered, at least with a high degree of trust.
Posted 4 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.