I think I've got a twitch now, when I think about this. How those stupid moviemakers would say, "enhance!" and I (along with many of my geek brethren) were like, "there are no more pixels, that can't be done!"
And now it exists. "Enhance" exists.
And now it exists. "Enhance" exists.
The MRI scanner near you is potentially using AI to increase image signal, then to increase pixel count 4x (well, 2x in X direction, 2x in Y direction. Potentially also generating a slice between each slice in 3D datasets).
If you turn off the AI and actually acquire the information, the scan is long, the patient moves and it is blurry. However if the patient is still, the non AI images look like the AI images.
Disagreeing with it is sort of moot now - it’s in the machines and is running. It works well, I’ve been using it daily for a few years.
All vendors have it - I use the Siemens product ‘Deep Resolve’ [1]. Their PR department undersells it, in my view this is a bigger change than the 1.5T to 3T transition.
[1] https://www.siemens-healthineers.com/magnetic-resonance-imag...
The image is sharper because it have more data.
Where did the missing data came from?
It came from the training data set, not the patient.
No matter how good the image look like, it is not something from from the patient.
In video there is a lot of temporal information and even if the spatial resolution wasn't high enough in a single image, one would be able to accumulate a higher resolution version of the scene using multiple observations.