Digital zoom on smartphones relies on learning-based super-resolution (SR) models that operate on RAW sensor images, but obtaining sensor-specific training data is challenging due to the lack of ground-truth images. Synthetic data generation via ``unprocessing'' pipelines offers a potential solution by simulating the degradations that transform high-resolution (HR) images into their low-resolution (LR) counterparts. However, these pipelines can introduce domain gaps due to incomplete or unrealistic degradation modeling. In this paper, we demonstrate that principled and carefully designed degradation modeling can enhance SR performance in real-world conditions. Instead of relying on generic priors for camera blur and noise, we model device-specific degradations through calibration and unprocess publicly available rendered images into the RAW domain of different smartphones. Using these image pairs, we train a single-image RAW-to-RGB SR model and evaluate it on real data from a held-out device. Our experiments show that accurate degradation modeling leads to noticeable improvements, with our SR model outperforming baselines trained on large pools of arbitrarily chosen degradations.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Our SR approach incorporates realistic SR kernels and sensor noise functions, accurately modeled for various modern smartphones. A RAW image captured with Pixel 6 Main camera is processed using a 4 × SR model trained on data generated with our realistic degradations. Our model recovers more details and structures compared to other baselines. Pixel 6’s specific degradations are not seen by the models during training.
Figure 2: Examples of calibration patterns and images used to approximate SR kernels. Gray-code patterns and color/gray patches displayed on a monitor, along with their RAW capturing with the target camera, are used for geometric and radiometric alignment and to form HR target images. A pair of x and y used in Eq. 3 for 4 × SR kernel estimation of Pixel 9 Pro Tele is illustrated.
Figure 3: Noise model calibration results for the S23U Main camera. Noise calibration is performed per color channel of the CFA at seven different ISO levels shown for the first green channel here. A curve is then fit to each noise parameter, enabling interpolation of noise variance for uncalibrated ISO levels.
Figure 4: Camera-specific SR results on data from four devices (from top to bottom: S23U Tele 1, S24U Tele 2, Pixel 9 Pro Main, and Pixel 9 Pro Tele). We compare the outputs of a RAW-to-RGB 4 × SR model trained on data synthesized with different degradation baselines and our own calibrated, camera-specific degradations. The model trained with our data produces sharper results, and recovers more structural details. For better visualization, the original LR capture is linearly demosaicked and naively upsampled by 4 × . All images are white-balanced in each row using similar gains and gamma correction to ensure a consistent visual comparison. The yellow dashed rectangle corresponds to the FOV of interest w.r.t 4 × zoom factor.
S23U Tele 1
S24U Tele 2
Pixel 9 Pro Main
Pixel 9 Pro Tele
Method
No Ref. Metrics
Ref. Metrics
No Ref. Metrics
Ref. Metrics
No Ref. Metrics
Ref. Metrics
No Ref. Metrics
Ref. Metrics
MTF50
MTF25
PSNR
SSIM
MTF50
MTF25
PSNR
SSIM
MTF50
MTF25
PSNR
SSIM
MTF50
MTF25
PSNR
SSIM
Bicubic
0.05
0.29
32.01
0.952
0.16
0.28
33.42
0.935
0.54
0.95
30.88
0.874
0.08
0.22
30.96
0.868
KernelGAN [ 5 ]
1.42
1.15
33.12
0.950
1.62
1.35
33.48
0.937
1.64
1.05
31.10
0.856
1.46
1.22
32.66
0.883
MANet [ 24 ]
0.31
0.89
33.42
0.959
0.29
0.48
33.47
0.935
1.66
1.24
33.14
0.889
0.38
0.62
32.93
0.886
Degradation-Transfer [ 14 ]
1.31
0.94
33.47
0.954
1.56
1.29
33.01
0.948
1.61
1.12
32.98
0.885
1.18
0.68
32.76
0.878
Table 1: Quantitative camera-specific SR results on data captures with four different cameras. The 4 × SR model trained with our calibrated, camera-specific degradations outperforms models trained with the baseline degradation pools, in terms of all metrics used.
Camera
Method
No Ref. Metrics
Ref. Metrics
MTF50
MTF25
PSNR
SSIM
Pixel 6 Main
Real-ESRGAN [ 40 ]
0.38
0.50
31.75
0.884
BSRAW [ 15 ]
0.97
0.82
28.79
0.713
RAWSR [ 45 ]
0.96
0.90
28.99
0.790
Ours (Cross-camera)
1.19
0.86
32.41
0.905
Mi11 Main
Real-ESRGAN [ 40 ]
0.33
0.40
35.08
0.914
Table 2: Quantitative cross-camera SR results on data captures with Pixel 6 Main and Mi 11 Main RAW cameras. Our 4 × SR model is trained on synthetically generated data using degradation models obtained from seven different cameras. The two test camera degradations are not seen by any of the models during training.
Figure 5: Cross-camera SR results on Mi 11 Main real RAW captures . We compare the outputs of a RAW-to-RGB 4× SR model, trained on data generated with different degradation modeling approaches. The degradations of the test camera are not seen by any of the models during training, yet the model trained with our synthetic data is better at recovering fine details such as building structures and text. The original LR capture is linearly demosaicked, and naive 4× upsampling is applied for visualization. All images are white-balanced with similar gains, and gamma corrected. The yellow dashed rectangle represents the FOV of interest relative to the 4× zoom factor.
Figure 6: Distributions of calibrated 4 × SR kernels for Pixel 6 Main and kernels from other degradation protocols. Pixel 6 kernels lie closer to those calibrated for other devices using our framework, hinting at similarities between RAW domains of different smartphones. For this visualization, we first run PCA [ 34 ] to reduce the dimension of 21 × 21 kernels to 50 followed by t-SNE [ 39 ] to further reduce dimensions to 2.
Figure S1 : Our calibration setup and display prototype.
Camera
Optical Zoom
Focal Length
Sensor Size
Pixel Size
Sensor Resolution
S23+ Main
1x
23 mm
1/1.56”
1.0 μ m
4080x3060 (50MP)
S23+ Tele
3x
69 mm
1/3.94”
1.0 μ m
3648x2736
S23U Main
1x
24 mm
1/1.3”
0.6 μ m
4080x3060 (200MP)
S23U Tele 1
3x
69 mm
1/3.52”
1.12 μ m
3648x2736
S24U Tele 2
5x
111 mm
1/2.52”
0.7 μ m
4080x3060 (50MP)
Pixel 6 Main
1x
26 mm
1/1.31”
1.2 μ m
4080x3072 (50MP)
Table S1 : Specifications [ 35 ] of all the cameras used in our experiments. Note that some of the sensors are designed for binning and Android ProShot cannot access the unbinned version of the RAW captures. Sensor Resolution column indicates the captured RAW resolution in binned (regular Bayer) format, while the number in parentheses indicates the actual sensor resolution before binning.
Figure S2 : Display-to-sensor linearization function obtained for our display prototype and Pixel 9 Pro Main camera.
Figure S3 : Examples of camera-specific SR kernels we calibrate and add to the pool of SR degredations; Calibrated 4 × SR kernels for the center of FOV of S23P Tele camera.
Figure S4 : Our alignment method for producing paired evaluation data. After aligning the colour and brightness of the ground-truth image with a demosaiced crop of the monitor capture, we perform spatial alignment using homography and optical flow. The resulting aligned ground-truth image is well-suited for computing reference-based quantitative metrics, with the RAW capture crop serving as the input.
Figure S5 : Our MTF evaluation. The MTF measured on the LR image is used to calculate the relative MTF on the output of SR models. Here is the actual measurement for our model output in the Pixel 9 Pro Main experiment ( Tab. 1 of the main paper). The average of all values obtained over all the Siemens star patterns in the FOV is reported per model in our experiments in Sec. 4 .
Camera
Method
Ref. Metrics
PSNR
SSIM
Pixel 6 Main
BSRAW [ 15 ]
28.75
0.877
Ours (Cross-camera)
29.14
0.913
Mi11 Main
BSRAW [ 15 ]
33.17
0.897
Ours (Cross-camera)
39.72
0.956
Table S2: Our 4 × SR model is trained on synthetically generated data using our degradation models obtained from seven different cameras. The performance is evaluated on RAW images captured from Pixel 6 Main and Mi 11 Main cameras, and compared with other baselines. The degradations of these two cameras are not included in the training data for any of the models.
Figure S6 : Additional qualitative results for 4 × SR on Pixel 6 Main from the experiments in Sec. 4.5 of the main paper. Note that Pixel 6 Main degradations are not explicitly included in the training data of any of the models. Model outputs are white-balanced and gamma-corrected better visualization.
Figure S7 : Additional qualitative results for Mi 11 Main 4 × SR results regarding the experiments presented in Sec. 4.5 of the paper. Note that Mi 11 Main degradations are not explicitly seen by any of the models during training. Model outputs are white-balanced and gamma-corrected similarly for better visualization.
Real-world image super-resolution is particularly challenging for diffusion models because real degradations are complex, heterogeneous, and rarely modeled explicitly. We propose a degradation-aware and structure-preserving diffusion framework for real-world SR. Specifically, we introduce Degradation-aware Token Injection, which encodes lightweight degradation statistics from low-resolution inputs and fuses them with semantic conditioning features, enabling explicit degradation-aware restoration. We further propose Spatially Asymmetric Noise Injection, which modulates diffusion noise with local edge strength to better preserve structural regions during training. Both modules are lightweight add-ons to the adopted diffusion SR framework, requiring only minor modifications to the conditioning pipeline. Experiments on DIV2K and RealSR show that our method delivers competitive no-reference perceptual quality and visually more realistic restoration results than recent baselines, while maintaining a favorable perception--distortion trade-off. Ablations confirm the effectiveness of each module and their complementary gains when combined. The code and model are publicly available at https://github.com/jiyang0315/DASP-SR.git.
Yang Ji, Zonghao Chen, Zhihao Xue +1
KUNBYTE Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China · GOLDMYE Xuhui District, Shanghai, China
Demand for high-resolution satellite imagery has increased interest in super-resolution (SR) to bridge the spatial resolution gap between freely available missions such as Sentinel-2 and commercial systems like PlanetScope. Because no sensor provides true paired low- and high-resolution observations, SR models are usually trained on synthetically degraded data, creating a domain gap on real cross-sensor imagery. In this work, we provide the first systematic study of how this synthetic-to-real mismatch affects the performance of modern diffusion-based SR models. Using a large, geometrically and temporally aligned dataset of Sentinel-2 and PlanetScope imagery, we evaluate five state-of-the-art diffusion architectures under controlled experimental settings. We also introduce LPIPS-Sat, a domain-adapted perceptual metric based on Sentinel-2 self-supervised features. Our results show two persistent challenges: synthetically trained models degrade sharply on real pairs, while models trained on real cross-sensor data exhibit optimisation difficulties and struggle to adapt to the physical and radiometric diversity. These findings highlight a key limitation of current SR and motivate methods that disentangle super-resolution from domain adaptation.
Dawid Kopeć, Katarzyna Jabłońska, Wojciech Kozłowski +1
Single image super-resolution aims to reconstruct high-resolution (HR) images from low-resolution (LR) inputs. Training SR models typically requires paired HR-LR data, which is difficult to obtain in reality. As a result, most methods synthesize LR images by artificially degrading HR images with handcrafted kernels or camera ISP adjustments. However, these synthetic degradations fail to capture the complexity of real LR images, leading to poor generalization in practice. To address this, we observe that even within a single high-quality image, regions at different depths exhibit varying resolutions, where distant regions act as LR patches and closer ones as HR patches. This allows the extraction of real, degradation-induced LR patches from real images. Since these LR patches lack paired HR counterparts, we propose LA-SR (Language Assistant for SR), a novel framework for unpaired SR. The key idea of LA-SR is to redefine unpaired SR in the language space, using vision-language models to bridge the LR-HR gap. LA-SR projects images into a semantically rich space representing both content and quality, and applies two language-guided losses: linguistic content loss to preserve semantic fidelity, and linguistic quality loss to enhance perceptual realism. With this alignment, LA-SR effectively super-resolves real LR inputs, producing realistic outputs that overcome the limitations of synthetic-data-trained methods.
Joonkyu Park, Kyoung Mu Lee
Dept. of ECE&ASRI, 2IPAI, Seoul National University