Well, as far as I know, I am not.

What I have done previously is that I wanted a hardcopy print of an image that I had produced about twenty years earlier and put on the web for something I was doing at the time. The picture is a combination of some Microsoft Clip Art and a few additions by me.

The final illustration in the following page.

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ngo/euto0008.htm

I enlarged the image, I think by three times in both x and y axes and placed it on a white background, got it printed as a custom greetings card, advertised as a photo card but as long as it is a jpg file it does not actually need to be a photograph.

https://www.papier.com/landscape-photo-313

I appreciate that an expert is art prints might well find it to be chunky, but it looks fine to me.

We can try to experiment.

I opine that the picture in this post would be good for testing enlargement.

https://punster.me/serif/viewtopic.php?pid=3876#p3876

This being because it has sufficient detail for such tests, yet is not detailed as much as, say, a picture of a group of many people.

If one clicks the picture then clicks the resulting picture then downloads, one can get a 1024 pixel by 1024 pixel image.

I am wondering if one makes a copy of that image and reduces it to a smaller size, maybe 256 pixels by 256 pixels, can one use some sytem, maybe AI based, to get back an image like the original?

As a more extreme test, what if a copy is reduced to, say, 128 pixels by 128 pixels, to what extent can a reasonable looking enlarged image be produced, sufficiently like the original picture?

What, one may ask and consider, do "reasonable" and "sufficiently" mean in this context.

William