I wonder if you've had a play around with the settings within Gigapixel? I'm guessing it will depend on what you're enlarging an image but typically a 20mb image doubled in size will take around 2 minutes on my rather old i5 PC. On the subscription model for Adobe, I've quickly worked out in the 5 1/2 years since dumping Adobe, I've saved over £700. That's by replacing Photoshop with Affinity Photo (which is still updated) and replacing Lightroom with initially ON1 which I didn't like before moving to DxO pro. All three items were on special offer. £700 to spend back into my photography. A better deal for me.
Yes, I did the same thing. For me it was a no-brainer! When Affinity launched 5years ago I immediately realized its potential and I have been producing all my graphic and photography work in Affinity Photo, Designer and Publisher ever since. And I’m still very happy with the package. For my raw files and catalogue I use Capture One. Also the best I ever used!
Hi Peter just watched this after the 254mp video. Thanks for doing it. I might have a look see if it could be usable with small & heavily cropped bird shots. Wonder if you considered putting the digital teleconverter with topaz ai?
I can't believe how well Gigapixel AI works as you described. The commercial license is beyond my budget though. So I better stick with high-res shot from Olympus Mirrorless.
I am starting to think of Adobe high resolution like a version of my Olympus high resolution mode. But handy when I am shooting birds or other moving objects.
I tried Gigapixel AI against PS Super Resolution using a cropped bird photo from a few years ago and found a significant difference also; however I thought to make a fair comparison I should apply some sharpening to the PS output as I was pretty sure Gigapixel was also applying sharpening. So I ran the PS SP image through Sharpen AI and found the result was better than Gigapixel. Then to make the comparison as fair as possible, I took the original cropped image and ran it through Sharpen AI and then Gigapixel AI and compared that to the PS SP + Sharpen AI. The PS SP + Sharpen AI was still a little better but very close.
They’re close, but I found Adobe is grainer in areas with less detail ; blue sky, snow, shadow, moving water etc for instance, Photoshop was noisier. This is important to me and not many have checked this out. You can control the amount of noise in Gigapixel, but Photoshop is a one click option.
I've used gigapixel to upscale a standard Olympus EM 1 mkii to create a panorama. I upscaled by 4x then cropped out a section horizontally across the middle. This leaves a panorama which printed in black and white is ok at normal viewing distance
I find Gigapixel processing time is speeded up remarkably by using GPU (RX570 8gb) rather than CPU (ryzen 1700). But that all depends of course on your CPU and GPU and their relativity. But I find GPU fine and don't have time for making a coffee while its running.
The resulting difference between Adobe's super resolution and a Hi-Res shot are so similar, it hardly makes sense to use the High-Res anymore. I wonder if Adobe is using some sort of pixel shift in their calculations, because it takes very little time to create, unlike Gigapixel.
Thanks, Peter! What is more interesting - not how software scales already fine detail image rather how it upscales low resolution image. Recently, a friend of mine sent me the photograph of myself in low resolution 1280х720. The photograph has been taken by FF camera though but downscaled by social network (Russian popular social network VK) where it has been published. Then I upscaled the photograph 4 times in Gigapixel up to 20PM and the result appeared very good if observed on 4K monitor so that it's hard to tell the difference. Only when you try to read letters on the camera I'm holding you'll mention that despite of resolution the letters are almost unintelligible.
I were waiting for this kind of comparison. No, GigaPixel is still a king! :) Personally, I do not care much about 5-20 min wait, as long as result matching or exceeding my expectations. I very rarely need to seriously upscale my image but when I need, I need - quality and GigaPixel delivers. Yes, it is “one trick pony” and considering it is price, expensive one :) on other hand - competitors? Any? Scale by x4? I think subscription model mostly benefit software makers not me. Consumers got locked in they plans, stop exploring other options because lazy to switch they work flows. Personally, I do not use Adobe products, there other alternatives which fills my needs (photography is my hobby, so I have different requirements). Btw most of raw convertors have free upgrades to new camera and lenses without extra charge. Peter, thanks a lot for comparison. 4K video would be nice :) and/or links to original and upscaled images located on google drive or something like that. So, I can see things in details.
Very interesting, all this new tech. Thanks for sharing the latest cool software. I can see how some might find this software beneficial. When ever I see and hear of the latest " best of " image ability, such as 4K TV vs. the old tech, I drift to the back of the mind where I recall a day when content was everything. In the USA TV is mostly all junk programming and mostly a waste of time, whereas going back in time, with old tech TV, it was all so much better because of content -- creative content and production of programming. There were simply a hundred times more to watch in the days of free TV. The TV sets are excellent nowadays, but what did we gain? We have not gained content, but rather technically more beautiful viewing ability of nothing. Speaking of content. Peter has real content and is a photographer first -- not just a TH-camr camera promo-man or self-promoter. Someone to listen to for content. :) -Loren lorenschwiderski smugmug
To complete the comparison with Topaz with a handheld high res shot : 1drv.ms/u/s!AtJksb1K4aVNlP06ub809zbeXPBVXw?e=JuFolW Left : 20MP ORI enhanced by PS to 80MP reduced to 50 MP Right : 50MP ORF enhanced by TOPAZ Denoise from lightroom : "detail" settings in LR all O (gain, NR and colour), settings in Topaz : remove noise to 5 and enhanced sharpness set to 33 Like for 80MP High res, image processed by Topaz is much cleaner, and Topaz denoise does a great job for sharpening
Actually no. Adobe says in its blog post that Super Res works best on camera raw images, because they give the AI more data to work with... and if you do that, it gives very good results. The free online upsamplers won't even support camera raw formats and are limited to very small images unless you pay and give up personal info. Sure, if you've stolen a 100x100-pixel JPEG off a website and want to scale it up to 200x200 to use on your own website, an online upscale will do all you need. Still, now that malicious JPEGs are being used to inject network malware such as Metasploit, I'm a bit leery of using a “free” JPEG from a site I don't know anything about. You know the old saying: “If you're not the customer, you're the product...”
How you are so good master of talking nonsenses for the things you COMPLETELY do not understand? Despite you are biggest ever photographer in the Universe and its surroundings
![Gigapixel AI - [NEW version!]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/N_kciYMEwus/mqdefault.jpg)
Hi you are lucky with the shining sun.
You are very busy giving us very interesting videos. Thanks a lot.
You saved me at least an hour to do the comparison myself. Cheers.
Glad I could help!
WOW THIS IS AMAZING AND VERY HELPFUL, KEEP POSTING
I wonder if you've had a play around with the settings within Gigapixel? I'm guessing it will depend on what you're enlarging an image but typically a 20mb image doubled in size will take around 2 minutes on my rather old i5 PC.
On the subscription model for Adobe, I've quickly worked out in the 5 1/2 years since dumping Adobe, I've saved over £700. That's by replacing Photoshop with Affinity Photo (which is still updated) and replacing Lightroom with initially ON1 which I didn't like before moving to DxO pro. All three items were on special offer. £700 to spend back into my photography. A better deal for me.
Yes, I did the same thing. For me it was a no-brainer! When Affinity launched 5years ago I immediately realized its potential and I have been producing all my graphic and photography work in Affinity Photo, Designer and Publisher ever since. And I’m still very happy with the package. For my raw files and catalogue I use Capture One. Also the best I ever used!
On1 was not intuitive to me at all. I'm still using the last Lightroom you could purchase.
Really useful Peter, will give it a try. Can never get close enough to wildlife so am hoping this will help, thank you.
Interesting. I still use ON1 Resize Genuine Fractals to size for printing. I wonder how it compares.
So if I take a pic with a 12 megapixel camera for example, the software can make it appear that it was taken at a higher megapixel sensor?!?!
Yes. Of course the image quality would be better if the bigger image is made with a camera that has more megapixels.
great video :) Thanks for your work :)
Hi Peter just watched this after the 254mp video. Thanks for doing it. I might have a look see if it could be usable with small & heavily cropped bird shots. Wonder if you considered putting the digital teleconverter with topaz ai?
I have not tried how the images behave in Gigapixel AI or Super Resolutions if I have used the digital converter.
Great and more contents like that!
Will this feature finally prevent people from complaining about MFT being not a good format for large printing ?
Actually MFT allows printing advertising posters up to 2 per 1.5 meters in Industrial standard poster resolution 72 dpi.
great video peter. thanks.
I can't believe how well Gigapixel AI works as you described. The commercial license is beyond my budget though. So I better stick with high-res shot from Olympus Mirrorless.
I am starting to think of Adobe high resolution like a version of my Olympus high resolution mode. But handy when I am shooting birds or other moving objects.
Torrent...
Great review!. I agree that waiting a bit for Gigapixel is worth a better image. How often would a typical person even be doing this anyway?
I tried Gigapixel AI against PS Super Resolution using a cropped bird photo from a few years ago and found a significant difference also; however I thought to make a fair comparison I should apply some sharpening to the PS output as I was pretty sure Gigapixel was also applying sharpening. So I ran the PS SP image through Sharpen AI and found the result was better than Gigapixel. Then to make the comparison as fair as possible, I took the original cropped image and ran it through Sharpen AI and then Gigapixel AI and compared that to the PS SP + Sharpen AI. The PS SP + Sharpen AI was still a little better but very close.
PS. I was using the latest (as of Apr 29th) version of both AI products
They’re close, but I found Adobe is grainer in areas with less detail ; blue sky, snow, shadow, moving water etc for instance, Photoshop was noisier. This is important to me and not many have checked this out. You can control the amount of noise in Gigapixel, but Photoshop is a one click option.
I've used gigapixel to upscale a standard Olympus EM 1 mkii to create a panorama. I upscaled by 4x then cropped out a section horizontally across the middle. This leaves a panorama which printed in black and white is ok at normal viewing distance
There's panorama merge in Lr.
I already have photoshop so Adobe is better :) I am sure Adobe will be updating it over time and it will get better and better.
They sure will and eventually it will get a lot better.
Good for you! For the rest of us that have found other solutions than Adobe it’s good to know that there are options for up-scaling images for us too.
One thing good about Topaz Gigapixel AL is it can do jpg and tif without another program.
That is true.
Maybe adobe image needs just sharpening after been enchanted, that all to look the same like topaz
I find Gigapixel processing time is speeded up remarkably by using GPU (RX570 8gb) rather than CPU (ryzen 1700). But that all depends of course on your CPU and GPU and their relativity. But I find GPU fine and don't have time for making a coffee while its running.
On my 2080ti the sample preview takes a few seconds and exporting maybe 10-15. Enjoyed the trial I used.
The resulting difference between Adobe's super resolution and a Hi-Res shot are so similar, it hardly makes sense to use the High-Res anymore. I wonder if Adobe is using some sort of pixel shift in their calculations, because it takes very little time to create, unlike Gigapixel.
Thanks, Peter! What is more interesting - not how software scales already fine detail image rather how it upscales low resolution image. Recently, a friend of mine sent me the photograph of myself in low resolution 1280х720. The photograph has been taken by FF camera though but downscaled by social network (Russian popular social network VK) where it has been published. Then I upscaled the photograph 4 times in Gigapixel up to 20PM and the result appeared very good if observed on 4K monitor so that it's hard to tell the difference. Only when you try to read letters on the camera I'm holding you'll mention that despite of resolution the letters are almost unintelligible.
I were waiting for this kind of comparison. No, GigaPixel is still a king! :) Personally, I do not care much about 5-20 min wait, as long as result matching or exceeding my expectations. I very rarely need to seriously upscale my image but when I need, I need - quality and GigaPixel delivers. Yes, it is “one trick pony” and considering it is price, expensive one :) on other hand - competitors? Any? Scale by x4?
I think subscription model mostly benefit software makers not me. Consumers got locked in they plans, stop exploring other options because lazy to switch they work flows. Personally, I do not use Adobe products, there other alternatives which fills my needs (photography is my hobby, so I have different requirements). Btw most of raw convertors have free upgrades to new camera and lenses without extra charge.
Peter, thanks a lot for comparison. 4K video would be nice :) and/or links to original and upscaled images located on google drive or something like that. So, I can see things in details.
I know I should start publishing in 4K.
Have good results with Gigapixel AI. With a fast computer its not slow at all.
Gigapixel AI reply on Nvidia GPU heavily my geforce card only spend like 30s on each image.
Ok, I see. That was the problem I had with time Thank for sharing the info.
To bad gigapixel doesn’t have this on a app I do all photo editing on a tablet now.
I suspect Gigapixel will drain out tablet battery very fast.
Good comparison! Grab some lotion and catch some rays, Peter! Thanks for the testing! 😎
Adobe did a good job but is killing another plug-in developer.
Adobe is a big company, but I think they are a bit behind in many things.
Very interesting, all this new tech. Thanks for sharing the latest cool software. I can see how some might find this software beneficial. When ever I see and hear of the latest " best of " image ability, such as 4K TV vs. the old tech, I drift to the back of the mind where I recall a day when content was everything. In the USA TV is mostly all junk programming and mostly a waste of time, whereas going back in time, with old tech TV, it was all so much better because of content -- creative content and production of programming. There were simply a hundred times more to watch in the days of free TV. The TV sets are excellent nowadays, but what did we gain? We have not gained content, but rather technically more beautiful viewing ability of nothing.
Speaking of content. Peter has real content and is a photographer first -- not just a TH-camr camera promo-man or self-promoter. Someone to listen to for content. :)
-Loren lorenschwiderski smugmug
Gigapixel should not be taking that long. Does your Mac lack a dedicated GPU? It only takes that long when running strictly on a CPU.
I have learned that it most likely the Graphics card that I have in my computer.
To complete the comparison with Topaz with a handheld high res shot : 1drv.ms/u/s!AtJksb1K4aVNlP06ub809zbeXPBVXw?e=JuFolW
Left : 20MP ORI enhanced by PS to 80MP reduced to 50 MP
Right : 50MP ORF enhanced by TOPAZ Denoise from lightroom : "detail" settings in LR all O (gain, NR and colour), settings in Topaz : remove noise to 5 and enhanced sharpness set to 33
Like for 80MP High res, image processed by Topaz is much cleaner, and Topaz denoise does a great job for sharpening
There r FREE AI online webs which r way most better than PS actually !
Actually no. Adobe says in its blog post that Super Res works best on camera raw images, because they give the AI more data to work with... and if you do that, it gives very good results. The free online upsamplers won't even support camera raw formats and are limited to very small images unless you pay and give up personal info. Sure, if you've stolen a 100x100-pixel JPEG off a website and want to scale it up to 200x200 to use on your own website, an online upscale will do all you need. Still, now that malicious JPEGs are being used to inject network malware such as Metasploit, I'm a bit leery of using a “free” JPEG from a site I don't know anything about. You know the old saying: “If you're not the customer, you're the product...”
Adobe has become a sellout.
How you are so good master of talking nonsenses for the things you COMPLETELY do not understand? Despite you are biggest ever photographer in the Universe and its surroundings