In my experience working with Topaz AI for a few hours, I must say it's very impressive. Especially with jpeg-images it will also remove the annoying artefacts of the jpeg-compression. The effect on RAW images is excellent, but I'm speaking of 24 megapixel images upscaled to 2x and 4x. The 6x enlargement is marginally better than 4x and looks artificial, but from detailed RAW to 4x is mostly impressive especially on textures like leather and textile (and even skin). Upscaling to 2x is for a lot of images a real treat. Also, using images up to 24 megapixel as source, will not take very long to process: in my configuration (i5 Intel Core i5-8400 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti) it takes less than 3 seconds to preview and 2'50 for saving to tiff - resulting in a 12068 x 8056 pixel image. It's not perfect and I can sometimes see artefacts on small gradients, but overall I'd say it does a better job than what I've tried before.
One often overlooked point of superresolution is the improved ease with which you can mask and edit out parts of an image which would normally be extremely tricky (eg a building behind hair). When used sparingly and creatively Gigapixel offers some truly spectacular results. Now, where a lot of this stuff falls short is the one-size-fits-all aspect of the software. A lot of the AI branded products are clever software solutions which only harness a fraction of the potential of true machine learning. In a perfect world we would feed the neural engine a set of perfect cat pics and use that as a base from which to optimise our poorly lit image of Whiskers the one eyed cat and transform him into a runway-ready majestic feline of epic proportions! On the video front some of the stuff being done is batshit insane out of this world when compared to the stuff we get for stills! Still, super resolution and other computational photography advances are an insane gift to the world of photo enhancement. Try grabbing a 50 KB google image from David Bailey and upresing it, then zoom in on it. It’s pretty crazy stuff.
I can't thank you enough Karl for all the stuff I've learnt from you! Very helpful tutorial and comparison test that I really was looking for! God bless you!
This is an interesting comparison, but I think a lot of people -- NOT to say Mr. Taylor specifically -- are expecting too much from this technology. The question shouldn't be "Will it look as good at the individual-pixel level as a native high-resolution image?" because of course it won't... the real question is, "Will it look good enough to get by? Will it let me mix in a favorite image from my old camera with images from my new camera, without people immediately saying, 'What went wrong with THAT one?'" In many cases I think the answer is yes, especially if you're comparing prints at matching sizes, because printing helps mask the fine-detail differences. (I hope more reviewers eventually will do comparisons at fixed output sizes, since that's where this type of product is most needed -- when you're producing a set of same-size prints or a print-on-demand photo book, and need to match all your images to the printing device's optimum resolution.) Also worth noting: Adobe said explicitly in its Super Resolution announcement that SR works best on original camera-raw images, because they provide more information for the AI to work on. As Mr.Taylor's first demonstration showed, a high-quality TIFF image seems to work just as well. But it's probably expecting too much to expect a similar performance on a JPEG image, especially one made with an older, likely noisier camera. Also, on some images, Topaz Gigapixel AI might produce "sharper-looking" results, because it includes a user-adjustable sharpening function; Adobe SR specifically does not do this, instead expecting you will want to adjust sharpening and noise reduction in Camera Raw after upsampling (again, this was in the announcement post.) And as Mr. Taylor also showed, sometimes a plain Photoshop upsample with the Preserve Details 2.0 option is all you need; I think it works especially well on "organic" images that don't have a lot of hard edges or prominent textures. AI upsampling has exciting potential, especially for those of us with collections of older camera-raw images, and I appreciate Mr. Taylor's comprehensive demonstration of what it can and can't do.
Thank you for the info JL, that is useful to our audience and I agree you have to also appreciate its limitations and realise the strengths. For me if it was for a necessary fine art large format print and I felt the original needed this sort of sizing work then I'd now consider using both topaz and PS and combining the best of each via layer masks. But I think you're right another TH-cam video is required showing the actual output as large format prints - I will add that to my list! Cheers.
Great video Karl thanks. Being in the sign industry we've been up sampling images for nearly 3 decades. Depending on the quality standards of my clients the commercial use of such procedures has in the last decade required that I have multiple programs and methods for achieving this while in the past we were limited to our own ingenuity. Multiple applications for noise removal are also required as much of the work comes from 3D Architectural software. You'll get a 6,000 pixel sRGB image that must be cleaned up for noise then resolution enhanced, the last five images I did went to 35 feet at 100 DPI for large banners. It's not uncommon to run the original through multiple noise reduction applications to choose the best cleaned result and then through multiple up sampling applications to get the best high-resolution recornered. In my experiance no one programs has the market on quality cornered.
@@VisualEducationStudio I hope the evolution of these up sampling software applications are used when required (need exceeding state of camera technology) rather than someone thinking they can use a micro 4/3 and res up instead of using a true larger format camera.
Thanks for this critique. For me, PS is good enough. I can’t imagine waiting 20 minutes to process the image with Topaz and don’t see the need for another software program. I also would rarely need to upscale for such a large print.
Thanks! I was already looking for a video where somebody tries to restore a 50% resolution to 100%. That is the only way to see if "Super Resolution" really doubles the resolution.
I found Gigapixel superior for my taste to Photoshop working with Sony & Fuji GFX 100 files. I was really unimpressed with Gigapixel a year ago but it’s been improved a great deal.
Thank you for a precise, thorough comparison. It is spot on with my experience using Gigapixel AI. I am reasonably pleased with upscaling cropped images coming out of my Canon EOS R6. Upscaling has assuaged my temptation to upgrade to a larger MP camera like the R5 for now.
Great video but I have one remark. At the end you advised to print it out to see the difference cause (of course) that's why you would do it in the first place, print it BIG. But looking close at both (mega) enlarged prints (where the difference would be so minimal as we can see now enlarged on screen) wouldn't say too much cause who is going to look at a mega big image at less than a foot ? IMO both are doing a great job and your way of proving this, is excellent and crystal clear, as usual ;-) And let's be honest , comparing with a Hasselblad 100MP is comparing with the best !! Thanks for sharing.
Yes good points but now I'm curious myself to see the results in big prints so I'm going to try a few more and make some super huge ones for a future video.
We've done images on convention graphics where a 5 foot person was printed at over 110%. The banner was printed at high resolution so it could be multi task. Used once at the convention then again at a private gathering for donors with arms length viewing. Reducing the cost of requiring that 2 graphics be printed. While I agree with your statement in general there are logical cost effective reasons for the up sampling process.
wow!! this is AMAZING. can't believe this has been in front of my eyes so long and i didnt even know about it! I was having some second thoughts about upgrading from 5d IV to the new R6 due to the limited MP count at 20MP and the case i would have to crop an image at some point but this is a game changer! In the extreme case someone needs to crop down hard this is going to restore the image so good that only if pixel peeping one could notice. THANKS once again Karl, you've been so helpful from my first attempt to shoot a photo with a DSLR many years ago till present. Respect and kudos sent from Athens Greece.
And only yesterday (I think?) Topaz has released an update to Gigapixel (now 5.5.0) which it claims is even better and has the "Very Compressed" model and with a new AI engine. Would be interesting to see if it works even better.
PS vs Giga looks like the two modes in ffmpeg. Same result but one takes an hour, the other a second. If you cut a video it takes no effort, but if you take input into output it takes an hour. You risk desync with audio, but that is a small price compared to bogging down your system. Either it is mining in the background or there is unnecessary cpu/gpu steps which adobe has beaten out of their code. If you are only resizing certain images and gimp the rest it is however a much better solution. If you start the resizing before breaks no time is wasted.
Now I have tried giga. Out of 12 tries, two have gone through, 10 crashed at 84% and the best algo was eyes. It could only do x2, not x4. My large computer was not good enough. Chugging 49% cpu into nothing seems alpha release, to me. 6000x4000 to 12000x8000 What is the success rate for the rest of you? Update. Changed preferences to run GPU. CPU still eats 50% and GPU 20%. Memory slowly rises from 5,2 to 6,5 GB before it crashes at 87%. Some operation occurs here that kills it
Hi, well spotted. The standard mode used to be their 'Natural' mode and I found in fashion images with detailed fabrics that the 'Architectural' mode gives better results. With it taking 20mins to render a file I decided not to go through it again on camera in 'Natural' mode as the results were very similar.
With the image detail already so high from enhance and Topaz. Doing a sharpen or sharpen ai, I wonder if it'd be over kill. Would it fix some of the blur, but leave out artifacts. I'd assume it'd introduce even more artifacts.
My impression is that if you added some sharpening to the super-resolution afterwards, you'd get the same result as Gigapixel. Do the print test pleeeeeaaasssse.
Since Photoshop is fully automatic in this operation, how come you didn't use the automatic function in Gigapixel? You used your own settings there... That said, thank you for a really interesting video, since this is something I have to do all the time :)
I think Gigapixel does a great job on my tests, but it works best with Nvidia video cards and not my older Radeon card which did not allow the program to use this video card/not compatiable which then slows it down the process. So for now, Photoshop enlargement would have to do. I am a big fan of Topaz products though including it Masking program and Studio 2.
In my opinion the AI enhancers in general have a problem with upsizing text. Text from an upsized document is terrible. But also text from low resolution traffic signs in the image for example. Prior versions of Topaz Gigapixel AI have made a mess out of the letters, and I guess the newest version still suffers from that limitation? This limits the advantage of upsizing cityscapes as the text in signs and advertising begin to look "alien".
Hi, we could tweak them all day and I have my own tweaks I apply to images before making large format prints, my intention is to print these results and see which wins because ultimately that's the only time this sort of software is useful.
Hello, I've made the same tests extensively and have to say that the Topaz (present version) treatment is much, much better than the PS version. Also, did you notice that you used the "architectural" mode instead of the "standard" mode (which is the one to use here) and also, that you didn't try different slider numbers? If one plays with the sliders, one gets many different results, and almost all are excellent. PS doesn't even come close to Topas GP. Apples compared to apples in my experiments. Best.
Since it's only implemented in camera raw right now, would using it on raw files over tiffs make a difference? There would be more data to work from, no?
@@VisualEducationStudio I think that would make sense, I wonder if the difference is significant though. Any chance of a followup? I'd try it myself but I don't have the hardware to make a fair comparison.
What are some great options you may know of to produce large format prints? I am exploring the print world with my photography. Instagram doesn't cut it for me
This isn´t giving justice to enhancing low res images, in which case Gigapixel does a great job, while photoshop do not employ any AI algorithms and the difference is huge. Then you of course got the face refinement in Gigapixel..in which you get "faked" or approximated faces replaced to match whatever low res non distinguished face pixels there are, like very low-res class images. enhancing images that by default carries a lot of information and are still decently large in resolution from the beginning and compare..that will not showcase much of a difference between image enlarging software. Gigapixel for enhancing very low res pictures are in my opinion much better.
I have used Gigapixel and other Topaz products recently and can say I am a bit disappointed. In some areas it is amazing, but in other areas it is so bad, making the file unusable for client work. I found a workflow with layermasks in PS, but all that is so time consuming (including the render time of the software) that it is not worth it for me. And I have to add, that it can‘t be used with film, because it can only handle digital grain.
Sure Topaz looked better because you removed noise and added sharpening during the process and in photoshop you didn’t. If you‘d sharpen the super resolution version just a tiny bit the results were identical if not even better than the bloody topaz version…
Gigapixel all day... For the amount of times I have to upscale images and the amount of times I need to edit my pictures in a Photoshop type program the subscription is not worth the money.
I dislike Topaz for anything. It make everything weird unnatural. They work best on low quality downloaded footage from internet (particular from social media). I mostly dislike lack control. Annoying micro contrast sharpening that can not be turned off. I tested all their tools and they are usable only conditional if image processed with all different of the Topaz tools an put on separate layers and than masked in to original only parts of particular edited image. Including how long does it takes for each image to be processed and how much all that tools cost together, and than Photoshop job to combine best parts, ... it have to be million dollar image to be worth bothering with the tool(s). Yet if one got million dollar for the job it will never fake result with "Ai". I tested all their tools. Interesting that denoise is better sharpener than sharpen, sharpen is better denoiser and gigapixel is better deblocker than jpeg-to-raw ... if they would combine all that in one toll and give proper control over process, than maybe. Until it is tool for enhancing Instagram beauties and FB memes. As you demonstrated if original file is so high quality that is far beyond any real usage, enhancing in PS give impression of doing something, but when comparing to just upscaled and little contrast sharpening, the result is here. Topaz in other hand does recreate some features if it is recognised (hair, grass, eyes), but often than one feature is enhanced and other around is not so it look weird. Few years later, maybe :)
You processed the Gigapixel Ai image as an Architectural image and not a standard image. Big mistake. You can't make a valid comparison when you process a model as an Architectural subject.
Not a big mistake because I processed the image in standard and architectural to see the difference and (maybe because of the structures in the rocks and fabric) it came out better in architectural, so that's the one I rolled with.
In my experience working with Topaz AI for a few hours, I must say it's very impressive. Especially with jpeg-images it will also remove the annoying artefacts of the jpeg-compression. The effect on RAW images is excellent, but I'm speaking of 24 megapixel images upscaled to 2x and 4x. The 6x enlargement is marginally better than 4x and looks artificial, but from detailed RAW to 4x is mostly impressive especially on textures like leather and textile (and even skin). Upscaling to 2x is for a lot of images a real treat. Also, using images up to 24 megapixel as source, will not take very long to process: in my configuration (i5 Intel Core i5-8400 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti) it takes less than 3 seconds to preview and 2'50 for saving to tiff - resulting in a 12068 x 8056 pixel image. It's not perfect and I can sometimes see artefacts on small gradients, but overall I'd say it does a better job than what I've tried before.
Thanks for the info.
One often overlooked point of superresolution is the improved ease with which you can mask and edit out parts of an image which would normally be extremely tricky (eg a building behind hair). When used sparingly and creatively Gigapixel offers some truly spectacular results. Now, where a lot of this stuff falls short is the one-size-fits-all aspect of the software. A lot of the AI branded products are clever software solutions which only harness a fraction of the potential of true machine learning. In a perfect world we would feed the neural engine a set of perfect cat pics and use that as a base from which to optimise our poorly lit image of Whiskers the one eyed cat and transform him into a runway-ready majestic feline of epic proportions! On the video front some of the stuff being done is batshit insane out of this world when compared to the stuff we get for stills! Still, super resolution and other computational photography advances are an insane gift to the world of photo enhancement. Try grabbing a 50 KB google image from David Bailey and upresing it, then zoom in on it. It’s pretty crazy stuff.
I can't thank you enough Karl for all the stuff I've learnt from you! Very helpful tutorial and comparison test that I really was looking for! God bless you!
This is an interesting comparison, but I think a lot of people -- NOT to say Mr. Taylor specifically -- are expecting too much from this technology. The question shouldn't be "Will it look as good at the individual-pixel level as a native high-resolution image?" because of course it won't... the real question is, "Will it look good enough to get by? Will it let me mix in a favorite image from my old camera with images from my new camera, without people immediately saying, 'What went wrong with THAT one?'" In many cases I think the answer is yes, especially if you're comparing prints at matching sizes, because printing helps mask the fine-detail differences. (I hope more reviewers eventually will do comparisons at fixed output sizes, since that's where this type of product is most needed -- when you're producing a set of same-size prints or a print-on-demand photo book, and need to match all your images to the printing device's optimum resolution.)
Also worth noting: Adobe said explicitly in its Super Resolution announcement that SR works best on original camera-raw images, because they provide more information for the AI to work on. As Mr.Taylor's first demonstration showed, a high-quality TIFF image seems to work just as well. But it's probably expecting too much to expect a similar performance on a JPEG image, especially one made with an older, likely noisier camera. Also, on some images, Topaz Gigapixel AI might produce "sharper-looking" results, because it includes a user-adjustable sharpening function; Adobe SR specifically does not do this, instead expecting you will want to adjust sharpening and noise reduction in Camera Raw after upsampling (again, this was in the announcement post.) And as Mr. Taylor also showed, sometimes a plain Photoshop upsample with the Preserve Details 2.0 option is all you need; I think it works especially well on "organic" images that don't have a lot of hard edges or prominent textures.
AI upsampling has exciting potential, especially for those of us with collections of older camera-raw images, and I appreciate Mr. Taylor's comprehensive demonstration of what it can and can't do.
Thank you for the info JL, that is useful to our audience and I agree you have to also appreciate its limitations and realise the strengths. For me if it was for a necessary fine art large format print and I felt the original needed this sort of sizing work then I'd now consider using both topaz and PS and combining the best of each via layer masks. But I think you're right another TH-cam video is required showing the actual output as large format prints - I will add that to my list! Cheers.
@@VisualEducationStudio looking forward for your print comparison video!
Thank you for your compaison information. i guess it all comes down what you are looking for.
Great video Karl thanks. Being in the sign industry we've been up sampling images for nearly 3 decades. Depending on the quality standards of my clients the commercial use of such procedures has in the last decade required that I have multiple programs and methods for achieving this while in the past we were limited to our own ingenuity.
Multiple applications for noise removal are also required as much of the work comes from 3D Architectural software. You'll get a 6,000 pixel sRGB image that must be cleaned up for noise then resolution enhanced, the last five images I did went to 35 feet at 100 DPI for large banners.
It's not uncommon to run the original through multiple noise reduction applications to choose the best cleaned result and then through multiple up sampling applications to get the best high-resolution recornered.
In my experiance no one programs has the market on quality cornered.
Thanks for the info David.
@@VisualEducationStudio I hope the evolution of these up sampling software applications are used when required (need exceeding state of camera technology) rather than someone thinking they can use a micro 4/3 and res up instead of using a true larger format camera.
Thanks for this critique. For me, PS is good enough. I can’t imagine waiting 20 minutes to process the image with Topaz and don’t see the need for another software program. I also would rarely need to upscale for such a large print.
I thought he said 20min by mistake instead of saying 20sec
Mine only takes 20 seconds and it is incredible! I use it for Art. It’s not topaz brand though, it’s open source.
Thanks! I was already looking for a video where somebody tries to restore a 50% resolution to 100%. That is the only way to see if "Super Resolution" really doubles the resolution.
Every day you learn something new with the Master Karl !!!!
Cheers Jorge, I hope you are well!
Thank you Karl for taking the time to do this
Welcome.
thx, also for the clean english (for me as a german guy ;-) )
I found Gigapixel superior for my taste to Photoshop working with Sony & Fuji GFX 100 files. I was really unimpressed with Gigapixel a year ago but it’s been improved a great deal.
Thanks for sharing
Thank you for a precise, thorough comparison. It is spot on with my experience using Gigapixel AI. I am reasonably pleased with upscaling cropped images coming out of my Canon EOS R6. Upscaling has assuaged my temptation to upgrade to a larger MP camera like the R5 for now.
Glad it was helpful and thanks for the info. I think it has potential and will only improve.
Funny. Upscaling has assuaged my temptation to upgrade my R5 to a larger MP camera like the R5s (when it comes out) for now. 🤣
@@longliveclassicmusic i know right lol
Great video. It would have helped if you noted the Topaz version number, since they update their software every couple months.
Great video but I have one remark.
At the end you advised to print it out to see the difference cause (of course) that's why you would do it in the first place, print it BIG.
But looking close at both (mega) enlarged prints (where the difference would be so minimal as we can see now enlarged on screen) wouldn't say too much cause who is going to look at a mega big image at less than a foot ?
IMO both are doing a great job and your way of proving this, is excellent and crystal clear, as usual ;-)
And let's be honest , comparing with a Hasselblad 100MP is comparing with the best !!
Thanks for sharing.
Yes good points but now I'm curious myself to see the results in big prints so I'm going to try a few more and make some super huge ones for a future video.
We've done images on convention graphics where a 5 foot person was printed at over 110%. The banner was printed at high resolution so it could be multi task. Used once at the convention then again at a private gathering for donors with arms length viewing. Reducing the cost of requiring that 2 graphics be printed.
While I agree with your statement in general there are logical cost effective reasons for the up sampling process.
Wow, thanks for introducing this option. I've never heard about it. I will have to try on some old pictures
Best regards from Mother Russia
You're welcome Nikolai, I hope all is well in Mother Russia.
@@VisualEducationStudio thanks, everything is fine in this part of the world, no lockdowns.
wow!! this is AMAZING. can't believe this has been in front of my eyes so long and i didnt even know about it! I was having some second thoughts about upgrading from 5d IV to the new R6 due to the limited MP count at 20MP and the case i would have to crop an image at some point but this is a game changer! In the extreme case someone needs to crop down hard this is going to restore the image so good that only if pixel peeping one could notice. THANKS once again Karl, you've been so helpful from my first attempt to shoot a photo with a DSLR many years ago till present. Respect and kudos sent from Athens Greece.
Cheers.
And only yesterday (I think?) Topaz has released an update to Gigapixel (now 5.5.0) which it claims is even better and has the "Very Compressed" model and with a new AI engine. Would be interesting to see if it works even better.
Why does your 'File Handling' menu support JPEG, HEIC and TIFF Handling, Karl? I cannot find the HEIC support anywhere
Great video, thank you.
You are welcome!
PS vs Giga looks like the two modes in ffmpeg. Same result but one takes an hour, the other a second. If you cut a video it takes no effort, but if you take input into output it takes an hour. You risk desync with audio, but that is a small price compared to bogging down your system.
Either it is mining in the background or there is unnecessary cpu/gpu steps which adobe has beaten out of their code.
If you are only resizing certain images and gimp the rest it is however a much better solution. If you start the resizing before breaks no time is wasted.
Now I have tried giga. Out of 12 tries, two have gone through, 10 crashed at 84% and the best algo was eyes. It could only do x2, not x4. My large computer was not good enough.
Chugging 49% cpu into nothing seems alpha release, to me.
6000x4000 to 12000x8000
What is the success rate for the rest of you?
Update. Changed preferences to run GPU. CPU still eats 50% and GPU 20%. Memory slowly rises from 5,2 to 6,5 GB before it crashes at 87%. Some operation occurs here that kills it
Wow, that's impressive by far!
Why would you have Gigapixel AI Mode set to "Architectural" instead of "Standard" for this image?
Hi, well spotted. The standard mode used to be their 'Natural' mode and I found in fashion images with detailed fabrics that the 'Architectural' mode gives better results. With it taking 20mins to render a file I decided not to go through it again on camera in 'Natural' mode as the results were very similar.
With the image detail already so high from enhance and Topaz. Doing a sharpen or sharpen ai, I wonder if it'd be over kill. Would it fix some of the blur, but leave out artifacts. I'd assume it'd introduce even more artifacts.
This is very detailed. Thanks.
You're very welcome!
u are god of photography........
Not quite, but thank you.
Would be cool if you did a video on how to shoot on Musou black and ir flock sheet.
My impression is that if you added some sharpening to the super-resolution afterwards, you'd get the same result as Gigapixel. Do the print test pleeeeeaaasssse.
Great video Karl, thank you
Glad you enjoyed it
hola tengo la ultima version de photoshop y camera raw pero lo de super resolucion no me aparece?
Since Photoshop is fully automatic in this operation, how come you didn't use the automatic function in Gigapixel? You used your own settings there...
That said, thank you for a really interesting video, since this is something I have to do all the time :)
I think Gigapixel does a great job on my tests, but it works best with Nvidia video cards and not my older Radeon card which did not allow the program to use this video card/not compatiable which then slows it down the process. So for now, Photoshop enlargement would have to do. I am a big fan of Topaz products though including it Masking program and Studio 2.
Photoshop: Super Resolution
Gigapixel Ai - refinement options
-Ai mode: Standard , Architectural , Compressed
-Settings: Supress noise , Remove blur
Thank you for the summary.
In my opinion the AI enhancers in general have a problem with upsizing text. Text from an upsized document is terrible. But also text from low resolution traffic signs in the image for example. Prior versions of Topaz Gigapixel AI have made a mess out of the letters, and I guess the newest version still suffers from that limitation? This limits the advantage of upsizing cityscapes as the text in signs and advertising begin to look "alien".
Great video, do you have output sharpening at high with quality at 100% with lightroom after taking it back from photoshop ?. Thanks Karl
Hi Robert thanks but no i'm afraid those were all the tests I ran, next tests will be output printing.
Omg I was looking for this!
Glad to help!
Awesome & Thanks :)
Cheers
If you make a part 2... could you do one photo and try to match by tweaking clarity to match images
And tiny bit sharpening and/or removing noise reduction
Hi, we could tweak them all day and I have my own tweaks I apply to images before making large format prints, my intention is to print these results and see which wins because ultimately that's the only time this sort of software is useful.
Hello, I've made the same tests extensively and have to say that the Topaz (present version) treatment is much, much better than the PS version. Also, did you notice that you used the "architectural" mode instead of the "standard" mode (which is the one to use here) and also, that you didn't try different slider numbers? If one plays with the sliders, one gets many different results, and almost all are excellent. PS doesn't even come close to Topas GP. Apples compared to apples in my experiments. Best.
Apples?
@@wesleybrilhante5989 Yes! You need to go back to elementary school!
The sony vs hassleblad looks right... if doubled the sony megapixel comes up about 20 MP short of resolution detail. Like 80% as sharp as hassblad
Sony, as a full frame camera, is utterly rubbish compared to a full blown medium format work horse
Since it's only implemented in camera raw right now, would using it on raw files over tiffs make a difference? There would be more data to work from, no?
Apparently the AI works better on RAW files.
@@VisualEducationStudio I think that would make sense, I wonder if the difference is significant though. Any chance of a followup? I'd try it myself but I don't have the hardware to make a fair comparison.
The PS one looks much more natural to me, the Topaz has almost a strange fringing look on my screen.
Gigapixel just looks like it added sharpening in the process, and if you did the same to the super-resolution file, you'd get the same result.
I’ve been in that studio shooting an advert recently lol 😂
I hope you had fun! 😊
I jst want to see another comparision of 24MP 24MPupscaled 45MP 45Mp upscaled
What are some great options you may know of to produce large format prints? I am exploring the print world with my photography. Instagram doesn't cut it for me
Large format professional lab inkjets on anything from rag paper to giant acrylic dibond sheets. See Genesis Digital in London as an option.
@@VisualEducationStudio thank you, Mr. Taylor!
Спасибо.
I think the youtube compression doesn't favor this video... 🧐
No it doesn't.
This isn´t giving justice to enhancing low res images, in which case Gigapixel does a great job, while photoshop do not employ any AI algorithms and the
difference is huge.
Then you of course got the face refinement in Gigapixel..in which you get "faked" or approximated faces replaced to match whatever low res non distinguished face pixels there are, like very low-res class images.
enhancing images that by default carries a lot of information and are still decently large in resolution from the beginning and compare..that will not showcase much of a difference between image enlarging software.
Gigapixel for enhancing very low res pictures are in my opinion much better.
To make this comment as short as possible: as on every video, it turns time into an investment in knowledge!
I have used Gigapixel and other Topaz products recently and can say I am a bit disappointed. In some areas it is amazing, but in other areas it is so bad, making the file unusable for client work. I found a workflow with layermasks in PS, but all that is so time consuming (including the render time of the software) that it is not worth it for me.
And I have to add, that it can‘t be used with film, because it can only handle digital grain.
Thanks for sharing!
Sure Topaz looked better because you removed noise and added sharpening during the process and in photoshop you didn’t. If you‘d sharpen the super resolution version just a tiny bit the results were identical if not even better than the bloody topaz version…
چقه خوب
any online AI make better job
Certainly, it makes more sense seeing the printed result rather than pixel-peeing on the screen. That's the main reason for AI-enlargement, isn't it?
It seems like that would be the only reason for this software, in a future video we will be comparing the print outputs.
🙏❤🍃🙏 God bless you sir..
Gigapixel all day... For the amount of times I have to upscale images and the amount of times I need to edit my pictures in a Photoshop type program the subscription is not worth the money.
Stand closer too them.
Pardon?
unfortunately on youtube you can't see any difference
Who put the syringe in the baby’s hand?
th-cam.com/video/oL7vfIutiK4/w-d-xo.html
Splitting hairs me thinks.
Yea Please Print out a Large PRINT.
I dislike Topaz for anything. It make everything weird unnatural. They work best on low quality downloaded footage from internet (particular from social media). I mostly dislike lack control. Annoying micro contrast sharpening that can not be turned off. I tested all their tools and they are usable only conditional if image processed with all different of the Topaz tools an put on separate layers and than masked in to original only parts of particular edited image. Including how long does it takes for each image to be processed and how much all that tools cost together, and than Photoshop job to combine best parts, ... it have to be million dollar image to be worth bothering with the tool(s). Yet if one got million dollar for the job it will never fake result with "Ai".
I tested all their tools. Interesting that denoise is better sharpener than sharpen, sharpen is better denoiser and gigapixel is better deblocker than jpeg-to-raw ... if they would combine all that in one toll and give proper control over process, than maybe. Until it is tool for enhancing Instagram beauties and FB memes. As you demonstrated if original file is so high quality that is far beyond any real usage, enhancing in PS give impression of doing something, but when comparing to just upscaled and little contrast sharpening, the result is here. Topaz in other hand does recreate some features if it is recognised (hair, grass, eyes), but often than one feature is enhanced and other around is not so it look weird. Few years later, maybe :)
Prrfect
You processed the Gigapixel Ai image as an Architectural image and not a standard image. Big mistake. You can't make a valid comparison when you process a model as an Architectural subject.
Not a big mistake because I processed the image in standard and architectural to see the difference and (maybe because of the structures in the rocks and fabric) it came out better in architectural, so that's the one I rolled with.
poor baby :)
Did you actually have a live baby holding a 3" hypodermic pointed upwards under his chin ???
www.hasselblad.com/inspiration/stories/karl-taylor-the-valley-of-litter/
I'm sorry, but that seems a strange question. Would any sane person put a life endangering object in a baby's reach?
@@Yu2beFool Arent you glad I asked...? I was.
Does this feature available for old photoshop version or camera raw filters??