Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: plugsnpixels on September 06, 2018, 04:10:38 am
-
Today Topaz released an updated version of A.I. Gigapixel with speed improvements, expanded system compatibility with a CPU mode for less reliance on the GPU and some improved scaling models.
More info and lots of new upsizing examples in my latest blog post (http://plugsandpixels.com/blog/just-released-topaz-a-i-gigapixel-1-1-0-now-cpu-compatible/).
This update is FREE for existing users (check for in-app updates), as per Topaz's longstanding policy for all of its software. Unadvertised 15% discount for new users.
-
Today Topaz released an updated version of A.I. Gigapixel with speed improvements, expanded system compatibility with a CPU mode for less reliance on the GPU and some improved scaling models.
More info and lots of new upsizing examples in my latest blog post (http://plugsandpixels.com/blog/just-released-topaz-a-i-gigapixel-1-1-0-now-cpu-compatible/).
This update is FREE for existing users (check for in-app updates), as per Topaz's longstanding policy for all of its software. Unadvertised 15% discount for new users.
Hi,
My first tests with this version 1.1.0 look even better than with the previous version 1.0.2. The three choices for the amount of Noise and Blur reduction allow to tweak the output a bit more, and even the 'Moderate' setting gives a lot more (low contrast) detail than before.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Thanks Bart for your feedback! Can you post some screenshots?
-
Are we supposed to be impressed by the OP example? What's up with the heavy halos?
-
Hi Slobodan, Gigapixels is good at not adding halos. These are present in my original (non-DSLR) images. See the blog post for another NYC example where I mention that.
-
Thanks Bart for your feedback! Can you post some screenshots?
I've posted a fullsize example here:
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=126569.msg1065920#msg1065920
I replaced the version 1.0.2 files there, because the 1.1.0 ones are significantly better (less smoothed, more low-contrast details, slightly different detail trade-offs).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Thanks Bart!
-
Hi Slobodan, Gigapixels is good at not adding halos. These are present in my original (non-DSLR) images. See the blog post for another NYC example where I mention that.
Then why post such horrible examples?
-
I see your point, but since the halos were in the original, you can see how they were smoothly upsampled, if you want to look at it that way.
I will see about replacing that image with a better one when I have some time (I posted the one I attached here late last night, and it was a "leftover" from the blog post).
Feel free to do your own tests and post them here.
-
I added another quick example to the OP, this time from a RAW (Canon Rebel) source. Any fringing is (again) in the original. 600% PS zoom view shown here; OP has 600% Topaz uprez.
-
Bart,
Should one remove CA before or after resizing?
-
Bart,
Should one remove CA before or after resizing?
Currently (because AIG doesn't offer CA-removal as an option), I'd remove it before upsampling, like in the attached example. Such a file can be upscaled without too much risk, and it doesn't require much Output-sharpening, if any, when AIG is used.
Feel free to upscale, and compare.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi folks,
Topaz Labs have added an explanation on their website of the three options (Reduce Noise and Blur: None/Moderate/Strong) that select between 3 sets of neural networks:
https://topazlabs.com/a-i-gigapixel-what-does-the-reduce-noise-and-blur-option-do
Cheers,
Bart
-
Thanks Bart! Good info.
-
The updated version is another improvement in an already fabulous piece of software. I'm looking at images taken with a P45 (39mp) that can easily be upsized to 40 inches on the wide side. Sharpening is a new learning experience...... think in terms of 3 to 4 pixels width and 300% using Smart Sharpen on an image at 600dpi. I usually like to view the image at 25% to 33% pixels to get an idea as to how it will print.
Victor
-
The updated version is another improvement in an already fabulous piece of software. I'm looking at images taken with a P45 (39mp) that can easily be upsized to 40 inches on the wide side. Sharpening is a new learning experience...... think in terms of 3 to 4 pixels width and 300% using Smart Sharpen on an image at 600dpi. I usually like to view the image at 25% to 33% pixels to get an idea as to how it will print.
Yes, it's important to adjust one's normal method of operations and consider the larger size of the details, but maybe not blurred as much as the upscaling percentage.
I always recommend to not just pixel-peep the upsampled data 1:1, because some of that data will be printed smaller than our visual acuity can resolve. So for a soft-proof, one needs to zoom out to (display_PPI / output_PPI) * 100% = zoom percentage to produce the actual printed output dimensions on our display of the detail that gets visually blended to the resolution limits of our eyes at that brightness level.
And even then, display pixels are often rather large compared to print resolution, so the print may even look better at close viewing distances.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Yes, it's important to adjust one's normal method of operations and consider the larger size of the details, but maybe not blurred as much as the upscaling percentage.
I always recommend to not just pixel-peep the upsampled data 1:1, because some of that data will be printed smaller than our visual acuity can resolve. So for a soft-proof, one needs to zoom out to (display_PPI / output_PPI) * 100% = zoom percentage to produce the actual printed output dimensions on our display of the detail that gets visually blended to the resolution limits of our eyes at that brightness level.
And even then, display pixels are often rather large compared to print resolution, so the print may even look better at close viewing distances.
Wouldn't it be better to use a higher resolution monitor? The viewable portion of my 4K 14" laptop screen measures 12 inches horizontally. 3840/12 == 320 PPI. And not quite 7 inches vertically. So if I upsize an image to be printed at 300 PPI, when I view at 100% I am seeing the image almost at the size it will be printed at. I have a 12x7 viewport to scroll around the image.
4K is only eight megapixels. It would be better yet to use a 32 megapixel 8K monitor (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1324922-REG/dell_up3218k_ultrasharp_32_ultra.html). Yes it is more expensive than two megapixel 1920x1080 monitors, but the cost is commensurate with high end camera and printing equipment. (The cost of my 4K laptop + beefed up desktop machine to run AIG is commensurate with the cost of my own photo equipment.)
Remember the investment Ansel Adams made in his darkroom to to enlarge 8x10 negatives (https://www.diyphotography.net/take-look-inside-ansel-adams-amazing-darkroom/) (the enlarger head (made from an 11x14 camera) was mounted on small gauge railroad tracks anchored to a concrete floor.) We get off easy with digital darkrooms.
I strongly agree with what you are saying about proofing high megapixel images. The monitors on my desktop machine are about 100 PPI and most AIG "plausible" detail looks horrible at 100%. But most of the images look just fine when viewed at 100% on my 320 PPI laptop screen. Except for 2003 era four megapixel images upsized to 96 megapixels. They don't quite make the grade.
-
I've stayed away from High REZ monitors for judging sharpness. All of my critical monitors are NEC with the current one a PA272W. I am able to 'see' and adjust sharpness easily to adjust to my printer (ipf8400). My only high resolution monitors are in portable form with Apple laptaps. Everything looks sharp on them making critical sharpness adjustments very difficult and a real learning process. I haven't tried looking at a 600dpi image on them, though, and will remain open until I do...... which I will do after posting. I will say that I always print a small 30 inch proof print for judging sharpness and my settings listed above have proven themselves out. I don't know if I would have seen that with a high rez monitor. I have thought long and hard about buying one..... nothing to do with funds..... but if it doesn't help in the long run then what's the need? This market doesn't allow for me to see stuff like that other than going to the Apple store which is like going to the zoo..... and its impossible to load and see an image there.
Appreciate the post........
Victor
-
Hi Bart...... I have also been unable to use any other form of sharpening except PS sharpening. All plugins fail (Focus Magic, In Focus) when looking at a file as large as I have. Really not a big deal to me as I have always considered PS smart sharpening to be as good as or almost as good as the defacto plugins.
Victor
-
I've stayed away from High REZ monitors for judging sharpness. All of my critical monitors are NEC with the current one a PA272W. I am able to 'see' and adjust sharpness easily to adjust to my printer (ipf8400). My only high resolution monitors are in portable form with Apple laptaps. Everything looks sharp on them making critical sharpness adjustments very difficult and a real learning process.
Interesting. So we now have color management (editing color now isn't tied to a particular printer like it was in the old days) but we don't have sharpening management (sharpening workflow is hardwired to a particular printer.)
I guess the digital darkroom still needs work before we get to "edit once, print on anything."
-
Wayne..... you have gotten my attention. This is the first time that I have been able to bring a relatively large file (30x20 at 600dpi) into PS on a high rez monitor (my latest 13 inch MacBook Pro) and actually 'SEE' the resolution change during sharpening as to how it would affect printing. At 600dpi the original file looked soft, as if that is possible with the MacBook Pro monitor, unlike a native processed raw file from anything I own (3100, GFX) - they all look sharp no matter what. Geeezzz I may have to actually go out and buy a Hi REZ Monitor.
Victor
-
Wouldn't it be better to use a higher resolution monitor?
I think that when we reach a display resolution of around 300 PPI (which is approx. the Human Visual Acuity limit of 20/20 vision at reading distance), like your display, we reach the point of diminishing returns. When displays can achieve twice that, then we can even resolve Vernier resolution. Better than the resolving power of our eyes, but with still detectable minuscule offsets.
Cheers,
Bart
-
A note possibly of interest to some: While doing these upscaling tests, I've found that saving uncompressed 16-bit TIFF output files (in Windows 10) that are larger than 2 GB from either Photoshop or AI Gigapixel yields files that are missing metadata and thumbnails. No thumbnails are visible in File Explorer, and Windows Photo Viewer can't open them. Photoshop opens them, but only after first popping up a message that the metadata is missing or corrupted. However, saving the files as compressed, via either LZW or ZIP, eliminates those problems. Maybe this is a "feature" of TIFF files that others know about, but I didn't.
-
A note possibly of interest to some: While doing these upscaling tests, I've found that saving uncompressed 16-bit TIFF output files (in Windows 10) that are larger than 2 GB from either Photoshop or AI Gigapixel yields files that are missing metadata and thumbnails. No thumbnails are visible in File Explorer, and Windows Photo Viewer can't open them. Photoshop opens them, but only after first popping up a message that the metadata is missing or corrupted. However, saving the files as compressed, via either LZW or ZIP, eliminates those problems. Maybe this is a "feature" of TIFF files that others know about, but I didn't.
The TIFF file specification has, due to an internal addressing limitation, 4 GB maximum file size limit. Some TIFF libraries produce a 2GB file limit. For larger files, there is a Big-TIFF specification, but support for that is at the moment still limited.
But I would not completely rule out some sort of bug either. If reported to their service people, they'll look into it.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Thanks, Bart. I knew about the TIFF 4GB file size limit, but not what I'm seeing with the metadata when the file is over 2GB. At first I thought it was a problem with AI Gigapixel, but then I saw similar results with >2GB uncompressed TIFF files generated with Preserve Details2 and saved out of PS CC 2018. I might report it to Topaz Labs anyway, to see what they have to say about it. In the meantime, I would be interested in knowing if anyone else is seeing a similar behavior.
-
A 40x30 image at 600ppi yields a file size of around 2.6gb. At that size out of AI Giga I consistently get an error message from PS regarding missing metadata. The file, though, always opens.
Victor
-
Thanks, Bart. I knew about the TIFF 4GB file size limit, but not what I'm seeing with the metadata when the file is over 2GB. At first I thought it was a problem with AI Gigapixel, but then I saw similar results with >2GB uncompressed TIFF files generated with Preserve Details2 and saved out of PS CC 2018. I might report it to Topaz Labs anyway, to see what they have to say about it. In the meantime, I would be interested in knowing if anyone else is seeing a similar behavior.
You might try using Adobe large document format (PSB) which can accommodate 300,000 pixels in any dimension. For a 1:1 aspect ratio that is 90 GB. I don't know if the Topaz software could handle that size.
Regards,
Bill
-
You might try using Adobe large document format (PSB) which can accommodate 300,000 pixels in any dimension. For a 1:1 aspect ratio that is 90 GB. I don't know if the Topaz software could handle that size.
Hi Bill,
PSBs are not (yet) supported as output format, possibly because they are a proprietary Adobe file format.
Big-TIFF is, although TIFF is formally now owned by Adobe, an openly documented format that has seen some development towards this new standard (http://bigtiff.org/) despite Adobe's lack of support. I think that it has a bigger chance of being implemented by e.g. Topas Labs, but only if enough people start asking for it. It would make sense to add it, especially for an application that creates larger files.
Cheers,
Bart
-
A 40x30 image at 600ppi yields a file size of around 2.6gb. At that size out of AI Giga I consistently get an error message from PS regarding missing metadata. The file, though, always opens.
Victor
Thanks Victor, that's exactly what I'm seeing. Are you using a Mac, or Windows? (The latter for me.)
Since the file always opens in PS and LR, without any apparent image errors, it's not a huge issue. But it is annoying not to have a thumbnail in File Explorer, nor to be able to read the file properties (like pixel dimensions) there.
Note again that, at least on my PC, it is not exculsively an AI Gigapixel issue, since I see the same thing for files over 2 GB that are generated within Photoshop via Preserve Details 2. That is, Photoshop seems to be generating TIFF files with corrupted or missing metadata, that it then complains about when re-opened in the same program.
-
Arlen...... I am on a Windows - recent build - computer but also have recent MacBook Pro's but don't use them much for anything this large. I too just ignore the error message and continue on. I don't use File Explorer but instead use Directory Opus which, if you never have, may want to look into. It is much more powerful than File Explorer. I also just use Bridge for a quick look at what is in a folder.....
Victor