Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: PeterAit on November 10, 2018, 06:20:12 pm

Title: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: PeterAit on November 10, 2018, 06:20:12 pm
I downloaded the trial of this and am wondering if it is working right. For my first test I loaded a 44MP Sony raw file. It started chugging away. An hour later, it is still going. Is this normal? I have a 2.9GHz I7 (8 cores) and 24 GB of memory. I set the program to use the graphics processor. Is it normal to be so slow? And it slows down the user interface terribly. What gives?
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: WayneLarmon on November 10, 2018, 07:00:01 pm
I downloaded the trial of this and am wondering if it is working right. For my first test I loaded a 44MP Sony raw file. It started chugging away. An hour later, it is still going. Is this normal? I have a 2.9GHz I7 (8 cores) and 24 GB of memory. I set the program to use the graphics processor. Is it normal to be so slow? And it slows down the user interface terribly. What gives?

What graphics processor do you have?

Have you tried it with smaller images?  Say start out with a four megapixel 8 bit TIFF upsized 2X and see what happens.  Then keep experimenting with larger file sizes and different amounts of scaling.

Try to reduce the number of variables.  Right now you are starting out with a very large image.  As a raw file.
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 11, 2018, 04:51:47 am
I downloaded the trial of this and am wondering if it is working right. For my first test I loaded a 44MP Sony raw file. It started chugging away. An hour later, it is still going. Is this normal? I have a 2.9GHz I7 (8 cores) and 24 GB of memory. I set the program to use the graphics processor. Is it normal to be so slow? And it slows down the user interface terribly. What gives?

Hi Peter,

Topaz A.I. Gigapixel performs trillions of calculations, so large images will take some time. A fast GPU with enough memory will help to reduce the total processing time.

Check the hardware requirements:
https://help.topazlabs.com/hc/en-us/articles/360012811791

Also note that AIG currently has a 50,000 pixel maximum output size.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: arobinson7547 on November 11, 2018, 09:54:38 am
You can monitor how your Machines resources are being utilized.
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: PeterAit on November 11, 2018, 11:26:01 am

Also note that AIG currently has a 50,000 pixel maximum output size.


Thanks for the response. But, what is AIG?
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: Hening Bettermann on November 11, 2018, 11:34:04 am
Artificial Intelligence Gigapixel, the name of the application :-)
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: PeterAit on November 11, 2018, 11:38:22 am
You can monitor how your Machines resources are being utilized.

Thanks. I know about task manager, but mine (Win 7) does not have a GPU option. Does this mean my GPU is not being utilized?

And, where did you get a CPU that runs at 4.37 GHz?
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: PeterAit on November 11, 2018, 11:52:23 am
I continue to be unimpressed. I took the advice offered here and tried a much smaller file - a 12 megapixel Canon RAW. Half an hour.

And why are the output files so huge? The input RAW was 19 megabytes, the output TIFF was 438 MB (with a 150% uprez setting).

Then there's the matter of color. The output is much duller than the input - using the Adobe RGB color space. See below, the original on top and the Gigapixel output below.
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 11, 2018, 12:21:07 pm
I continue to be unimpressed. I took the advice offered here and tried a much smaller file - a 12 megapixel Canon RAW. Half an hour.

And why are the output files so huge? The input RAW was 19 megabytes, the output TIFF was 438 MB (with a 150% uprez setting).

Hi Peter,

Did you use a TIFF file as input, or the Raw file? With a TIFF as input you'll get the best results (because you have control over the Raw conversion), and you can choose the same profile that the input was tagged with.

The upscaled file will have detail added that was not in the original, which makes compression more difficult. A 150% upscaling will have 225% of the original numbers of pixels (x2 in bytes if 16-bit/channel output is selected), so 438 MB seems more than twice as large than expected.

What are the output dimensions in pixels?

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: WayneLarmon on November 11, 2018, 02:06:00 pm
I continue to be unimpressed. I took the advice offered here and tried a much smaller file - a 12 megapixel Canon RAW. Half an hour.

And why are the output files so huge? The input RAW was 19 megabytes, the output TIFF was 438 MB (with a 150% uprez setting).

Then there's the matter of color. The output is much duller than the input - using the Adobe RGB color space. See below, the original on top and the Gigapixel output below.

Don't use a raw file!  This introduces a lot of variables not the least of which is using AIG (A.I. Gigapixel) as a raw converter.  Your problem may be that AIG is hanging doing the raw conversion.

Convert whatever raw file into something that is known.  Known color space, known number of pixels, etc.   Save it as (an example) a four megapixel sRGB TIFF file and then run that through AIG.  If the color is OK, then try it as a four megapixel Adobe RGB file.  See if the color is correct.

If the color is OK, then try larger files and see what the conversion times are.

Note that I suggested 2X scaling.  AIG only scales 2X, 4X, and 6X natively.  For any other scaling (150%) it rounds it up to the closest native scaling (2X) and then downsamples it.   This is another variable.

AIG is very GPU intensive.  This is why I asked what graphic card you are using.  If the graphic card's GPU is minimal then processing time will be long.   I added a $500 Navidia 1070 Ti card to my computer solely to run AIG.  (Early versions of AIG wouldn't run at all unless you had a supported GPU.  The most recent versions will run if you don't have a supported GPU, but more slowly.  Or maybe your GPU is unsupported and AIG is very slow  trying to use it.  Another variable.)  If it still is very slow processing a small file, then switch off using the GPU in AIG.

The point of my suggestions is to get you to start with an small image file that has a reasonable conversion time (even with minimal GPU power).  And known colors.

12 megapixels isn't "small" in AIG terms.  a 2X conversion multiplies the input number of pixels by four (etc.)  So a 12 megapixel input file will become a 48 megapixel output file.

AIG is New Technology that has stringent hardware requirements.  It also does something that no existing program does (creating new detail from scratch.)  Whether or not this is worth the stringent hardware requirement is up to you.
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: PeterAit on November 11, 2018, 02:41:37 pm
Artificial Intelligence Gigapixel, the name of the application :-)

The 50,000 pixel limit you mention does not seem to be the case. My original trial run, while it took forever, ended up producing an output tiff that is 10640 x 15926 pixels, or some 160 million.
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: plugsnpixels on November 13, 2018, 12:39:40 pm
While it is true that AI Gigapixel is demanding, you CAN run it even on ancient hardware (http://plugsandpixels.com/blog/cutting-edge-software-vs-obsolete-hardware-we-accept-the-challenge/), but of course it won't be fast. But it works.
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: Hening Bettermann on November 13, 2018, 03:12:36 pm
The 50,000 pixel limit you mention does not seem to be the case. My original trial run, while it took forever, ended up producing an output tiff that is 10640 x 15926 pixels, or some 160 million.

Well, I did not mention any pixel limit -? I just answered your question 'what is AIG'  :-)
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: PeterAit on November 15, 2018, 08:52:13 am
Well, I did not mention any pixel limit -? I just answered your question 'what is AIG'  :-)

Sorry, was Bart who said that.
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: PeterAit on November 15, 2018, 09:15:53 am
I have made a lot of progress, thanks to y'all.

First, starting with  TIF rather than raw solved the color issue - input and output now match perfectly. But it did not solve the speed issue - still 30 min with a 12 MP input file. Speed was,however, greatly helped by checking the CPU option instead of GPU - cut from 30 to 10 min. And the UI sluggishness was solved. I have ordered one of the recommended GPU cards.
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: jim t on November 15, 2018, 10:26:17 am
Keep in mind when upgrading your graphics card that your power supply can handle it's power requirements.
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 15, 2018, 10:32:09 am
Sorry, was Bart who said that.

Yes, and I referred to linear dimensions, not total.

Good to hear that you improved processing speed by temporarily disabling the GPU.
Looking forward to your experiences with a faster GPU/Graphics card.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: Arlen on November 20, 2018, 08:53:19 pm
Note that I suggested 2X scaling.  AIG only scales 2X, 4X, and 6X natively.  For any other scaling (150%) it rounds it up to the closest native scaling (2X) and then downsamples it.

Interesting, I didn't realize that. Do you and/or Bart recommend sticking to those native scaling factors when reasonable, or does it make a difference in the quality of the output if you choose an intermediate number?
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: WayneLarmon on November 20, 2018, 09:51:01 pm
Interesting, I didn't realize that. Do you and/or Bart recommend sticking to those native scaling factors when reasonable, or does it make a difference in the quality of the output if you choose an intermediate number?

I don't think it makes any meaningful difference in the output.  I just mentioned it because the original poster was having problems with very slow runtimes.  I pointed it out because the additional downsampling (if not using a native scaling factor) might make it run longer.
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: Arlen on November 20, 2018, 09:56:11 pm
OK, thanks.
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: Rajan Parrikar on November 25, 2018, 11:50:17 am
I took advantage of the 25% discount currently offered on Ai Gigapixel and purchased a license.

Did a quick test run on a TIF file for a 200% scaling.


Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on November 25, 2018, 01:09:46 pm
Looks pretty good to me.
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: smahn on November 25, 2018, 01:39:00 pm
I don't have the product but from looking at samples here, it seems to do a really nice job of holding detail, but I find the disunity of the noise a bit unsettling.
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: plugsnpixels on November 25, 2018, 11:40:54 pm
smahn, you might consider running AI Clear before AI Gigapixel. I did some experiments on film-based scans (http://plugsandpixels.com/blog/topaz-a-i-clear-a-i-gigapixel-vs-film-grain-they-win/) and it worked well.
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: smahn on November 26, 2018, 01:10:46 am
Plugs, I totally get it that I'm probably nitpicking great products, but here's an example from one of your own samples. Note how the areas where grain remains now seem out of context. (ie, Around the taxi and portions of the rooftop.)

I just feel like it would be cool if the product could allow you to point it to suspect areas for further refinement.
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: plugsnpixels on November 26, 2018, 01:41:48 am
No problem, I see the patches too, probably something to do with the algorithm. Overall the result is much better though. Might work even better or not have the patches at all on a digital image as opposed to a film-sourced one (I'd need to review my other results or do more tests).

BTW, see if your version of Gigapixel updates to 2.1.0

Mine did though I haven't tested it yet.
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 26, 2018, 04:29:57 am
Plugs, I totally get it that I'm probably nitpicking great products, but here's an example from one of your own samples. Note how the areas where grain remains now seem out of context. (ie, Around the taxi and portions of the rooftop.)

I just feel like it would be cool if the product could allow you to point it to suspect areas for further refinement.

Hi,

Adding some uniform grain at the new size might help. But I assume that after they get the main issues out of the way, the folks at TopazLabs might add some more functionality. Sofar, I'm already very happy with the image quality improvements over other upscaling solutions.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: MichaelEzra on November 26, 2018, 08:17:18 am
All samples I've seen so far look overly painterly, altering visual integrity of the image.
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 26, 2018, 09:51:24 am
All samples I've seen so far look overly painterly, altering visual integrity of the image.

Hi Michael,

Depends on the image content, which (noise reduction and sharpness) settings were used in A.I. Gigapixel, and how it's printed and the distance it's viewed. Many upsampled images (for print output) benefit from the addition of some uniform noise.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: WayneLarmon on November 26, 2018, 11:18:13 am
All samples I've seen so far look overly painterly, altering visual integrity of the image.

How are you viewing these samples?  On a print?  On a monitor?  If a monitor, what size monitor and how many PPI is the monitor?

This last is because I evaluated a lot of A.I. Gigapixel uprezzed images at 100% on both a 1920x1200 24" monitor (94 PPI) and on a 14" 4K monitor (320 PPI).  I saw a lot of flaws on the 94 PPI monitor that were invisible on the 320 PPI monitor.  (100% on a 320 PPI monitor == modern print.  100% on a 94 PPI monitor == a print made on a 1980s era dot matrix printer.)

The goal of A.I. Gigapixel is to create plausible detail.  When viewed plausibly.
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: kpz on December 01, 2018, 09:20:22 pm
Sofar, I'm already very happy with the image quality improvements over other upscaling solutions.

Cheers,
Bart

Hi Bart, have you been able to compare to fractal resizing methods? I think one implementation is called ON1 Resize now, formerly Genuine Fractals.

Also, what application do you use for output sharpening prior to printing? I am usually not so picky about this, but on a large print it probably pays to use the absolute best (given the price of printing...).
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: plugsnpixels on December 01, 2018, 11:05:10 pm
kpz, I can't speak for Bart's printing workflow but you asked about how Gigapixel compares to other resizing solutions. Back in August I did some tests (http://plugsandpixels.com/blog/topaz-a-i-gigapixel-vs-ps-on1-more-tests/) that might interest you.
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: kpz on December 02, 2018, 02:47:10 am
kpz, I can't speak for Bart's printing workflow but you asked about how Gigapixel compares to other resizing solutions. Back in August I did some tests (http://plugsandpixels.com/blog/topaz-a-i-gigapixel-vs-ps-on1-more-tests/) that might interest you.

Beautiful, thank you. Exactly what I was looking forward.

And I would appreciate high-end sharpening suggestions from anyone, not just Bart!
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 02, 2018, 10:48:00 am
Hi Bart, have you been able to compare to fractal resizing methods? I think one implementation is called ON1 Resize now, formerly Genuine Fractals.

Yes, On1 Resize, but more often PhotoZoom Pro by Benvista, were my go-to applications for Upsampling, until Topaz A.I. Gigapixel arrived which beats them both, no contest in my view.

Quote
Also, what application do you use for output sharpening prior to printing? I am usually not so picky about this, but on a large print it probably pays to use the absolute best (given the price of printing...).

I used to use the FocusMagic PS plugin, a deconvolution sharpener, by default but there's less (still something but less) to be gained from it on AIG rescaled images which retain much better sharpness already. In addition, I like Topaz Detail (the PS Plugin version), or the Topaz Studio Precision Detail adjustment. Besides great control over Detail, it also has a Sharpen control that uses deconvolution.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: plugsnpixels on December 02, 2018, 01:14:49 pm
One other apparent sharpness trick to consider is using Gigapixel to up-rez an image, then using your image editor to reduce it back down in size.
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: brandon on December 03, 2018, 04:40:51 pm
Just updated to 2.1.0. (from 2.0). I haven't re run GPAI on earlier images etc but I think output on a couple I just put through is showing more "swirling" artifact than before. Seems similar whether I have the reduce noise and blur on none or moderate. Anyone else noticed similar behaviour? May need to redo some earlier photos to check.
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: John Hollenberg on December 21, 2018, 07:13:24 pm

I used to use the FocusMagic PS plugin, a deconvolution sharpener, by default but there's less (still something but less) to be gained from it on AIG rescaled images which retain much better sharpness already. In addition, I like Topaz Detail (the PS Plugin version), or the Topaz Studio Precision Detail adjustment. Besides great control over Detail, it also has a Sharpen control that uses deconvolution.


Hi Bart, I am curious what the whole workflow would be like (say from Lightroom).  Would you export a TIFF from Lightroom without capture sharpening, then use AI Gigapixel then FocusMagic or is a different order of steps ideal from your experience?

Thanks.

John
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: faberryman on December 21, 2018, 07:17:10 pm
Hi Bart, I am curious what the whole workflow would be like (say from Lightroom).  Would you export a TIFF from Lightroom without capture sharpening, then use AI Gigapixel then FocusMagic or is a different order of steps ideal from your experience.
How big a print are you thinking about?
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 21, 2018, 07:52:14 pm
Hi Bart, I am curious what the whole workflow would be like (say from Lightroom).  Would you export a TIFF from Lightroom without capture sharpening, then use AI Gigapixel then FocusMagic or is a different order of steps ideal from your experience?

Hi John,

My normal workflow would be to Export a 16-bit/channel TIFF. I then use Topaz Clarity (now Precision Contrast) and Topaz (Precision) Detail for contrast control and detail enhancement. Since Focusmagic does a better job at sharpening, I'd finish processing that TIFF in Photoshop or Affinity Photo and apply Focusmagic sharpening with a Luminosity Blending Layer (thus avoiding the risk of clipping). Then use A.I. Gigapixel to achieve the native resolution of the printer driver (600 PPI or 720 PPI) for the intended output size.

Before A.I. Gigapixel, the upsampling (in order to manage artifact creation) would produce somewhat soft detail which would then benefit from some additional Detail or Focusmagic treatment. But Gigapixel upscaling is sharp, thus needing little help (maybe a smidgen to squeeze out the maximum impact and precompensate for ink diffusion blur).

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: John Hollenberg on December 21, 2018, 09:01:25 pm

My normal workflow would be to Export a 16-bit/channel TIFF. I then use Topaz Clarity (now Precision Contrast) and Topaz (Precision) Detail for contrast control and detail enhancement. Since Focusmagic does a better job at sharpening, I'd finish processing that TIFF in Photoshop or Affinity Photo and apply Focusmagic sharpening with a Luminosity Blending Layer (thus avoiding the risk of clipping). Then use A.I. Gigapixel to achieve the native resolution of the printer driver (600 PPI or 720 PPI) for the intended output size.


Thanks, that helps a lot.   So you would turn off capture sharpening in Lightroom prior to export?
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 21, 2018, 09:27:46 pm
Thanks, that helps a lot.   So you would turn off capture sharpening in Lightroom prior to export?

Yes, Focusmagic is superior.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: earlybird on January 25, 2019, 07:26:13 am
...Export a 16-bit/channel TIFF. I then use Topaz Clarity (now Precision Contrast) and Topaz (Precision) Detail for contrast control and detail enhancement. Since Focusmagic does a better job at sharpening, I'd finish processing that TIFF in Photoshop or Affinity Photo and apply Focusmagic sharpening with a Luminosity Blending Layer...

I thought the recommended workflow was to use Focus Magic prior to adjustments such as Topaz Clarity and Topaz Detail. Have opinions about this changed?

Thank you.
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 27, 2019, 03:58:29 am
I thought the recommended workflow was to use Focus Magic prior to adjustments such as Topaz Clarity and Topaz Detail. Have opinions about this changed?

Good point, I should have been clearer. I work in layers.

One layer is for Capture sharpening and that layer is set to Luminosity blending on a Blend-If layer to avoid the deconvolution sharpening leading to potential clipping. This allows disabling the layer when I want to downsample the image, because the sharpness can lead to downsampling artifacts showing up and adds nothing useful for a smaller size anyway. The downsampling also reduces noise unless it got sharpened too much. So it's best not to sharpen before down-sampling, if it can be avoided, or simply turned off by deselecting the layer.

On another layer do Clarity/local contrast adjustments and Detail modification or Creative 'sharpening'. I might add another layer for output sharpening for a specific output size, but I mostly use Qimage for output, and it has excellent resizing and subsequent halo-free output sharpening capabilities.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: earlybird on January 27, 2019, 08:26:21 am
Hi Bart,
 Thank you for elaborating.
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: Arlen on January 28, 2019, 10:28:43 am
Good point, I should have been clearer. I work in layers.

One layer is for Capture sharpening and that layer is set to Luminosity blending on a Blend-If layer to avoid the deconvolution sharpening leading to potential clipping. This allows disabling the layer when I want to downsample the image, because the sharpness can lead to downsampling artifacts showing up and adds nothing useful for a smaller size anyway. The downsampling also reduces noise unless it got sharpened too much. So it's best not to sharpen before down-sampling, if it can be avoided, or simply turned off by deselecting the layer.

On another layer do Clarity/local contrast adjustments and Detail modification or Creative 'sharpening'. I might add another layer for output sharpening for a specific output size, but I mostly use Qimage for output, and it has excellent resizing and subsequent halo-free output sharpening capabilities.

Cheers,
Bart

Bart, I've learned a lot from you about using Focus Magic for sharpening, but there is one thing I have never quite understood. If you make any further adjustments--other than with Photoshop's special Adjustment Layers--after using FM as a first step on a blend-if layer, then it seems the FM adjustments have to be baked into those subsequent higher layers. For example, as you have described elsewhere, by making a Merged All Below layer upon which you then make Topaz Detail and/or Clarity adjustments. But then at that point you can't just turn off the FM adjustment (e.g., for downsizing) by deselecting its layer, because the Merged All Below layer above it still contains the FM adjustment. So it seems that there's no way to use things like Topaz Detail or Clarity (or Studio adjustments in general) without losing the ability to easily turn off FM sharpening?
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 28, 2019, 11:57:28 am
Bart, I've learned a lot from you about using Focus Magic for sharpening, but there is one thing I have never quite understood. If you make any further adjustments--other than with Photoshop's special Adjustment Layers--after using FM as a first step on a blend-if layer, then it seems the FM adjustments have to be baked into those subsequent higher layers. For example, as you have described elsewhere, by making a Merged All Below layer upon which you then make Topaz Detail and/or Clarity adjustments. But then at that point you can't just turn off the FM adjustment (e.g., for downsizing) by deselecting its layer, because the Merged All Below layer above it still contains the FM adjustment. So it seems that there's no way to used things like Topaz Detail or Clarity (or Studio adjustments in general) without losing the ability to easily turn off FM sharpening?

Hi Arlen,

One can take one of two approaches.

One can create a Capture Sharpening Layer, to which I'd add a Blend-If to avoid clipping risks, and change it to Luminosity blending.

1. One can then choose to use that same layer to add Clarity and Detail, but it will only affect Luminosity, and it will have the Blend-If baked in.

2. Alternatively, one can start by producing 2 copies of the original Background layer. One with the FM Capture sharpening and Luminosity Blend-If behavior, and another with Clarity and Detail adjustments. If you keep the FM Capture sharpening layer on top, you can switch it on/off as needed.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: Arlen on January 28, 2019, 01:30:58 pm
Hi Arlen,


2. Alternatively, one can start by producing 2 copies of the original Background layer. One with the FM Capture sharpening and Luminosity Blend-If behavior, and another with Clarity and Detail adjustments. If you keep the FM Capture sharpening layer on top, you can switch it on/off as needed.

Cheers,
Bart

But if the Clarity & Detail, etc., adjustments are below the FM Capture sharpening layer, their effects are mostly obscured, no? At least that's what happens for me. (And without the Luminosity Blend-if setting in the topmost FM layer, the effects of lower layers are completely obscured, as I would expect.)
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 28, 2019, 02:15:34 pm
But if the Clarity & Detail, etc., adjustments are below the FM Capture sharpening layer, their effects are mostly obscured, no? At least that's what happens for me. (And without the Luminosity Blend-if setting in the topmost FM layer, the effects of lower layers are completely obscured, as I would expect.)

In that case #2, with the FM Capture Sharpening layer on top, it will be applied to the next lower layer (where it is not transparent).
That next lower level layer (with Clarity and Detail adjustments) will not be as sharp, it will have mostly similar sharpness (but also different contrast and feature amplitude) as the Background layer.
Clarity and Detail modification is not equal to actual deconvolved (luminosity) sharpness.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: earlybird on January 28, 2019, 03:36:24 pm
What percent of blend do you often times use?

The way I use Focus Magic, which is with mild settings, I rarely use less than an 80% blend, which is to say my Focus Magic layer is barely transparent even if it is only using the Luminosity channel.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 28, 2019, 03:48:25 pm
What percent of blend do you often times use?

Depends on the image. But I often use 100% opacity for the FocusMagic layer itself (and let the Blend-if settings pick the opacity/transparency based on the underlying layer). My FM settings are usually a blur width of 1 (sometimes 2), with an amount of 75-175 percent. That's for a camera with an AA-filter (Optical Low-Pass Filter, or OLPF). Camera's without OLPF are hard to sharpen without exaggerating the aliasing artifacts.

I attached my Blend-if starting settings for sharpened Luminosity layers for Photoshop and Affinity Photo.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: earlybird on January 30, 2019, 07:48:42 pm
Thank you for posting the screen shots.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: Brad P on February 07, 2019, 01:56:53 pm

Depends on the image. But I often use 100% opacity for the FocusMagic layer itself (and let the Blend-if settings pick the opacity/transparency based on the underlying layer). My FM settings are usually a blur width of 1 (sometimes 2), with an amount of 75-175 percent. That's for a camera with an AA-filter (Optical Low-Pass Filter, or OLPF). Camera's without OLPF are hard to sharpen without exaggerating the aliasing artifacts.

I attached my Blend-if starting settings for sharpened Luminosity layers for Photoshop and Affinity Photo.

Cheers,
Bart




Thanks for the screenshots too, Bart. 

I'm interested in your thinking about the "Blend If" settings.  I've been using different settings others have recommended for years (basically pulling inward the white and black blend if markers about 30 to preserve the extreme blacks and whites in the original image, then setting the overall opacity of the layer to about 50%.  (As an aside, I do this on sharpening layers and various other adjustments).  Instead here I see you are leaving the opacity at 100% but bringing the pointers both to neutral 128.  Practically there is little visual difference in the outcomes, but reading your posts over the years, you usually have a very good rationale for doing things the way you do. 

I imagine your standard blending settings more smoothly bring in the adjustments made by a sharpening layer more smoothly and evenly over the entire image, but at the same time it seems to have a disadvantage of losing some of the benefits of the sharpening layer toward the extreme blacks and whites.  Any thoughts you can share on that? 
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: LesPalenik on February 11, 2019, 12:39:25 pm
Has anybody compared the uprezzing quality between Topaz Gigapixel and Corel PhotoZoom Pro 7?
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: plugsnpixels on February 17, 2019, 12:15:03 pm
Les, you mean BenVista's plug-in? I did at the bottom of this post (http://plugsandpixels.com/blog/topaz-a-i-gigapixel-vs-ps-on1-more-tests/).
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on February 17, 2019, 01:30:09 pm
Has anybody compared the uprezzing quality between Topaz Gigapixel and Corel PhotoZoom Pro 7?

Hi Les,

Yes, we have a new winner, Topaz A.I. Gigapixel. The king is dead, long live the new King.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: nemophoto on February 18, 2019, 10:29:31 pm
You can't use a RAW.

In a separate post, I included AI Gigapixel vs Perfect Resize which I find yields basically the same results my PhotoZoom plugin. The only negative is you can't run AI Gigapixel as part of your Photoshop workflow. You must resize it outside. I found it quite quick for even very large images input.
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: LesPalenik on February 19, 2019, 06:59:15 am
Les, you mean BenVista's plug-in? I did at the bottom of this post (http://plugsandpixels.com/blog/topaz-a-i-gigapixel-vs-ps-on1-more-tests/).

I never heard the BenVista name, and don't know if it is the same product as marketed by Corel under the name Photo Zoom Pro.


Hi Les,
Yes, we have a new winner, Topaz A.I. Gigapixel. The king is dead, long live the new King.

Cheers,
Bart

Thanks, Bart. It will be interesting to see how Topaz can train their new AI Gigapixel program to improve its capabilities in the next few updates.
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on February 19, 2019, 09:00:57 am
I never heard the BenVista name, and don't know if it is the same product as marketed by Corel under the name Photo Zoom Pro.


Thanks, Bart. It will be interesting to see how Topaz can train their new AI Gigapixel program to improve its capabilities in the next few updates.

Well, it's quite capable already. Here are some examples of the added detail that Andrew was sceptical about.

Attached, a crop of a close-up of an Uhu, a European Eagle owl. Note the shallow Dept of Field, which can cause issues for some upsampling algorithms when they struggle to balance between soft and sharp detail.
Also added are 3 crops from the 6x upscaled version with A.I. Gigapixel. These crops show the added detail in places where the focus was good, and smoother detail in the more OOF areas.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: Arlen on April 21, 2019, 12:42:41 pm
I realize this thread is a little old, but I recently ran some tests on the effects of the GPU on Gigapixel AI performance that I though might be of interest to some who are grappling with performance issues. Might as well keep such info in one place I guess.

Unless you put GAI into cpu mode, how it runs is very much dependent on your GPU. I have two Windows 10 computers, both with 32GB of fast RAM and near top of the line CPUs at time of purchase. But computer1 has a 3.5 year old Nvidia 960 2GB GPU, and computer2 has a 6 month old Nvidia 1080 6GB GPU.

I just ran some tests using several images that are 4608 x 3456 px. Using GAI to upscale by 400%, computer1 took about 7:08 (minutes/seconds) to completion. Computer 2 took about 3:07, or less than half the time.

I then took the newer GPU from computer2 and put it into computer1, and ran the tests again. Computer2 then took about 1:36 to finish the same tasks. That's a 78% reduction for computer2, entirely due to the newer, more powerful GPU. Very interestingly, with the new GPU, the older computer1 ran AIG considerably faster than the newer computer2 did when it had that GPU. So there must be some important other differences between the computers that also have a bearing on GAI processing time.

Besides Gigapixel AI, I also ran similar speed tests on Topaz Denoise AI and Sharpen AI; the latter program in all 3 modes of Sharpen, Stabilize and Focus. The newer computer/newer GPU combo was in each case about 3-4 times faster than the older computer/older GPU. But for these programs and modes, when I put the new GPU into the older computer (older computer/newer GPU), it reduced processing times to about the same level as had been the case for the newer computer/newer GPU, but no lower. So apparently the differences between the other components in these two computers had little impact on DAI and SAI, and the faster processing times were entirely due to the new GPU.

Computer1 + 960 2GB GPU
GAI                                 ~07:08
DAI                                 ~00:48
SAI sharpen mode            ~01:32
SAI stabilize mode            ~04:10
SAI focus mode                ~04:10

Computer2 + 1080 6GB GPU
GAI                                 ~03:07
DAI                                 ~00:15
SAI sharpen mode            ~00:20
SAI stabilize mode            ~01:03
SAI focus mode                ~01:02

Computer1 + 1080 6GB GPU
GAI                                 ~01:36
DAI                                 ~00:13
SAI sharpen mode            ~00:20
SAI stabilize mode            ~01:00
SAI focus mode                ~01:00
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on April 21, 2019, 09:47:45 pm
I realize this thread is a little old, but I recently ran some tests on the effects of the GPU on Gigapixel AI performance that I though might be of interest to some who are grappling with performance issues. Might as well keep such info in one place I guess.

Hi Arlen,

Thanks for the feedback. This proves to be useful for understanding that hardware choices will be important going forward. More and more processes will thrive on GPU+CPU performance.

In addition, for this specific line of software anyway, the different user selectable preference modes will produce somewhat different quality output!

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Topaz Gigapixel
Post by: vjbelle on April 22, 2019, 05:24:37 pm
I posted previously regarding the 22000 pixel limitation for AI Giga and after contacting Topaz twice I received a reply telling me that they are indeed working to get rid of that limitation.  I suggested that they attempt to process any file and if it turns out that it would exceed the tif limitation that they simply stop and inform the user that the file exceeds the tif size limit - just as PS does. 

They even gave me a discount code and thanked me for the feedback. 

Victor