Bart, you may have seen this already;
The video of Mike Chaney (Qimage Ultimate developer) seems to me quite unbiased on the qualities of the Qimage best upsampling choice versus A.I. Gigapixel but shows what can happen if 94% of the added data has to be created from the 6% available at the start. Which is an extreme case. His conclusion is more or less "Horses for Courses".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGWEyG4DUOM&feature=youtu.be
Hi Ernst,
Yes, I've seen Mike's fair comparison, and I've commented on it here:
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=126569.msg1066354#msg1066354It's simply unfortunate for Mike that the few issues with AIG he pointed out, may have been partly solved in the most recent update (version 1.1.0). I've noticed that improvements in the underlying A.I. models lead to somewhat different choices for some small detail structures. Most are improvements, and only occasionally the replacement structure was further from the truth (and I can only know because I have better comparison material).
I do not see a conflict between the two applications, because they serve slightly different purposes. Qimage is a (small and large) print management application, and part of its functionality is to offer a choice of excellent interpolation algorithms that are very efficient in delivering optimal printer input, and the algorithms and other tools are fully integrated with the print workflow, including halo-free output sharpening. Topaz AIG's only purpose, on the other hand, is to attempt to upscale images beyond their useful limitations (and it does an amazing job).
But that being said, Topaz A.I. Gigapixel is another step forward towards higher quality printed output, especially large format output. It even allows repurposing small images or significant crops into decent size images with still acceptable quality. Beside the less streamlined workflow (having to produce a separate large printer file), the only drawback is the need for modern/up-to-date hardware to keep processing times low, or even allow functioning. My current hardware is sadly labeled "unsupported", but it does function for the moment.
I would add that for rural landscapes etc the chance it works well is better than for man made designs, geometrical shapes, line art, cityscapes.
It depends on image content and its guesses are, more often than not, very decent for the purpose of printing (which can be done at a pitch smaller than our visual acuity). Also, human perception favors sharp-edged shapes and lines, which is exacly what AIG is very good at. But compared to e.g. Benvista's Photozoom Pro, or OnOne's Perfect Resize, AIG produces smoother (less posterized) shapes, and it frequently boosts resolution further than the alternatives can. Who am I to object to that ...
Cheers,
Bart