JUST RELEASED: Topaz A.I. Gigapixel 1.1.1 (CPU friendly)

[plugsnpixels]

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.

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.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

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.

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

[plugsnpixels]

Thanks Bart for your feedback! Can you post some screenshots?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Are we supposed to be impressed by the OP example? What's up with the heavy halos?

[plugsnpixels]

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.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

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

[plugsnpixels]

Thanks Bart!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

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?

[plugsnpixels]

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.

[plugsnpixels]

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.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Bart,

Should one remove CA before or after resizing?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

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

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

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

[plugsnpixels]

Thanks Bart! Good info.

[vjbelle]

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

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

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

[WayneLarmon]

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.  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 (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.

[vjbelle]

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

[vjbelle]

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

[WayneLarmon]

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."