Topaz Gigapixel 2.0: 5X faster

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

And another example.

• I started with a 1000 x 1000 pixel crop from a Capture One conversion of an image with very shallow Depth of Field, to which I added some FocusMagic Capture sharpening.
• I then downsampled the image to almost 1/6th, 167 x 167 pixels. This will introduce some resampling artifacts and a significant loss of actual resolution.
• I upsampled that back to 1000 x1000 pixels, with "Reduce Noise and Blur" set to None.

The result obviously has lower resolution than the original, but feel free to compare it to your own preferred recipe for upsampling. I'm confident about how well Topaz A.I. Gigapixel performed.

The first full-resolution crop also upscales very well to 600%, and AIG will add some interesting very high resolution down feather detail in the "None" setting (at the right side an below the eye). It also handles the difference between well-focused detail and blurred-detail in a pleasing manner for high quality printed output. Also look at how the sharpness of the iris is preserved.

Cheers,
Bart

[JaapD]

This Topaz tool looks very promising. However after looking at the following review I was not so sure anymore:


https://youtu.be/LGWEyG4DUOM


It looks like Topaz is creating all kinds of very weird things that does not belong to the image in the first place.

What do you guys (and gals) think what's happening here?

Regards,
Jaap.

[plugsnpixels]

I'd seen this video before. Well done, but be aware, he's using version 1 from a month ago and really should do a revised version. Topaz software improves quickly and continually.

[John Hollenberg]

This Topaz tool looks very promising. However after looking at the following review I was not so sure anymore:


https://youtu.be/LGWEyG4DUOM

See my comparison earlier in this thread for a landscape image.  I was skeptical, but the results speak for themselves.  I purchased the program.  PS I have no affiliation with Topaz.

[Ethan Hansen]

My experience with Gigapixel is inconsistent. On some images the results are amazing. Fine, semi-linear details such as hair, feathers, mouths, etc. often render superbly. The details AI Gigapixel manufactures from nothing look realistic. Other times - I've seen it most often in eyes and textured fabrics - the added sharp details are unnatural and visually jarring. A enlargement made using traditional interpolation tools may be soft in comparison to Gigapixel but is visually preferable to a model with demonic eyes or clothing afflicted by leprosy.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

My experience with Gigapixel is inconsistent. On some images the results are amazing. Fine, semi-linear details such as hair, feathers, mouths, etc. often render superbly. The details AI Gigapixel manufactures from nothing look realistic. Other times - I've seen it most often in eyes and textured fabrics - the added sharp details are unnatural and visually jarring. A enlargement made using traditional interpolation tools may be soft in comparison to Gigapixel but is visually preferable to a model with demonic eyes or clothing afflicted by leprosy.

If file size (<4 GB for TIFFs) is not an issue, one can layer 2 differently rescaled versions (both in AIG, or only one), and mask out the less successful regions.

When updates are issued, the A.I. may have been retrained or tuned to handle such features more gracefully.

Cheers,
Bart

[mikev1]

For enlargements in the 2x - 3x range I am not seeing a lot of difference from PS for prints @ 20x30 when viewed at a normal viewing distance. Up close, maybe a slight edge to gigapixel.

Above 3x, starting to see this software pull ahead.  Sharpening routines play a big part and I need to expirement further.

All in all I am satisfied with my purchase and look forward to further improvements.

[plugsnpixels]

I just had an opportunity to use Gigapixel to enlarge a small section of an 1877 map showing a paper mill owned by the ancestors of one of my facebook friends.

The map only enlarged to a certain point online (as shown); Gigapixel did the rest.

[JRSmit]

For enlargements in the 2x - 3x range I am not seeing a lot of difference from PS for prints @ 20x30 when viewed at a normal viewing distance. Up close, maybe a slight edge to gigapixel.

Above 3x, starting to see this software pull ahead.  Sharpening routines play a big part and I need to expirement further.

All in all I am satisfied with my purchase and look forward to further improvements.

With the uprezzing script developed 4 years ago here on lula, the best result was achieved when move the sharpering slider to 0, then resize, then do the sharpering. The outcome was always extraordinary.