Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Topaz Gigapixel  (Read 4212 times)

PeterAit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3019
    • Peter Aitken Photographs
Topaz Gigapixel
« 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?
Logged
Peter
"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication." - Leonardo da Vinci

WayneLarmon

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 162
Re: Topaz Gigapixel
« Reply #1 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.
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 7523
Re: Topaz Gigapixel
« Reply #2 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
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

arobinson7547

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 65
Re: Topaz Gigapixel
« Reply #3 on: November 11, 2018, 09:54:38 am »

You can monitor how your Machines resources are being utilized.
Logged

PeterAit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3019
    • Peter Aitken Photographs
Re: Topaz Gigapixel
« Reply #4 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?
Logged
Peter
"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication." - Leonardo da Vinci

Hening Bettermann

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 933
    • landshape.net
Re: Topaz Gigapixel
« Reply #5 on: November 11, 2018, 11:34:04 am »

Artificial Intelligence Gigapixel, the name of the application :-)

PeterAit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3019
    • Peter Aitken Photographs
Re: Topaz Gigapixel
« Reply #6 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?
Logged
Peter
"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication." - Leonardo da Vinci

PeterAit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3019
    • Peter Aitken Photographs
Re: Topaz Gigapixel
« Reply #7 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.
Logged
Peter
"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication." - Leonardo da Vinci

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 7523
Re: Topaz Gigapixel
« Reply #8 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
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

WayneLarmon

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 162
Re: Topaz Gigapixel
« Reply #9 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.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2018, 02:18:04 pm by WayneLarmon »
Logged

PeterAit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3019
    • Peter Aitken Photographs
Re: Topaz Gigapixel
« Reply #10 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.
Logged
Peter
"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication." - Leonardo da Vinci

plugsnpixels

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 571
    • http://www.plugsandpixels.com
Re: Topaz Gigapixel
« Reply #11 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, but of course it won't be fast. But it works.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2018, 10:02:43 pm by plugsnpixels »
Logged
Digital imaging blog:
www.plugsandpixels.com/blog

Hening Bettermann

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 933
    • landshape.net
Re: Topaz Gigapixel
« Reply #12 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'  :-)

PeterAit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3019
    • Peter Aitken Photographs
Re: Topaz Gigapixel
« Reply #13 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.
Logged
Peter
"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication." - Leonardo da Vinci

PeterAit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3019
    • Peter Aitken Photographs
Re: Topaz Gigapixel
« Reply #14 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.
Logged
Peter
"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication." - Leonardo da Vinci

jim t

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 51
Re: Topaz Gigapixel
« Reply #15 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.
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 7523
Re: Topaz Gigapixel
« Reply #16 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
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Arlen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 927
Re: Topaz Gigapixel
« Reply #17 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?
Logged

WayneLarmon

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 162
Re: Topaz Gigapixel
« Reply #18 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.
Logged

Arlen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 927
Re: Topaz Gigapixel
« Reply #19 on: November 20, 2018, 09:56:11 pm »

OK, thanks.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up