[gatorguy]

My laptop only has integrated graphics. I don't shoot a lot, so I don't mind. I just get everything qued up start the batch, then go eat lunch or something.

OpenVINO might help if you have a speedier Intel CPU but only an integrated GPU

[Mooncatt]

Probably not worth the expense for you and I'm not sure of the connection requirements; but I just learned in a webinar since writing my earlier post, that external GPUs (eGPUs) are now available to speed up graphics processing for laptops and desktops. Will technical wonders never cease?

Must be all the bitcoin miners fallen on hard times and needing extra income. Lol

[Rondec]

Have any of you all used Focus Magic?

I have in the past and thought it really helped with soft images where I missed focus by a little bit. As far as pure sharpening, I use Nik Effects. I bought the suite back before Google made it free and continue to use it. It's adequate for my purposes, but I don't think there have been enough improvements with DXO Mark running it to make me want to buy it again.

[robgski]

For my enjoyment, I really like the way Topaz's tools deliver great results without requiring me to sit and tweak settings, life is too short and I'd rather be out trying to capture and create images. I sit behind a desk and stare at a screen enough for to earn my living, I don't want to do that in my free time.

This 25 year old photo was taken using the K1000 I occasionally lugged around in my rucksack while on Maneuvers. I scanned the photo as a JPEG some time ago, I have no idea where the negatives are. I have been playing with the Topaz software recently so I converted the image using the Topaz JPEG to RAW software, then the Topaz DeNoise software, then Topaz Gigapixel AI to scale it up 4x. I did no other post-processing.

[Mooncatt]

I got an email from Topaz that they will be selling their full suite as a package at what looks to be a deep discount. That's going to be very tempting after reading this thread.

[HoutHans]

That's interesting news, once I've updated my syste to something with a bit more processing power.

[Mooncatt]

That's interesting news, once I've updated my syste to something with a bit more processing power.

Get it now so it's ready when you get the new system. I tried to link to the article before and it wasn't working. They called it the Everything Bundle, and will sell for $300. If you skip on the Video Enhance program, it's $200. I suspect the 15% "Pentaxuser" coupon code will also work, but no mention of that in the article (it worked in addition to a sale price for me not long ago).

Can try this link and see if it works or still redirects you to their home page.

Topaz Labs | Exclusive sneak peek: Topaz's Black Friday/Cyber Monday deal

[kh1234567890]

But it also doing more than edge sharpening--it is really changing the image. As an example I have a case where the image came back with 6 toes on a foot.

That is exactly the problem - it is not just mathematically sharpening, if at all, it is making up features that it 'thinks' ought to be there.




Click the image to zoom ...

I've played with it a bit and my conclusion was that the defaults it choses are far too aggressive. Past about 5-10% sharpening I start to see textures and objects which are obviously made up.

[gatorguy]

That is exactly the problem - it is not just mathematically sharpening, if at all, it is making up features that it 'thinks' ought to be there.




Click the image to zoom ...

I've played with it a bit and my conclusion was that the defaults it choses are far too aggressive. Past about 5-10% sharpening I start to see textures and objects which are obviously made up.

In all honesty I'd prefer to have the bottom image than the top one, even if imperfect.

As far as filling in textures the "AI" tag should have made it obvious it was not simply mathematical sharpening, and you don't have to accept the defaults if it's done something undesireable to your image. Use the sliders and/or change the rendering style from sharpen, to stabilize or focus.

More often than not Topaz Sharpen AI results have rescued an image rather than made it untenable, at least in my fairly extensive use of it. Afterall, you don't use this software on your well-focused and sharp images. This is for the ones where you aren't completely happy with focus results in the first place and for that it's been exceedingly successful IMO.

[RobA_Oz]

I’m not sure you can say that any of the so-called AI programs “make things up”, so much as “make things they way they probably should be”, which I grant you could be a subtle difference in some cases. As I understand it, it’s actually an application of machine learning, so it gets its cues from all the human inputs about the way things should be. Every time we complete one of those ‘reCaptcha’ tests, we’re participating in developing such a body of knowledge.

Anyway, I haven’t heard anything in this discussion that leads me to suspect that I’ve made a bad investment in the Topaz AI apps. They’re like any piece of processing software that we use to make a photo into a picture, and should be used as we think necessary. It’s only where you require as accurate a representation of what the camera captures as can be produced that you should reject such processing (and politely ignore the essential processing that goes on in the camera, even with RAW files).

[robgski]

I start to see textures and objects which are obviously made up.

The post processing software can only do so much if the original image is less than optimal. I had a few scanned prints that were of questionable resolution and degraded condition, and Topaz did improve the scans, but GIGO is still the rule .

[RobA_Oz]

The post processing software can only do so much if the original image is less than optimal. I had a few scanned prints that were of questionable resolution and degraded condition, and Topaz did improve the scans, but GIGO is still the rule .

Yes. It’s a case of “be careful what you wish for”.

[HoutHans]

Yes. It’s a case of “be careful what you wish for”.

I do think that it is kind of fascinating to have an algorithm tinker with images along lines it has learned human eyes find pleasing. I could imagine an experiment where you take photos that are imperfect deliberately and then run the algorithm to see what it comes up with. It would be fun if you could find out if a certain type of imperfection results in a surprising and pleasing result; almost as if the photographer, camera and software are independent entities collaborating to create an image.

[BigMackCam]

That is exactly the problem - it is not just mathematically sharpening, if at all, it is making up features that it 'thinks' ought to be there.

I've played with it a bit and my conclusion was that the defaults it choses are far too aggressive. Past about 5-10% sharpening I start to see textures and objects which are obviously made up.

I wouldn't be happy with either the "before" or "after" results there... but in fairness, the "before" seems like a pretty extreme example.

I suspect all of these AI programs work best when there's already reasonable definition and something essentially recognisable in an image. The less there is to work with, the fuzzier the AI match and the more you're at the behest of machine learning to "fill in" content rather than enhance what's already there. Still, this is a good example of what initially put me off one of Topaz' other products, Gigapixel AI. I can live with some minor enhancement artefacts, but when content is actually replaced with something the software thinks might look better, that's a step too far for me.

That said, I can understand why folks find this technology exciting, and I can see why it has commercial applications - especially where the typical non-pixel-peeping customer is concerned...

[dms]

While I use AI sharpen a lot—as I mentioned I do ** theatre (plays, dance, etc.) photography and motion blur is often a problem. As discussed/the example shown, you really need to look very carefully at the sharpened result to be sure it did not change/add stuff that you don’t want. As I mentioned before it put 6 toes on a foot.

The problem is while I often like the results I have real misgivings about the idea that it is changing the content. I guess I have not come to terms with this technology: the approach and direction it is taking. Not a moral dilemma, but it almost feels like one.

_____
** Rather I did, until we have a vaccine!