Moderator: E.J. Peiker

All times are UTC-05:00

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 3 posts | 
by Charlie Woodrich on Sat Mar 13, 2021 8:22 pm
Charlie Woodrich
Forum Contributor
Posts: 877
Joined: 22 Jan 2004
Location: Glen Allen, VA
https://fstoppers.com/aerial/did-photos ... uct-554275

Some legit push back from the comments (not mine):

I don’t quite think this is a fully fair comparison. ACR is absolutely going to have a better raw processing algorithm. That is a different question then which has a better super resolution algorithm. I would very much like to see a comparison of a TIFF file out of ACR that is then put through gigapixel. I did a quick one-off test myself and was actually happier with gigapixel. Adobe Super resolution had fewer but nonzero artifacts but topaz did a much better job reducing noise and putting in realistic sharp detail. In the end I think I’m going to try both products whenever I’m generating a high-resolution file for output but I suspect I’ll continue to use topaz. In my workflow increasing resolution is the second-to-final step (last being output sharpening with Nik). Creating an eight times larger DNG file and then doing all of my Photoshop work on a file with four times the pixels is significantly slower workflow than finishing the project and kicking off gigapixel while I have a cup of coffee or run a batch before printing. If you think gigapixel is slow wait till you actually wait for the large format printer. Plus I’m always going to have a large camera ready TIFF file; I don’t also want an enormous DNG that needs to be backed up as well.
 

by WJaekel on Sun Mar 21, 2021 10:08 am
User avatar
WJaekel
Forum Contributor
Posts: 663
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Location: Germany
see also https://www.dpreview.com/news/779920226 ... -photoshop

The tester is enthusiastic about the new feature in PS and says it's much better than Topaz Gigapixel AI. I personally can't judge his findings, his background and the validity of his test since I'm not on the Adobe subscription train for comparing both products by myself. I've used Gigapixel so far and the results are largely depending on the motifs and and the source file. Sometimes the results - mostly using 2x - are pretty good. But in other cases there are strong artifacts and the results aren't really usuable @ 100 % except maybe for small dimensions on the web at best.

Wolfgang

Edit: BTW, I never run Gigapixel on the raw files but just on the 16bit Tiffs converted through CaptureOne. As the poster you quoted said, it's not a fair comparison to compare the raws in Gigapixel vs ACR. But the author on fstoppers stands with his claim that the ACR-version is much better with less artifacts and smoothing for Tiffs, too. Others have the opposite experience. So it's hard to decide without testing it by yourself for several (!) motifs. It's true, though, that Gigapixel is pretty slow depending on your hardware. But that's not an important point for me because I don't use the program for hundreds or thousands of files but just for a few.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:23 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Here's a good video from one of the people I respect and follow regarding photo processing software - he includes comparisons to other ways of uprezzing including Gigapixel AI:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k8cF6yXJGE
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
3 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group