I use Topaz Denoise as a plug in, in lightroom, and I love it. I am getting great results. As a bird photographer I find that I crop heavily at times, so the noise reduction software is a game changer.
Good luck on your channel. I predict good things will come of it. Your delivery and thoroughness and attention to detail made the video easy to understand and take seriously. Keep up the good work because? We inquiring minds want to know!
Canon also makes another option for 'enlarging'. Rather than cropping your R5/6 images consider the R7 with higher pixel density as a starting point. The R6mkII price added to the R7 price is roughly the price of the R5. Of course we are free to use Gigapixel on small parts of the R7 images, too.
Thank you for the comparison. I have found that the Topaz products are phenomenal and can make up for a lot of problems that naturally occur in the course of our work. Personally, I do like to make large prints, so the extra resolution of a big sensor is - though - as you point out - in many cases overkill I view it as a safety buffer - just as I use ProPhoto for the wider gamut coverage and 16 bit all the time to avoid banding - higher resolution can enable me to compensate for a mistake, As unlikely as it is that I might ever make one! I also plan to only buy one camera in the near future - the Sony A7R5 and likely that will be the last camera I buy for around 10 years. I don't shoot moving sports or wildlife - preferring landscapes and still objects that I then process as I see fit. Let's face it - there are always going to be new bells and whistles for cameras. I have found that buying quality upfront invariably pays in terms of longevity and durability on the backend and, over time is cheaper than "economizing" only to find later that I am found wanting features I wish I had.
On high quality files I’d challenge anyone to find artifacts if you don’t do silly things like enlarge the files by 4/6 x or even more. I’ve created 96mp landscape files from 22mp 5D mkiii images and I’ve pixel peeped the h3ll out of them and they look perfectly decent.
I’m getting a R6 mkii next week (hopefully) and I have gigapixel. I won’t feel the need for a R5. I’ve had staggeringly good results from files with my old 5D3 and 1DX. I can easily create a sharp detailed 50mp file that looks amazing. I’ve even created a 190mp just for fun and it looks good up to a point but has a lot of weirdness at anything above 50%. At 100% the pixels it’s created just don’t match what should be there. That’s obviously just an extreme case no one would use but realistic usage scenarios give great results. “Fixing” old low res files has mixed results.
. @FabianFoppNaturephotography After using m43 for 10 years I cant think of one for general photography. Quite to the contrary the FF makers have adopted many of the things M43 has offerd. after decrying them for years
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography If one uses the 135 lens on m43 yes the background is less blurred but if one uses an appropriate M43 lens then the 135 has no advantage. But what is the advantage, separation? That can be achieved without losing background and with landscapes one does not need or want any blur normally. Iso noise is tameable either in camera or in processing. The noise from any vintage of M43 camera I have seen is better than the equivalent year APSC or most 135 cameras. Anyway, no matter what one sees with the popularity of film emulation programs and presets available it seems that noise is popular if one calls it by an old film name, which in most cases only the originator actually knows what it actually is. If its not labelled it will not be obvious if its silver halide emulation or electronic noise. And then there is the weight. Did I mention the weight.
I've been evaluating the trial versions of Topaz and came across a couple noteworthy and interesting issues with Gigapixel. Firstly, Topaz does NOT support my Lumix S5 ii RAW files, but it does support my older Lumix FZ2500's RAW files. I have to use Adobe's free RAW to .dng converter to get a usable file. 😞 Secondly, when resizing in Gigapixel and wanting a .dng file output to retain the maximum image information for further post-processing, the resultant file, when viewed in Windows is a thumbnail, displayed at 256 x 171 pixels, but it's a 459MB thumbnail! However, if you open that same file in your editing software, it is the expected large megapixel file, which can be post-processed. According to Topaz, this is an issue with Windows not being able to display .dng files. So, it only renders the thumbnail. This is not fixable by Topaz. Microsoft must address the .dng file format capability in Windows. 😞 I assume Apple users are Okay. So, while it looked like Gigapixel didn't work, I do have a usable way to resize my denoised .dng files from DxO PureRAW 3 and then continue post-processing, which I do in Affinity Photo (which also does NOT support my S5 ii RAW files without conversion to .dng! 😞 Clearly, Panasonic is low on the camera totem pole.) I have found the Topaz Gigapixel resizing results vary between images. Some are superb. Others not so much. However, it is potentially useful for those of us that don't need a high MP camera for a just handful of photos. I appreciate your approach with your videos! Very inciteful. Thanks!
Thanks for your feedback! I also found that Gigapixel can be a hit and miss, it really depends on the image. And yes, I also experienced that Mac is just on a totally different level regarding raw support than Windows
Printing these images would even further bring them closer together. In my opinion, printing is the "great leveler" for cameras. If your print these images, even at large sizes, and few them at NORMAL viewing distances it would be very hard to tell a difference and would require you to get up close which is not how most art hung on the wall is viewed.
I've heard that Topaz is no longer supporting or providing updates for their AI software Gigapixel, Sharpen or DeNoise. Apparently, all their efforts are going for Photo AI. Do you have any information about this Fabian?
I could imagine that this might be the case in the long run. But in 2023 all of them still received updates, despite the introduction of Photo AI in 2022
I own all the software from topaz. They are still updating gigapixel but not denoise or sharpen. Most effort going to Photo ai for sure. Gigs only gets occasional love. I find the LR denoise works well unless I have to process a photo that isn’t a raw LR can process for denoise
I owned the 45mp R5 for a year, and was constantly cropping a LOT. Managed to get a lot of nice photos though. Then I bought the 32 mp R7, which puts twice as many pixels on my subjects as did the R5. Now, I only crop a little, and usually just for perfect framing / aesthetics. I get a LOT more great shots from my $1500 32 mp R7, than I ever did with my $3900 45mp R5. So I sold my R5 and bought a second R7 + another lens, and had $ left over :) I might have to give Gigapixel another try though. Tried it a couple years ago, and it sucked. But I'm sure its getting better.
@@davepastern IMPO, the R5 is "slightly better with DR and noise. It definitely doesn't smash it. Bottom line, I'm getting more keepers with my R7, than I did with my R5.
I also have an R7 for exactly the same reason. I use an R6 for general use and the R7 for wildlife when I frequently need to crop. I find that I need to denoise in post more than I would like. However, I think a denoised R7 image generally looks better than a crop R6 image which has been put through Gigapixel.
@@Andy_Thomas have you tried DXO Pure RAW to convert your RAW files ? It removes 90 to 100% of the noise in the very first step 🙂👍 I recommend turning off sharpness though. If your focus hits like it should, you don't need that, and it will likely oversharpen it. If I need any additional sharpening, I use Topaz for that. But I hardly need Topaz anymore.
Of course it can never be a "replacement" to raw hardware performance, but Topaz Photo AI (which include almost all Gigapixel functions) definately give a new life to old cameras. Its crazy you can use a D5100 to take a photo at ISO6400 and make big art gallery prints out of it. Also one critical advantage of higher resolution sensor is it provides more data for AI to work with. Back then, Canon 6D mkII had clearly better high ISO performance than my old D800. For me, this was the reason 6D mkII existed.. Today? I am not so sure. With ~50% more data for AI to discriminate what is a tree branch and what is fur, I think D800 does better all the way up until its (expanded) ISO limit despite being much older than 6d mkII. Don't believe? This is also interesting video idea to try if you have Topaz Photo AI. Shoot a test subject at high ISO like 12800 and then run noise reduction. When viewed at same size, I guarantee with AI-based NR on R5 will give better results than newer R6II. I suspect at one stop higher ISO, R5 will still give better result if you fine tune settings on both results.
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography just testing gigapixel now Fabian. Not a fan that the trial has a insidious watermark in the middle of the image. Gigapixel seems VERY slow though, much slower than Adobe's offering. I haven't tested comparisons between the 2 yet (I only just download gigapixel and it's nearly 11pm here so time for bed nearly). I will do some tests tomorrow between the 2.
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography just an update - I'm not sure how long Topaz Gigapixel takes, trying to upres my R3's 24mp to the R5's pixel dimensions in HQ...was running for near 45 minutes with the app just showing "processing" and no progress %. I'm not sure if it's bugged, or a problem with the install, or if this is normal behaviour. I cancelled that and I am trying again, but so far, my impressions are really poor software design and they won't be getting any money from me.
You should do the math right if you wanted a true camparison. 1,4 x in gigapixel gives double the amount of pixels. The right way is to enlarge the R6-image by a factor of about 1.4 and then look at both images in 100% which you obviously didn´t do.
I don’t like the result of this software. It looks artificial with the purpose of showing that it is sharper. Just make the experience of comparing a real high resolution sensor with a standard one and work with them. It is not sharper , it is better.
It’s a good alternative to an expensive second body. I have an X-T5 and an X-H2s, and I wonder how often I really need the 40 mpx. Even when cropping a lot, my 26.1 mpx sensor ends up giving me 12 mpx pictures, which is enough in most cases.
It’s probably not something you will do on a daily basis. So I would just use my computer I already have and wait a minute longer. No need to buy anything new
Test Gigapixel AI 30 days for free (affiliate link): www.topazlabs.com/gigapixel-ai/ref/901/?campaign=en
I use Topaz Denoise as a plug in, in lightroom, and I love it. I am getting great results. As a bird photographer I find that I crop heavily at times, so the noise reduction software is a game changer.
Yes, I use it a lot as well. Lately more DXO Pure Raw though (see my recent video)
Good luck on your channel. I predict good things will come of it. Your delivery and thoroughness and attention to detail made the video easy to understand and take seriously. Keep up the good work because? We inquiring minds want to know!
Thanks 😊
Thanks! I consider buying a second body in parallel to my R5, and your new video makes my decision even harder... 😅
😅
Excellent review, I have found the same thing with my own experiments. Keep up the great work.
Thanks 😊
Canon also makes another option for 'enlarging'. Rather than cropping your R5/6 images consider the R7 with higher pixel density as a starting point. The R6mkII price added to the R7 price is roughly the price of the R5. Of course we are free to use Gigapixel on small parts of the R7 images, too.
Yep, I tried that as well. I much prefer the R5 over the R7 😊
It’s very helpful with my MFT.
Smaller sensor cameras I have to fill the frame and not crop. If I use gigapixel I can crop a bit.
Thank you for the comparison. I have found that the Topaz products are phenomenal and can make up for a lot of problems that naturally occur in the course of our work.
Personally, I do like to make large prints, so the extra resolution of a big sensor is - though - as you point out - in many cases overkill I view it as a safety buffer - just as I use ProPhoto for the wider gamut coverage and 16 bit all the time to avoid banding - higher resolution can enable me to compensate for a mistake,
As unlikely as it is that I might ever make one!
I also plan to only buy one camera in the near future - the Sony A7R5 and likely that will be the last camera I buy for around 10 years. I don't shoot moving sports or wildlife - preferring landscapes and still objects that I then process as I see fit.
Let's face it - there are always going to be new bells and whistles for cameras. I have found that buying quality upfront invariably pays in terms of longevity and durability on the backend and, over time is cheaper than "economizing" only to find later that I am found wanting features I wish I had.
Yes, I totally agree
I would use it with caution. I have it but don't use it much. Sometimes it introduces artifacts and noise.
Yes, especially with landscapes this can be a big issue
On high quality files I’d challenge anyone to find artifacts if you don’t do silly things like enlarge the files by 4/6 x or even more. I’ve created 96mp landscape files from 22mp 5D mkiii images and I’ve pixel peeped the h3ll out of them and they look perfectly decent.
when using your 600/4 are you using the FlexShooter Pro or FlexShooter Extreme ?
I‘m using the pro
Canon R7 and AI Denoise gives crisp images with tons of detail.
Glad to hear that you are happy with it 😊
Thanks for sharing another wonderful video like always 🐦👍🤗
Glad to hear that it was useful 😊
I’m getting a R6 mkii next week (hopefully) and I have gigapixel. I won’t feel the need for a R5. I’ve had staggeringly good results from files with my old 5D3 and 1DX. I can easily create a sharp detailed 50mp file that looks amazing. I’ve even created a 190mp just for fun and it looks good up to a point but has a lot of weirdness at anything above 50%. At 100% the pixels it’s created just don’t match what should be there. That’s obviously just an extreme case no one would use but realistic usage scenarios give great results. “Fixing” old low res files has mixed results.
Glad to hear that you’re happy
Makes a M43 camera and the large M43 range of half FF weight and size lenses very very attractive, as if they weren't before Gigapixel anyway.
There are still other advantages of fullframe cameras 😉
. @FabianFoppNaturephotography After using m43 for 10 years I cant think of one for general photography. Quite to the contrary the FF makers have adopted many of the things M43 has offerd. after decrying them for years
Background blur for example. Also high iso noise performance (12‘800 or similar)
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography If one uses the 135 lens on m43 yes the background is less blurred but if one uses an appropriate M43 lens then the 135 has no advantage. But what is the advantage, separation? That can be achieved without losing background and with landscapes one does not need or want any blur normally. Iso noise is tameable either in camera or in processing. The noise from any vintage of M43 camera I have seen is better than the equivalent year APSC or most 135 cameras. Anyway, no matter what one sees with the popularity of film emulation programs and presets available it seems that noise is popular if one calls it by an old film name, which in most cases only the originator actually knows what it actually is. If its not labelled it will not be obvious if its silver halide emulation or electronic noise. And then there is the weight. Did I mention the weight.
For me....yes. My D850 is perfect to get 60" x 90" prints with close to "walk into it" detail. It all depends on what you are doing with it.
I also enjoy the 45 MP of the R5 😊
This is what I'm after... a 96"x32" from D850. Have you used GP-AI and printed to the size you mentioned?
I've been evaluating the trial versions of Topaz and came across a couple noteworthy and interesting issues with Gigapixel.
Firstly, Topaz does NOT support my Lumix S5 ii RAW files, but it does support my older Lumix FZ2500's RAW files. I have to use Adobe's free RAW to .dng converter to get a usable file. 😞
Secondly, when resizing in Gigapixel and wanting a .dng file output to retain the maximum image information for further post-processing, the resultant file, when viewed in Windows is a thumbnail, displayed at 256 x 171 pixels, but it's a 459MB thumbnail! However, if you open that same file in your editing software, it is the expected large megapixel file, which can be post-processed.
According to Topaz, this is an issue with Windows not being able to display .dng files. So, it only renders the thumbnail. This is not fixable by Topaz. Microsoft must address the .dng file format capability in Windows. 😞 I assume Apple users are Okay.
So, while it looked like Gigapixel didn't work, I do have a usable way to resize my denoised .dng files from DxO PureRAW 3 and then continue post-processing, which I do in Affinity Photo (which also does NOT support my S5 ii RAW files without conversion to .dng! 😞 Clearly, Panasonic is low on the camera totem pole.)
I have found the Topaz Gigapixel resizing results vary between images. Some are superb. Others not so much. However, it is potentially useful for those of us that don't need a high MP camera for a just handful of photos.
I appreciate your approach with your videos! Very inciteful. Thanks!
Thanks for your feedback! I also found that Gigapixel can be a hit and miss, it really depends on the image. And yes, I also experienced that Mac is just on a totally different level regarding raw support than Windows
Great comparison. Have you done a print test?
Thanks! No I haven’t (mostly due to the lack of a printer 😅)
Printing these images would even further bring them closer together. In my opinion, printing is the "great leveler" for cameras. If your print these images, even at large sizes, and few them at NORMAL viewing distances it would be very hard to tell a difference and would require you to get up close which is not how most art hung on the wall is viewed.
I've heard that Topaz is no longer supporting or providing updates for their AI software Gigapixel, Sharpen or DeNoise. Apparently, all their efforts are going for Photo AI. Do you have any information about this Fabian?
I could imagine that this might be the case in the long run. But in 2023 all of them still received updates, despite the introduction of Photo AI in 2022
I own all the software from topaz. They are still updating gigapixel but not denoise or sharpen. Most effort going to Photo ai for sure. Gigs only gets occasional love. I find the LR denoise works well unless I have to process a photo that isn’t a raw LR can process for denoise
@@longboardfella5306 They haven't updated Gigapixel since January 24, 2023. Done!
Great stuff man!
Thanks!
I owned the 45mp R5 for a year, and was constantly cropping a LOT. Managed to get a lot of nice photos though. Then I bought the 32 mp R7, which puts twice as many pixels on my subjects as did the R5. Now, I only crop a little, and usually just for perfect framing / aesthetics. I get a LOT more great shots from my $1500 32 mp R7, than I ever did with my $3900 45mp R5. So I sold my R5 and bought a second R7 + another lens, and had $ left over :)
I might have to give Gigapixel another try though. Tried it a couple years ago, and it sucked. But I'm sure its getting better.
It’s clearly not perfect and the results really depend on the scene. But it us definitely getting better
sure, but the DR and high ISO noise on the R5 smash the R7...horses for courses.
@@davepastern IMPO, the R5 is "slightly better with DR and noise. It definitely doesn't smash it. Bottom line, I'm getting more keepers with my R7, than I did with my R5.
I also have an R7 for exactly the same reason. I use an R6 for general use and the R7 for wildlife when I frequently need to crop. I find that I need to denoise in post more than I would like. However, I think a denoised R7 image generally looks better than a crop R6 image which has been put through Gigapixel.
@@Andy_Thomas have you tried DXO Pure RAW to convert your RAW files ? It removes 90 to 100% of the noise in the very first step 🙂👍 I recommend turning off sharpness though. If your focus hits like it should, you don't need that, and it will likely oversharpen it. If I need any additional sharpening, I use Topaz for that. But I hardly need Topaz anymore.
Crop the frame then gigapixel, or gigapixel the whole frame, then crop?
If I only need crop, then I crop first. Saves time 😊
You can choose your crop in Gigapixel
How does it compare to Topaz Photo Ai?
I didn‘t test it with the latest version
Well done!
Thanks
Of course it can never be a "replacement" to raw hardware performance, but Topaz Photo AI (which include almost all Gigapixel functions) definately give a new life to old cameras. Its crazy you can use a D5100 to take a photo at ISO6400 and make big art gallery prints out of it. Also one critical advantage of higher resolution sensor is it provides more data for AI to work with. Back then, Canon 6D mkII had clearly better high ISO performance than my old D800. For me, this was the reason 6D mkII existed.. Today? I am not so sure. With ~50% more data for AI to discriminate what is a tree branch and what is fur, I think D800 does better all the way up until its (expanded) ISO limit despite being much older than 6d mkII.
Don't believe? This is also interesting video idea to try if you have Topaz Photo AI. Shoot a test subject at high ISO like 12800 and then run noise reduction. When viewed at same size, I guarantee with AI-based NR on R5 will give better results than newer R6II. I suspect at one stop higher ISO, R5 will still give better result if you fine tune settings on both results.
I actually did that test 😀
It's good to resize heavily cropped but clean files..
Yes, that’s a nice application
And how does this compare to Adobe's super resolution in Photoshop?
I haven‘t done that comparison with the last updates. The last time I compared, I clearly preferred Gigapixel AI. But maybe this changed by now
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography just testing gigapixel now Fabian. Not a fan that the trial has a insidious watermark in the middle of the image. Gigapixel seems VERY slow though, much slower than Adobe's offering. I haven't tested comparisons between the 2 yet (I only just download gigapixel and it's nearly 11pm here so time for bed nearly). I will do some tests tomorrow between the 2.
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography just an update - I'm not sure how long Topaz Gigapixel takes, trying to upres my R3's 24mp to the R5's pixel dimensions in HQ...was running for near 45 minutes with the app just showing "processing" and no progress %. I'm not sure if it's bugged, or a problem with the install, or if this is normal behaviour. I cancelled that and I am trying again, but so far, my impressions are really poor software design and they won't be getting any money from me.
Mega pixels do matters !
If you print large, definitely!
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography also if needs to crop!! MP matters too …
So much details on your pupil 👁
😊
topaz ai can run on apple MacBook air m1?, Anyway you so cute! Love the video💗
Yes, this works
You should do the math right if you wanted a true camparison. 1,4 x in gigapixel gives double the amount of pixels. The right way is to enlarge the R6-image by a factor of about 1.4 and then look at both images in 100% which you obviously didn´t do.
I don’t see a problem if I put the output to the same size and then compare. You anyway can’t match it to the native resolution of both cameras
This software is deceiving, it’s called gigapixel, but unable to generate giga, pixel images
Strictly speaking I agree. But I also don’t know what I would do with a Gigapixel photo
I appreciate your review but let’s keep it eal. No actual viewer / consumer of your pictures would ever see any difference.
I don’t like the result of this software. It looks artificial with the purpose of showing that it is sharper. Just make the experience of comparing a real high resolution sensor with a standard one and work with them. It is not sharper , it is better.
Yes, a higher megapixel camera will always give you more details
It’s a good alternative to an expensive second body. I have an X-T5 and an X-H2s, and I wonder how often I really need the 40 mpx. Even when cropping a lot, my 26.1 mpx sensor ends up giving me 12 mpx pictures, which is enough in most cases.
So, buy more powerful PC and upscale the images that you need sounds good idea to me.
It’s probably not something you will do on a daily basis. So I would just use my computer I already have and wait a minute longer. No need to buy anything new