Between Gigapixel 5.1.5 Plug-ins, or Standalone version:
Is there any difference in image processing time?
If so, which configuration is fastest?
The application is the same it is just used in 2 different modes. Obviously if it is being used as a plugin it has access to less resources if they are being used by the host.
Your best way is to click on Use recommended settings in Preferences and update an image, then GigaPixel will calibrate your PC to see which is the best option for your setup.
So, the fact another program is hosting plug-in means the total pc resources are shared, compared to the Standalone version having the resources to itself.
I was wondering if the host program decoding and en-coding would be a defining speed factor?
For some background to my interest.
In VEAI I am getting 1.2-1.7 image per/sec.
The same project in Gigapixel is taking 24 sec/image.
I cannot match the quality from Gigapixel in VEAI with the same project.
If a little more speed could be squeezed from Gigapixel I would use instead?
O/S: Microsoft Windows 10 Professional 64bit
CPU: Intel i5-4460 Quad Core 4c/4t 3.2GHz-3.4GHz (LGA1150)
GPU: Intel HD Graphics 4600 (i5-4460 iGPU)
RAM: 8GB DDR3
Are you asking about GigaPixel or Video Enhance AI?
If GigaPixel your setup is not supported but it may run ok.
I am processing Tiff sequence, and received advice that Gigapixel would just operate
I am putting the question of plugin vrs standalone speed out, for those who have used both?
So I can decide if Gigapixel can replace VEAI for my use.
Well you need to run the optimization by clicking on Use recommended settings as I mentioned above. It will then select the optimum setup for you.
But don’t expect much with your system, it is under-powered as the minimum Intel GPU is the HD5000.
I understand Lightroom could be better for batch proccess.
Could users confirm if Gigapixel 5.1.5 works in Lightroom?
This reduced tiff process time from 24 seconds to about 2.5.
I will be changing to Gigapixel for tiff proccessing.
The quality is better, and I can live with speed.
Hopefully, the developers do not lift hardware requirements.
I am processing Tiff sequence, and received advice that Gigapixel would just operate.
I am putting the question of plugin vrs standalone speed out, for those who have used both?
So I can decide if Gigapixel can replace VEAI for my use.
The processing speed of standalone vs. plug-in is the same, and I don’t believe you can run a sequence of images in plug-in mode.
Plugin will not be any slower / faster. The only interprocess communication happens when reading / writing the image data, so if you’re processing a very large image (500MB+) you may notice a slowdown when opening the program. Processing speed is unaffected though.
We’re currently working on a few upgrades to processing speed which should yield a major improvement. VEAI is on an entirely different engine at this point, and we’ll soon be migrating that engine into the image-editing applications.
The tiff images are 400-500KB.
Using Gigapixel the program hangs a bit with large numbers of even small images.
As others have also noted.
The question is, if Lightroom handles the batch files better.
Anybody using Gigapixel 5.1.5 in Lightroom, to offer their experience?
For low resolution poor quality footage, I have used all settings in VEAI, finding CG to be the best pallet by far.
Now I tested Gigapixel with same project.
Gigapixel quality is markedly better then CG alone can achieve.
Let me know when you have update to test.
I am finding that batches of <=1000 tiff images imports within seconds and processing proceeds at about 2.5-3 seconds/file.
10,000+ tiff images locks folder after it is dragged to app and processing proceeds at about 5-6 seconds/file.
The workaround requires folders named A1000, B2000, C3000 for source and save locations.
Each file set is prefaced with proceeding letter to keep order.
Renamed with irfanview at completion.
This creates a lot of work and is not sustainable.
So you can see why I want to hear about lightroom plug-in experience.
From a users position, you just want to get the job done.
System Limitations: In the use of Premiere and Vegas I find that many plug-ins that would otherwise fail, can work when rendering tiff from tiff. Further tests reviled that tiff batches bellow 1500 files could be processed one after another without closing program or reboot. This just demonstrates how limitations can be circumnavigated.
Now I do all processing in Tiff, because the file can be processed countless times.
Lightroom plugin only operates as any other plugin does, i.e. it will overwrite the input file.
When using Lightroom to bring the images in, all it is doing is calling Gigapixel with the file paths as a command line argument. It is the same as opening up a command window / terminal and putting this in (Mac will look different but is the same thing):
"Topaz Gigapixel AI.exe" C:/path/to/file1.jpg C:/path/to/file2.jpg C:/path/to/file3.jpg
The slowdown you’re seeing when dragging a folder in is the time it takes for Gigapixel to scan the dragged-in-folder and collect the file paths. It does this for each subfolder too, so if you have folders inside of the folder you dragged in it’ll take longer.
The processing slowdown you’re seeing is a different matter, however. Saving over the original image is quicker than creating a new file and writing the processed image to it. There’s a lot of reading / writing that has to happen when duplicating the image that doesn’t happen when saving over the original image. We’ll be adding something soon that allows you to save over the original image when not using it as a plugin, and you’ll see the same processing times if you use that option.
That was a long-winded explanation, but to answer your question: yes, saving the images through the Lightroom plugin / from the command line will be quicker than saving them in the standalone application.
Hope that sheds some light on your question. I thought you meant the processing speed differences in standalone vs. the Photoshop plugin. That’s a different matter entirely.
The general explaination of saving process is very helpfull.
I will shorten paths and save over originals where posible.
Thank you.
Hi all,
First up, my name is Peter, been using Topaz for quite a few months now but new to this forum. I hope you don’t mind me butting into this conversation, but as I was reading it, the first thing that really stood out to me was that you are only using 8gb of Ram memory. I would highly recommend you investigate upping that ram to the most that your budget will allow. 16gb will give you a marked gain on 8gb, 32gb much better and 64gb you won’t know what hit your computer.
My system currently runs on 32gb (budget won’t allow more just yet) and most refreshes of any Topaz processing is done within seconds. I can even have Lightroom and one or two other programs open at the same time and no noticeable difference.
Also, as @AiDon suggested, your GPU cannot truly handle the load.
Yes, you can use Gigapixel through LR, but it won’t make any difference to you as your PC just does not have enough processing power.
Again, my apologies for butting in. Hope this helps.
Yes, solid state HD and ram are on the list.
2 Likes
This concerns me if it means that the current upscaling quality available through Gigapixel AI is going to be degraded in any way.
I don’t believe they will degrade the quality of the upscaling, there are serious issues with one of the scaling methods used in GigaPixel that are causing intermittent problems.
