Is Gigapixel unusable for Recovery, or just bad implementation

[rual-135632]

I have just purchased Gigapixel Ai 8 and to say I am disappointed would be an understatement! It works on small images, and does bring back detail (I restore lots of images scanned from negatives and colour slides).

But it is pretty much unusable. The fact that you have to pay to offload processing (and pay quite a lot) is bad enough (especially when you arent given any on purchase to try the service), but ways to reduce the local processing time are almost impossible.

Given the preview allows small areas to test the process I expected the software to be smart enough to know that a PhotoShop layer with a small area of “active” pixels would be treated in a similar way. No, it uses the entire layer size, not the small selection copied into a new layer. Surely it should be possible to just restore the active pixels rather than the entiire layer with so many redundant pixels.

Wsilst the upscaling is pretty good, the recover mode just seems a money making exercise to me. Extremely disappointed given previous purchase of DeNoise and Sharpen Ai.

Any thoughts on how this could be done would be gratefully received!

Ian

[jo.vo]

Here, Redefine at Creativity of 2 constantly gives better results than Recover - and this in much less time.

[rayinsanmiguel (Ray)]

Long before Topaz introduced Redefine (which is still in beta) it was already the market leader in upscaling and everyone was more than satisfied with the results.
I upscaled all my old low-res JPGs years ago and, considering the low quality of many of them, was more than happy with them. Whether Redefine will eventually be good enough for me to want to replace them all remains to be seen, especially given the fact that an upscale to 4k using the Low Resolution model takes just a second or two, whilst Redefine takes up to half an hour on my M4 Mac Mini.
As you can see from the screenshots, Redefine with Creativity at 1 and Texture at 2 offers a slight increase in definition. However, when there are faces involved its interpretation of them is usually way off the mark and over-glamourises them: