It is very difficult for me to believe that there are many undiscerning hobbyists who are going to be willing to spend $199 + tax (U.S. prices) and need a powerful home computer with a strong GPU in order to run Photo AI. And will those undiscerning hobbyists really want to get their photos off their phones, etc. and process them on such a home computer using Photo AI? How many use Lightroom, Capture One, Photoshop, etc. and use the Topaz plug-ins? How many of those types of users currently buy it? How many of those types have bought and use Denoise AI, Sharpen AI, and Gigapixel AI?
I suspect it is mostly serious hobbyists and professionals who buy and use this stuff. Maybe I am wrong.
It is quite puzzling how can Photo AI be a successor for Sharpen/Denoise and Gigapixel AI, when Photo AI is unable to produce any comparable result to these three. Is it not entirely obvious to the development team, just how horrible the Photo Ai results actually look? Loss of all texture, halos, halos and halos - terrible over sharpening.
Sharpen Ai and Gigapixel AI were trained quite well and can actually be trusted with auto-selection of “Remove Blur” and “Suppress Noise” settings. I would not use automation for selecting the AI model.
For Photo AI - nothing truly works. It would be great if the development team could take a fresh look and see for themselves the comparison against the preceding AI tools. Today, the results that Photo AI delivers is unfortunately a step back in output image quality.
My comment is not a rant but a genuine feedback and I hope it can be instrumental to improve the results.
Thanks.
