Reported | High Fidelity 2 & 3 Not Processing

Quick question about processing speed between the two High Fidelity models, both running locally.

On the same source image (a sharp ~1900px 16-bit TIFF from an OM System m4/3 RAW, DxO-processed) at the same output size, HF v3 finishes in a couple of seconds while HF v2 takes several minutes on my hardware. Both are local renders and neither is a NeuroServer/generative model, as I understand it.

That’s a big gap, and I want to make sure I’m reading it right rather than assuming. Is that speed difference expected between v2 and v3, and what drives it: is v3 simply a lighter/more efficient architecture, or is it doing less work because it’s the more conservative model (preserving structure/grain rather than synthesising high-frequency texture the way v2 does)? My own measurements show v3 adds far less high-band detail than v2 on a sharp source, which seems consistent with v3 being the restrained model by design, but a several-minutes-to-seconds gap felt large enough to be worth confirming rather than guessing at.

Not reporting a problem, just trying to understand the intended difference between the two models so I pick the right one per image. Thanks.

Hi rcoquet.

Here’s a brief introduction to the three different High Fidelity Models from the Topaz Documentation Pages

High Fidelity

**
High Fidelity (v1):** Best for enhancing already high-quality images while preserving natural detail. Ideal for DSLR and modern smartphone photos where you want a clean upscale without altering the original look.

High Fidelity (v2): Best for high-quality images where you want to retain original character such as grain or noise. Produces a slightly more stylized result while still preserving detail, useful for artistic or aesthetic intent.

High Fidelity (v3): New, released in Topaz Photo v1.5.0. Best for high-resolution, detail-rich images where maximum realism is needed. Enhances fine textures, reduces repetitive artifacts, and produces sharper, more natural results at larger upscale sizes while staying true to the original image.

Here’s a bit more information about High Fidelity v3 from the Topaz Release Pages

High Fidelity v3 — Better Detail, Fewer Artifacts

High Fidelity is designed for images that are already in good shape. Where other models focus on recovery, High Fidelity’s job is to enhance what’s already there: sharper detail, cleaner textures, and upscaled output that holds up at full resolution. v3 raises the bar on all of these, and fixes the cases where v2 fell short.

The core change in v3 is a two-part architecture. Before upscaling begins, an analysis model reads the image, both as a whole and at the block level, to build a detailed understanding of its content. The upscaling model then uses that context to produce output that stays true to the original while generating realistic detail even at larger upscale values. Earlier models would struggle here, as small structures get magnified significantly and realistic detail becomes much harder to maintain.

This approach also meaningfully reduces AI artifacts. Two areas we’re especially happy with: natural scenes and skin. Leaves, grass, and similar patterns used to come out repetitive and visibly generated. v3 produces realistic variation. Skin textures, which previously came out either too smooth or too harsh, now retain their natural softness.

Beyond artifact reduction, v3 is better at preserving and enhancing textures that are already present in the image. Rather than softening fine detail during upscaling, it sharpens it further, producing a crispness that previous High Fidelity models couldn’t match.

High Fidelity v3 is best suited for images that are already high resolution and clearly detailed. Raw files and images above 6MP are ideal candidates. If the source image has strong existing detail, v3 will enhance it further rather than approximate it. For lower resolution or lower quality images, Wonder 3 is the better starting point.

We want to hear how it performs on your images, especially on subjects where v2 produced repetitive textures or visible artifacts. Drop your results and feedback in this thread.

Produces a slightly more stylized result while still preserving detail, useful for artistic or aesthetic intent.

The description for High Fidelity v2 above does say “Produces a slightly more stylized result” which would suggest there’s a little more going on under the bonnet and HFv2 was released back in Jan 2024 Topaz Photo AI version 2.3.0 which again may suggest the HFv3 is more refined

Hope this helps

Thanks, that’s a helpful overview. Three quick follow-ups, because what I’m actually seeing doesn’t match the description.

1. v3 looks softer than v2 on my images, not sharper. The notes say v3 sharpens detail further than v2, but on my test shots v3 came out noticeably softer with less fine texture than v2, and even a touch softer than a plain resize. My guess is my images just aren’t v3’s ideal input: they’re sharp but fairly modest resolution, not the big 6MP+ raw files you describe as the sweet spot. Is that the explanation: does v3 stay deliberately conservative on smaller/simpler images and only show its detail boost on large detail-rich files? If so, that tells me v2 is the right pick for my output sizes, which is all I need to know.

2. v3 runs much faster than v2 — is that expected? On the same image and computer, v3 finishes in a couple of seconds while v2 takes several minutes. Since v3 is described as the heavier, more advanced model, I’d have expected it to be slower, not faster. Is it actually running its full process on my setup? (I’m on Gigapixel v1.3.1 and your notes mention Topaz Photo v1.5.0, so I wasn’t sure the v3 in my Gigapixel is the same one you’re describing.)

3. The Strength slider doesn’t seem to do anything on v3. I saved the same image with v3 Strength at 15 and at 30, same settings otherwise, and the two files came out completely identical, pixel for pixel. I tried Strength 15 again and got an identical file a third time. So changing the slider made no difference at all. Is Strength supposed to affect v3? If so this looks like a bug.

Happy to send the files if that helps. Thanks!

Firstly, I don’t work for Topaz just a regular user like yourself so, unable to help with the technicalities side of things.

1. v3 looks softer than v2 on my images, not sharper.

The difference is High Fidelity v3 is for already highly detailed high resolution images that are sharp meaning if your large image is already sharp then High Fidelity v3 will only enhance and define those details further when Upscaling without creating unwanted artifacts.

High Fidelity v2 on the other hand, is a more aggressive Enhancement for medium to lower resolution images which will create extra details to sharpen the image.

Think of High Fidelity v3 as a refinement for high quality already sharp images and High Fidelity v2 as a option to increase details and sharpen your Upscales

Therefore, Yes, High Fidelity v3 is more conservative than High Fidelity v2 one enhances original detail and the other increases plus adds details so, in your case I would say yes using High Fidelity v2 is probably the best option.

2. v3 runs much faster than v2 — is that expected?

I would say yes that is expected behaviour for the same reasons above one enhances original detail and the other increases and adds details

Both, Topaz Photo and Gigapixel’s High Fidelity are exactly the same.

3. The Strength slider doesn’t seem to do anything on v3.

Interesting, I’m not with my computer at the moment so, can’t check this for myself.

In addition, as you know High Fidelity, is available within Topaz Photo, Gigapixel and did you know also in Topaz Image Web so, you can try it out there if you have access and I would say as High Fidelity v3 is only enhanceing details it’s always best to view your images at least 100% or higher to see changes.

Hope this helps

That’s really helpful, thanks. And no worries about not being Topaz, your explanation cleared up the main thing I needed. The way you put it (v3 refines detail that’s already there, v2 adds and increases detail) matches exactly what I was seeing in my tests, so for my work (sharp but modest-resolution macro shots) v2 is clearly the right model. That settles it for me.

Thanks again for taking the time, much appreciated.

No problem my friend always here to help if I can

Andy

Same image, same “HF v2,” same settings: noticeably different output (and very different speed) between Gigapixel AI (perpetual) and Gigapixel (subscription). What’s going on?

I ran one source image through High Fidelity v2 in two apps and got clearly different results, and I’d like to understand why.

  • Gigapixel AI 8.4.4 (my perpetual licence)
  • Gigapixel 1.3.1 (subscription)
  • Same source TIFF, same model (HF v2), same output size (2800px long edge), and as far as I can tell the same Sharpen and Denoise values in both.

Two differences:

Output: the perpetual app’s (8.4.4) v2 is noticeably sharper / more detailed — more fine high-frequency texture — while the subscription app’s (1.3.1) v2 is softer. Colour is essentially identical; the difference is specifically in detail/sharpness. It’s reproducible (byte-identical output on re-runs within each app), so it’s a stable difference between the apps, not noise.

Speed: on the same image and hardware, v2 in the perpetual app (8.4.4) takes several minutes, while v2 in the subscription app (1.3.1) finishes in a few seconds. For what it’s worth, HF v3 in the subscription app is also fast and also comes out soft — so in the subscription app both models seem to run fast and produce softer results, while the perpetual app’s v2 is slow and sharp.

My question: why are two models both labelled “High Fidelity v2” producing different output, and why the large speed difference? The fact that speed and softness seem to track together in the subscription app makes me wonder whether 1.3.1 is processing differently at the engine level (GPU path, precision, a model variant?) rather than it being a deliberate per-model change, but I can’t tell from the outside. A few things I can’t distinguish:

  • Was HF v2 changed between the Gigapixel AI generation and the current app, despite the same name?
  • Do the Sharpen/Denoise sliders mean the same thing across both apps, or were they rescaled?
  • Is the difference in how each app runs the model (acceleration/precision) rather than the model itself?

Not reporting a problem — I actually prefer the 8.4.4 result for my work. Mostly I want to understand whether “HF v2” is genuinely the same model across the apps. Happy to share both output files and the source, plus hardware specs. Thanks.

This is very interesting and comprehensive as I alluded to before I’m not a developer so, can’t give you a specific technical answer to why that is happening.

However because, of your detailed information I’m sure the Topaz technical staff will be very grateful and appreciated your work, with that in mind may I ask you to copy and paste this information and send it to Topaz Support via email for a direct answer here’s the link for you

help@topazlabs.com

Thank you Andy. Sure, will do!

Rudy,

Just wanted to let Andy know we’re investigating this and so far appears unique to hardware or configuration conditions on the system.

For other users to know, having different results between the legacy licensed Gigapixel AI and the studio release of Topaz Gigapixel with High Fidelity 2 is not expected.

Once we get the logs and details reviewed by the developers we’ll have some troubleshooting to try and I’ll update this thread incase any other users find similar issues.

:raising_hands: