Set Estimate to Use First Enhancement

When using two enhancements, currently “Estimate” on the Second Enhancement derives its values from the source video. This is illogical, as the First Enhancement is changing the source video.

When using two enhancements, please set “Estimate” to operate based on the First Enhancement, not the source video.

I have an issue with how the second enhancement feature works, and an idea on how to improve it.

My issue is that when applying a second enhancement, the auto-tuned estimated values don’t take the first enhancement into account, they only look at the original video not including the first enhancement. The second enhancement’s estimated settings are the exact same regardless of what the first enhancement is doing.

In my original post, Kyle from Topaz Labs says “When clicking estimate (while using the second enhancement feature) the model looks at the frame in the preview window from the input clip as it currently is. Since none of the enhancements (from the first enhancement) have run at that point it will only be looking at the original to get its values. The second enhancement estimate option is not able to look at what the first enhancement will do to the clip as it has not been run yet. The current workflow would be to run the clip through with the first enhancement and then bring back in for the second enhancement and then let it run the estimate”

My idea is that the application applies these “layered” enhancement in sequence when using the estimate button, so that the order is as follows: the first enhancement estimates its values based on the original frame, creates a new frame with those applies first enhancements, then the second enhancement estimates it’s values off of that new frame to calculate its values.

I prefer the two-run workflow. If the first enhancement run is good - and it would have to be, or you wouldn’t be moving on to a second - then if your second run isn’t good, you still have the first to use for further attempts. With the single-run workflow, if you don’t like the end result you have to do everything over and over again. And if the single-run workflow is doing one enhancement, then using it to set the second, the job is still going to take the same amount of time as the two-run.

I’ve brought this up multiple times.

Interesting that Topaz never responded until you explicitly reported it as a bug. Suggests that they’re not really taking the other forums seriously.

Being told to process the entire file just to see the 2nd enhancement does not make sense and is not a solution to the problem. The entire purpose of having a preview is to know what you are getting before you process. The way that the 2nd enhancement affects the 1st enhancement will influence my decision of which first enhancement to use. Also @gene-8240 is incorrect about the single-run workflow taking the same amount of processing time. It’s always faster than doing two separate passes - and the results will turn out differently depending on which scale is used.

1 Like

added a vote to your idea post. I agree, the way it’s currently designed make little sense to me and defeats the purpose of having the option in the first place

1 Like

The reason the dual enhancement is faster is because it’s not running each frame twice. If you change it so the second enhancement is based on the results of the first, then you will be running each frame twice and the time required will increase accordingly.

that’s an easy thing to split into an off/on feature though, and having the option of enabling the 2nd enh based on the results of the first could make for a much higher quality result

That would be the same thing as doing two enhancement runs. You’d still be enhancing each frame twice and increasing the required run time accordingly.