Yeah Starlight is super heavy duty. Baby, bathwater, throw it out, grow a new baby out of custom DNA, distill some water after sourcing it from Switzerland, reverse engineer the bathtub, combine it for a pristine result. May not match the original though.
Sorry, I’ve been seeing too many reports of solar being free in a “we don’t need fuel anymore sort of way”. But it does take a significant amount of fuel to mine the materials, and run the processes in the factories that make solar panels. It’s only free if someone else paid to have it created and gave you access to it, but solar still cannot make solar yet.
This is probably a tangent.
1 Like
Well, it mostly depends on how longe the life-span of those modules is…
There’s peer-reviewed, corroborated research going back literally decades showing that solar power, including every energy and material input from blasting rocks out of mineral mines (including remediation of those mines) to melt/refining/purification to crystallizing as single or poly, to printing silver wiring to packaging into panels to shipping panels across the Pacific to assembly (including labor) and finally commissioning - is a net benefit in terms of its energy yield over its useful life. Note that doesn’t count the combustion generated electricity it may displace.
So use solar in good conscience: tens of thousands of scientists/engineers/economists/steely-eyed accountants have all found its net good in all perspectives. The only grumblings of controversy come from the fossil fuel industry, and even those are getting pretty faint these days.
I have 15kW solar + 12kWHr storage. When it’s 105°F here, I run my AC for free, knowing that nobody’s burning natural gas, coal, or fuel oil to keep me cool. If Starlight were ever available to run locally, I can dedicate 10kW to processing and still run the AC for free.
Solar is long past any point of concern as to whether it’s net a good idea or just another greenwashing tool. Use it!
1 Like
Cool cool, but it’s not free in cost to create nor is if free of being made without more common fuels. That’s all I’m trying to correct.
Even in your explanation, you imply that the consequence of buying solar is running things for free—where in reality it still costs a lot, only it has already been paid for, or in most cases, is still being paid for through a loan. If someone gave you the solar setup, than it really is free for you. That is not the case for most people who use the words ‘solar’ and ‘free’ in sentences they write.
1 Like
No, not what I meant.
I meant that serious people have long included all known costs of making solar power sources - the combustion energy to run mining and manufacturing, the manufacture of mining equipment and the environmental impact thereof, etc. Lately, these studies have included costs of displacing prior land users (cattle, crops) from very large solar array projects. The cost estimates have been more thorough than any done for coal, oil, nuclear, etc.
And you’re right, nothing’s “free”, in that every advance requires $ to develop and then $ spent by customers to buy it. So here’s the thing: if you’re young to middle-age, it will be profitable for you to find the $ to install solar. At some point (sooner, as energy costs rise), you’ll have reaped savings that equal your capital cost + depreciation + maintenance. After that, your energy is “free” in the sense that you’re paying pretty much nothing for something that cost you a lot while you were buying it from fossil fuel generators.
In my case, I never pay PG&E anything anymore for energy. My system sells excess energy back to them, and my annual energy cost is zero. I do still pay $10/month for a grid connection. This is insurance in case my solar installation fails, and it provides me with a connection so I can sell back to the grid when PG&E needs it.
So it’s not “free” as in no cost. It’s free in that my family and I can run any electrical load we want for the rest of our time in this home and never care about cost. For me, that’s another 10 - 15 years. For them, well, may it be as long as they can and they will.
Finally, it’s such a reduction of stress. I’ve lived in places where electricity was so dear that freezing in winter and roasting in summer were budgetary necessities. It put real pressures on low-income families and relationships. No more. That frees up lots of creative and problem-solving energies to direct at other problems.
And…when I buy five of Nvidia’s latest graphics processors, I’ll run ‘em summer or winter and not worry about the power. Who knows, maybe by then TopazLabs will have its act together! 
Would an 8x reduction allow Starlight to run on consumer hardware?
Take a look at this:
3 Likes
Is there no Roadmap for 2025?
8 Likes
Hey guys, I just want one thing: to make the Married With Children series better quality.
Since they used specific technology in the recording process, this series can NEVER be of better quality without such software. In short: come on, I’m 52 years old and I still want to see it! 
Thank you!
I thank you guys for your time & dedication to bring these comparison’s impressions to potential buyers, ect. It really does means a lot.
Looking at SL, and SL mini, though, IMO, the SL architecture is still not useful for commercial videos. It either destroys vegetation, DOF, smooths out facial and object details, ect; SL is definitely not memory managed optimized by far.
I mean… sure, in some instances, SL could process a terrible source (but many commercial VHS isn’t that bad) to a WATCHABLE feed but again… nothing for anyone that has a collection of 100s/1000s of oldie-but-goodies videos, IMO.
Will Starlight mini be able to use multiple GPUs with the pro license? Also, how much VRAM is actually required to run Starlight mini at full speed\quality?
Also, when will AMD GPUs be supported?
1 Like
Here you can see that the usual TopazVideoAI models have much better image quality than Starlight.
I don’t agree… zoom in and look at the eyes. Starlight is far better. Now, starlight is not perfect by any means.
2 Likes
Thank you for always agreeing with me because I am always right.
You should not watch the videos zoomed in but normally and at a greater distance from the screen/television, then the quality is best.
Newer version is always best and you’re always right. People who don’t agree with you gives you always right 
Thank you for always agreeing with me because I am always right.
You should not watch the enlarged videos, but normally and at a greater distance from the screen / TV the quality is best.
People who disagree with you are giving
When will AMD GPUs be supported?
6 Likes
i wouldn’t count on it in the near future, amd is just lame for neural network loads, and starlight is extremely heavy even for the best nvidia gpu’s
