I have been an avid user of Remask for a longtime. It’s possibly the best way to mask complex images and transparent images (in particular) on the market.
But this latest release, Mask AI? I just don’t understand Topaz’s product development. From what I have seen with Mask AI it just can not do what Remask could. It might make general masking easier but complex masking it almost makes impossible and the thing with masking is if it’s not exactly right in many cases you will notice.
The removal of the transparency and local colour selections from a Masking tool that is Topaz’s “best to date” is unfathomable especially when that excellent technology which really helps tidyup complex masks already exists.
I’m guessing many users like myself have been waiting patiently for an “upgrade” of Topaz’s really awesome Remask 5. To be faced with what can only be described as a “down grade” for serious masking is quite disappointing.
My comments come after recently having quite a tricky masking job which I could only end up doing successfully using Remask 5, it just became an exercise in frustration using Mask AI.
I’m still an avid user of Topaz and I really hope they can take an already stellar masking tool (Remask) and make it something even better in Mask AI. AI isn’t really useful if it doesn’t sort the finer details.
Looking forwards to updates but right now I wouldn’t buy.
So you are saying Topaz will continue to support and upgrade Remask? A program virtually identical but better to Mask AI? Makes no sense.
The foreground technique you mentioned also exists in Remask and just like in Remask by itself is not enough to perfect masks.
Don it’s pretty obvious from all the feedback of Remask users on this site that Topaz got this wrong I don’t know if this has been rushed because of the looming Luminar 4 release with seemingly “magical” sky replacement (seeing would be believing) but it feels like it had been rushed.
Hopefully Topaz will sort this out and a software improved from Remask will emerge but right now many users will be keeping their upgrade dollars in their pockets.
I have to say that so far I am also rather disappointed in Mask AI. It is harder to refine the mask and when used as a PS plugin the workflow is nowhere near as good as Remask.
I also have problems with things like panning. If I use the space bar to toggle to panning the button shows it being selected but I cannot actually pan. If however I press the pan button I can then pan. Ctrl +/- also does not work to zoom in/out.
No option, that I have found yet at least, exist to exit Mask back into PS and see a mask. It is just the cut out which then means a small amount of messing about to create a mask which is how I prefer to work.
Generally the workflow is a significant backward step with no gain in accuracy. It is taking me longer to produce a good selection that it did in Remask. Possibly that will improve if I get more familiar but I doubt it on my current experience.
All in all a major disappointment and at the moment I regret spending my money and I may well seek a refund.
Not what I have come to expect from Topaz over the years.
I’m guessing because this is an “AI” product Topaz felt the user could just draw the border in “compute” identify key “keep” and “cut” areas and “Whallah!” Mask AI would intelligently make a perfect selection without the need for Refinement Tools like in Remask (because AI would sort that) unfortunately that’s not what we are getting
However, I did a few tests on some low-resolution images, and Mask AI did better job than Remask 5, so I think it’s a step ahead. One small step, it’s true …
@ Grump-Hec: For zoom-in / zoom-out, I use the mouse wheel, I find it much faster and more comfortable than Ctrl - and Ctrl +.
Also in Photoshop I changed the Ctrl- and Ctrl+ settings to mouse wheel, It’s more efficient for my workflow.
Sadly that does not help if you are a graphics pad user as I am. It is also messy if you are using Mask as a PS plug in and are using Ctrl +/- to zoom in and out in PS. Much better to retain a consistent set of controls across tools. I am so used to it I do it without any conscious effort.
Regarding accuracy in low res images. That is fine unless you are editing high resolution which, I suspect, most people are. Certainly I am.
What Topaz Labs needs to do is publish a Development Roadmap for Mask AI so early adopters could understand the long term value equation they are buying into versus simply staying with Remask 5. A limited time discount is not enough by itself to avoid all the negative impressions they’ve created already. A clear picture of how things will grow into a better end result than simply paying for repackaged Remask 5 again would give hope to those who will forever remain on the fence otherwise.
On the other hand I’m not sure it helped all that much with the ill will generated by the shift to Studio 2, but it would probably be better than nothing. In that case the promised capabilities have simply failed to appear in a timely fashion, so their credibility has fallen into question.
I don’t know, you would need to raise a support request at the main website. Mask AI is far different to ReMask as it does incorporate AI technologies, the Contrast mode is similar to ReMask and other products on the market.
And, I am sure, it has nothing to do with Luminar as they are 2 totally different products.
“I have been using Topaz masking programs exclusively for many years. Mask AI is their latest and best masking program that allows users to explore infinite artistic possibilities”
It’s just not true! so OK it’s supposed to be different and it is, but it’s pretty obvious from this and other forums it’s not better… and to be honest pretty much 95% of it came came straight from Remask.
Really hoping Topaz look at this from the eyes of it’s users…
Don I get great looking masks like that using AI Mask and Remask but put a dark grey background behind that and that’s when the proof really shows. You certainly won’t have a perfect mask and that’s the point, Remask allowed you to get a perfect mask in pretty much most situations, yes sometimes it did require some effort but you could get there.
You can try AI Mask on the attached and post on a dark grey back ground and you’ll see what I mean.
Thanks Andrew, that is a challenging subject. This is after spending 5 minutes, using AI mode for the initial compute, then using contrast mode to clean up and I had foreground recovery and defringing set to 100. I would probably expect to spend at least 1 hour on this image. (One tip I would give though is that if you can have a higher quality image in a non-lossy format such as TIF it would be much better)
Been using remask for a few years it’s a great product but this is junk,it seems AI products produced by the accounts department to start making some money, AI gigapixel a case in point its useless,Photoshop can do all this stuff anyway, sorry won’t be buying.
You can’t compare GigaPixel with regular enlargement in Photoshop. I have excellent results with it compare to the Photoshop results. Mask AI looks as an unfinished product to me that needs a couple of updates, but it is no “junk” and has already created much potential to be a huge time saver in the future.
This is why I also bought Mask AI: not for what it is at the moment, but for what it might be in the future. Mask AI has potential, but it definitely needs to be improved, especially when it comes to cutting straight lines or curves.