Can you test proteus v2 in 2.6.4 vs proteus v3 in Topaz v3. I am getting less artifacts with v2 idk why.
Ugh ā I donāt get the reasoning. Why cherry pick the codecs?
Do they have to pay a licensing fee to use the ProRes codecs on Macs? They are already on the machine.
I wouldnāt think ProRes codecs would be used on PCs. They have plenty of their own.
I am starting to get an odd feeling about the ābehind the scenesā with this software.
I am confused why this even supports MKV.
There is a demand for high-quality private videos saved on DVD.
In this case, mkv would be an excellent means to easily extract the source.
1 Like
I understand MKV ā it was very popular for pirated movies on the internet.
It just seems to me ā stick with standard video format containers. If you want MKV ā then use a tool to convert your video into it.
MKV just cheapens the software and it is not a widely compatible container.
I have no idea what market they are going after now. If you do MKV then letās have a truly professional container ā MXF. At least MXF is well established and excepted in the video industry.
I think you got way off track. I suggested MKVToolnix GUI for splitting a file into sections to then feed into Topaz. It has NOTHING to do with Topaz itself.
Ok - I apologize. This forum is difficult to to maneuver through. It just appears like an endless list of random responses. lol. Sorry.
2 Likes
this feature is planned for a future update. itās on their roadmap.
1 Like
Nice to have a roadmap, but useless if not applied. Where is the chief navigator to control the best track?
1 Like
I did a lot of testing between Proteus V2 and V3 when it was released and I found V3 much better for my use case. It had a much wider range of control so you cannot use the same amount of change in V3 that you did in V2. I also preprocess most of my videos to a more lossless video to feed into VEAI. I try to clean up the video mildly first. If the video is poor VEAI might find patterns in the noise in some frames. If it does it will bring those out and that is hard to regulate. The file that I feed VEAI originally might have been 500Kb/s encoding and a size of 400Mb but what I feed VEAI after preprocessing is 18Mb/s and say 12GB in size after cleaning. Youāre never going to get a Blu-Ray quality video though with such a poor source video but you will get something that looks better once upscaled and slightly enhanced. Always try to test your final video on the target hardware. If thatās a 60 inch TV, a 130" projector or your computer monitor make sure to use it if possible. Try to make smaller changes to VEAI settings and if possible only to a couple of sliders in Proteus after estimating.
3 Likes
Here is an example of what I am trying to achieve when I upscale. Just a bit cleaner with less noise, not a miracle hidden Blu-ray video.
2 Likes
At least for now I would like to still use 2.6.4 until the speed is fixed. Is there somewhere I can download 2.6.4 from?
I think people tend to over expect what VEAI can do. Iāve always said and will continue to say that computing technology/AI capabilities are many years away from being able to take and old VHS/PAL video and upscale it to a quality equal to content originally shot in native 4K. If we weāre at that point today, I wouldnāt be upscaling Star Trek Voyager for the third time, because Paramount Studios would have done it already. VEAI is a hobby and gives me something to do in my off hours.
3 Likes
absolutly !!!
Cheapens? Lots of folks prefer MKV, myself included. Simply select the MP4 output option and your good to go.
2 Likes
I donāt know that I would call VEAI a hobby as professional restorers I think would see it as just one more tool in there toolbox. For individuals yes a hobby but they expect perfection for the price of what is just another tool. As an electrical/RF engineer by trade the cost of VEAI seems like such a bargain for what it does. From a hobby stand point VEAI is expensive but one must prioritize their needs. Never buy software that is not meeting your needs at the moment and never buy software based on what you think it will become.
1 Like
I only say this because it appears this software is going to more of a consumer market rather than professional. Iād gladly pay twice the price for improvements.
V3 is a disaster - it should stay in Beta until it is well tested and improved. I think the price is lower too at $159. I paid $299 a year ago. To me this is not looking like a professional tool for producers anymore. I had high hopes that V3 would be an improvement in speed and quality but Iām not seeing that.
Just my opinion. They are trying to find their market and competition is coming quickly. Plug-ins for After Effects are already here.
If you are a first time buyer - you will be getting v3 and not the more stable v2.6.4. I think there is a deeper reason for the total rewrite.
Time will tell. I remain optimistic.
4 Likes
Yes, for me itās just a hobby, so I can only speak for myself. If your in it to earn an income, then I suppose it can be viewed much differently.
