I understand the points you are making and you’re not wrong, I simply have a different viewpoint, and I know I am giving Topaz a lot of slack. I don’t think of using TVAI as a privilege, more like ‘breaking new ground’, and I don’t mind paying a price to be part of it. Anyone who feels slighted by Topaz’s approach has every right to complain about it, of course.
1 Like
Process 2 versions in a row of the same 30-minute program with quality origin E.B.U European Broadcasting Union.
The two tracks in AfterEffects 2023, I am adjusting the tracks according to quality criteria with a mix of 0-100.
I process the mix and adjust audio and color.
With version 3.1 the tracks are out of sync in frames on the Ae timeline.
Original 6 Gb avi 4.2.2 10 bit in the process gives a result of 35 GB.
Regards
Uploading: image.png…
Uploading: Captura de pantalla 2023-01-19 234328.png…
And ask for their money back!
1 Like
Sure!
Thanks for the info. I’ll be staying on 3.0.12 until they fix this (if they ever fix it).
1 Like
That’s true. I don’t know how much speed has increased in 3.1 releases. I haven’t tested it myself, but some people on forums here claim its slower and some that it’s better than the other 3. something releases. I can’t verify. Probably its specific to hardware. Some I’m sure are getting an increase in speed and some probably are not. So still work to do for the Topaz team.
Stabilization from what I’ve seen even when advertised as finished tends to fall apart with some types of footage. Mainly with fast movements of rolling shutter effect with complex shapes. Some parts of the image sheer, some change perspective, some wobble, etc. Notoriously difficult to fix. I know The Foundry - Rolling Shutter plugin was released some ten years ago, for Nuke and After Effects to solve the problem of difficult tracking and camera solve with CMOS rolling shutter footage. Sooner or later they would break down as well. And that was with no AI, some 10 year ago. It would be nice if Topaz could surpass that. RollingShutter - an introduction - YouTube
Also stabilization I think is something we have in many other programs so it’s not so much of a big deal but the ability to fill in blank frames from zooming in to stabilize footage is very useful. I know Mocha Pro can do that, but one has to track and stabilize manually first.
Having one automated option to fix rolling shutter and stabilize footage and fill in the frame would be amazing. I hope Topaz can work that out.
The same is true for their motion de-blur filter. That would be great on normal 25 or 24 fps footage with motion blur. If one could first remove motion blur and then slow it down with slow motion AI that would solve the major problem of shooting normal 180 degree shutter rule footage and later slow it down with no classical motion blur effect. But I think there will be a while before we see that one is working properly.
All-in-all yes, I think it would have been great if they kept improving 2.6.4 version while working on 3.x in beta.
3 Likes
Unable to use Gaia AI model. Get the below
Last FFmpeg messages:
Unable to parse option value “0” as video rate
Unable to parse option value “0” as video rate
Yes however, it should have stated that as I’ve been getting updates for the past few months (due to 3 coming out at the end of my last year and being so bad).
Now when I need to go to go back to the 3.0.12 version and all I can download is 2.6.4.
Is there a link for 3.0.12 etc.?
Okay 2.6.4 will then update…I’ll see how far.
Right so I get to install and upgrade to 3.0.0 but then I have to register and…no your licence expired in November.
So I’m now locked out of all the extended updates we were given due to 3 being so bad.
Marvellous. I’m now 13 versions behind.
Yeah they forgot to allow for those folks they gave extended updates too though.
We are now all back on 2.6.4.
Don’t install 3.1 if you got the extended “beta testing” updates!
I tried it.
By color change, do you mean a condition like in the test image?
The bottom is the original video and the top is the converted one.
In the case of SD resolution, the colors are Rec. 601.
HD resolution is Rec709, but TVAI does not do that conversion, so the data is Rec601 in HD resolution.
Some editing software may interpret the HD resolution as Rec709 and read the data as such, resulting in color alteration.
This may be a different cause, but just for reference.
What do you mean? I’ve never experienced a drawback to having an official release installed + the beta du jour.
You know what I mean…we are all beta testers using Topaz software. 
1 Like
Most places, they will also accept passing it on to family members. I had no problem giving one of my older machines to my Grandson, (Along with a generous number of Steam Gift Cards and the free version of Visual Studio.)
Today, we are all witnessing the infancy of AI in many different forms. He will witness its maturation and coming together in the coming years.
In the 1950s, we were fascinated with the possibility of TV/wristwatch telephones in the future. Now they are here. The flying cars and intelligent houses are becoming reality. Fascinating!
“The future is fun. The future is fair. They already have wars. We may even be there.” - The Firesign Theatre
1 Like
Trying 3.1 in trial mode, I see that Themis motion deblur seems to do well on slow movement at least, of inanimate objects but falls apart completely in rapid movement and turning - especially faces. It’s OK on fairly static and reasonably large faces but if you’ve seen mangled faces with other models, you ain’t seen nuthin yet!
I could only judge in areas not covered by that massive flickery Topaz watermark but essentially, it enhanced any existing mangled features and made them far more prominent. I had to change the sound track to the Monster Mash by Bobby Pickett and The Crypt-Kickers
Suffice it to say that the one feature that might have persuaded me to stump up the upgrade cash doesn’t work on the kind of oldish video that I would need it to work on.
I bought a license for 2.x because it was pretty stable, and actively receiving updates, in the form of new and improved models.
Not long after purchase, those updates stopped completely, and focus shifted entirely to the alpha for 3. Then the beta for 3. Then the rushed release of 3 from beta.
Performance and workflow have taken a major step backwards, particularly on AMD graphics cards. 3 is unusable with AMD compared to 2.6.
The trimmer in 3 is also a massive step backwards compared to 2.6. I am not sure how anyone could conclude that it was an improvement in functionality.
Was there anyone in the alpha/beta for 3 that thought that it WASN’T released way too early?
Did anyone in the beta feel like it was an improvement over 2.6?
Not exaggerating, 3 really could have used another year in development and beta. It might be release ready next November.
In the mean time, new and improved models could have been added to 2.x.
In many ways, a monthly subscription model would actually be preferable, as users could pay $15 a month if and when they needed the program, or when they deemed it worthy of actually subscribing to.
Currently it would not be worth $15 a month to me, never mind $150 for a year of ‘upgrades’ that are actually just incremental updates and essential performance/stability patches that are locked behind a paywall.
How much effort would it be to implement 2 distinct paths for users? Active licenses receiving ‘upgrades’ in the form of new models, and inactive licenses only receiving the performance/stability ‘updates’.
6 Likes
Well stated! Though the software is slowly getting better with each minor update, it’s still not usable for me. I wonder how many customers feel similarly. I doubt many non-technical customers would venture into this forum and post about their experience, so we’ll likely never know.
1 Like
When people are offered an ‘update’ (clearly stated as an ‘update’, never an ‘upgrade’!), without any warning that they are not actually entitled to it, which then overwrites and breaks their previously working installation of the program while prompting them to cough up $150 if they wish to keep using the program…
While also saying “This version actually performs how you expected the previous versions to perform!”
Pretty sure that will drive angry customers to their forums and support channels. Hard to imagine that many people would just be fine with that kind of move.
It comes across as a cynical and shady cash grab to me. It’s a great way to earn a bad reputation with customers, and does the opposite of encouraging customer loyalty.
3 Likes
Per Migliorare il ricampionamento video si potrebbe creare un archivio interno dall’analisi dei fotogrammi del video in questione in modo comparativo dai fotogrammi adiacenti, immaginando di avere a che fare con lo stesso cliente si potrebbe valutare la possibilità di una comparazione con i fotogrammi degli altri video e se ciò non fosse possibile si potrebbe ricorere ad una scansione ad alta risoluzione della foto per il fotogramma in questione da inserire nell’archivio, potrebbe essere utile inserire dei materiali di comparazione nell’archivio tipo le librerie del programma Terragen, e ampliandolo di anno in anno.
