If I was making the company’s business plan (and I’m definitely not), what I would do is make this version of TVAI the “TVAI Pro” version, keep adding new features as they come along, fix the #$%^ bugs and let the price rise as needed (because prices are going to rise anyway). Then I’d make a stripped-down version that supports the three or four fastest models and provides basic functions (upscale, enhancement, frame interpolation, stabilize, motion deblur) with no support for video formats beyond the most common (mp4, mkv, mov), call it TVAI Free/Unlocked and let people download a free/cheaper version that lets users pay under $100/year to unlock some additional features as an intermediate step on the way up to “Pro.”
Why is a function that has long been standard with Topaz “Local processing. for security.” being advertised as a new Pro feature? Does this mean that it will soon no longer be possible to render locally in the normal video ai version?
All processing is still being done locally. Topaz doesn’t have the resources for cloud-based processing.
The new “Pro” feature is improved multi GPU support, and removing any multi GPU processing from the standard version.
I hope so. Hopefully no subscription model with cloud processing in the future. that’s what I appreciate about topaz, that I can process everything locally.
Removing mulit-GPu in standard one ?! It never has been question of that :o
From the v5.2 release thread:
Yes, but left unsaid is how many of us tried to use the multi-GPU setting and stopped because it was unstable and produced a lot of system crashes.
A shame … I bought state of the art GPU just for that and building a workstation around that
I noticed that at the bottom of the list of Pro features, it states that it comes with a commercial license, does that mean the standard Video AI can’t be used for client work?
This addresses the question of whether a buyer of software can transfer ownership to someone else. It doesn’t address whether the new owner would still have to comply with other terms of the license. And it’s unlikely it would have any effect on buyers outside of Germany.
I’ve always had 2 GPUs in my Topaz rig. Used to be 2 1080ti’s now it’s 2 4070s. I never liked the idea of burning up a super expensive GPU so I’d rather use 2 and I can have one do something else if necessary
In the 1080ti/v2.6-v3 days, it scaled pretty well, close to 100%. I had a water cooling mishap that killed the 1080s so I experimented with ARC (cuz they said it worked) and that didn’t go well. I started with 1 4070 and added another shortly after and the newer Topaz with the 4070s never scaled as well but at first it was still worthwhile to use both.
I was about 8 updates behind because even though I paid for a license I wasn’t going to lose mulit-GPU. I just recently realize 2 GPUs doesn’t do much anymore…probably 10% extra in actual use so I just stopped using the 2nd one anyway.
So yeah, nobody uses 2 GPUs with TVAI anymore because they made it completely irrelevant when it used to be worth doing…the old bait and switch eh?
Yes. I’d miss the feature more if it actually worked.
I just realized that Topaz is now isolating (non-limited) commercial uses of the software to the more expensive license. This is not good. Not even terrible Adobe does shenanigans like that–of course you can use Photoshop, Premiere Pro, etc commercially with a standard license. So now I’m supposed to be paying $1099/yr (50% more expensive than Adobe’s entire creative suite) so I can use this software as a freelancer (the end user agreement mentions “businesses with annual revenue exceeding $1 million” which doesn’t apply to me personally but could easily apply to someone I’m working for, and nobody comps a freelancer for the software they use; that’s absurd)?
As recent as November 2023, it seems like Topaz’s policies were the exact opposite. In this thread, someone asked Topaz about their policy regarding commercial use of their software: Topaz photo commercial usage - #4 by ricky.gai . They said, “You as a user have full license to sell or copyright your images and videos just as you would normally. Our AI software does not generate new works or content from scratch it only enhances what is already there in the image or video file that you put into the app.” I read that thread a couple months ago when I heard they were adding a “pro” license and got reassured that they wouldn’t be doing anything foolish like stripping us of our commercial rights over our footage.
Their policy now states, “The Software when directly purchased from the website under a personal license is solely intended for personal or limited commercial use.” I’ve had Topaz Video AI since way before November 2023, so they changed the policy regarding commercial use while I’ve had the license.
Please correct me if I’m wrong in any way.
Why? If your a contractor for a company, it’s your revenue that’s important. Unless you have rules in your country that contractors have to become employees of companies under certain circumstances, it shouldn’t be an issue.
And you know this to be the case how?
I have a friend who on occasion edits ads for a major shoe company, a company with certainly way over $1mil in revenue. He is not employed directly by them. If he were to use the software in one of his edits, that would be completely fine within the non-commercial license? That’s not how I’m reading the end user agreement. Based on the language about distribution (theatrical, streaming, etc), where the video ends up and who the video is benefitting is what matters rather than who happened to do the video AI processing. If what you’re saying were the case, couldn’t a major company just sub-contract out their video AI processing to somebody with revenue <$1 mil?
Also doesn’t change the fact that the policy was changed dramatically within a matter of months (which as far as I can tell was not really communicated to current owners of the normal Video AI license). And that this isn’t how any other current video software is priced. Adobe, Avid, Resolve, etc. I can’t recommend Topaz to anybody if there’s this looming possibility that you’ll break the end user agreement if your project ends up being too successful.
Yes. He did the work, gave them a final product (the edited ad), and got paid (his revenue). The licence isn’t non-commercial, It’s limited commercial, based on revenue.
I’m not debating whether what Topaz did was legal or ethical, it’s just the current situation.
