![]() However, LuminarAI is very fast on my machine which is fairly recent. Luminar 4 requires much less processing power than AI. This table shows overlap between versions:Īlso note that MANY features in the final release are NOT in Early Access: Skylum has never stolen my money and has always delivered every pre-order product - for better or worse.Īlso, it is inconsistent to say they "lose interest in the current version of the product" and at the same time argue they are selling an "enhanced, extended version of the current and previous versions." I am old enough to remember something called Kickstater which used a similar model. Tries to raise money by pre-selling a discounted, unfinished, incomplete next version of the software, which appears to be just an enhanced, extended version of the current and previous versions.I would say they are attempting to implement, sometimes successfully, advanced AI technology. Appears to lose interest in the current version of the product, instead promoting a future release which may not be compatible with it.Yes.This has been the business model since MacPhun days of Creative Kit. Drops a fairly recent version of their main software that was last updated less than a year previously, giving it away free.I can't think of any other company which: I'm curious about the Skylum business model. Obviously, we need to "invest" time with useful apps, not "waste" time with slow and buggy apps. ![]() If so, I would not touch it even if Skylum gives Neo for free. Of course, it is even easier if you would tell me if Luminar Neo is just as slow as AI. After all, a "quick and easy fix" app as Luminar AI is NOT quick at all (so slow on my i7-10700 with 16GB RAM that I have to stop the app with Task Manager). I guess you imply Luminar 4 is even slower and buggier than AI because of its complexity. As I said earlier, Luminar 4 is not my "go to" but I can do good work with it and so can many pros who have made Youtube videos. I suspect some of the criticism comes from those who did not invest the time to really learn a program that has a very different interface and was therefore deemed unworthy. Luminar 4 has a learning curve much like PS and Photolab. ![]() Luminar AI is mostly for dilettantes who want to do a quick and easy fix. Luminar 4 is much more capable - a full blown editor. Luminar 4 and Luminar AI are as different as night and day. It also fixes problems that many photographers will be working quite hard to avoid in the first place.I have NOT used Luminar 4 or prior, but based on my experience with Luminar AI (yes I bought it with Luminar X membership), it is a pretty useless app. When it doesn’t, it’s a bit disappointing, especially in view of the cost and the time it takes. When it works, Topaz Photo AI is very good. Topaz Photo AI is expensive and quite slow to use, and while it can fix some photo problems remarkably well, they have to fall into what I’ll call its ‘fixability window’, and you have to have enough of these problem photos in the first place to make it worth the cost. With phone images I found it tended to upscale the phone processing artefacts rather than finding or adding new detail. The upscaling works really well on images with good intrinsic detail and not too much processing – such as those from a DSLR or mirrorless camera. The Upscale and Enhance Resolution tools will often be used together. There is a ‘processed’ look about the results, but it’s still an effective tool for rescuing or enhancing unrepeatable people shots. It works surprisingly well on people who are just out of focus or not quite sharp. The Recover Faces tool kicks in when the software recognizes faces in the frame and thinks they need fixing. Shots that were just slightly soft underwent a pretty dramatic transformation, and shots with poor focusing had variable outcomes – often with obviously processed edge detail and ‘filling in’ of the sort you see with over-processed phone images. I found that shots on the wrong side of its ‘fixability’ threshold were made worse – including any kind of double-image blur from camera shake. The Sharpen process can be spectacular or bad, depending on the image. I wouldn’t put this in the same league as DxO’s DeepPRIME XD processing. I found myself pushing the Detail slider up to maximum and the Strength slider down to zero to get results that looked smooth and crisp. The noise removal is very effective but quite aggressive by default. The results vary, depending on the quality of the image you’re starting from and its particular issues. The recovered detail in the rocks and the leaves, top right, is pretty remarkable. ![]() This is the most spectacular outcome, though the Autopilot didn't think this needed sharpening it all, so it was done manually. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |