Magnific AI

[glorybound]

Has anybody else experienced a significant decline in Maginific AI quality? I used it daily, but I stopped for about a month, and now the results are unusable. First, I don't get the mandatory 2X upscaler, but the quality is now inferior, regardless.

[Pixelcon]

I does seem to be slower than before but I haven't noticed any difference in the quality of the upscaler.
You could try krea. It's much cheaper and very fast.

[glorybound]

With Magnific Ai are you guys using 1/2 scale and upscaling? it is weird that you have to upscale.

[cheerioboy]

I wonder how it compares to Topaz Gigapixel AI. That's what I've been using which does the processing local
For quick furniture massing/reference models from photos - Tripo3d

[glorybound]

I wonder how it compares to Topaz Gigapixel AI. That's what I've been using which does the processing local
For quick furniture massing/reference models from photos - Tripo3d

I was scaling down 50%, uploading, and it upscales 2X. It used to work, but now it isn't usable. Uploading full scale looks good, but costs 3X, takes a lot longer, and then I scale it down in PS. Somethng has changed, and I simply stopped using it.

[Vizioen]

Has anybody else experienced a significant decline in Maginific AI quality? I used it daily, but I stopped for about a month, and now the results are unusable. First, I don't get the mandatory 2X upscaler, but the quality is now inferior, regardless.

This is not an AI upscaler, but a creative upscaling AI, so you need to give it less information, hence you need to scale it down, so there's less information to work with and it can do it's thing aka fill in details (hallucinate) where there's none when upscaling.

I use it all the time, and there has been no decline, but also no update in the image quality. Just tested this with one of the first images I uploaded over a year ago and the output is exactly the same. So I'd say it's your input that isn't what it should be.