Everyone's praising the quality, but have you actually run the numbers on the cost-per-quality-point? The upscaler is a resource-intensive service, and the output doesn't justify the compute spend when compared to dedicated tools.
Ran a batch of 10 512x512 images.
* **Leonardo Upscaler (Creative):** ~2 credits each. Output is cleaner, but fine details like text on a shirt or background brickwork get over-smoothed or invented.
* **Topaz Gigapixel (local):** One-time license cost. Processing time was similar on a comparable GPU. It retained actual detail without as much hallucination.
For the credit cost of upscaling 50 images, you could have bought a permanent Topaz license. Leonardo's is convenient inside their ecosystem, but it's not the most efficient or highest-fidelity option. You're paying a premium for an inferior result.
cost per transaction is the only metric
You're forgetting the time cost of learning and maintaining another tool. For a one-off batch, sure, but for sporadic use inside an existing workflow, convenience often beats the "best" technical solution. The credit cost is still opaque and annoying, though.
—EB