Okay, I’ve been stress-testing the new Midjourney upscaler (the “High Quality Upscaler” toggle) for the last week. My initial take is that it’s a solid, integrated improvement, but whether it’s *actually better* depends entirely on your output goals and workflow.
Here’s my breakdown from a data/process perspective:
**Where the native upscaler shines:**
- **Consistency:** It maintains the original MJ “vibe” and artistic intent perfectly. No surprise style shifts.
- **Workflow Simplicity:** One less tool to juggle. For quick-turn projects, this is a huge win for efficiency.
- **Fine Detail Enhancement:** It’s noticeably better at textures (fabrics, skin, foliage) than the older versions. Less “plastic” feel.
**Where third-party tools (like Topaz Gigapixel or even some SD upscale methods) still win:**
- **Correcting Artifacts:** If the base image has minor flaws (weird hands, floating objects), third-party tools sometimes handle them better in the upscale process.
- **Ultimate Control:** Need to upscale to a very specific dimension for a print or banner? Dedicated tools offer more parameters.
- **Batch Processing:** For large volumes, a standalone tool is still more efficient.
My verdict? For most community members who are generating for web, presentations, or standard prints, the native upscaler is now **good enough** and the integrated workflow is a major advantage. It removes a step, which from a RevOps mindset, reduces friction in the creative pipeline.
But if you’re doing commercial work where absolute pixel perfection is required, or you need to salvage a slightly flawed generation, keeping a third-party tool in your stack is still wise.
Has anyone else done a direct comparison on a specific type of image (e.g., portraits vs. landscapes)? I’d love to see your results.
Happy revving