Dear Seelab Team,

First of all, I would like to say that I fully share the positive feedback regarding the user interface and overall usability. The range of editing options provided, including the upscaler, is truly excellent.
However, at the moment, Imagen 4 is the only Pro model. Unfortunately, the other models do not deliver the quality I need by comparison. This does not mean that all results are poor, but after upscaling and at 100% view, significant differences from the market-leading models become apparent. I verified this using identical prompts with the common top models.

With another provider, for example, my subscription includes a significantly broader selection of Pro models, often tiered by performance and credit consumption.

I understand that an LTD (lifetime deal) must be sustainable. However, if Imagen 4 remains the only Pro model, I personally see no added value in Plan 4.

Could you therefore please confirm whether additional Pro models are planned? I would be perfectly fine with these requiring more credits.

If this is not implemented within my refund period, I would unfortunately have to request a refund. My 25‑USD voucher would also be forfeited, which would be a pity.

I very much hope to stay with you. However, I will understandably not keep a Plan 4 that I cannot make full use of. I hope, for your sake and mine, that the number of Pro models will increase soon on fair terms.

Kind regards,

ADDITION:

Now that Imagen 4 Pro has been added, I am raising my rating.

Magnify, the upscaler, performs well in areas without zooming in—in some cases, it ranks ahead of Topaz Gigapixel Redefine Creative. Magnify often removes small imperfections better and shows fewer artifacts in normal view.

However, when zooming in, color areas lose their homogeneity; at the pixel level, color differences, such as spots in the background, are easier to see. If this shortcoming did not occur when enlarging, I would see Magnify more often ahead of Topaz – with significantly less post-processing.

Since only one image can be scaled at a time, the process is not yet particularly smooth. If this is improved, there will be little need to fear the competition. I am therefore raising my rating to 3 for now, with a view to a possible 4 or 5 if further improvements follow.

I expect further positive developments, with the credit system also playing a role—especially sustainability. I am confident that Seelab will find a solution that is acceptable to everyone.

Best regards