Live data from Hacker News

Using Stable Diffusion's img2img on some old Sierra titles

sciprogramming.com

31–40 of 70 posts

Re: Using Stable Diffusion's img2img on some old Sierra titles

#31
post #7

Going to have to be the naysayer here. First, I'll say the simple fact that Stable Diffusion produces anything coherent is incredible. I'm blown away by the tech. However, my honest opinion of the results showcased in this article is not positive. Many of the result images contain bizarre distortions or dreamlike artifacts that severely disrupt the flow of the image. Especially the first one. It's clear that there's…

I think the weirdness is most obvious in the cliff overlooking a beach and in the woman's impossible object hand.

All of the output here is cool and impressive for sure, but good art it is not.

Re: Using Stable Diffusion's img2img on some old Sierra titles

#32
post #9
post #7

Going to have to be the naysayer here. First, I'll say the simple fact that Stable Diffusion produces anything coherent is incredible. I'm blown away by the tech. However, my honest opinion of the results showcased in this article is not positive. Many of the result images contain bizarre distortions or dreamlike artifacts that severely disrupt the flow of the image. Especially the first one. It's clear that there's…

Weird until I read your comment I was blown away. Then I had another proper look at the first image and in many ways I had to turn off my brains amazing ‘upscaling’ ability. My brain had upscaled that human like blob to a woman spinning around with a sword so her hair covered her face. Looking closely. None of that is there really, just a suggestion of it. And that is enough. The more I learn about vision and sight t…

>Looking closely. None of that is there really, just a suggestion of it.

In contrast to the photorealistic pixel art?

Re: Using Stable Diffusion's img2img on some old Sierra titles

#33
post #9
post #7

Going to have to be the naysayer here. First, I'll say the simple fact that Stable Diffusion produces anything coherent is incredible. I'm blown away by the tech. However, my honest opinion of the results showcased in this article is not positive. Many of the result images contain bizarre distortions or dreamlike artifacts that severely disrupt the flow of the image. Especially the first one. It's clear that there's…

Weird until I read your comment I was blown away. Then I had another proper look at the first image and in many ways I had to turn off my brains amazing ‘upscaling’ ability. My brain had upscaled that human like blob to a woman spinning around with a sword so her hair covered her face. Looking closely. None of that is there really, just a suggestion of it. And that is enough. The more I learn about vision and sight t…

We see reality in some sense - light of various wavelenghts reflects off physical objects and enters our eye. However, our processing and subjective interpretation of the input is what can be more subjective, because every person's brain is going to process such items differently based upon experience (especially early life experience, when our brains are the most plastic). Also, some people have sensory differences (such as color blindness) that can influence the processing of the light that enters our eye.

Objective reality exists, for some definition of "exists" - there is physical matter present, with properties enabling some or all wavelengths of light to reflect (and similar for other senses like hearing). However, if we viewed reality devoid of the subjective processing, we'd "see" everything, but key existential concepts such as object permanence would not be possible, as that requires our brain be able to process and recognize an object in order to identify what the object is in the first place, to even be able to remember what it is. Not entirely unlike the iterative process of modern machine learning.

Re: Using Stable Diffusion's img2img on some old Sierra titles

#34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you’re looking at something else, it’s not per day, it’s a credit system that amounts to about 1 cent per image. How many images do you plan to generate a day?

yes, it's per image but for some reason I easily rushed through the 1000 generations in one day.

I did too, but I bought another 1000 generations and haven't run out yet. Many days I don't use it at all. I like it better than a monthly subscription like MidJourney.

Re: Using Stable Diffusion's img2img on some old Sierra titles

#38
post #31
post #7

Going to have to be the naysayer here. First, I'll say the simple fact that Stable Diffusion produces anything coherent is incredible. I'm blown away by the tech. However, my honest opinion of the results showcased in this article is not positive. Many of the result images contain bizarre distortions or dreamlike artifacts that severely disrupt the flow of the image. Especially the first one. It's clear that there's…

I think the weirdness is most obvious in the cliff overlooking a beach and in the woman's impossible object hand. All of the output here is cool and impressive for sure, but good art it is not.

The inaccuracy or weirdness of the resulting images has no bearing on how good or bad it is as art. Art has nothing to do with that. I would argue this is a shitty tech demo more than anything else.

I do not mean to discount the creator as it’s cool regardless, it just doesn’t really have anything to do with art. They’re literally just running some old computer images through a technology. That’s it.

There will probably be good art conceived of good artists that uses this style and these techniques at some point, though.

Re: Using Stable Diffusion's img2img on some old Sierra titles

#39
post #9
post #7

Going to have to be the naysayer here. First, I'll say the simple fact that Stable Diffusion produces anything coherent is incredible. I'm blown away by the tech. However, my honest opinion of the results showcased in this article is not positive. Many of the result images contain bizarre distortions or dreamlike artifacts that severely disrupt the flow of the image. Especially the first one. It's clear that there's…

Weird until I read your comment I was blown away. Then I had another proper look at the first image and in many ways I had to turn off my brains amazing ‘upscaling’ ability. My brain had upscaled that human like blob to a woman spinning around with a sword so her hair covered her face. Looking closely. None of that is there really, just a suggestion of it. And that is enough. The more I learn about vision and sight t…

The key element missing from the generated images is understanding of form. In recognizing objects we're generally relying on shape first(so, strong outlines and silhouettes, blobs of color, and so forth). But only afterwards does our brain start to see forms in perspective.

When learning drawing I gradually got a sense of what is really going on is that I'm gaining a more conscious command of different shapes, just like when I learned to write letters; but instead of abstract marks, I'm learning the shape of hands, arms, etc - and from various perspectives. And so if I study a lot of the same shapes in a topic like anatomy or wildlife, I can replicate them from memory with fairly accurate proportions.

The difference between me and the AI, in its current form, is that the AI continues along the path of being an extremely smart shape recognizer and reproducer(as it should be, given some the first applications of the tech were to text recognition). So it can output a lot of details I can't(without lots of reference) and blend in stylistic ideas I'm unaware of. But I, while having a much more limited visual library, can mix in more details of the perspective, how anatomy and clothing work, and other kinds of logic. I can push the shapes to convey specific action and expression, design lighting situations and so on.

AI's ability to do it all in one step gives it a result that is very "savant", because it doesn't know what is and isn't a coherent image, but it has total mastery at making the shapes and applying rendering. Some of the things I've seen it do to prompts are wildly creative in interpretation as a result. It's a good tool.

Re: Using Stable Diffusion's img2img on some old Sierra titles

#40
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weird until I read your comment I was blown away. Then I had another proper look at the first image and in many ways I had to turn off my brains amazing ‘upscaling’ ability. My brain had upscaled that human like blob to a woman spinning around with a sword so her hair covered her face. Looking closely. None of that is there really, just a suggestion of it. And that is enough. The more I learn about vision and sight t…

>Looking closely. None of that is there really, just a suggestion of it. In contrast to the photorealistic pixel art?

Exactly, these complaints are insane given that the source is 8 colour pixel art.
Post reply on HN