4 ms·

http://o3.tumblr.com/post/470608946/photoshops-caf-content-aware-fill-unbelievable http://o3.tumblr.com/post/470608946/photoshops-caf-content-a... Same picture

http://o3.tumblr.com/post/470608946/photoshops-caf-content-aware-fill-unbelievable http://o3.tumblr.com/post/470608946/photoshops-caf-content-a... Same pictures as the Video. Gimp actually does better here.

SlyShy 17y ago
Except those aren't actually the original picture. That's the picture with the trash already removed. Not that I'm saying Gimp can't do as good of a job. It's exactly the same technology based on the same research. But I am saying that blog post is a tad dishonest.
danudey 17y ago
In the third picture, if you look in the bottom left and right corners, you can see a sudden colour change along the lines where the original picture's content ended. On the right, for example, the original cloud is sort of yellowish, then it suddenly becomes a more neutral grey along a diagonal line. In the sky it's harder to tell, but it's still there too.
- Qz 17y ago
  I agree, the CS5 version seems to be better.
  - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
    Yeah, the GIMP one is only almost-almost-magical (plus free and available right now).
naner 17y ago
Isn't it the exact same algorithm? The differences are probably only to do with how things are selected.
- jcl 17y ago
  Probably not. There are a number of image inpainting, texture synthesis, and reconstruction algorithms that can be applied, with different behaviors regarding noise, color correction, detail scale, handling of regularity/irregularity, temporal coherence, run time, etc. GIMP's Resynthesizer is based on a 2005 PhD thesis, while the Photoshop thing is probably based on a 2009 SIGGRAPH paper. http://www.logarithmic.net/pfh/thesis http://www.logarithmic.net/pfh/thesis http://www.cs.princeton.edu/gfx/pubs/Barnes_2009_PAR/index.php http://www.cs.princeton.edu/gfx/pubs/Barnes_2009_PAR/index.p...
bluesmoon 17y ago
I actually posted that to hackernews a while ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1221594 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1221594 and it got only 5 votes. I guess the story title really matters.

SlyShy 17y ago

Except those aren't actually the original picture. That's the picture with the trash already removed. Not that I'm saying Gimp can't do as good of a job. It's exactly the same technology based on the same research. But I am saying that blog post is a tad dishonest.

danudey 17y ago

In the third picture, if you look in the bottom left and right corners, you can see a sudden colour change along the lines where the original picture's content ended. On the right, for example, the original cloud is sort of yellowish, then it suddenly becomes a more neutral grey along a diagonal line. In the sky it's harder to tell, but it's still there too.

Qz 17y ago
I agree, the CS5 version seems to be better.
- ZeroGravitas 17y ago
  Yeah, the GIMP one is only almost-almost-magical (plus free and available right now).

naner 17y ago

Isn't it the exact same algorithm? The differences are probably only to do with how things are selected.

jcl 17y ago
Probably not. There are a number of image inpainting, texture synthesis, and reconstruction algorithms that can be applied, with different behaviors regarding noise, color correction, detail scale, handling of regularity/irregularity, temporal coherence, run time, etc. GIMP's Resynthesizer is based on a 2005 PhD thesis, while the Photoshop thing is probably based on a 2009 SIGGRAPH paper. http://www.logarithmic.net/pfh/thesis http://www.logarithmic.net/pfh/thesis http://www.cs.princeton.edu/gfx/pubs/Barnes_2009_PAR/index.php http://www.cs.princeton.edu/gfx/pubs/Barnes_2009_PAR/index.p...

bluesmoon 17y ago

I actually posted that to hackernews a while ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1221594 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1221594 and it got only 5 votes. I guess the story title really matters.