3 ms·
The "colorized" version is very brown. Is that a limitation of the AI or is that really what it probably looked like?
by CivBase 6y ago
The "colorized" version is very brown. Is that a limitation of the AI or is that really what it probably looked like?
- curiousllama 6y agoUnclear. These upscaling techs are more "this is what it realistically could have looked like" than "this is what it did look like"
- gnramires 6y agoThis seems to be an artifact of the training error used by some AIs: in case a simple L2 loss is used, the AI will generate close to an average color (average over an "intrinsic" color distribution), which appears washed out.
- aasasd 6y agoAt least some attempts at AIs colorizing photos, that were previously posted on Reddit or HN, tend to break into sepia on many things—and for some reason, also blue on clothes. Even when it clearly looked unnatural. So it seems to be an artifact of current approaches in general, and not of this particular case. (However it might be that this post and those ones were made by the same people.) Personally, from my completely-uneducated viewpoint, I wonder if this shows the current boundary of what's possible, with the AI not having the knowledge of what it sees. Presumably you need to first teach the AI about all of the things in the old photos/videos, and then somehow show what color each of them should be. Particularly, I'm rather skeptical about the latter part because e.g. clothes have plenty of variability in color, and properly you'd need to guess the kind of clothes, the material and the period to take a stab at the color. Like, no blue in the middle ages, except for rich people. Conversely, I'd imagine that if the AI is trained on ten different examples of pants of various colors but about the same darkness, it can't pick any particularly saturated color because the choice would be mostly random. But ‘drab’ is always safe.