4 ms·
Uninformed take: this looks to me like an example of ‘style transfer’. If so, it doesn’t seem as compelling as other examples I’ve seen before, eg making a phot
by playpause 5y ago
Uninformed take: this looks to me like an example of ‘style transfer’. If so, it doesn’t seem as compelling as other examples I’ve seen before, eg making a photo look like a Van Gogh using a single painting as input, which has been around for a few years. Can someone with better knowledge in this area explain if I’m missing something?
- L_ 5y agoStyle transfer commonly hallucinates objects or adds artifacts. Making something look like a painting is actually much easier than making it look realistic. In paintings, artifacts are often tolerated as 'artistic'. In a photo, it just pops out. Also, style transfer approaches are not temporally stable most of the time. Have a look at the comparisons with state-of-the-art image-to-image translation (CUT, TSIT) and photo style transfer (WCT2). In the case of GTA/Cityscapes shown here, most of these methods put trees in the sky and/or flicker. Also the use of G-buffers allows a much deeper and more robust translation than just using images as style-transfer approaches.
- playpause 5y agoThank you, this is really interesting.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]