3 ms·
OK sure but the distribution of natural images is highly redundant ie pixels are not independent and there is structure to exploit. It's not magic obviously but
by andbberger 5y ago
OK sure but the distribution of natural images is highly redundant ie pixels are not independent and there is structure to exploit. It's not magic obviously but done properly it's a pretty reasonable thing
- MauranKilom 5y ago> OK sure but the distribution of natural images is highly redundant ie pixels are not independent and there is structure to exploit. Sure, but that depends very strongly on the number of natural images you trained on and the specificity of the situation you present to the algorithm. Maybe one such structure in the training set just happens to be people holding knives given "a specific skin color and a turquoise sleeve on a picture with a color scheme as if it's a cloudy day".
- andbberger 5y agoI said if done properly. My point is that in principle using a natural image prior to 'enhance' an image is not a totally crazy thing.
- dathinab 5y agoIt isn't (EDIT: isn't crazy) . But there is no good way to reliably know if it's done well for this specific image. So it can't be trusted. Which doesn't mean it's worthless. It's kinda like someone saying "I think I maybe have seen <something> when passing by but I didn't pay attention." It's not trustable as the human mind if fickle but it can be a good starting point.
- Dah00n 5y agoSure, if it is an option applied after the fact by the user editing the photo. Any camera that does this automatically is utterly broken. Otherwise where is the line? Some sharpening? Adding bigger boobs by default? Make people less black?