2 ms·
You should read https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.10972 https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.10972
by GaggiX 4y ago
You should read https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.10972 https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.10972
- IIAOPSW 4y agoThanks for that. I'm reading it now. Just off the abstract "when increasing the image size, the optimal noise scheduling shifts towards a noisier one (due to increased redundancy in pixels)" That's highly related to what I'm saying. Its a statement that may be true in the vast majority of cases, and thus would certainly be validated as true-on-average by whatever benchmark, but there's certain types of patterns that aren't redundant among nearby pixels despite being macroscopically visible. A similar thing happens with compression artifacts. For pictures of normal environments and objects jpeg works great. Save a 1 pixel wide line as a jpeg and it is surrounded by artifacts. jpeg compression is also largely built on the assumption that high frequency components in large images won't contain anything important to the image content. In both cases, the result is a visible digital artifact with a "tripy" patterning effect.
- IIAOPSW 4y agohere's an article that happens to echo a lot of what I've said, albeit with a different manifested example. https://www.crosslabs.org/blog/diffusion-with-offset-noise https://www.crosslabs.org/blog/diffusion-with-offset-noise