3 ms·
Is it really very different? Mind you just slapping the subject and a random background together would, accurately, not produce a very good result but for deca
by chankstein38 3y ago
Is it really very different? Mind you just slapping the subject and a random background together would, accurately, not produce a very good result but for decades before SD existed people were able to accurately composite objects into images matching shadows and manipulating lighting to fit.
The distinction doesn't feel worth commenting about overall.
- pj_mukh 3y agoInpainting manually is incredibly laborious. The comparison is almost like manually adding numbers on a paper spreadsheet vs excel. Manual inpainting gives a lot of control though, something I hope these SD pipelines can improve on.
- chankstein38 3y agoThat's why I had asked if the goal of the project was just to skip the laborious parts of compositing! haha I'm with you on the lack of control of SD. It can create some amazing stuff but so frequently it's kind of just "put in some words and click until you get something you like then pull into an image editor to fix up issues" which ends up meaning I have to do some of the labor still anyway.
- bogwog 3y ago> The distinction doesn't feel worth commenting about overall. That's like saying that the distinction between the output of stable diffusion and a real artist isn't worth commenting about overall, since they're both just paintings.
- chankstein38 3y agoIn the context of whether or not a process is compositing or inpainting, that's factual. The output is a 2d plate placed in front of a background. Both achieve similar results. The level of manual (or automated) effort is not what's being discussed here. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.