4 ms·
I use the fake bokeh "lens blur" tool in Adobe Camera Raw every day, and 99% of the time it gets these kinds of problems correct. Every now and again I have to
by qingcharles 2y ago
I use the fake bokeh "lens blur" tool in Adobe Camera Raw every day, and 99% of the time it gets these kinds of problems correct. Every now and again I have to click the tool and adjust the depth map, but for the most part it is amazingly good. I don't know what ML model they use and how far behind this Apple SOTA research Adobe's product is.
- amluto 2y agoFrom (very) brief searching, Adobe Camera Raw produces a depth map (and lets you edit it), and gets situations wheee the same pixel contains hair and background wrong, exactly the way one would expect if one trying to use a depth map-aware blue. I would expect an ML algorithm actually trained to blur the background behind hair to be able to do better (where the resulting image is the output), and maybe a radiance field or splatting algorithm could also do better. In the latter cases, the hair would be separately represented as a foreground object/source. I could easily be missing something, though. And I did not find any good full-resolution examples.
- qingcharles 2y agoI don't know, TBH. It definitely spools up my GPU hard, but that could just be standard maths, not ML inference. It works very, very well for me. Adobe actually has a definite ML version in Photoshop under their "Neural Filters" named "Depth Blur (beta)", which is actual AI, but I have slightly poorer results from that than I do with their mainstream "Lens Blur" on Camera Raw.