3 ms·

I guess it's optimized for artsy images?

by cranium 2y ago

llm_trw 2y ago
Give it another month and it will be porn, just like sdxl.
- Zopieux 2y ago
  What are you talking about, the model is months old, it's already all porn - and that's okay.
Auracle 2y ago
They almost certainly did DPO it, so that would have an effect. It was also probably just trained more on professional photography than cell phone pics. I’ve found it odd how there’s a segment of the population that hates a shallow depth of field now, as they’re so used to their phone pictures. I got in an argument on Reddit (sigh) with someone who insisted that the somewhat shallow depth of field that SDXL liked to do by default was “fake.” As in, he was only ever exposed to it through portrait mode and the like on phones and didn’t comprehend that larger sensors simply looked like that. The images he was posting that looked “fake” to him looked to be about a 50mm lens at f/4 on a full frame camera at a normal portrait distance, so nothing super shallow either.
- Adverblessly 2y ago
  As a DoF "hater", my problem with it is that DoF is just the result of a sensor limitation (when not used artistically etc.), not some requirement of generating images. If I can get around that limitation, there's very little motivation to maintain that flaw. In the real world, if I see a person at the beach, I can look at the person and see them in perfect focus, I can then look at the ocean behind them and it is also in perfect focus. If you are an AI generating an image for me, I certainly don't need you to tell me on which parts of that image I'm allowed to focus, just let me see both the person and the ocean (unless I tell you to give me something artsy :)).
  - Auracle 2y ago
    If you have the camera focus on the person, they'll be in perfect focus. If you then have the camera focus on the ocean, it'll be in focus. Our eyes work the same way. Of course, just like the camera's aperture can be set our pupils will be pretty contracted on a beach. Of course, you should be able to tell the AI to generate it how you want - that's the goal, after all. Having at least a somewhat shallow depth of field by default makes sense though.
  - tcrenshaw 2y ago
    While you could look at DoF as a sensor limitation, most photographers use it as an artistic choice. Sure, I could take a pic at f/16 and have everything within the frame in focus, but maybe the background is distracting and takes away from the subject. I can choose how much background separation I want; maybe just a touch at f/8, maybe full on blue at f/1.2
- vunderba 2y ago
  That's pretty funny. It reminds me of if you grew up watching movies with the standard 24 fps - trying to watch films at 60fps later felt unnatural and fake. I'll say I'm okay with DOF - it just feels (subjectively to me) like its incredibly exaggerated in Flux. The workarounds have mostly been prompt based adding everything from "gopro capture" to "on flickr in 2007" but this approach feels like borderline alchemy in terms of how reliable it is.

I guess it's optimized for artsy images?

llm_trw 2y ago

Give it another month and it will be porn, just like sdxl.

Zopieux 2y ago
What are you talking about, the model is months old, it's already all porn - and that's okay.

Auracle 2y ago

They almost certainly did DPO it, so that would have an effect. It was also probably just trained more on professional photography than cell phone pics. I’ve found it odd how there’s a segment of the population that hates a shallow depth of field now, as they’re so used to their phone pictures. I got in an argument on Reddit (sigh) with someone who insisted that the somewhat shallow depth of field that SDXL liked to do by default was “fake.” As in, he was only ever exposed to it through portrait mode and the like on phones and didn’t comprehend that larger sensors simply looked like that. The images he was posting that looked “fake” to him looked to be about a 50mm lens at f/4 on a full frame camera at a normal portrait distance, so nothing super shallow either.

Adverblessly 2y ago
As a DoF "hater", my problem with it is that DoF is just the result of a sensor limitation (when not used artistically etc.), not some requirement of generating images. If I can get around that limitation, there's very little motivation to maintain that flaw. In the real world, if I see a person at the beach, I can look at the person and see them in perfect focus, I can then look at the ocean behind them and it is also in perfect focus. If you are an AI generating an image for me, I certainly don't need you to tell me on which parts of that image I'm allowed to focus, just let me see both the person and the ocean (unless I tell you to give me something artsy :)).
- Auracle 2y ago
  If you have the camera focus on the person, they'll be in perfect focus. If you then have the camera focus on the ocean, it'll be in focus. Our eyes work the same way. Of course, just like the camera's aperture can be set our pupils will be pretty contracted on a beach. Of course, you should be able to tell the AI to generate it how you want - that's the goal, after all. Having at least a somewhat shallow depth of field by default makes sense though.
- tcrenshaw 2y ago
  While you could look at DoF as a sensor limitation, most photographers use it as an artistic choice. Sure, I could take a pic at f/16 and have everything within the frame in focus, but maybe the background is distracting and takes away from the subject. I can choose how much background separation I want; maybe just a touch at f/8, maybe full on blue at f/1.2
vunderba 2y ago
That's pretty funny. It reminds me of if you grew up watching movies with the standard 24 fps - trying to watch films at 60fps later felt unnatural and fake. I'll say I'm okay with DOF - it just feels (subjectively to me) like its incredibly exaggerated in Flux. The workarounds have mostly been prompt based adding everything from "gopro capture" to "on flickr in 2007" but this approach feels like borderline alchemy in terms of how reliable it is.