Hacker News Reader

Comment by slackfan | Hacker News Reader

Examples look like pretty basic Photoshop filters circa 20 years ago.

Not even close. Traditional Photoshop filters can't do anything like this.

I know the filters you're talking about, and they can certainly turn photos into some faux-artistic effects, but the result is really bad, and everything in the image remains in the exact same place.

This is applying an actual artistic style, and also changing body position, background, hair, lighting, etc.

So I don't know why you'd want to be so dismissive of something like this.

To an untrained eye, it all looks the same really. There is no artistic style here that you can clearly see in any decent museum of fine arts. It really does just look like photoshop filters.

Not sure the power costs of running a model like this over the caloric costs of a human + the power to power their photoshop machine, for instance, is worth it.

No, they look nothing alike. And I described why. Which you haven't even acknowledged. And it has nothing to do with an "trained eye".

Saying they look the same is like saying Nintendo 64 graphics look the same as PlayStation 5 graphics. It's just incorrect.

They look alike to me. I'm sorry that I am not you, and cannot perceive reality the same way that you do. Really open-minded of you to think like this, really.

Genuine question then, how do you do something like this with PS or Gimp?

Lots of layers and lots of mattes. You take any picture of a person, and matte them out of the background. You then find a background you like, and arrange as you see fit. You then find whatever hair style you like, and matte it in as well. Plenty of other filters involved as well. Hell, you can even play with this stuff in Illustrator to get the "painted" look by converting to vectors.

How many magazine covers do you see and actually believe that was anything close to what the original image looked like? I have no idea how long this thing takes, but I'm guessing it's helluva lot faster than a person in PS, and it will be doable with anybody with zero amount of talent required.

To think it couldn't be done in PS is just lack of knowing good PS artists.

Ok, so it's more than just "pretty basic Photoshop filters" like OP suggested.

Well, they just said it looks like basic filters, and to an extent they are not wrong. PS has had filters that give a "paint" look/feel to it, and they would still be useful to do this in PS. They didn't say that's all that would be needed. Those filters are basic filters in PS as they are included and not 3rd party separate purchases.

Your interpretation of the original comment into saying it was simple is a bit skewed

photoshop requires human work, but this is fully done automatically, that might be the major difference

Just requires a single snipped of javascript to do the same automatically. Photoshop supports robust scripting.

You can also do much the same with imagemagic, no AI required.

I have not tried this service, but one of the examples takes a picture of a man whose head is tilted to the side and makes a painting where his head is not tilted. You wont be able to do that with imagemagic

I'd be welcome to be proven wrong, but I don't think you'd be able to achieve the results shown here without some sort of stable diffusion or GAN approach.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com