[HN Gopher] Using Stable Diffusion's img2img on some old Sierra ...
___________________________________________________________________
Using Stable Diffusion's img2img on some old Sierra titles
Author : Karuma
Score : 132 points
Date : 2022-09-05 17:24 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (sciprogramming.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (sciprogramming.com)
| yummybear wrote:
| Awesome, but it's totally missing the atmosphere in the originals
| imo
| iforgotpassword wrote:
| I found the intro of one of the kings quest games run through SD
| a few days ago, but can't seem to find it now. It wasn't that
| impressive since I guess there wasn't much fine tuning going on,
| but I liked the general idea. It had a few funny hiccups, but I'd
| have expected much more erratic behavior, because there is no
| information shared between frames (I guess). But maybe this
| concept can be improved upon?
| vslira wrote:
| Is there any service offering user-friendly access to open source
| DL models? Paid is fine.
| fassssst wrote:
| Midjourney uses Stable Diffusion now too in their beta version.
| adammarples wrote:
| The stable diffusion repo itself is free, and you can get the
| model from hugging face, also for free. Runs on my 1070 easily.
| fragmede wrote:
| http://beta.dreamstudio.ai is the official paid Stable
| Diffusion webUI.
| Silverback_VII wrote:
| I liked it until I noticed that it costs me $10 a day. I'm
| also not sure if they support img2img. I have used
| huggingface and then replicate for it(NSFW filter is very
| annoying).
| skybrian wrote:
| Unless you're looking at something else, it's not per day,
| it's a credit system that amounts to about 1 cent per
| image. How many images do you plan to generate a day?
| Silverback_VII wrote:
| yes, it's per image but for some reason I easily rushed
| through the 1000 generations in one day.
| MattRix wrote:
| Well you've gotta either run it locally or pay for it.
| The GPUs this stuff runs on are too expensive to offer
| unlimited use for free.
| Silverback_VII wrote:
| I'm not against paying but it should be somewhat
| raisonnable. to put things into perspective: Colab pro
| only costs about $10/month and you will probably be able
| to generate at the same speed.
| z9znz wrote:
| The before and after are great.
|
| There is an art to conveying a feeling with limited resources.
| That's what makes early computer game images (the good ones...
| because there were plenty of bad ones) so special.
|
| The same could be said even more strongly for words. I'm not a
| writer and I don't remember everything, but someone famous once
| said something about eliminating everything non-essential from
| writing to make it better. That's what makes a writer really
| great.
|
| Even so, the AI-upscaled versions of the original art are
| impressive.
|
| I said it before on this topic, and I'll repeat it. We will
| someday (soonish) have games where the art is generated in real
| time, unique for each player, based on good inputs. And it will
| be awesome. Every play and every experience will be relatively
| unique, but most or all of the plays will be excellent. That's an
| exciting prospect.
| selimnairb wrote:
| Yeah, it's amazing that things like Stable Diffusion can make
| coherent looking images. But why? Why convert iconic EGA and VGA
| *art* into algorithmic representations? To me, it doesn't improve
| on the originals in any way. I would never play a game with the
| graphics replaced by these. To me, it is the constraints of older
| technologies that led artists to create imaginative works that
| transcended the materials available (big pixels with a limited
| palette) and helped create worlds where your own imagination
| could run wild. Replacing these images with photo realistic
| Thomas Kinkade-esque treacle is an abomination.
| MattRix wrote:
| Why do people always ask "why?" on these things? Not everything
| has to be "useful" or have commercial value. The original games
| aren't going anywhere. People just enjoy doing this kind of
| stuff, pushing the technology to make interesting things.
| selimnairb wrote:
| I'm not criticizing it because it's not useful. I'm
| criticizing it because it is not art, and it is anti-
| humanist.
| ben_w wrote:
| """At the 1983 Academy Awards, Oscar voters declined to
| nominate [Tron's] pioneering special effects. Lisberger
| said it was because they felt using computers as an
| animation tool was cheating.""" -
| https://www.moviefone.com/2017/07/08/19-things-you-never-
| kne...
| selimnairb wrote:
| Oh, and the pictures look like shit.
| decibe1 wrote:
| This is really timely - I just started to replay some of my
| favorite Sierra titles "Hero's Quest".
|
| 1 and 2 (unofficially) have VGA ports that updated the graphics.
| So, I may have to run some screen shots through to get an even
| newer backdrop.
| terrio wrote:
| Awesome!
|
| I thought about this in a slightly different way: D2 remastered
| has a great switch back feature.
|
| You could easily train a network with tons and tons of D2 old vs.
| New and just use it to Auto upscale /reimagine of old D2.
|
| Image rendering a old D2 video into 4k D2 remastered style.
| davesque wrote:
| Going to have to be the naysayer here. First, I'll say the simple
| fact that Stable Diffusion produces anything coherent is
| incredible. I'm blown away by the tech. However, my honest
| opinion of the results showcased in this article is not positive.
| Many of the result images contain bizarre distortions or
| dreamlike artifacts that severely disrupt the flow of the image.
| Especially the first one. It's clear that there's something like
| a person with long hair standing in front of a peak shrouded in
| clouds. But it only takes one or two moments to see the flaws in
| the output. I wonder if hyper parameter tuning would help.
|
| Again, I think the results are impressive in their own right. But
| they seem impractical on account of the flaws in the details.
| sportslife wrote:
| The inconsistent and often incoherent shadows and lighting
| effects are immediately annoying in all generated images if
| you've spent any time working with visual media.
| jamiek88 wrote:
| Weird until I read your comment I was blown away. Then I had
| another proper look at the first image and in many ways I had
| to turn off my brains amazing 'upscaling' ability.
|
| My brain had upscaled that human like blob to a woman spinning
| around with a sword so her hair covered her face.
|
| Looking closely. None of that is there really, just a
| suggestion of it. And that is enough.
|
| The more I learn about vision and sight the less I'm sure that
| we see reality.
| LocalH wrote:
| We see reality in some sense - light of various wavelenghts
| reflects off physical objects and enters our eye. However,
| our processing and subjective interpretation of the input is
| what can be more subjective, because every person's brain is
| going to process such items differently based upon experience
| (especially early life experience, when our brains are the
| most plastic). Also, some people have sensory differences
| (such as color blindness) that can influence the processing
| of the light that enters our eye.
|
| Objective reality exists, for some definition of "exists" -
| there is physical matter present, with properties enabling
| some or all wavelengths of light to reflect (and similar for
| other senses like hearing). However, if we viewed reality
| devoid of the subjective processing, we'd "see" everything,
| but key existential concepts such as object permanence would
| not be possible, as that requires our brain be able to
| process and recognize an object in order to identify what the
| object is in the first place, to even be able to remember
| what it is. Not entirely unlike the iterative process of
| modern machine learning.
| 5d8767c68926 wrote:
| >Looking closely. None of that is there really, just a
| suggestion of it.
|
| In contrast to the photorealistic pixel art?
| ziml77 wrote:
| I think the weirdness is most obvious in the cliff overlooking
| a beach and in the woman's impossible object hand.
|
| All of the output here is cool and impressive for sure, but
| good art it is not.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| It's interesting to see how much this has improved in the space
| of _weeks_ , imagine what this will look like in a year, in 10
| years, in 30 years.
|
| This is the beginning of something pretty big, I think.
| fezfight wrote:
| Compared to low res Sierra graphics, what's been shown here is
| nothing short of astounding, if you ask me. Look at the skull!
| It's a masterpiece.
| AaronFriel wrote:
| Are you naysaying Stable Diffusion or the idea of generative
| models for art in general?
|
| It's hard to look at what's happened in the last few months and
| not think of it as akin to the invention of the steam engine,
| but for art.
|
| It's not perfect, as early machines had many flaws, were wildly
| inefficient, produced irregular output. But the innovation that
| followed created the industrial revolution.
| jgg7 wrote:
| What's missing is the charm. In general, AI-generated visual
| content tends to have a very sterile look to it. The only image
| in said thread that looks even remotely decent to me is the one
| of a canyon/bridge. The rest are what I'd classify as voids.
| Silverback_VII wrote:
| >AI-generated visual content tends to have a very sterile
| look to it
|
| I think it's because the prompts are often sterile as well.
| you have to add stuff like "matte painting" and "dream" just
| like in the first example in dreamstudio."very detailed
| landscape with xy" also works fine. Avoid prompts like
| "digital art" or "render".
| holoduke wrote:
| Wonder if one day we can do realtime video conversion with this
| tool on a phone using the camera. We be mind blowing to see it
| live in action and changing your backyard in any style you like
| to see. Maybe even with VR. Ultra tripping experience. I guess we
| have to wait 5 to 10 years
| ben_w wrote:
| Something like this, but with an automated flow?:
| https://twitter.com/karenxcheng/status/1564635828436885504
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-05 23:01 UTC)