[HN Gopher] Break-a-Scene: Extracting Multiple Concepts from a S...
___________________________________________________________________
Break-a-Scene: Extracting Multiple Concepts from a Single Image
Author : breakascene
Score : 143 points
Date : 2023-10-02 13:10 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (omriavrahami.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (omriavrahami.com)
| m3kw9 wrote:
| An use for AR meeting where one persons can be extracted to
| another scene
| GraceCat123 wrote:
| That's really impressive! Are there any limitations or ways to
| further improve this work? Are the samples shown on the homepage
| selectively chosen to highlight better performance?
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| I don't know how someone can look at this and not conclude that
| it's very probable the human brain follows a very similar
| sequence of steps when we use our own imagination to picture,
| say, a certain shirt being worn by a cat.
|
| It's either that, or else there are multiple totally-unrelated
| methods of achieving essentially the same outcome.
| Daub wrote:
| As an artist, I can observe that (generally) aesthetic images
| such as paintings or photos, are visually unified. This unity is
| similar to that of a signature: complex yet uniquely expressive.
|
| this singularity is composed of many elements (themes, forms,
| subjects etc) and sub-elements. What I would have loved to see in
| this paper is a means by which the heirachies of these elements
| can be changed, to produce new heirachies (and therefore new
| images).
| stronglikedan wrote:
| I may be misunderstanding what you're saying, but it looks like
| they may do that in the Image Variations section.
| ChicagoBoy11 wrote:
| It's so wild to me that the code is just... on github. Like,
| there's something to be said for all the effort going into these
| technologies and how freely available it is. A few years ago we
| would think this was almost undistinguishable from magic, and
| you'd be excused for trying to raise millions of dollars in VC
| money to turn it into a company.
|
| Now I can just go run that on my computer.
|
| insane.
| [deleted]
| Mashimo wrote:
| That is quite something.
|
| Add a chatGPT like interface where you can communicate by
| sentences, sprinkle in a bit of speech recognition. And you have
| computers from 90s sci fi movies. "Computer, give this cat an
| hawaiian shirt, and make it surf."
|
| The future is now.
| orng wrote:
| "Give me a printout of Oyster smiling" -
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maAFcEU6atk
|
| Life imitating art imitating life. Exciting times indeed.
| amelius wrote:
| With cherry picked results, as always, I presume.
| iandanforth wrote:
| At first I thought this was more of a 'pipeline' paper that
| chains together existing image extraction like SAM with LoRAs,
| but I'm impressed by the improvement in visual fidelity they get
| from doing intermediate end to end training. The union sampling
| is also not something I would have thought of.
|
| Impressive! Thanks for the release.
| aeronomic wrote:
| This is wild to me as a portrait/wedding/commercial photographer.
| Part of me is incredibly excited for the ways tech like this can
| speed up/dramatically improve my workflow and artistic
| capabilities. The other part of me is terrified - I shifted away
| from graphic design with the AI art explosion, but this makes me
| feel like it won't be long until the average person no longer
| needs to hire a photographer either.
| Nevermark wrote:
| This is a harbinger of dramatic change. Scan your whole video
| and photo library for people, pets, and things, and
| environments.
|
| Construct new scenes anytime and algorithmically.
|
| "Generate pictures of me with each of my friends, making crazy
| faces, while drinking mai tai's at my favorite tropical resort
| bar."
| jncfhnb wrote:
| But why
| gumby wrote:
| The use case for me is: "take these five pictures and give
| me one where everybody is smiling and has their eyes open."
| jncfhnb wrote:
| Same tech, different concept though.
| [deleted]
| Nevermark wrote:
| I can't actually think of serious reason, but I can think
| of infinite non-serious uses.
|
| Make real life, "I am so rich and happy with my material
| wealth and vast travel budget" influencers redundant.
|
| However, I am not looking forward to Facebook spamming
| friends with ads posing as personal recommendations,
| showing me at my house happily using sketchy products or
| butt bleacher.
|
| They will be sneaky: Show me, but with my face obscured in
| some way. But recognizable. But deniable. But recognizable.
| surfingdino wrote:
| And pay for storage of those scans, generated images, and for
| the creation of those images forever( _)
|
| _ or until the VC money dries out and when it does you will
| have two weeks to download it all.
| echelon wrote:
| > average person no longer needs to hire a photographer either.
|
| Make you can become an independent filmmaker. It seems like
| creatives won't need Hollywood tools or capital in the future,
| either.
|
| Musings aside, I'm not so certain people won't need a
| photographer to be present at weddings anyway. They can't
| exactly trust that to an appliance. They get one shot to take
| the pictures, and they need to make it work.
| webmaven wrote:
| I'm not sure that the photographer present will need to be
| especially skilled, though. One can imagine an "Uber for
| Photography" service to get raw material, and you get the
| final "shots" out of a guided generative ML model of some
| sort, possibly including some moments that participants
| remember but weren't actually captured.
| Closi wrote:
| Depends what you think the skill of a wedding photographer
| is.
|
| When I have seen an excellent wedding photographer, the
| skill seems to be 20% photography and 80% people
| management. Great wedding photographers seem to be some
| sort of strange combination of entertainer, project-manager
| and therapist (who also takes photos).
| SamBam wrote:
| How many people actually remember their wedding poses? I
| remember being bustled off to the side by the photographer to
| take our post-vows shots, but the actual poses? No way.
|
| So if you had taken a few of the low quality smartphone
| pictures that guests took (had smart phones been as
| ubiquitous when I was married) and a beautiful background of
| our wedding location, and asked the AI to create some
| gorgeous portraits of us, with just the right "golden hour"
| light and the right look of love in our eyes, would the final
| portraits tucked away in our album be any different? Would
| they even be better?
|
| It reminds me of the crowds of people in front of the Mona
| Lisa with their cameras out, so they can own their own,
| personal, blurry picture of the world's most photographed
| piece of art, instead of buying the perfectly-lit postcard in
| the gift shop. What's actually different about that much-
| ridiculed desire, vs. wanting to have the "authentic"
| photographs that that the photographer actually took (and
| then photoshopped, etc.).
| rubslopes wrote:
| I'm 100% part of the group taking blurry pictures, but
| that's because I don't care at all about posting. I don't
| use Instagram or Facebook, all the pictures I take are for
| browsing my photo library later.
| 101008 wrote:
| You named it yourself at the end. The difference is that
| the people took that photo. What's important is not the
| image itself, the arrangement of pixels, but what it means:
| for some people means achievign the dream of travel to
| Paris, for some other people it means "I was here, I see it
| live", etc. People don't take pictures because they are
| beautiful or well composed (well, most people), but because
| the meaning in their lives about that particular event.
|
| That's why I don't think people would like IA to improve
| their photos of their weddings, or so on. People don't make
| a wedding to have the perfect photo at sunset, but to have
| a nice event with people they love, and the photos are to
| capture that and nothing else. People's favourite photos
| (and not only from weddigns) are blurry, caught with
| friends, etc., because those pictures capture the feeling
| of a good moment.
| Wistar wrote:
| Back when I was working on a photo-memories app in the
| early 2000s, a PM said, you know, the photo of the
| outside of dreary hotel near the beach isn't about the
| hotel but about the hilarious hotel bar tender you and
| your friend were entertained by the night before the
| photo was taken.
| burkaman wrote:
| I mean, why doesn't anyone do that now? Instead of hiring a
| photographer to come onsite and spend several tedious hours
| with you, just email them a single photo and let them
| Photoshop something good. It's not as cheap as AI, but it
| should be cheaper than paying for an in-person
| photographer, and the results can have any background you
| want.
|
| There's a difference between discovering an old photo and
| thinking "haha I don't remember taking this one, we looked
| so good" and seeing it and thinking "haha I don't remember
| taking this, oh right because it didn't happen". In the
| second case, there's no reason to even have a photo album
| or generate anything at wedding-time. Just store the single
| base photo, and then 50 years later when you want to show
| the grandkids you can just have the computer generate
| whatever they want to see.
| og_kalu wrote:
| The most surprising thing here is a Google Research paper with
| code release
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-10-02 23:01 UTC)