Nice work! Another demonstration of the amazing power of deep neural nets for transfer learning. For those interested, http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.06681 demonstrates experiments with video coloring using a 3D convolution-deconvolution network with some architectural elements similar to that used by the author.
Note the image with the wolves. I think the entire exercise is in that photo. This system seems very good at patterns. The animals do well when against natural backgrounds. That's because they match those backgrounds. Even though they are different colours, animals with fur all adopt some form of camouflage. So their patterns at some level match the patterns of their natural environment.
The wolves are rendered well, the flowers not. Wolves are camo. Flowers are the opposite. They want to stand out from the background. So the machine doesn't handle them well. The green stripe on the truck also fits this.
To take this idea forward, look at the image of the puppies against the grass. They are not camo. Their colour is the product of breeding, therefore they do not render so well as the wolves. There might be something useful here to measure whether or not an animal is being viewed in its natural environment.
> Wolves are camo. Flowers are the opposite. They want to stand out from the background. So the machine doesn't handle them well.
There is a simpler explanation. Wolves only come in a few different colors. Flowers come in a variety of colors. Therefore, there are only a couple of correct answers for coloring a wolf, but a wide variety of completely incompatible answers for coloring a wolf.
You are right that flowers come in a variety of colors because they want to stand out. But I don't think the neural net understands that. It just knows that a gray flower could be any color while a wolf is confidently going to be some kind of brown.
Ugh. Seriously? Didn't we all discuss literally yesterday about pedantic misinterpretation of text on the Internet?
This article is about colorization, which means taking shades of gray and selecting a hue and saturation for them. The brightness is effectively fixed because, guess what, a black and white image can convey brightness already.
Obviously, black and white coloration on wolves falls outside of this because those are more or less already correct in the black and white image.
Now look at that picture you linked. What do you see? White: doesn't need much coloration. Black: uh, also doesn't need much coloration. Slightly brownish gray: like I said, wolves are all some kind of brown.
Show me a blue wolf, or a green wolf, then we'll have something interesting to talk about. But most wolves, like almost all mammals, have coloration pretty much limited to dull warm colors and tints and shades of those. Here's a picture for you:
I'd like to commend the author for the tone of this article.
It's the right mix of "paper" and "blog post." It's an experiment that sort of flops and there will be a variety of "yay for tech!" and "I can't wait to see a movie where various body parts of people remain black and white!" in the comments here regardless.
Presenting it as an experiment, clearly explaining what you tried, then detailing some future thoughts and saying "it kind of works" was refreshing and honest. Thank you.
Very cool results. Seems like with some extra human intervention this would produce very good results.
Shameless plug: I built an online tool to colorize photos using WebGL. It's all manual but it's easy to get started and doesn't require any additional software. http://www.colorizephoto.com
I have a lot of old B+W photos, and various color photos of the same general subject. It would be way cool to have an app that I could use the color ones to teach it, and colorize the B+W ones. I don't mind that it wouldn't be perfect.
> It would be way cool to have an app that I could use the color ones to teach it, and colorize the B+W ones.
You'd want the training to be done on the server, not locally. Setting up a full Torch/Caffe/Theano stack is not easy because there are so many libraries and moving pieces which must interact with Nvidia's proprietary blobs and libraries and ever-changing GPUs, that you can follow all the directions and either work or fail with an utterly inscrutable error. (For example, I'm running on an old Ubuntu because the newer Ubuntu is not officially supported, and my usual OS, Debian, just does not work no matter what I try.)
There are actually dockerized versions of many (maybe all) of the deep learning libraries. The docker containers can take advantage of the GPU for training. You still have to install CUDA on the box (outside the docker container) but then you can try out different deep learning libraries.
Great idea. I feel like an alternate color model could help, because of all the places where the color is arbitrary but strong average to a muddy sepia.
For example, the stripe on the truck should be bright and saturated, but the actual color doesn't matter.
The HSV colour space could work if the difference between colours is calculated with some kind of circular arithmetic.
I think the more fundamental problem is that the program is trying to minimize error where error is defined as deviation in color from the original image. This means objects that can be many different colors but are always strong and saturated average to a brown, as you said. And as you said, for those types of objects, it's best to pick a random color and make it bright and saturated. The best way to have it do that is to redefine error as some metric of how "realistic" the picture looks vs the original. For example, a picture of a car recolored to look bright blue looks similarly "realistic" to the human eye as the original picture where the car is bright red. The deviation in color is high, but it still looks "good", so the error should be low. I have no idea how this metric would be calculated without humans evaluating the output manually, though.
The 'averaging' problem is interesting and I think related to the Euclidean-style loss function: it is correctly minimizing the color distance between its gray-brown guess and all the possible shades? If that's what's going on, then messing with the architecture won't fix it because it's already reaching the 'right' answer and what is necessary is a better loss... Perhaps something like DCGAN where the loss function is another CNN which is being trained to guess whether an image is original or generated? (So you'd feed the BW image into the generator, which converts it into a colorized image; the colorized and the true color images are both fed into the discriminator, which tries to guess which is the real one. Then error is backpropagated into both.)
I too am fascinated by this problem... Your adversarial proposal is very interesting. Let me try to confront the fundamental problem directly.
Even if you're given a perfect probability distribution over the space of images the solution wasn't obvious for me, mostly because we're used to thinking of a "best estimate".
The first thing you think of is giving the least-squares estimate (the average), but MMSE exhibits the problem shown.
So you might instead try a maximum likelihood estimate; but this too has problems: imagine every car is a sightly different shade of blue (none are quite the same, maybe the manufacturing is unreliable), except 1 in a million cars are red, but the red is very consistent. The ML estimate will pick the red car, which of course is unrealistic.
The optimal solution is simply drawing from the underlying distribution, instead of relying on a deterministic "best estimate": an outside observer won't be able to distinguish your generated samples from the true distribution. That's why the "Adversarial discriminator" should work.
I wonder if there exists a cost function that directly promotes sampling from the underlying distribution without needing the adversarial approach...
You could have the net predict an entire distribution for each pixel. Like a mixture of gaussians or something. But then sampling from it would be incorrect. E.g. it might not know if the car is blue or red, so half the pixels would randomly be red, and the other have blue. It would look terrible.
Somewhere, the neural net needs to decide "this car is going to be blue" and then be consistent with that. Adversarial nets allow that, by having random inputs. One of the inputs to the NN is a random number, and that random number might determine if the car is going to be blue or red this time.
The cool thing about this is that it allows you to generate multiple samples. You can generate 10 different images and select the best one. And the adversarial nets should learn to approximate the true distribution as closely as possible. And I don't think there is any other method that can do that.
Another idea would to just have a loss function that doesn't punish it for getting a wrong color. But rewards it only when it gets very close to the right color. This way the algorithm doesn't worry about producing muddy brown colors when it isn't' sure, it just goes with a best guess.
When I referred to sampling I was talking about the joint distribution of all pixels (hence "space of images"), which would work fine. But I suspect predicting distributions is impractical, it may be better to use methods that sample directly without ever explicitly finding the distribution.
You do need a source of entropy to perform the sampling. This amount should be more than a minimum given by how precisely you want to sample from the continuous source, related to the Kullback-Leibler divergence of the distribution.
Well in theory, the adversarial nets should learn to model the distribution perfectly. But there might be a way to do it directly. You could train an NN to produce samples from a random input source, just like the adversarial nets. But unlike the adversarial nets, the inputs don't need to be random. You could train another NN to predict a distribution of what they should be. And then instead of adversarial training, just regular training to predict the exact pixels, and backproping all the way through.
One other problem is that "real" black and white images don't come from the same distribution as greyscaled images. The training data is just regular photos that have had all the color channels combined and averaged together. Sometimes it's a weighted average, like green is given more weight than blue, because human eyes see green better.
However real black and white photos represent the actual intensity of the light waves. Black and white photos might be sensitive to light humans can't even see, or weight different "colors" very differently. Even two colors that appear the same to the human eye might be different intensities and frequencies, and so produce a different black and white photo.
I don't know how much of an effect this would have. But real black and white photos definitely look different than greyscaled color photos, and it might lead the NN to guessing the wrong color information.
Interesting point; the "perceptual brightness" formula used in grayscaling calculations is usually this:
sqrt(0.299r² + 0.587g² + 0.114b²)
Real "photosensitizing" chemicals, on the other hand, have spectral response curves, like this one[1] for the silver iodide used in daguerrotypes. (The formula above just being an approximation of the summed spectral response curves of the three cones in the eye.)
There's a big difference, like you said, but it's not an impossible problem; we should be able to create a greyscaling formula for any photographic process with a known response curve. (And honestly, I have no reason to think this hasn't already been done in the creation of an Instagram filter at some point.)
Well not necessarily. If the response curves are different than that of a digital camera, then some information will be lost. In fact the response curves are different even for different cameras. But you could probably get a closer approximation using a better formula.
I've done a little bit of experimentation with this, comparing real B&W film to various software's conversions to B&W. Most interesting was a case where I took a picture of the NYC subway diagram with a red filter. I could never make the RGB data from the digital camera look like my original negative, even when shooting through the same red filter. (Which should not be necessary, if you want to block blue and green, you should be able to do that in software. Lightroom, at least, did not let me make a matching image.)
More subjectively, I think most digital pictures converted to B&W look kind of dull, whereas actual film looks very exciting to me. I haven't done any detailed research into this, but I'm not 100% convinced that collecting luminance through red, green, and blue filters can capture all the data that panchromatic B&W film captures.
(Even more of a tangent, one of the joys of B&W photography is that you can outright lie about colors and the photo still works. Try a red filter and watch the blue sky become black!)
> However real black and white photos represent the actual intensity of the light waves
No. Black and white negatives represent the intensity of the light (possibly with some lens filters in between) multiplied by some light frequency sensitivity distribution of the film, under some nonlinear time/intensity response function composed with another nonlinear time/chemical strength/exposure function from the chemical development of the negative.
Then to get from negative to print, black and white photos undergo another pair of multiparameter nonlinear functions (representing the exposure and chemical development process), possibly including intentional manipulation by a human operator.
Depending on the film, filters, development process, and printing techniques used, this can be relatively close or quite far from a naively converted 3-channel color picture.
For details cf. for example Ansel Adams’s books The Negative and The Print.
This would also hopefully solve the 'splotchiness' seen in some of the images, which presumably comes from the network optimising each pixel independently without caring about continuity.
Wow, the real (rhs) images have so much more of an "emotional" appeal. Somehow the middle images, while I admire the tech, really don't add much to the black and white, and they might even take something away. They seem much too tentative, washed out, averaged. I would argue that in general, they're the worst out of the three.
That's a problem with this specific architecture. If it's not sure what color something is, it goes with an average of all the colors. When a brighter color would be more realistic, even if the exact shade is wrong. Some people have suggested ways of fixing this above.
But just the fact it guesses the right colors at all is really cool. Previous automatic colorizations I've seen were very very crappy or required lots of human input. Or both.
And while these colorized photos do look a bit dull, I like them better than black and white. Something about black and white photography makes it look fake to my brain. It doesn't register the same way. Even really bad colorizations make images feel more real. I once saw very badly colorized video of WWI, and it was really fascinating. I actually felt like I was watching a real event that had actually happened. The same is true for these images.
You guys! This is Ryan Dahl of NodeJS! He's back! When did he come back? So excited to see him around again, he's such a great guy (I had the honor of meeting him once).
Brilliant post too with an excellent write up. Can't believe people hadn't already been thinking about this.
What would be really awesome is a Reddit bot that takes the Highest-scoring image from the colorization subreddit and mixes it 50% with the deep learning results and posts it as a comment.
From the published results, I think it's likely a 50:50 mix of human and ML in this case would likely yield the most naturalistic result in 90% of cases.
I think it might be possible to infer the colours of some objects based on how old black and white film worked because each type had different spectral sensitivity and probably has a signature that can be determined automatically. Once you know the film you might have a shot at inferring what colour that car is for example.
> In the past few years Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) have revolutionized the field of computer vision. Each year the ImageNet Challenge (ILSVRC) has seen plummeting error rates due to the ubiquitous adoption of CNN models amongst the contestants.
Am I right that the "Convolution" part only refers to the speed by which the models can be trained, and not to any other quality of these models?
No. Most of layers in a CNN perform convolutions with kernels. This is not the same as standard DNNs that do a full matrix multiply.
Convolutional kernels allow you to use many fewer variables to perform the forward layer operation; and CNNs tie these trainable variables across layers. Training is not only faster, but also more robust because you have less parameters to learn.
This could become, but I believe the author intended to show a usecase with this blogpost. If you look closely, the results are far from satisfactory. As methods and techniques evolve, this can become a cloud service.
If anyone is interested in this an wants to learn more, start with natural image matting - that is the more fundamental research topic of which colorization is one use.
While I'm sure this is interesting to many people, the results here are extremely poor compared to modern techniques.
VERY interesting - as soon as I read the title, I thought "finally, this will really tell me whether deep earning is bullshit or not!". Why? Because my understanding is that colorization is basically magic, like, how can you possibly get the color of a telephone handset out of a black and white image? In fact, you can't! Here's the set of the Addams Family:
Totally all over the map. So I thought this would be such a fantastic, fantastic way to compare my knowledge of the world with a punk algorithm's.
I didn't read the key/legend/explanation - as soon as I saw the first set of 3 images, I knew the middle lamp was the true color, and the right lamp was generated; because lampshades overwhelmingly look like the middle picture (in my mind) - https://www.google.com/search?q=lampshade not that weird blue color.
"Ha, stupid algorithm", I thought. "Who has a blue lampshade". this algrithm doesn't even come close.
Then I kept scrolling with that assumption, and it got worse and worse - wow that photographer's color is like blood orange, the algorithm doesn't even know it's a person! This is terrible. Where does that truck get that green trim, nobody would choose that, straight out of left field.
Until I got to the field with wolves. Why are the flowers' colors missing from the middle picture? This doesn't look right at all.
Then I read the caption. The middle images are the generated ones; the right-hand images are reality.
For five 5 of 6 images, I thought that the generated image was "obviously" an actual photo, and much more plausible in colors than the right-hand real photos. Continuing to scroll, for the park bench also I think the middle image is much closer to how I imagine it.
So we are at the stage where an algorithm generates a much more plausible view of reality, with rare exceptions, than actual reality. This is pretty impressive.
I had completely the opposite take-away - but then I have some experience of photography, and sadly, brightly coloured lampshades no longer surprise me.
I think it's a good illustration of the limits of statistical approaches, and why "It's harder than it looks" applies.
This is about as good as it's going to get without genuine object recognition, knowledge of real-world lighting and colour, and awareness of photographic styles.
It might be possible for a system to learn all of the above, but it's going to need a bigger and probably pre-partitioned training set, and a much more complex model.
To be useful, it doesn't have to be perfect. It can have humans provide it with reference photos, select colors for different parts, or look at several different versions of the same image and decide which one looks best.
I wonder if the "deep learning" is getting any hints from the bayer patterns that may be detectable even in the desaturated image. It would be interesting to see what it did from a true b/w sensor, a Fovean sensor, or a scan of black and white films.
On a related "deep learning" topic:
We do a lot of work with 3D modeling tools and scanning large objects, including people, at our facility.
One thing we realized that should be possible with "deep learning" is taking a standard human computer model, and configuring it to match the position and shape of a scanned human model, or a photo of a human being -- in order to add back missing bits. Imagine a website where you can upload a swimsuit image and get back a computer generated nude image with the obscured body parts replaced. This should be very doable today, and would make a very popular website!
This reminds me of a guy I interviewed recently who's been working at a startup that creates detailed, 3D, biomechanically accurate models of women's breasts, and associated UI, for use by plastic surgeons to show clients what they could look like after different procedures, based on scans of their bodies.
> I wonder if the "deep learning" is getting any hints from the bayer patterns that may be detectable even in the desaturated image.
I'd say it's highly unlikely, since these images are downsampled to 224x224 pixels. That would average out any residual Bayer pattern (which is pretty hard to detect in the first place).
How might this model handle B&W images created with colored filters? What would the difference in output be? Many many film-era B&W photos used yellow (or perhaps even more dramatic, like red and blue) filters. Here's a small example of the difference: http://www.exposureguide.com/images/lens-filters/red-filter....
When I selected from the validation images, most had these blue splotches that were not shown on the web page. Obviously a model is not expected to work 100% of the time, but I think the link misrepresents the results by not even showing a single instance of this common failure.
edit: further scrolling shows it's less common than I thought.
For a second I thought the pics on the far right were the machine-created colors, and I thought, those are amazing! Then I realized it was the middle pic, haha, terrible.
95 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 121 ms ] threadThe wolves are rendered well, the flowers not. Wolves are camo. Flowers are the opposite. They want to stand out from the background. So the machine doesn't handle them well. The green stripe on the truck also fits this.
To take this idea forward, look at the image of the puppies against the grass. They are not camo. Their colour is the product of breeding, therefore they do not render so well as the wolves. There might be something useful here to measure whether or not an animal is being viewed in its natural environment.
There is a simpler explanation. Wolves only come in a few different colors. Flowers come in a variety of colors. Therefore, there are only a couple of correct answers for coloring a wolf, but a wide variety of completely incompatible answers for coloring a wolf.
You are right that flowers come in a variety of colors because they want to stand out. But I don't think the neural net understands that. It just knows that a gray flower could be any color while a wolf is confidently going to be some kind of brown.
https://media2.wnyc.org/i/620/372/c/80/1/485198177.jpg
This article is about colorization, which means taking shades of gray and selecting a hue and saturation for them. The brightness is effectively fixed because, guess what, a black and white image can convey brightness already.
Obviously, black and white coloration on wolves falls outside of this because those are more or less already correct in the black and white image.
Now look at that picture you linked. What do you see? White: doesn't need much coloration. Black: uh, also doesn't need much coloration. Slightly brownish gray: like I said, wolves are all some kind of brown.
Show me a blue wolf, or a green wolf, then we'll have something interesting to talk about. But most wolves, like almost all mammals, have coloration pretty much limited to dull warm colors and tints and shades of those. Here's a picture for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canis#/media/File:Canis.jpg
What do you see?
No, we all literally did not.
Edit: Thank you.
It's the right mix of "paper" and "blog post." It's an experiment that sort of flops and there will be a variety of "yay for tech!" and "I can't wait to see a movie where various body parts of people remain black and white!" in the comments here regardless.
Presenting it as an experiment, clearly explaining what you tried, then detailing some future thoughts and saying "it kind of works" was refreshing and honest. Thank you.
Shameless plug: I built an online tool to colorize photos using WebGL. It's all manual but it's easy to get started and doesn't require any additional software. http://www.colorizephoto.com
You'd want the training to be done on the server, not locally. Setting up a full Torch/Caffe/Theano stack is not easy because there are so many libraries and moving pieces which must interact with Nvidia's proprietary blobs and libraries and ever-changing GPUs, that you can follow all the directions and either work or fail with an utterly inscrutable error. (For example, I'm running on an old Ubuntu because the newer Ubuntu is not officially supported, and my usual OS, Debian, just does not work no matter what I try.)
Libraries we've started from in my lab: Caffe: https://hub.docker.com/r/kaixhin/caffe/ Torch :https://hub.docker.com/r/kaixhin/torch/ Theano: https://hub.docker.com/r/kaixhin/theano/
For example, the stripe on the truck should be bright and saturated, but the actual color doesn't matter.
The HSV colour space could work if the difference between colours is calculated with some kind of circular arithmetic.
Even if you're given a perfect probability distribution over the space of images the solution wasn't obvious for me, mostly because we're used to thinking of a "best estimate".
The first thing you think of is giving the least-squares estimate (the average), but MMSE exhibits the problem shown.
So you might instead try a maximum likelihood estimate; but this too has problems: imagine every car is a sightly different shade of blue (none are quite the same, maybe the manufacturing is unreliable), except 1 in a million cars are red, but the red is very consistent. The ML estimate will pick the red car, which of course is unrealistic.
The optimal solution is simply drawing from the underlying distribution, instead of relying on a deterministic "best estimate": an outside observer won't be able to distinguish your generated samples from the true distribution. That's why the "Adversarial discriminator" should work.
I wonder if there exists a cost function that directly promotes sampling from the underlying distribution without needing the adversarial approach...
Somewhere, the neural net needs to decide "this car is going to be blue" and then be consistent with that. Adversarial nets allow that, by having random inputs. One of the inputs to the NN is a random number, and that random number might determine if the car is going to be blue or red this time.
The cool thing about this is that it allows you to generate multiple samples. You can generate 10 different images and select the best one. And the adversarial nets should learn to approximate the true distribution as closely as possible. And I don't think there is any other method that can do that.
Another idea would to just have a loss function that doesn't punish it for getting a wrong color. But rewards it only when it gets very close to the right color. This way the algorithm doesn't worry about producing muddy brown colors when it isn't' sure, it just goes with a best guess.
You do need a source of entropy to perform the sampling. This amount should be more than a minimum given by how precisely you want to sample from the continuous source, related to the Kullback-Leibler divergence of the distribution.
However real black and white photos represent the actual intensity of the light waves. Black and white photos might be sensitive to light humans can't even see, or weight different "colors" very differently. Even two colors that appear the same to the human eye might be different intensities and frequencies, and so produce a different black and white photo.
I don't know how much of an effect this would have. But real black and white photos definitely look different than greyscaled color photos, and it might lead the NN to guessing the wrong color information.
There's a big difference, like you said, but it's not an impossible problem; we should be able to create a greyscaling formula for any photographic process with a known response curve. (And honestly, I have no reason to think this hasn't already been done in the creation of an Instagram filter at some point.)
[1] https://books.google.ca/books?id=9IpaIAcgthQC&lpg=PA119&ots=...
More subjectively, I think most digital pictures converted to B&W look kind of dull, whereas actual film looks very exciting to me. I haven't done any detailed research into this, but I'm not 100% convinced that collecting luminance through red, green, and blue filters can capture all the data that panchromatic B&W film captures.
(Even more of a tangent, one of the joys of B&W photography is that you can outright lie about colors and the photo still works. Try a red filter and watch the blue sky become black!)
No. Black and white negatives represent the intensity of the light (possibly with some lens filters in between) multiplied by some light frequency sensitivity distribution of the film, under some nonlinear time/intensity response function composed with another nonlinear time/chemical strength/exposure function from the chemical development of the negative.
Then to get from negative to print, black and white photos undergo another pair of multiparameter nonlinear functions (representing the exposure and chemical development process), possibly including intentional manipulation by a human operator.
Depending on the film, filters, development process, and printing techniques used, this can be relatively close or quite far from a naively converted 3-channel color picture.
For details cf. for example Ansel Adams’s books The Negative and The Print.
But just the fact it guesses the right colors at all is really cool. Previous automatic colorizations I've seen were very very crappy or required lots of human input. Or both.
And while these colorized photos do look a bit dull, I like them better than black and white. Something about black and white photography makes it look fake to my brain. It doesn't register the same way. Even really bad colorizations make images feel more real. I once saw very badly colorized video of WWI, and it was really fascinating. I actually felt like I was watching a real event that had actually happened. The same is true for these images.
http://tinyclouds.org/colorize/val-imgs/val-006200-2.jpg
Brilliant post too with an excellent write up. Can't believe people hadn't already been thinking about this.
From the published results, I think it's likely a 50:50 mix of human and ML in this case would likely yield the most naturalistic result in 90% of cases.
Am I right that the "Convolution" part only refers to the speed by which the models can be trained, and not to any other quality of these models?
Convolutional kernels allow you to use many fewer variables to perform the forward layer operation; and CNNs tie these trainable variables across layers. Training is not only faster, but also more robust because you have less parameters to learn.
While I'm sure this is interesting to many people, the results here are extremely poor compared to modern techniques.
Could you link a demonstration of the much superior results?
Take a look at Levin 2004 to start.
http://www.fastcodesign.com/3021327/asides/the-addams-family...
Totally all over the map. So I thought this would be such a fantastic, fantastic way to compare my knowledge of the world with a punk algorithm's.
I didn't read the key/legend/explanation - as soon as I saw the first set of 3 images, I knew the middle lamp was the true color, and the right lamp was generated; because lampshades overwhelmingly look like the middle picture (in my mind) - https://www.google.com/search?q=lampshade not that weird blue color.
"Ha, stupid algorithm", I thought. "Who has a blue lampshade". this algrithm doesn't even come close.
Then I kept scrolling with that assumption, and it got worse and worse - wow that photographer's color is like blood orange, the algorithm doesn't even know it's a person! This is terrible. Where does that truck get that green trim, nobody would choose that, straight out of left field.
Until I got to the field with wolves. Why are the flowers' colors missing from the middle picture? This doesn't look right at all.
Then I read the caption. The middle images are the generated ones; the right-hand images are reality.
For five 5 of 6 images, I thought that the generated image was "obviously" an actual photo, and much more plausible in colors than the right-hand real photos. Continuing to scroll, for the park bench also I think the middle image is much closer to how I imagine it.
So we are at the stage where an algorithm generates a much more plausible view of reality, with rare exceptions, than actual reality. This is pretty impressive.
Queue Baudrillard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation
I think it's a good illustration of the limits of statistical approaches, and why "It's harder than it looks" applies.
This is about as good as it's going to get without genuine object recognition, knowledge of real-world lighting and colour, and awareness of photographic styles.
It might be possible for a system to learn all of the above, but it's going to need a bigger and probably pre-partitioned training set, and a much more complex model.
On a related "deep learning" topic:
We do a lot of work with 3D modeling tools and scanning large objects, including people, at our facility.
One thing we realized that should be possible with "deep learning" is taking a standard human computer model, and configuring it to match the position and shape of a scanned human model, or a photo of a human being -- in order to add back missing bits. Imagine a website where you can upload a swimsuit image and get back a computer generated nude image with the obscured body parts replaced. This should be very doable today, and would make a very popular website!
I'd say it's highly unlikely, since these images are downsampled to 224x224 pixels. That would average out any residual Bayer pattern (which is pretty hard to detect in the first place).
http://tinyclouds.org/colorize/val-imgs/val-000100-1.jpg http://tinyclouds.org/colorize/val-imgs/val-000800-2.jpg
When I selected from the validation images, most had these blue splotches that were not shown on the web page. Obviously a model is not expected to work 100% of the time, but I think the link misrepresents the results by not even showing a single instance of this common failure.
edit: further scrolling shows it's less common than I thought.