This is not restoring anything, it's just adding things that were not there in the first place including weird artefacts. I'd much rather people don't go crazy restoring old photos and holding onto the deteriorated originals which are far more valuable in the first place
You know if you actually wanted to demo this you’d need a non blurry photo of the same image to prove it’s actually doing a good job
Because my non AI eyes are seeing a lot of little discrepancies in the “restored” photo that don’t seem like they should be there (edges of eyes, lips, etc)
And I think these little differences are going to be very off putting for someone expecting to see a new side of a loved one but getting something 2% off
I somehow don't see it as anything more than AI that learned on dataset of unknown quality/origin, making shit up, while users pretending that because computer did it it couldn't be wrong.
4 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 21.2 ms ] threadBecause my non AI eyes are seeing a lot of little discrepancies in the “restored” photo that don’t seem like they should be there (edges of eyes, lips, etc)
And I think these little differences are going to be very off putting for someone expecting to see a new side of a loved one but getting something 2% off