Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ungodlyActingTALENT t1_j93hmn3 wrote

now I can really see if my grandparents were as good looking as they said they were.

90

brendonap t1_j93it10 wrote

I know what I’m getting my parents for Christmas 😂

8

1oldguy1950 t1_j93kma4 wrote

As cool as this seems, sending face photos online using your login might have consequences.

225

VertexBV t1_j93v95c wrote

Just tried this with an old scanned photo, the results are like a starting point for a /r/nosleep story.

14

mudokin t1_j93yv4s wrote

I am on mobile and I can't seem to find anything about the license of this service. Do they retain the usave rights of the restored images? How long do they store the images?

They need to make money somehow and if I don't pay with money, with what do I pay then.

219

FEWebDeveloper t1_j93zbg5 wrote

Replying to mudokin (#1,864,896)

AFAIK it’s using some AI model for restoration and no images are stored within the model or for training. Once the restoration is complete all data related to the image is forgotten.

66

matlynar t1_j93zes9 wrote

Replying to UncommonBagOfLoot (#1,864,551)

GFPGAN (Which this website seems to use based on the results I got) is open source so even if it becomes paid you'll be able to find something similar elsewhere (and probably with better results because DAMN is AI evolving FAST)

6

SyntheticOne t1_j93zeyo wrote

I'm running a test photo of some enemies of mine just to see how it goes.

15

euchrebot t1_j93zgp4 wrote

I assume some server in China is harvesting old blurry nudes of my exes.

27

FEWebDeveloper t1_j9444x9 wrote

Replying to opmwolf (#1,865,302)

A training set is different from a running dataset. If AI models just accepted anything in the training set then they would eventually spit garbage out. The models are fine tuned for a specific task on a specific dataset.

55

SpinCharm t1_j944ry1 wrote

It’s interesting but it generates faces that aren’t faithful to the original. I tried an old photo of myself, sister, and four close friends when we were kids. It was grainy, blurry and black and white.

The result was that two of my friends looked correct, likely because they were the two that were clearest in the original. But everyone else was changed. It wasn’t me, my sister and my friends, it was four new faces that bore only slight resemblance to the original.

It’s using AI to construct approximate facial features, but in doing so, generates new faces. It isn’t enhancing existing ones, unless the existing ones are very clear to start with.

It’s still nowhere close to being able to fool the brain. We’re hard wired to recognize faces. We know instantly when there’s even the slightest difference, and this thing creates massively different faces when it has to.

66

nostradamefrus t1_j94ftqz wrote

Do we not remember the “how will you look when you’re 80” or whatever app from 2019 that was proven to be Russian facial recognition and collection software?

DON’T UPLOAD YOUR FACE TO RANDOM FREE SERVICES

41

jawshoeaw t1_j94wu1p wrote

Tried it on a blurry photo of my wife taken in bad lighting. Her teeth were originally a pixelated messy blur. AI somehow drew in her teeth. Everything else was very realistic and didn’t look AI’d to me . Then I realized I had uploaded a “live “ photo from an iPhone. The website showed the before picture as a blurry image when the best frame of the live image was exactly sharp and well defined. So it kind of faked the before and after. That was disappointing. So I turned off Live Photos and picked a blurry frame as the default. This time the AI was able to sharpen it up. But it didn’t look anywhere near as good as the best frame of the Live Photo

4

DrinkHumblyDumbly t1_j94x7wa wrote

Sites like this, even as cool it it might sound, need to have very straightforward privacy policy and terms of service. Plus, who are the creators, where are the servers, … for transparency and accountability purposes.

Who’s to say this isn’t one of ClearView AI honeypot?

I’ve been seeing quite many promotions of AI sites on this subreddit and honestly, the internet can be both beautiful and dangerous at the same time. I hope the mods can help to caution people.

13

doinjax t1_j95o67f wrote

Doesn't fix discoloration problems

1

acoolrocket t1_j95v2xc wrote

Replying to nostradamefrus (#1,866,190)

True, tbh I'd only use these free online services for memes/random photos of people.

Personal photos would definitely make use of some locally/offline run A.I. upscaler/enhancer like Topaz's stuff. Only downside is that you can't convince everyone to get a nice GPU with +6GB of VRAM so its this unfortunate grey zone that people that want to try this but only have phones/tablets would have to wager what online services to use.

4

DrinkHumblyDumbly t1_j962fbh wrote

Replying to datahoarderx2018 (#1,868,371)

Thank you for pointing that out.

I want to amend and clarify what I said. I didn’t mean that hobby projects necessarily mean they’re irresponsible, many things do start out as such and I didn’t mean to discourage that.

It’s more that hobby projects that don’t have basic information like source code, how to contact them for feedback, could be dangerous.

Esp now when the entry level to these is much lower, which is great but I think both hobbyists, developers and users should be encouraged to think more about what they putting out and/or utilizing.

For example, the training datasets could be labeled by outsourced severely underpaid/compensated workers from developing countries. When there are more hobby projects like this popping up and starting to turn into a business, it may encourage more of such controversial activities.

2

DrinkHumblyDumbly t1_j96460q wrote

Replying to acoolrocket (#1,869,908)

I don’t know much about it, but maybe this is one of the places where encrypted computation in AI is important, which I heard there’s still quite some ongoing research and certain operations cannot be done. Tho it goes back to issues of trust, especially with black box models even if it’s open source to some extent

3

bbudda87 t1_j96hv7l wrote

Used it on an old, blurry photo of myself when I was 4, I'm astonished!

2

DrinkHumblyDumbly t1_j96jexn wrote

Replying to Frexeptabel (#1,870,822)

Yeah it seems very influential. But do u know whether there’s a privacy notice somewhere of how data are handled? I scrolled to the end of your friend’s site and skimmed through the repo/issue but couldn’t find it.

Plus, an issue was raised about license and I didn’t see any. Without a proper license and sufficiently clear usage/restrictions, these knock off sites might happen more often without anyone to take responsibility if something bad happens.

On a side note, thanks to this now I’m aware of Replicate to deploy ML tools.

1

jerflash t1_j96mhks wrote

I mean it’s not really free per say… you are willfully feeding its algorithm with your data so it gets better

1

Dentikit t1_j97a25z wrote

If the service is free you’re the product

0

entertainman t1_j97v48n wrote

Replying to opmwolf (#1,865,302)

Upscaling compression is probably one of the easiest things to train, because you can run a lossy filter on high quality images you already have images. Same with colorizing.

1

DamnAlreadyTaken t1_j99r1bo wrote

Replying to SpinCharm (#1,865,383)

I tried with a couple of photos I took with very old phones (10+ years). It did exactly what I could have done with photoshop, blow up the resolution smooth the picture, the artifacts are the same. I felt really disappointed. Was expecting something magical

1

SpinCharm t1_j99rcn8 wrote

Replying to DamnAlreadyTaken (#1,881,676)

It actually only does anything of significance to faces. Bodies, backgrounds, sky etc are mostly just blurred or unsharpened. So it’s not looking to recognize a tree then improve it with a much clearer tree. But if it finds a face it can make assumptions about the eyes and replace them with supposedly exactly the same eyes that are much sharper.

Unfortunately the combination of “improving” the eyes, nose, ears, chin, and hair results in something that really isn’t the same person. But to a stranger, it would look like an improvement as they’d have no baseline expectations on what the person actually looks like.

2

skoltroll t1_j9b6063 wrote

/uploads childhood photos for restoration

Program: No, your 70's childhood really was that beige and brown color.

1

jonlang t1_j9t0ebx wrote

Replying to Frexeptabel (#1,870,606)

Would the friend of yours be willing to have some sort of contact information on the page? There’s no way to tell who’s behind it today. Also I‘d have some improvement ideas, like leaving metadata intact or not converting my JPG to a bloated PNG…

1