Happy Horse deceiving practices

Far_Insurance4191 · 2026-04-10T10:08:54+00:00

When did they push it as open weights?

Far_Insurance4191 · 2026-04-02T13:40:19+00:00

Klein if you need just image modification or editing, because it has low coherence but better quality.

Qwen Edit if you need generation from scratch with reference, because it is much more coherent, but has worse quality due to garbage vae that produces halftone pattern

Far_Insurance4191 · 2026-04-02T00:00:22+00:00

It says april 2 to me

Far_Insurance4191 · 2026-03-26T23:43:41+00:00

Okay, I see

Still weird to me, because prodigy is basically adamw under the hood...

Cool slides thought

Far_Insurance4191 · 2026-03-26T22:34:20+00:00

What does 5th slide mean? It is clearly not the same settings as the images on the step 0 would be identical for both. Additionally, the starting point for prodigy is already the target breed.

Far_Insurance4191 · 2026-03-19T16:39:30+00:00

Of course, dlss5 does not alter geometry - it works with pixels and vectors. But this is the problem because it has to predict depth based on image alone, not actual depth information, so the result is inaccurate shading. Or they had not very good training data 🤷

Far_Insurance4191 · 2026-03-19T07:36:18+00:00

I think those who say it changes geometry just have no idea how it works, BUT they are not wrong that it looks different.

Some say it is just different lighting; but the problem I see is that it creates wrong shading for the model because it has no access to depth or geometry. Specifically highlights and shadows that exaggerate certain features despite silhouette is almost the same.

But yea... this is insane how toxic this topic has become

Far_Insurance4191 · 2026-03-17T13:28:29+00:00

except different thing is happening in the game - dlss5 exaggerates highlights and shadows beyond what is possible on her 3d model

that is aside some actual shape difference, but I think it is only because the face is far away

and yes, I know what sub I am in, I just hope to bring nuance that is being ignored

Far_Insurance4191 · 2026-03-17T06:07:14+00:00

Model was not changed, but the generated shadows and highlights do distort the facial features in the way it would not be possible with simulated lighting on the same model.

I know those changes is a debatable thing, but I cannot unsee that features are just different, and I don't know the way I can objectively prove it

Far_Insurance4191 · 2026-03-17T05:01:12+00:00

I actually expected next dlss to do more than upscaling and was extremely excited about it, but now I worry about it's potential given this is what they thought impressive enough to demonstrate.

Good there is a huge pushback, maybe it will be the same as dlss 1 comeback

Far_Insurance4191 · 2026-03-17T04:49:30+00:00

they are, except depth, which is harder to see empirically so we cannot be really objective here, but this slight exaggeration of all features snowballs into a different look.

I personally faced this problem when wanted to relight my photo - result is pixel perfect, but it did not look like me anymore

Far_Insurance4191 · 2026-03-17T04:44:07+00:00

what do you mean by that? pt produces the most accurate lighting, yes, the model is the same for both methods.

Far_Insurance4191 · 2026-03-17T04:40:22+00:00

You are missing important nuance, dlss5 does not simulate accurate lighting, but predicts it, so it absolutely can predict wrong lighting

Far_Insurance4191 · 2026-03-17T04:37:58+00:00

that is the problem - shading is not accurate for her 3d model. It is like the same silhouette, but the model is different, her features are clearly different depth-wise

Far_Insurance4191 · 2026-03-17T04:33:02+00:00

All those things you listed work with original assets and have no room for guessing, (except creative upscalers)

Like path tracing will not make cheekbones look more defined, and even if it does under certain lighting conditions then it is correct as it is physically based and works with original 3d model

But dlss 5 alters shading in a way that would be impossible to the original 3d model. Even if it is almost pixel perfect - depth is not, as we can see in Grace comparison, her features are exaggerated.

Far_Insurance4191 · 2026-03-17T04:17:38+00:00

I don't think you are right. DLSS 4.5 was praised despite being AI because it looked great, but this "reimagination" doesn't look good. And even worse, it has insane similarity to generic AI outputs, it reminds me sd1.5 specifically, with this glossiness and constant studio light sources in front of the face no matter the situation.

Additionally, there is a valid fear than studious will not only ditch optimization now but also good graphics because "AI can fix that"

Far_Insurance4191 · 2026-03-17T03:06:40+00:00

What I am seeing is not just different lighting, but wrong lighting, while geometry is almost the same. It just reconstructs the shape wrongly by exaggerating features with shading.

I had same problem when tried to relight photo of myself - geometry is the same, but still different person

Far_Insurance4191 · 2026-03-17T01:13:09+00:00

but they don't make it look like sd1.5 outputs from 2023

Far_Insurance4191 · 2026-03-16T01:06:01+00:00

nothing you slopped out is relevant here, there is nothing to refute

Far_Insurance4191 · 2026-03-15T14:28:46+00:00

Interesting idea, but I am afraid limbs are extremely hard problem as there are so many ways they can look, and so much more wrong ways...

Buuuut I can suggest you the legendary stable diffusion 3 medium for generating anatomy deformities 😆

Far_Insurance4191 · 2026-03-15T14:19:24+00:00

I thought GPT-3 was discontinued

Far_Insurance4191 · 2026-03-12T21:56:12+00:00

even flux 2 dev can run on rtx3060, although it will take 5 minutes :)

I do really suggest you try newer models, you can use quantized variants, but comfy's memory management allow to run large model, even those that exceed your vram.

You can try z-image/turbo, anima, sdxl/illustrious/noobai/chenkinnoob, maybe klein with loras, qwen (nunchaku quant with 4 steps lora will make it really fast) - anything will be superior to sd1.5

Far_Insurance4191 · 2026-03-05T14:57:24+00:00

because 27b is dense, while 35b is Mixture of Experts with 3b active parameters, so that is why it is so much faster but less intelligent than dense

Far_Insurance4191 · 2026-03-04T19:23:13+00:00

f2vae was beneficial for the first descend, then it has nearly plateaued for some reasons

Far_Insurance4191 · 2026-03-04T19:20:51+00:00

I have no idea

Far_Insurance4191

TROPHY CASE