ChaoticNeutralCzech

joined 1 year ago
 

Artist: Onion-Oni aka TenTh from Random-tan Studio
Original post: #Humanization 17 on Tapas (warning: JS-heavy site)

Upscaled by waifu2x (model: upconv_7_anime_style_art_rgb). Original
Unlike photos, upscaling digital art with a well-trained algorithm will likely have little to no undesirable effect. Why? Well, the drawing originated as a series of brush strokes, fill areas, gradients etc. which could be represented in a vector format but are instead rendered on a pixel canvas. As long as no feature is smaller than 2 pixels, the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem effectively says that the original vector image can therefore be reconstructed losslessly. (This is not a fully accurate explanation, in practice algorithms need more pixels to make a good guess, especially if compression artifacts are present.) Suppose I gave you a low-res image of the flag of South Korea πŸ‡°πŸ‡· and asked you to manually upscale it for printing. Knowing that the flag has no small features so there is no need to guess for detail (this assumption does not hold for photos), you could redraw it with vector shapes that use the same colors and recreate every stroke and arc in the image, and then render them at an arbitrarily high resolution. AI upscalers trained on drawings somewhat imitate this process - not adding detail, just trying to represent the original with more pixels so that it loooks sharp on an HD screen. However, the original images are so low-res that artifacts are basically inevitable, which is why a link to the original is provided.

17
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

Artist: Onion-Oni aka TenTh from Random-tan Studio
Original post: #Humanization 16 on Tapas

I tried upscaled by waifu2x (model: upconv_7_anime_style_art_rgb) but it didn't go too well.

 

Artist: Onion-Oni aka TenTh from Random-tan Studio
Original post: #Humanization 16 on Tapas (warning: JS-heavy site)

Upscaled by waifu2x (model: upconv_7_anime_style_art_rgb). Original
Unlike photos, upscaling digital art with a well-trained algorithm will likely have little to no undesirable effect. Why? Well, the drawing originated as a series of brush strokes, fill areas, gradients etc. which could be represented in a vector format but are instead rendered on a pixel canvas. As long as no feature is smaller than 2 pixels, the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem effectively says that the original vector image can therefore be reconstructed losslessly. (This is not a fully accurate explanation, in practice algorithms need more pixels to make a good guess, especially if compression artifacts are present.) Suppose I gave you a low-res image of the flag of South Korea πŸ‡°πŸ‡· and asked you to manually upscale it for printing. Knowing that the flag has no small features so there is no need to guess for detail (this assumption does not hold for photos), you could redraw it with vector shapes that use the same colors and recreate every stroke and arc in the image, and then render them at an arbitrarily high resolution. AI upscalers trained on drawings somewhat imitate this process - not adding detail, just trying to represent the original with more pixels so that it loooks sharp on an HD screen. However, the original images are so low-res that artifacts are basically inevitable, which is why a link to the original is provided.

 

Artist: Onion-Oni aka TenTh from Random-tan Studio
Original post: #Humanization 15 on Tapas (warning: JS-heavy site)

Upscaled by waifu2x (model: upconv_7_anime_style_art_rgb). Original
Unlike photos, upscaling digital art with a well-trained algorithm will likely have little to no undesirable effect. Why? Well, the drawing originated as a series of brush strokes, fill areas, gradients etc. which could be represented in a vector format but are instead rendered on a pixel canvas. As long as no feature is smaller than 2 pixels, the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem effectively says that the original vector image can therefore be reconstructed losslessly. (This is not a fully accurate explanation, in practice algorithms need more pixels to make a good guess, especially if compression artifacts are present.) Suppose I gave you a low-res image of the flag of South Korea πŸ‡°πŸ‡· and asked you to manually upscale it for printing. Knowing that the flag has no small features so there is no need to guess for detail (this assumption does not hold for photos), you could redraw it with vector shapes that use the same colors and recreate every stroke and arc in the image, and then render them at an arbitrarily high resolution. AI upscalers trained on drawings somewhat imitate this process - not adding detail, just trying to represent the original with more pixels so that it loooks sharp on an HD screen. However, the original images are so low-res that artifacts are basically inevitable, which is why a link to the original is provided.

 

Artist: Onion-Oni aka TenTh from Random-tan Studio
Original post: #Humanization 15 on Tapas (warning: JS-heavy site)

Upscaled by waifu2x (model: upconv_7_anime_style_art_rgb). Original
Unlike photos, upscaling digital art with a well-trained algorithm will likely have little to no undesirable effect. Why? Well, the drawing originated as a series of brush strokes, fill areas, gradients etc. which could be represented in a vector format but are instead rendered on a pixel canvas. As long as no feature is smaller than 2 pixels, the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem effectively says that the original vector image can therefore be reconstructed losslessly. (This is not a fully accurate explanation, in practice algorithms need more pixels to make a good guess, especially if compression artifacts are present.) Suppose I gave you a low-res image of the flag of South Korea πŸ‡°πŸ‡· and asked you to manually upscale it for printing. Knowing that the flag has no small features so there is no need to guess for detail (this assumption does not hold for photos), you could redraw it with vector shapes that use the same colors and recreate every stroke and arc in the image, and then render them at an arbitrarily high resolution. AI upscalers trained on drawings somewhat imitate this process - not adding detail, just trying to represent the original with more pixels so that it loooks sharp on an HD screen. However, the original images are so low-res that artifacts are basically inevitable, which is why a link to the original is provided.

 

Artist: Onion-Oni aka TenTh from Random-tan Studio
Original post: #Humanization 14 on Tapas (warning: JS-heavy site)

Upscaled by waifu2x (model: upconv_7_anime_style_art_rgb). Original
Unlike photos, upscaling digital art with a well-trained algorithm will likely have little to no undesirable effect. Why? Well, the drawing originated as a series of brush strokes, fill areas, gradients etc. which could be represented in a vector format but are instead rendered on a pixel canvas. As long as no feature is smaller than 2 pixels, the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem effectively says that the original vector image can therefore be reconstructed losslessly. (This is not a fully accurate explanation, in practice algorithms need more pixels to make a good guess, especially if compression artifacts are present.) Suppose I gave you a low-res image of the flag of South Korea πŸ‡°πŸ‡· and asked you to manually upscale it for printing. Knowing that the flag has no small features so there is no need to guess for detail (this assumption does not hold for photos), you could redraw it with vector shapes that use the same colors and recreate every stroke and arc in the image, and then render them at an arbitrarily high resolution. AI upscalers trained on drawings somewhat imitate this process - not adding detail, just trying to represent the original with more pixels so that it loooks sharp on an HD screen. However, the original images are so low-res that artifacts are basically inevitable, which is why a link to the original is provided.

 

Artist: Onion-Oni aka TenTh from Random-tan Studio
Original post: #Humanization 14 on Tapas (warning: JS-heavy site)

Upscaled by waifu2x (model: upconv_7_anime_style_art_rgb). Original
Unlike photos, upscaling digital art with a well-trained algorithm will likely have little to no undesirable effect. Why? Well, the drawing originated as a series of brush strokes, fill areas, gradients etc. which could be represented in a vector format but are instead rendered on a pixel canvas. As long as no feature is smaller than 2 pixels, the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem effectively says that the original vector image can therefore be reconstructed losslessly. (This is not a fully accurate explanation, in practice algorithms need more pixels to make a good guess, especially if compression artifacts are present.) Suppose I gave you a low-res image of the flag of South Korea πŸ‡°πŸ‡· and asked you to manually upscale it for printing. Knowing that the flag has no small features so there is no need to guess for detail (this assumption does not hold for photos), you could redraw it with vector shapes that use the same colors and recreate every stroke and arc in the image, and then render them at an arbitrarily high resolution. AI upscalers trained on drawings somewhat imitate this process - not adding detail, just trying to represent the original with more pixels so that it loooks sharp on an HD screen. However, the original images are so low-res that artifacts are basically inevitable, which is why a link to the original is provided.

 

Paint timelapse available!

Artist: Onion-Oni aka TenTh from Random-tan Studio
Original post: #Humanization 6 on Tapas (warning: JS-heavy site)

Upscaled by waifu2x (model: upconv_7_anime_style_art_rgb). Original
Unlike photos, upscaling digital art with a well-trained algorithm will likely have little to no undesirable effect. Why? Well, the drawing originated as a series of brush strokes, fill areas, gradients etc. which could be represented in a vector format but are instead rendered on a pixel canvas. As long as no feature is smaller than 2 pixels, the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem effectively says that the original vector image can therefore be reconstructed losslessly. (This is not a fully accurate explanation, in practice algorithms need more pixels to make a good guess, especially if compression artifacts are present.) Suppose I gave you a low-res image of the flag of South Korea πŸ‡°πŸ‡· and asked you to manually upscale it for printing. Knowing that the flag has no small features so there is no need to guess for detail (this assumption does not hold for photos), you could redraw it with vector shapes that use the same colors and recreate every stroke and arc in the image, and then render them at an arbitrarily high resolution. AI upscalers trained on drawings somewhat imitate this process - not adding detail, just trying to represent the original with more pixels so that it loooks sharp on an HD screen. However, the original images are so low-res that artifacts are basically inevitable, which is why a link to the original is provided.

 

Artist: Onion-Oni aka TenTh from Random-tan Studio
Original post: #Humanization 13 on Tapas (warning: JS-heavy site)

Upscaled by waifu2x (model: upconv_7_anime_style_art_rgb). Original
Unlike photos, upscaling digital art with a well-trained algorithm will likely have little to no undesirable effect. Why? Well, the drawing originated as a series of brush strokes, fill areas, gradients etc. which could be represented in a vector format but are instead rendered on a pixel canvas. As long as no feature is smaller than 2 pixels, the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem effectively says that the original vector image can therefore be reconstructed losslessly. (This is not a fully accurate explanation, in practice algorithms need more pixels to make a good guess, especially if compression artifacts are present.) Suppose I gave you a low-res image of the flag of South Korea πŸ‡°πŸ‡· and asked you to manually upscale it for printing. Knowing that the flag has no small features so there is no need to guess for detail (this assumption does not hold for photos), you could redraw it with vector shapes that use the same colors and recreate every stroke and arc in the image, and then render them at an arbitrarily high resolution. AI upscalers trained on drawings somewhat imitate this process - not adding detail, just trying to represent the original with more pixels so that it loooks sharp on an HD screen. However, the original images are so low-res that artifacts are basically inevitable, which is why a link to the original is provided.

 

Artist: Onion-Oni aka TenTh from Random-tan Studio
Original post: #Humanization 13 on Tapas (warning: JS-heavy site)

Upscaled by waifu2x (model: upconv_7_anime_style_art_rgb). Original
Unlike photos, upscaling digital art with a well-trained algorithm will likely have little to no undesirable effect. Why? Well, the drawing originated as a series of brush strokes, fill areas, gradients etc. which could be represented in a vector format but are instead rendered on a pixel canvas. As long as no feature is smaller than 2 pixels, the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem effectively says that the original vector image can therefore be reconstructed losslessly. (This is not a fully accurate explanation, in practice algorithms need more pixels to make a good guess, especially if compression artifacts are present.) Suppose I gave you a low-res image of the flag of South Korea πŸ‡°πŸ‡· and asked you to manually upscale it for printing. Knowing that the flag has no small features so there is no need to guess for detail (this assumption does not hold for photos), you could redraw it with vector shapes that use the same colors and recreate every stroke and arc in the image, and then render them at an arbitrarily high resolution. AI upscalers trained on drawings somewhat imitate this process - not adding detail, just trying to represent the original with more pixels so that it loooks sharp on an HD screen. However, the original images are so low-res that artifacts are basically inevitable, which is why a link to the original is provided.

6
submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

Artist: Onion-Oni aka TenTh from Random-tan Studio
Original post: #Humanization 12 on Tapas (warning: JS-heavy site)

Upscaled by waifu2x (model: upconv_7_anime_style_art_rgb). Original
Unlike photos, upscaling digital art with a well-trained algorithm will likely have little to no undesirable effect. Why? Well, the drawing originated as a series of brush strokes, fill areas, gradients etc. which could be represented in a vector format but are instead rendered on a pixel canvas. As long as no feature is smaller than 2 pixels, the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem effectively says that the original vector image can therefore be reconstructed losslessly. (This is not a fully accurate explanation, in practice algorithms need more pixels to make a good guess, especially if compression artifacts are present.) Suppose I gave you a low-res image of the flag of South Korea πŸ‡°πŸ‡· and asked you to manually upscale it for printing. Knowing that the flag has no small features so there is no need to guess for detail (this assumption does not hold for photos), you could redraw it with vector shapes that use the same colors and recreate every stroke and arc in the image, and then render them at an arbitrarily high resolution. AI upscalers trained on drawings somewhat imitate this process - not adding detail, just trying to represent the original with more pixels so that it loooks sharp on an HD screen. However, the original images are so low-res that artifacts are basically inevitable, which is why a link to the original is provided.

28
submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

Artist: Onion-Oni aka TenTh from Random-tan Studio
Original post: #Humanization 12 on Tapas (warning: JS-heavy site)

Upscaled by waifu2x (model: upconv_7_anime_style_art_rgb). Original
Unlike photos, upscaling digital art with a well-trained algorithm will likely have little to no undesirable effect. Why? Well, the drawing originated as a series of brush strokes, fill areas, gradients etc. which could be represented in a vector format but are instead rendered on a pixel canvas. As long as no feature is smaller than 2 pixels, the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem effectively says that the original vector image can therefore be reconstructed losslessly. (This is not a fully accurate explanation, in practice algorithms need more pixels to make a good guess, especially if compression artifacts are present.) Suppose I gave you a low-res image of the flag of South Korea πŸ‡°πŸ‡· and asked you to manually upscale it for printing. Knowing that the flag has no small features so there is no need to guess for detail (this assumption does not hold for photos), you could redraw it with vector shapes that use the same colors and recreate every stroke and arc in the image, and then render them at an arbitrarily high resolution. AI upscalers trained on drawings somewhat imitate this process - not adding detail, just trying to represent the original with more pixels so that it loooks sharp on an HD screen. However, the original images are so low-res that artifacts are basically inevitable, which is why a link to the original is provided.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

The Random-tan Studio "Humanization" pics I've been posting follow a pattern. See if you can spot it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I'd say owls are sentient (see sidebar) but the spirit is there so owl allow it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

There is just one picture... Show me a screenshot if you see two.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Very creative with the various black protrusions.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Lethal humanoid monsters, weird voice acting (likely not AI though) and "telephone"-distorted audio (it's not just because I limited the bitrate to 20 kb/s to fit under 10 MiB, the YouTube video is like that). It's an artistic choice but not a very rare one, so likely not directly inspired by H. P. Lovecraft's audiobooks.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

I'll show you some superior weaponry. Today's post won't be automated.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

You are right, QR codes are very easy to decode if you have them raw, even the C64 should do it in a few seconds, maybe a minute for one of those 22 giant ones. The hard part is image processing when decoding a camera picture - and that can be done on the C64 too if it has enough time and some external memory (or disks for virtual memory). People have even emulated a 32-bit RISC processor on the poor thing, and made it boot Linux.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Some of them use bismuth, which is as weakly radioactive as it gets, but why? It's still a heavy metal and might be poisonous if parts of it shed off.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (6 children)

I wouldn't say "shit" but rather niche. Most people who would love a Reddit-like place have Reddit and don't hate it enough to switch, especially since we don't have extensive hobby communities with long history.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago

In almost all microwaves, the control circuitry or mechanical switches only ever switch 2-3 power circuits: motor+fan(+bulb sometimes separately) and the heating (transformer+diode+capacitor+magnetron) high voltage circuit. It can therefore only switch the heat between 0 and max, usually in a slow (15-30s period) PWM cycle (that hopefully does not coincide with the tray rotation period). The inputs can be manual only, or sometimes there is also a scale, moisture sensor and microphone, along with thermal fuses for safety.

I think the pizza setting is just generic medium one with short 50% cycles to allow the heat to spread. The popcorn setting can be much more interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Limpr1L8Pss

view more: β€Ή prev next β€Ί