From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: On "real" photography vs collage
Full headers:
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: On "real" photography vs collage
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2017 09:49:48 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <011120170949482586%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <otcj1m$1160$>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info:; posting-host="255cb1fbbf3871ae327eae76220addaf";
logging-data="4643"; mail-complaints-to="";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/w+RArlozakJjPGANaPp8L"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:y9pxOXs8VlbzHus9mU69iaCkFs8=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article <otcj1m$1160$>, Mayayana<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> Interesting development apropos of last week's discussion:
> ces-disturbing-results
>   I can't say that I really understand this technology,

or any other technology.

> but it apparently uses something like an internal
> software argument to systematically improve on a
> result. what they've done is to generate realistic
> faces from limited data. I could imagine this being
> used for image improvement. Example: Feed a bad
> photo into a program and then give it good photos
> of the people in photo #1, with the result being
> a "clean-up" of those faces.

that's already happening.