Might be good for extending occluded background areas in 3D stereo conversions from mono
edit: actually looks about as good to me as the âcontent-aware fillâ function in Photoshop now.
I was just about to bring up âContent-Aware Fill.â That might be all this is, Iâm not sure.
Iâd be more interested to see the results of an artist doing this manually, adding their own elements in the original artistâs style. Or, take this digital fill method, but expand the original image even further, pushing it to the limits where what comes out begins to become something truly original to the machineâs processes⌠to the point where the machine really starts âinventingâ imagery.
It seems to work best for Van Goghâs work- maybe because the chaotic little brush strokes are less likely to appear âclonedâ.
There is a âHow does it work?â link on the top of the page, which actually says:
We used Photoshopâs implementation of PatchMatch on the frame of the painting rather than inside it
⌠the accompanying pictures shows: Content-Aware Fill âŚ
Honestly, I was pretty surprised: I actually thought that the Georgia OâKeeffe painting and Starry Night were unexpectedly good. I thought Starry Night in particular benefitted from the large scene (if you ignore the repeated brush strokes, of course).
LOL I do this every day for a living. Iâm a fine art printer, and routinely add 3" of matching content to the edges of paintings to create canvas gallery wraps, frameless art on 1 1/2" deep stretcher bars. I steadfastly refuse to use one button mirror techniques, and almost always start with content aware fill and content aware patch, complemented with content aware healing and manual cloning.
Iâd like to see what it looks like when extrapolated far enough that the original subject in the center of the canvas has all but disappeared. In other words, it would be like a huge zoom out.
Theyâd all pretty much look like this, I guess:
Hmmm, you didnât zoom out far enough.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
