#Looks like Images 2.0 lost transparent backgrounds. Seems like a regression.

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

urban crescent
#

Looks like Images 2.0 lost transparent backgrounds. Seems like a regression.

gaunt gulch
#

wait I can't do transparent background any more?

urban crescent
#

It's super touchy now

It seems very much dependent on the training data. If the type of image you're generating usually has a fake background then it gives it a transparent background. But if the type of image you're generating usually has a real transparent background, then it does it.

It really does seem like a regression of some sort.

Because I'm pretty sure this worked much better before.

thorny rivet
#

I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that there’s graininess and static in the images now. I wonder if it has difficulty making it transparent because of it.

crude zodiac
#

Most things I try now seem like very regresed lol

urban crescent
# thorny rivet I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that there’s graininess and stat...

No that's definitely not it, because we're talking about original image generation.

It generates the image with a fake transparency in the first place.

From what I understand, it's about the training data.

There's so many images online with fake transparent backgrounds so that they look like they are PNGs.

I really wouldn't expect it to fall for that, but if special care wasn't taken, I can see it being a weird problem.

Especially given that it is inconsistent.

Sometimes you will get a real transparent background.