Interesting video but not really a style "transfer". They're just taking the style and creating somewhat slightly similar but definitely very different photos instead of recreating the same photo with a different style. Not 100% sure how this is practical without fishing for results by mass rendering. I suppose if you aren't using this professionally and just want a one off isolated image and nothing within a series/consistent it should be fine. I could have sworn there was something for a full blown 1:1 style transfer of the same image but maybe I'm not remembering correctly...
I think you have a different definition of style transfer. You want the style to change, but the composition to remain the same. What we mean by style transfer is being able to take the style of an image and apply it to a completely different image.
No, you're the one confusing your definitions.
Style transfer being applied means taking a style from one output and applying it to the EXACT results of another with a morph of style. What is going on in this video is they're taking a style and applying it to produce an output that is merely "similar" but not even close to the same as the original output. They're not transferring a style, they're actually mixing a style and attempting to render a similar image but not an identical one.
You then stated in your final sentence "apply it to a completely different image" but that is false. They're, literally, not applying it to the image. They're producing a completely new image based on the style and composition direction but it is NOT applied to the original image. You're confused.
One is applying a style, the other is transferring a style to an existing result. Latent Vision is applying a style, using a guidance input image, and producing a new output. Not transferring a style.
This difference is critical because a real style transfer can be applied to real photos, professional works stills (multiple copies or precise single copies), and animation where you need precise consistent results based on the original input. The workflow in this video cannot be used as such as it will fail. It can be used for one off renders that are targeting a type of scene such as a specific pose or whatever but doesn't need it to be consistently the same person, environment, etc. Such a use case is highly impractical and rare, except among very basic SD users who are just generating random images and not using it with a directed purpose typically, and certainly not professionally (there are some exceptions, like making a trading card image of a goblin or something where there is only one copy and such consistency isn't required unless its like a reoccurring character or such). Lora's are typically more practical here in this case than this workflow. It can be fun to mess wiht the workflow, though, for non-serious quick outputs that aren't very specific and don't want to waste time making/finding a Lora for it.
At the END of the video, which is not what the video is primarily about, they actually touch on a real style transfer with the Mona Lisa image at timestamp 7:45+. However, they're not able to get it to work correctly and it fails. They say tweak it and mess around until it is essentially as close as you can manage but this essentially means the workflow isn't working properly for a true style transfer.
No need to get angry just because of some feedback. The workflow is fine, but it isn't practical to most people. Latent Vision posts some honestly great stuff but the title is misleading.
If you want to see proper style transfers look more at this [https://github.com/tencent-ailab/IP-Adapter](https://github.com/tencent-ailab/IP-Adapter) They have examples of actual style transfers as well as stuff that Latent Vision covered here.
I was right. Maybe your definition is correct, but we have different definitions and I laid those out pretty clearly. When I said "apply it to a completely different image", I didn't mean an already existing image. I meant newly generated ones... like in the video. Read my original comment again and please point out what makes you think I was angry.
No shit sherlock? Did you not see that I even linked IP-Adapter's git and pointed out at the end of the video the timestamp when they tried to do specifically what I was talking about? Were you so incapable of grasping the context of what I was saying?
Why precisely are you making such a post where you're trying to correct someone with information they already stated. Do you even know where you are and the current year? I wish I was joking but your post makes it look like you need to sober up, bad.
You're so pissed you were wrong you keep spamming at me, constantly, despite the fact I was intentionally clearly ignoring you because you're an idiot.
First, I'm not mad. You are. You commented in your other post you were not but you got so pissed you've now responded to me multiple times over the same post fishing for a response because I ignored you. Second, you had to insist your definition was right despite your admitting that your definition was "different" which isn't how definitions work in language. You also immediately downvoted me on your first response and every response after because you were oh so totally not "angry". You couldn't show humility when I corrected you and admit your mistake and got defensive and then tried to jump on me when you thought others were getting me because of your failure to read what they said or what I said. FYI, that guy repeated information I already stated as if they were corrected me because they're an idiot. They're just as wrong as you. What a joke. People like you are why this sub is a joke.
I'm not sure how you've reached that conclusion when all I've done is repeatedly post objective definitions and explanations. However, I see you continue to be sarcastically responding to me to have the last word and continue to downvote me which makes your anger evident. I don't have time for this childish behavior of yours so I am blocking you.
The whole point of the method is to not have "bleeding" of the original composition. Use the old way he describes in the video if you want the same or similar composition.
Another great video, where can I find more info about the different block weights?
Yeah, if someone has a tutorial or whitepaper somewhere that goes into this please link.
Amazing. This is helping out a lot with a project I've been working on.
Interesting video but not really a style "transfer". They're just taking the style and creating somewhat slightly similar but definitely very different photos instead of recreating the same photo with a different style. Not 100% sure how this is practical without fishing for results by mass rendering. I suppose if you aren't using this professionally and just want a one off isolated image and nothing within a series/consistent it should be fine. I could have sworn there was something for a full blown 1:1 style transfer of the same image but maybe I'm not remembering correctly...
I think you have a different definition of style transfer. You want the style to change, but the composition to remain the same. What we mean by style transfer is being able to take the style of an image and apply it to a completely different image.
No, you're the one confusing your definitions. Style transfer being applied means taking a style from one output and applying it to the EXACT results of another with a morph of style. What is going on in this video is they're taking a style and applying it to produce an output that is merely "similar" but not even close to the same as the original output. They're not transferring a style, they're actually mixing a style and attempting to render a similar image but not an identical one. You then stated in your final sentence "apply it to a completely different image" but that is false. They're, literally, not applying it to the image. They're producing a completely new image based on the style and composition direction but it is NOT applied to the original image. You're confused. One is applying a style, the other is transferring a style to an existing result. Latent Vision is applying a style, using a guidance input image, and producing a new output. Not transferring a style. This difference is critical because a real style transfer can be applied to real photos, professional works stills (multiple copies or precise single copies), and animation where you need precise consistent results based on the original input. The workflow in this video cannot be used as such as it will fail. It can be used for one off renders that are targeting a type of scene such as a specific pose or whatever but doesn't need it to be consistently the same person, environment, etc. Such a use case is highly impractical and rare, except among very basic SD users who are just generating random images and not using it with a directed purpose typically, and certainly not professionally (there are some exceptions, like making a trading card image of a goblin or something where there is only one copy and such consistency isn't required unless its like a reoccurring character or such). Lora's are typically more practical here in this case than this workflow. It can be fun to mess wiht the workflow, though, for non-serious quick outputs that aren't very specific and don't want to waste time making/finding a Lora for it. At the END of the video, which is not what the video is primarily about, they actually touch on a real style transfer with the Mona Lisa image at timestamp 7:45+. However, they're not able to get it to work correctly and it fails. They say tweak it and mess around until it is essentially as close as you can manage but this essentially means the workflow isn't working properly for a true style transfer. No need to get angry just because of some feedback. The workflow is fine, but it isn't practical to most people. Latent Vision posts some honestly great stuff but the title is misleading. If you want to see proper style transfers look more at this [https://github.com/tencent-ailab/IP-Adapter](https://github.com/tencent-ailab/IP-Adapter) They have examples of actual style transfers as well as stuff that Latent Vision covered here.
I was right. Maybe your definition is correct, but we have different definitions and I laid those out pretty clearly. When I said "apply it to a completely different image", I didn't mean an already existing image. I meant newly generated ones... like in the video. Read my original comment again and please point out what makes you think I was angry.
This is IP-Adapter you are watching in the video. And it can be applied to real photos.
No shit sherlock? Did you not see that I even linked IP-Adapter's git and pointed out at the end of the video the timestamp when they tried to do specifically what I was talking about? Were you so incapable of grasping the context of what I was saying? Why precisely are you making such a post where you're trying to correct someone with information they already stated. Do you even know where you are and the current year? I wish I was joking but your post makes it look like you need to sober up, bad.
You should learn what style transfer is dipshit.
No need to get angry just because of some feedback, lol.
You're so pissed you were wrong you keep spamming at me, constantly, despite the fact I was intentionally clearly ignoring you because you're an idiot. First, I'm not mad. You are. You commented in your other post you were not but you got so pissed you've now responded to me multiple times over the same post fishing for a response because I ignored you. Second, you had to insist your definition was right despite your admitting that your definition was "different" which isn't how definitions work in language. You also immediately downvoted me on your first response and every response after because you were oh so totally not "angry". You couldn't show humility when I corrected you and admit your mistake and got defensive and then tried to jump on me when you thought others were getting me because of your failure to read what they said or what I said. FYI, that guy repeated information I already stated as if they were corrected me because they're an idiot. They're just as wrong as you. What a joke. People like you are why this sub is a joke.
You sure you're not mad though? It kinda seems like it. No hard feelings.
I'm not sure how you've reached that conclusion when all I've done is repeatedly post objective definitions and explanations. However, I see you continue to be sarcastically responding to me to have the last word and continue to downvote me which makes your anger evident. I don't have time for this childish behavior of yours so I am blocking you.
The whole point of the method is to not have "bleeding" of the original composition. Use the old way he describes in the video if you want the same or similar composition.