Jump to content

My photo has a 97.7% chance of being awesome.


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 757 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

ermm....

I'm filing a JIRA, like right now!

I found a website that uses a neural network (artificial intelligence) to evaluate how good is your photo is. I tried a photo of my mesh SL avatar and got 97.7%! It even suggests tags for your photo.

Posted Images

12 hours ago, Dementia Obviate said:

I'm with you... apparently 99% of my pics suck.  I tried numerous pics. Most got single digits or below even though they generated tags like beautiful, sensual, fashion model, and sex symbol. Only one I tried that got in the 90s was the free Altamura avatar in her underwear and tank top. ?

I put in some of the textures for some of my most popular paintings, and the results were horrible. I only hope that this is because the program looks for contrast and a variety of colors, and my tendency to create somewhat monochromatic images to evoke a specific mood does not work with the algorithm,

Link to post
Share on other sites

And a slightly serious one too.

There's a special reason why I post this one. It's from a Photohunt so it's been judged by humans before. It didn't win of course, it's not a very good picture. I'm not even sure if it reached top ten - among about a dozen contestants. But Everypixel gives it a very high score. Food for thought.

Then again, did anybody actually click on the "Awesome" word to see what they really mean by it?

Quote

This service doesn't measure the coolness or beauty of a person or any object in a photo. It cares only about technical parts like brightness, contrast, noise and so on. Service doesn't dedicate for historical photos, illustrations or 3D visualizations.

 

I have to say I'm seriously impressed by the tags generated though. It's very human-centric and failed to identify less common species like driders, centaurs, nagas and mermaids but apart from that (and its failure to make sense of modern art) they were usually spot on. I'm tempted to run my Alamy portfolio through it but I suppose that would be rude.

218329196_Skjermbilde(1359).thumb.png.55df2552a543fc4cb9882987dc2a256f.png

 

Oh as a special bonus, out beloved jellybean. A fake one that is. For some weird reason LL forgot to include the pink one in their collection.

657156490_Skjermbilde(1360).thumb.png.24d390c5344577a7a708c98830f9ce5d.png

Edited by ChinRey
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 757 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...