Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NVIDIA's Latest AI Software Turns Rough Doodles Into Realistic Landscapes (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the prototype-software dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: AI is going to be huge for artists, and the latest demonstration comes from Nvidia, which has built prototype software that turns doodles into realistic landscapes. Using a type of AI model known as a generative adversarial network (GAN), the software gives users what Nvidia is calling a "smart paint brush." This means someone can make a very basic outline of a scene (drawing, say, a tree on a hill) before filling in their rough sketch with natural textures like grass, clouds, forests, or rocks. The results are not quite photorealistic, but they're impressive all the same. The software generates AI landscapes instantly, and it's surprisingly intuitive. For example, when a user draws a tree and then a pool of water underneath it, the model adds the tree's reflection to the pool. Nvidia didn't say if it has any plans to turn the software into an actual product, but it suggests that tools like this could help "everyone from architects and urban planners to landscape designers and game developers" in the future. The company has published a video showing off the imagery it handles particularly well.

35 comments

  1. im not overly impressed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    for all of thoses out there, there is something similar already. https://github.com/alexjc/neural-doodle

    nvidias is a bit more advanced (uses a diff net type) and has a UI, but its been done..

    1. Re:im not overly impressed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be very smart

  2. They should really be doing... by blahplusplus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... animation AI for 2D so you can get the hand drawn look artists want. Given that hand drawn animation is a lot simpler in that only the necessary details for the thing being drawin to read well are usually drawn. I have no idea why they'd use photo realism given that many artist want to create from their imagination. It'd be a lot cooler if they perfected 2D animation line art first for traditional cartoons and anime so they'd actually be saving animators tonnes of time and money.

    Animators still have a really hard time scaling and animating things we made computers to help with that but we're still stupid ass apes that can't take advantage of all thise CPU power and put it to good use given our natural mathematical dumbness.

    1. Re:They should really be doing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      so you can get the hand drawn look *SOME* artists want.

      It It depends on what they're after. If this is a step towards generating landscapes for things like green-screen backgrounds and games then you don't want 2D.

    2. Re:They should really be doing... by religionofpeas · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have no idea why they'd use photo realism

      Probably because there's a much larger dataset of them.

    3. Re:They should really be doing... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I see this type of technology akin to MIDI. A 3d Model normally takes a lot of space for instructions and a lot of the work is repetitive, and a lot of detail work, that will take a lot of storage and time, work on.
      Just like how MIDI, has the instrument sounds already programmed, and we can just pass the note of the song to the MIDI player, meaning you have have a full score in Kilobytes of data, vs. Megabtyes per minute.

      This demo, is using life like textures, because a 2d version will very from the artiest styles. As 2d Animation very on the amount of shading, the type of borders (inking), degrees of exaggeration. Think a 1940 Disney Film background vs Say Bobs Burger or Ren and Stimpy

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:They should really be doing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I have no idea why they'd use photo realism

      Copyright laws

  3. give me 3d by sproketboy · · Score: 1

    so I can make landscapes games!

  4. Dumb by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

    It recognizes shapes you draw and fills them with a texture. We get it. Shape recognition has been around for 40 years now. More ridiculousness called "AI".

    1. Re:Dumb by 110010001000 · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Millennials can't handle the truth. Their "AI" gimmicks are getting tiresome. We get it already: image/shape recognition is a real thing. It was done over 40 years ago. Time to move on.

    2. Re: Dumb by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Shape recognition has been around for 40 years now.

      Your numerous detractors may disagree... but there have been times that I've actually seen you write something intelligent.

      This was not one of those times.

    3. Re:Dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not just filling it with a texture. It's generating a complex shape from the concept of a tree. Draw and fill a hundred trees and every one will be different, and the branches of the tree will grow to match the shape of the tree you drew. And it will also blend it into the picture and take into account lighting, shadows and reflections. That's a lot more impressive than a texture fill.

    4. Re:Dumb by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      there is also aspects of depth and how the texture would function in the context, I was impressed to see the waterfall rendered vs some weird river, And the tree being placed on the right spot on the hill vs just cutting down into the edge.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  5. don't kid yourself, nvidia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's just a crude 'paint' program with in-built textures and some simple scripting. pretty basic shit when you still have buttons to label and texture an area as 'sky' and such. failing to see where the "AI" is in that.

  6. MSpaint is nice and all by wierd_w · · Score: 1

    But what does it do when you feed it really good pixel art, or feed it an actual landscape?

    1. Re:MSpaint is nice and all by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      being that it replaced a handful of colors, I expect colors that it doesn't recognize will be ignored or replaced.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  7. Huge for artists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's not going to be huge for artists, it's going to eliminate them. With this technology suddenly everyone will be an "artist".

    1. Re:Huge for artists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, since Duchamp and his "ready mades", everybody is already an artist, as it's the intent to do art that makes you an artist.... And the fact that people in art galeries says it's Art. So, this won't change a thing.
      And knowing the art sellers is even better, you don't have to do any effort since the critics are doing most of the work to explain your art....

      Yeah, I'm kind of jaded, but it only comes from long years being near "artists" around here, trust me, most don't have any real technical mastery, only bluff, and it's easier for them to be mildly transgressive than really subversive as they should be.

    2. Re:Huge for artists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think this is true (with this application). Rendering engines are a better example of this. You can download free powerful ones (blender etc) today - it'll render a model for you kind of perfectly... except that there's a huge skill ladder in being able to use a renderer (like cameras)... before even thinking about your capacity to 3d model, design a scene, character or whatever. There are more jobs today in photography, animation or architecture than historically, and this has been hugely enabled by labour saving technologies like this.

      Ultimately if you make a tool, some people will become much better at using that tool than other people could possibly be unless they also devoted their working time to doing so (before even considering aptitude).

      To replace an artist... or programmer, or anything else, you'd need to make something that could learn and use other tools on the fly, as well as talk, communicate and apply often hazy objectives.

    3. Re:Huge for artists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, just like Visual Basic "eliminated" software developers.

    4. Re:Huge for artists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because cheap cameras that everyone can own eliminated all photographers...

      Everyone can be an "artist" but there'll still be a skill to using it to generate attractive art.

    5. Re:Huge for artists? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Everyone can be an "artist" but there'll still be a skill to using it to generate attractive art

      You could train a network to generate attractive art. That's not even really hard.

  8. Looks great in the video by DrXym · · Score: 1

    Bet it looks terrible close-up

    1. Re:Looks great in the video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bet it looks terrible close-up

      Agreed.

      But give it time.

  9. No, it wouldn't be great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Wouldn't it be great if everybody could be an artist?"

    No, it wouldn't be great... Because they are not. I've long since given up on finding anything of value online by searching. It's hopeless. There's so much WORTHLESS GARBAGE out there now that the few possibly existing nuggets are hopeless to find in the ocean of piss. Everyone already *thinks* they are an artist, but they (almost) all SUCK. This stupid program is nothing more than that "Bruce 2" software that allowed unskilled morons (including myself) to click a button and claim that they had "made" a 3D mountain with impressive (and identical-looking) surroundings.

    1. Re:No, it wouldn't be great... by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      This stupid program is nothing more than that "Bruce 2" software that allowed unskilled morons (including myself) to click a button and claim that they had "made" a 3D mountain with impressive (and identical-looking) surroundings.

      Commenter meant Bryce, which hasn't been updated in years, but is still being sold by an 'old software aggregator.'

  10. Got one for CAD? by raymorris · · Score: 1

    I could really use something like this for CAD.
    Where I draw what looks roughly like a cylinder and it says "do you a want a cylinder?" Even the "easy" CAD programs seem to have quite learning curve.

    Example: Cylinders are very common, as are circles. Why don't any of them have a cylinder button? Why do I have to create an oval, set height and width equal to make it a circle, then extrude it?

  11. Re: Well ... by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    Guess nobody else remembers that show. Kid made drawings and they came alive.

    How that's "flame bait" is puzzling ...

  12. Re: Well ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Simon in the Land of Chalk Drawings.

  13. Sounds just like shape recognition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which is not remotely new. Yawn.

  14. How is this AI? by SmaryJerry · · Score: 1

    Just because something is on a computer it isn't AI. At best this looks like normal computer functionality. Input a specific thing will result in output of a specific thing. This is not AI even if it is complex computing.