i have a core i5 and a cheap grafic card. my cadvilla (3D) renders a house and the environment simulating 24h with sunshine and all shadows (house,trees, plants,carâŚ) without any problem to look at, while the day passes in a minute or so. you can choose location (worldwide) and date for that day. of course it does not let it rain or snow.
i think, that kind of vectored calculation of a scene is easy to use by AI.
totally different from do shadows in 2D pics.
1 Like
Yes if that is AI it is impressiveâŚ
1 Like
that we talk about the same:
a computer generated one is not the same as an AI generated one.
if the lion pic for example is out of âNarniaâ or âLion Kingâ it is computer generated by human intelligence. that is not the same. and the companies, who do this kind of animations, working months on things like that, all in 3D.
when it comes out of a AI tool pictures request, than i would call it just an AI presented picture.
2 Likes
Itâs good that you point out the difference between AI generated and computer generated. For my part, I have always referred to AI-generated according to Letsdothisâs task 
1 Like
Sorry guys. I fell asleep, due to my meds, and then some other shit happened after that, and I wasnât able to get back to this until now.
Before I give you the answer I want to address something that Jabba said in his post about the owl (image 4).
This is a legitimate lighting technique used in situations like this, where the subject is very fast and you donât know where itâs going to be exactly when you take the picture. As you can see, itâs a bit of a wide shot so they donât miss the subject when it comes into view.
The lighting used in this type of situation is what I call cross lighting. They put an industrial studio flash on either side of the camera in order to evenly light the subject no matter where it lands or comes into view. As you can tell, you can see every detail of the owl and the mouse and some of the surrounding area.
This type of flash is also used so the photographer can take multiple shots continuously without having to wait for the flash to recycle.
This lighting technique, by nature of the flash positions, automatically creates a double shadow, one from each flash. Thatâs why you see two shadows, but it is an often used lighting technique in this type of situation.
I kind of suspected this might happen, but no one got the actual right answer. Jabba cheated and voted twice 
, and kind of hinted at the answer.
I hope you wonât hold this against me, but this was kind of a trick question. The answer is, theyâre all AI generated. I did them myself. Please donât throw things at me.
2 Likes
1 Like
Thatâs what most of us suspected, but I donât think anyone could be sure because of the sometimes very good results.
Yesterday I tried to recreate your photo motifs with AI to see how far my results differed from yours and therefore I was almost certain that everything was AI. I titled the images as I entered the prompts (see mousover). Which AI tool or homepage did you use? I think your results are better than mine. Either my prompts are worse or the tool I used is worse (or both 
)
My (several times worse) results with https://deepai.org/machine-learning-model/text2img
1 Like
I used ImageFX. Itâs part of Google Labs. Hereâs a link.
Since Iâm logged in, it takes me directly to the prompt page, so let me know if you get something different when you try this link. You will have to create an account in order to use it, but if you already have a Gmail account you can use that with no problem.
Hereâs the article I found that first told me about it.
Hereâs another article talking about how to use it, but itâs easier than rolling off a log. My prompts were quite simple, just a short sentence or two. I always used the phrase âphoto realistic imageâ to start the prompt.
Both of these articles talk about âChipsâ or âExpressive Chipsâ. Unless Iâm doing something wrong, or maybe just missing something, I donât see any chips on my screen. It may be because Iâm on a phone, IDK. Your mileage will probably vary.
Oh, I forgot to mention, itâs completely free.
1 Like
here you can see a pic that is created by AI, that (i bet) uses the same original lion picâŚ(itâs a link to the pic)
it is sharp and the lion has clear eyes. there is âbloodâ in the fur above right leg and light missing above left leg.
both look so real that i think, yourâs is one, where the original is less fumbled, as it is usual to have blurry picture when you take it from a suitable distance, as i would do, when i would meet him in the savanna. 
i compared with many definitly original pics by searching âlion zoo national parkâ.
i did not find the original to see, how the difference really is.
all other AI lion pics, that i have seen, have the same âairbrushâ touch.
Given their resolution, 640 x 640, I didnât think they were that bad. Of course, when you go past the actual resolution, degradation sets in really quick. Mine are only HD. ImageFX doesnât do FHD.
The owl in the tree I thought was good because the tree was slightly blurred, drawing your eye to the owl. And the focus was right on his face, which I liked. Any good photographer would have done just that.
The room was good, but Iâm not one for interior shots like that. Theyâre just uninteresting to me. But it was a good room. To me, it didnât look AI generated.
Of the five, my favorite was the butterfly. Maybe I just like red and yellow, or maybe because I love macro photography, but it was just beautiful for me and didnât look AI generated, at all.
The owl, the mouse and the lion all look like stuffed animals to me, literally. Those two I would have immediately said where AI generated. They just donât look real. Plus, a mouse would never stick around if there was an owl standing right next to it.
1 Like
Actually, technically âtheyâ didâŚ
I myself said as part of my own response that I felt there was âa certain qualityâ as I put it, which could mean they were ALL AI generated.
1 Like
i forgot, that i found this while iâm searching for the lion origin in video/movie.
just to make it a happy endâŚ
3 Likes
You did say that, but your actual vote was for images three and five. Others thought it could be all, as well, but that wasnât their vote, either.
Inspired by a picture - this one:
Posted by @letsdothis on Norashkaâs topic page,
I decided to simply have a little fun with some of the new masking features in Adobeâs âCamera Rawâ software. This was what I came up with. Yes it is outrageously garish and the colours clash somewhat but it was done just as a bit of fun and to see what was possible! âŚ
1 Like
Would easily choose the first above ahead of the last below. 
2 Likes
AgreedâŚ
Of course the second one isnât even close to being natural⌠and it wasnât meant to be. It was just done to show what could be done for fun. My photo editing is by no means always THAT extreme. Usually it is actually far more sensible and subtle. 
1 Like