[Stable Diffusion] Prompt Sharing and Learning Thread

[Mr-Fox]

Tho... Great tool for bringing your DAZ/HS2/VAM waifus to life:

Source: Honey Select 2 render	Sampler: Euler Ancestral Woman, Teenager	Sampler: Euler Ancestral Woman, Milf
View attachment 3013023	View attachment 3013021	View attachment 3013024
Sampler: Heun Woman, Supermodel	Sampler: Heun Woman	Sampler: Heun Woman, MILF
View attachment 3013343	View attachment 3013122	View attachment 3013195
Sampler: Heun Various embellishments	Sampler: Heun Different mixing proportions	Sampler: Heun Different mixing proportions
View attachment 3013381	View attachment 3013939	View attachment 3013904
Sampler: Heun Different mixing proportions	Sampler: Heun Different mixing proportions	Sampler: Heun Different mixing proportions
View attachment 3013878	View attachment 3013866	View attachment 3013849

Holy crap!

 

[Sepheyer]

A few more tests of converting a rendered character into a photo (everything is a CUI prompt).

A couple of notes:
- Some images have very little in terms of textual prompt, others are more detailed. The best results are those where the prompts are more detailed at describing the scene - even for the strict mixes. So, definitely, want to describe the girl, her clothes, and the location. Not too long, rather: "(nature, asphalt road, trees, summer:1.2)."
- I just realized the strict mix workflow in some instances was missing the pokies - hence sometimes there are no nipple indentations on clothes.
- 70% of each set has the same seed and the faces are notably different although the features are retained. The reason the seed is not the same - some images were discarded cause they were outright crap and replaced with renders based on another seed.

Honey Select 2 render​	Strict Mix​	Soft Mix​
​

 

[Jimwalrus]

OK, test completed.
It's looking to me like, for photorealistic images of young ladies, the best is either 4xNMKDSuperScale at about 0.25 Denoising or, as the fantastic Mr-Fox recommended, 8x_NMKDFacesExtended_100000_G* at 0.25 or 0.3

You may feel differently, the gains are subtle.

Here's the X/Y plot in full resolution:

You must be registered to see the links

*Just trips off the tongue, don't it?

 

[me3]

This seems to have the same "issues" as other "convert to real" methods. It converts the pose, background is fairly alike and the character is wearing relatively the same clothing, hair etc. However the face isn't really the all that close.
The face your render character has isn't in any way a "unrealistic anime" shape or features, yet when you look at the "real" version it hasn't even kept the basic shape of the face. The face is more rounded and "shorter", chin is different, eyes, lips, some of this could be prompting related sure, but AI is mean to be good at reading faces (scanners/cameras etc), but for things like this is doesn't seem to keep even the proportions "correct", which is exactly what is used for comparing faces.

 

[hkennereth]

This seems to have the same "issues" as other "convert to real" methods. It converts the pose, background is fairly alike and the character is wearing relatively the same clothing, hair etc. However the face isn't really the all that close.
The face your render character has isn't in any way a "unrealistic anime" shape or features, yet when you look at the "real" version it hasn't even kept the basic shape of the face. The face is more rounded and "shorter", chin is different, eyes, lips, some of this could be prompting related sure, but AI is mean to be good at reading faces (scanners/cameras etc), but for things like this is doesn't seem to keep even the proportions "correct", which is exactly what is used for comparing faces.

That's a matter of prompting for realism vs. anime, choosing a model that is better at realism vs. one focused on anime, and the specifics of how one sets the render parameters, meaning those were all choices made to get results that looked more like photographs instead of 3D anime characters with better render techniques. You can't convert to "real" using an anime face and get the exact same proportions, because anime characters don't have realistic proportions by design. If you want you may make difference choices, but there isn't a limitation on the technology stopping you from getting results more alike the source images.

 

[Sepheyer]

This seems to have the same "issues" as other "convert to real" methods. It converts the pose, background is fairly alike and the character is wearing relatively the same clothing, hair etc. However the face isn't really the all that close.
The face your render character has isn't in any way a "unrealistic anime" shape or features, yet when you look at the "real" version it hasn't even kept the basic shape of the face. The face is more rounded and "shorter", chin is different, eyes, lips, some of this could be prompting related sure, but AI is mean to be good at reading faces (scanners/cameras etc), but for things like this is doesn't seem to keep even the proportions "correct", which is exactly what is used for comparing faces.

I am not disagreeing with what you wrote, I am may be somewhat protesting against the idea that this tech didn't capture likeness. In short, I find it did a really good job with some originals, not so much with others. And this one comparison is the very best at mapping that I saw so far. If only I could keep the output consistent, that would be great:



In my mind this is an A+, nailed down: the tech successfully mapped a cartoon charactr to what I thought she would look like IRL.

The original girl is Nina Williams from Tekken(?):


A mere haircut adjustment and softer expression multiplied by different renderer (Honey Select 2 vs the original) were enough to make her a completely different person. Now, in Honey Select 2 the model does look like NW, but the likeness comes and goes depending on the light, angle and bunch of pre/post- settings. Overall it does a really good job of capturing the likeness, but one has to keep in mind, that even in real life a mere haircut change can completely change a person. So, asking for a 3D renderer to do better than the real life can is beyond my scope.

And finally, we have a ton of models and a ton of settings which give us a quadrillion of permutations. By settings I mean not only the weight/noise permutation on each sampler and upscaler but also where in the entire pipeline we inject the latent. As I like to say, this is a 50! (fifty-factorial) freedom of choice.

And to illustrate that the render can look more like the original cartoon here is one such permutation involving a "late" latent injection:



And here a merely different model:



Now, these two images are actually closer towards the original HS2 render and they would move us towards more direct mapping between the original's look and post-IPAdapter look. But that wasn't my goal, and instead we have a bunch of images that we had. So, I would not at all say that this tech doesn't let us capture the likeness of the very original. It does - it is a matter of the settings / model.

 

[me3]

You both miss my point, quite a bit too for some things it seems, but i don't think it's worth wasting ppls time with it or derailing this thread with something most ppl probably (and seemingly) don't notice or care about

 

[rogue_69]

I am not disagreeing with what you wrote, I am may be somewhat protesting against the idea that this tech didn't capture likeness. In short, I find it did a really good job with some originals, not so much with others. And this one comparison is the very best at mapping that I saw so far. If only I could keep the output consistent, that would be great:

Only you can decide what matters and doesn't matter. If you want more dynamic looking images, you have to sacrifice a little consistency. If you're going this route, I'd suggest switching to Daz. Using Canvas Rendering, you can isolate the clothing, background, and even hair from the actual character. Then you can focus on getting your characters looking the way you want, then overlaying the clothing. You can do this with hair too, but once you start prompting facial expressions, the face changes shape, and the hair won't fit as well without post-work.

 

[Sepheyer]

You both miss my point, quite a bit too for some things it seems, but i don't think it's worth wasting ppls time with it or derailing this thread with something most ppl probably (and seemingly) don't notice or care about

I re-read your post #2506 and I finally got your point! It is genius. I even printed out your post, showed it to my parents, they were in awe; we decided to put your post up on our fridge.

 

[Sepheyer]

Only you can decide what matters and doesn't matter. If you want more dynamic looking images, you have to sacrifice a little consistency. If you're going this route, I'd suggest switching to Daz. Using Canvas Rendering, you can isolate the clothing, background, and even hair from the actual character. Then you can focus on getting your characters looking the way you want, then overlaying the clothing. You can do this with hair too, but once you start prompting facial expressions, the face changes shape, and the hair won't fit as well without post-work.

I do have a workflow in mind, it involves a ComfyUI node "Segment Anyting" and can create dynamic masks. I do have high hopes for it, as the LORAs were a bit of a disappointment. But I am struggling to get the S/A node to work. So it will be some time before I test the entire thing - so far these IPAdapter tests were to familiarize myself with the tool. Although these are merely component tests and the entire aggregate workflow tests are yet ahead.

 

[hkennereth]

You both miss my point, quite a bit too for some things it seems, but i don't think it's worth wasting ppls time with it or derailing this thread with something most ppl probably (and seemingly) don't notice or care about

We did get your point. What I pointed out was that you are treating as a technological limitation or problem with the process, what in reality are just creative choices made by Sepheyer, and they were very clear on what those choices were. Stable Diffusion doesn't have a problem making those images look more similar to the Honey Select source images, it's actually perfectly capable of achieving that, but they didn't aim to make those images as similar as you would like.

You can't just point out what you don't like about their images and complain that it doesn't fit what you would like to see happen. If there is something you'd like to accomplish you should give it a try yourself, and if you're having issues reaching specific goals we can help you get there. But pointing out "problems" on other people's images because they don't fit your goals is pretty pointless, because they are not trying to achieve what you want to achieve.

 

[me3]

We did get your point. What I pointed out was that you are treating as a technological limitation or problem with the process, what in reality are just creative choices made by Sepheyer, and they were very clear on what those choices were. Stable Diffusion doesn't have a problem making those images look more similar to the Honey Select source images, it's actually perfectly capable of achieving that, but they didn't aim to make those images as similar as you would like.

You can't just point out what you don't like about their images and complain that it doesn't fit what you would like to see happen. If there is something you'd like to accomplish you should give it a try yourself, and if you're having issues reaching specific goals we can help you get there. But pointing out "problems" on other people's images because they don't fit your goals is pretty pointless, because they are not trying to achieve what you want to achieve.

No you DIDN'T get my point, you missed it by miles, which you further illustrated with this post.
I don't have a problem with Sepheyer's images or choices, my point isn't about that at all, which is again why i've repeatedly stated you missed it and why i said it i wouldn't waste ppl time with it.
But you wrongfully accusing me of having a problem with Sepheyer's work makes me have to bring things up again.
If you'd bothered checking you'd see that i'd actually liked the post and i don't go around doing that unintentionally

 

[Sepheyer]

This seems to have the same "issues" as other "convert to real" methods. It converts the pose, background is fairly alike and the character is wearing relatively the same clothing, hair etc. However the face isn't really the all that close.
The face your render character has isn't in any way a "unrealistic anime" shape or features, yet when you look at the "real" version it hasn't even kept the basic shape of the face. The face is more rounded and "shorter", chin is different, eyes, lips, some of this could be prompting related sure, but AI is mean to be good at reading faces (scanners/cameras etc), but for things like this is doesn't seem to keep even the proportions "correct", which is exactly what is used for comparing faces.

If you overlay the original cartoon and the photorealistic ... mmm... what would be a good name to call the output of the workflow? re-print? aight, so the photorealistic re-print, they match as well as the fingerprints do. Naturally, not all re-prints give good fits, but I am certain there is a certain hit ratio that can be improved on.

 

[hkennereth]

No you DIDN'T get my point, you missed it by miles, which you further illustrated with this post.
I don't have a problem with Sepheyer's images or choices, my point isn't about that at all, which is again why i've repeatedly stated you missed it and why i said it i wouldn't waste ppl time with it.
But you wrongfully accusing me of having a problem with Sepheyer's work makes me have to bring things up again.
If you'd bothered checking you'd see that i'd actually liked the post and i don't go around doing that unintentionally

Sure, because there is clearly some hidden meaning in the sentence "the face isn't really the all that close" that isn't addressed by everything we said... and that sentence also doesn't show that even if you like the images, you DO have ONE issue with them. That isn't an accusation, I just pointing out your own words.

If you mean something other than what you said, please, do feel free to clarify, but we can only take you on your words. And your words were, and I am indeed paraphrasing from the quoted sentence above and the remaining of your post, that you think "the processed images don't look enough like the source ones", which was thoroughly explained as to WHY that happens.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic (though perhaps a bit frustrated), I would in fact love to assist you get the results you seem to want because I have been doing this for about as long as the tech has been available, but I can't do that unless you are clear in what you want, and ask questions without pre-assumptions such as the ones we discussed above. Saying "you just don't get me" doesn't help anyone involved.

 

[Sepheyer]

[Long post warning]
The confusing and "laughable" nature of training guides.

Having read a ever increasing large number of "guides" and post/comments on guides regarding picking images, what optimizers to use, captioning, learning rates and other settings the only things i've really learned is hundreds of things that doesn't work (in a large number of situations) and that most of these guides/instructions are just pointless.

I can't really decide if much of this is down to general ignorance and ppl simply have no idea what's going on or if it's intentional. I've seen many cases where ppl claim that this and that works amazingly and they can use the same setup for everything with perfect results. They then link to something mean to show off this amazing work and very often shows loras/etc of some known character and it looks nothing like them. Other times there is an actual likeness so you might think that this setup actually does work so you give it ago, after all it's meant to work for everything. Big shock, it doesn't seem to work. So you download one of the loras and check the meta data, just to confirm the settings.
This generally has a few possible outcomes:

1. Settings do match, fair enough as there's loads of outside variables affecting things (more on that later)
2. They don't match, often a lot different and they don't even match other loras from the same person
3. Meta data is missing, this is generally something intentionally done through editing or extracting the lora from something else. Both strongly suggesting they used other training methods. Dreambooth being a common explanation.

#2 can be potentially be explained by "evolving tools" or having gained new insight into this, but shouldn't that also been updated in your guide?

If you compare guides you also come across conflicting claims as well. IE you have two guides that have the same basic raters, optimizers, number of image recommendations etc, yet one of them say it should take ~1000 steps to be perfect and the other says 4-5000. Assuming one of them is correct, then one will be either very undertrained or overtrained...both can't really be right

A lot of guides are posted places where ppl can in some way give feedback etc, often with improvements/suggestions themselves, or "corrections". Great since this means there's more data to work with, what does get a bit suspicious though is when the authors respond to "praise" and chances to advertise things they can "profit" (ie youtube videos etc), but they completely ignore issues raised. Adding this things together you almost get the impression that there's ppl intentionally posting things that is misleading or lacking to make ppl fail and/or repeatedly having to review the instructions while their own work gets "propped up" and they profit in terms of downloads and views...hmmmm, nah ppl can't be that petty and self centered right...

Since i figured out how i could actually do training on my very limited setup i've been trying to find some fairly basic and consistent way to get ppl at least a fair bit on the way. BUT as i mentioned early on, guides seem pointless, so i guess instead i'd rant about it and ppl can just skip over it....

HOWEVER, what might be more useful is to know things that can be screwing things up so ppl don't needlessly waste months trying to figure things out and spend hours upon hours burning out their GPU...

1. There seems to be an issue with kohya_ss and training SD1.5. Exactly when it started seems to be a bit uncertain since the last working version for some is in April, other in June. Personally the last version i've gotten to work and that trains fairly well is from June. There seems to be some disagreement about what is causing it too. Some claim it's related to newer versions of bitsandbytes, but i've updated that on my working version and no real difference. The issue also affects other optimizers so it can be the only cause. But it's worth considering if you got issues training. Latest version also seems to have broken SDXL, but that might be fixed fairly fast since XL seems to be the main priority.
2. If you do follow a guide, keep in mind that not only does your images and captions make a difference, but also the versions of the tools you are using. That includes that different libs they are dependent on.
3. Relating to #1 and #2, if you have something that works for you, be VERY careful about updating. Yes you can just go back to a previous commit, but then you'll have to keep a close eye on requirements too.
4. Regarding updating/downgrading, it might seem as simple as just running the setups/requirements install again and it's good to go, but it seems that's not always the case. Just as recently as last night i decided to update a single dependency for kohya_ss. Start it up, things get downloaded, says it's updated...and no change...hmmm, i manually do the install, pip says it's already installed, check the version in the correct folder and it seems to match. Start again and nope, still no change...Forced reinstall and still no change. Delete the lib in question, install and finally it's actually working.
   So despite things seemingly being updated for you, it might not really be working as it should be, so it might be worth while clearing out some/all of those python libs once in a while. Folder in question is generally ./venv/ etc, it might cause you some downloading and waiting while it all reinstalls so in some cases it might be enough to just delete the lib in question.

Small tip for anyone that made it to the end, just because you're training one concept, it doesn't mean you need to keep all images in the same folder and give everything the same priority. Splitting them into different folders with different repeats might be useful at times

Random image added to catch some ppls eyes, don't really have a stop sign or light to make ppl have to stop and wait so she'll have to do.
And yes she's looking at you...
View attachment 3015973

(Edited because formatting broke )

Dude, so:
- sunscreens do cause cancers rather than protect from cancers
- eating more often is highly recommended because the portions are smaller, but in fact it gives insulin resistance and leads to what doctors diagnose as type 2diabetes
- organic food is not organic at all
- alcohol is carcinogenic even though "they" say it ain't
- central banks don't fight inflation, they cause it
- the elected government is a mere front, the actual policies are made by people who are never elected
- jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams
- Yellen just said we can afford 2 wars even though USA can't
- there are no grapes at all in the Costo's $10 "wine"
- gold is not a pet rock
- [self-censoring myself on another 20 topics I could bring up off the top off my head]

and you are worked up today cause some idiots somewhere post false guides? I mean yeaa, that's the planet the world we live in.


---
Edit: added the pic, since fuck long posts without pics.

 

[me3]

Dude, so:
- sunscreens do cause cancers rather than protect from cancers
- eating more often is highly recommended because the portions are smaller, but in fact it gives insulin resistance and leads to what doctors diagnose as type 2diabetes
- organic food is not organic at all
- alcohol is carcinogenic even though "they" say it ain't
- central banks don't fight inflation, they cause it
- the elected government is a mere front, the actual policies are made by people who are never elected
- jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams
- Yellen just said we can afford 2 wars even though USA can't
- there are no grapes at all in the Costo's $10 "wine"
- gold is not a pet rock
- [self-censoring myself on another 20 topics I could bring up off the top off my head]

and you are worked up today cause some idiots somewhere post false guides? I mean yeaa, that's the planet the world we live in.

No, i were actually trying to help ppl into not going around looking at guide after guide after guide, but i just won't bother

 

[me3]

Sure, because there is clearly some hidden meaning in the sentence "the face isn't really the all that close" that isn't addressed by everything we said... and that sentence also doesn't show that even if you like the images, you DO have ONE issue with them. That isn't an accusation, I just pointing out your own words.

If you mean something other than what you said, please, do feel free to clarify, but we can only take you on your words. And your words were, and I am indeed paraphrasing from the quoted sentence above and the remaining of your post, that you think "the processed images don't look enough like the source ones", which was thoroughly explained as to WHY that happens.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic (though perhaps a bit frustrated), I would in fact love to assist you get the results you seem to want because I have been doing this for about as long as the tech has been available, but I can't do that unless you are clear in what you want, and ask questions without pre-assumptions such as the ones we discussed above. Saying "you just don't get me" doesn't help anyone involved.

Having asked how to try and explain this i have no idea if it'll help or fuel the fire...
I'd start by pointing out that "this" is not something i consider a positive, if anything i'd file it firmly in the category of failings on my part.

So to try and illustrate.
You know those black and white (generally) images that has some kind of dual imagery, some ppl can see both, some see just one or the other.
Or the "noise" images that's meant to "pop out" some kind of 3d image if you look at it for a while, some ppl see it, some don't.
Or when you see some kind of shape in clouds etc (pareidolia) and you point them out and others don't see it.

This is "how" i know you miss the point, you saw the words, but not what ever "it" is. And tbh you're probably better off for it as it's fucking annoying.
As i see this in a lot of AI images and only AI images. If you've ever looked at something or someone at some point and you've known "something" was off, something was different/wrong/whatever, but you can figure out "what", there's just something and you then spend the rest of the day/week failing to figure out wtf it is. Now imagine this happening going on with AI images and how often you're likely to be dealing with those when generating...It's specially happens when there's some kind of comparison involved, source image compared to generation.
Comparison grids can be a nightmare.

When i post images it isn't "look at the pretty thing i made, bask in my awesomeness", i'm more wondering if ppl notice something or if they actually find it good as it gives me an idea of "where the field is". Cause i find more than enough faults with them. Probably why i prefer to post things for a laugh, ie the Selena corgi...
So regarding the images you claim i had issues with, the person posting them found them good enough that they past their selection for posting and when i see things about them that i like, it means that what ever the "wrong" i might see is something else, so it's "comforting" (for a lack of a better term).

This probably won't help much and it's very much turning out to something between horribly narcissistic sounding and short bus to a psych ward

 

[Sepheyer]

Having asked how to try and explain this i have no idea if it'll help or fuel the fire...
I'd start by pointing out that "this" is not something i consider a positive, if anything i'd file it firmly in the category of failings on my part.

So to try and illustrate.
You know those black and white (generally) images that has some kind of dual imagery, some ppl can see both, some see just one or the other.
Or the "noise" images that's meant to "pop out" some kind of 3d image if you look at it for a while, some ppl see it, some don't.
Or when you see some kind of shape in clouds etc (pareidolia) and you point them out and others don't see it.

This is "how" i know you miss the point, you saw the words, but not what ever "it" is. And tbh you're probably better off for it as it's fucking annoying.
As i see this in a lot of AI images and only AI images. If you've ever looked at something or someone at some point and you've known "something" was off, something was different/wrong/whatever, but you can figure out "what", there's just something and you then spend the rest of the day/week failing to figure out wtf it is. Now imagine this happening going on with AI images and how often you're likely to be dealing with those when generating...It's specially happens when there's some kind of comparison involved, source image compared to generation.
Comparison grids can be a nightmare.

When i post images it isn't "look at the pretty thing i made, bask in my awesomeness", i'm more wondering if ppl notice something or if they actually find it good as it gives me an idea of "where the field is". Cause i find more than enough faults with them. Probably why i prefer to post things for a laugh, ie the Selena corgi...
So regarding the images you claim i had issues with, the person posting them found them good enough that they past their selection for posting and when i see things about them that i like, it means that what ever the "wrong" i might see is something else, so it's "comforting" (for a lack of a better term).

This probably won't help much and it's very much turning out to something between horribly narcissistic sounding and short bus to a psych ward

Bruh, you keep talking to folks in a patronizing manner, like only you can do something and others can't. No, we both got your point and we are not buying in. This happens, the evidence you submitted contains no sufficient proof for the point being discussed. Why do you think others are inferior to you and can't pick up on things that you see? My entire life I have people around me who are smarter, have more experience, and it is normal for me to doubt myself when making a claim; it would never occur to me to go: oh, you guys just don't get me.

I am pretty sure I got your point. I can pick up on a lot of things because of the path the life took me on: I have a page on IMDB where I am the director of photography for a few student films. I have a great personal collection of nude art that I shot personally with professional models. I retired at 3X cause I see stock patterns coil up and was lucky to nail a few. The Italian marble in my restroom drives me horny nonstop because all I see are gorgeous nude female figures. Now, I'll give you the real flex - I could see the patterns in those "stereo cards" you referred to since I turned six. I.e. this card here has 0 in it as the "content":

Spoiler: Puzzle

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Better yet, I can teach anyone willing how to see these cards (provided they are willing to learn), it is purely mechanical.

Now, don't be like: oh you poor things, you don't get me. This is playground level communication that none here asked for. You are literally being patronizing / condescending for no reason at all and I attribute it to you not having a good day.
---
Edit: I am kidding I made all that shit up and I am actually a moron. Also added that blondie to the post.

 

[Mr-Fox]

Having asked how to try and explain this i have no idea if it'll help or fuel the fire...
I'd start by pointing out that "this" is not something i consider a positive, if anything i'd file it firmly in the category of failings on my part.

So to try and illustrate.
You know those black and white (generally) images that has some kind of dual imagery, some ppl can see both, some see just one or the other.
Or the "noise" images that's meant to "pop out" some kind of 3d image if you look at it for a while, some ppl see it, some don't.
Or when you see some kind of shape in clouds etc (pareidolia) and you point them out and others don't see it.

This is "how" i know you miss the point, you saw the words, but not what ever "it" is. And tbh you're probably better off for it as it's fucking annoying.
As i see this in a lot of AI images and only AI images. If you've ever looked at something or someone at some point and you've known "something" was off, something was different/wrong/whatever, but you can figure out "what", there's just something and you then spend the rest of the day/week failing to figure out wtf it is. Now imagine this happening going on with AI images and how often you're likely to be dealing with those when generating...It's specially happens when there's some kind of comparison involved, source image compared to generation.
Comparison grids can be a nightmare.

When i post images it isn't "look at the pretty thing i made, bask in my awesomeness", i'm more wondering if ppl notice something or if they actually find it good as it gives me an idea of "where the field is". Cause i find more than enough faults with them. Probably why i prefer to post things for a laugh, ie the Selena corgi...
So regarding the images you claim i had issues with, the person posting them found them good enough that they past their selection for posting and when i see things about them that i like, it means that what ever the "wrong" i might see is something else, so it's "comforting" (for a lack of a better term).

This probably won't help much and it's very much turning out to something between horribly narcissistic sounding and short bus to a psych ward

Rorschach tests,Visual illusions and the uncanny valley, I assume. I'm very familiar with these, makes sense. Fine gentlemen, we're all friends here. It's ok to have a difference in opinion and it's ok to disagree. An intense discussion but civil, can be very stimulating and something good can actually come out of it. Just remember that we are indeed not in competition with each other or enemies. So lets try our best to have our discussions in good faith and if something is unclear, lets ask instead of assuming. I for one loves the collaborative nature of this thread.

 

[Mr-Fox]

OK, test completed.
It's looking to me like, for photorealistic images of young ladies, the best is either 4xNMKDSuperScale at about 0.25 Denoising or, as the fantastic Mr-Fox recommended, 8x_NMKDFacesExtended_100000_G* at 0.25 or 0.3

You may feel differently, the gains are subtle.

Here's the X/Y plot in full resolution:

You must be registered to see the links

*Just trips off the tongue, don't it?

Awesome work Jim. Yes the name really does trip on the tongue rather than roll.. Since NMKD has many different versions of the same "model" of upscaler I thought it best I included the full name to avoid confusion. The difference in the test is subtle but it becomes more clear with higher resolution and at the later stage if one choose to upscale further in img2img with SD Upscale. I find that the fine details in the eyes iris and similar details gets lost with too high denoising strength. For instance skin texture or hair strands. What I have learned so far is that you want to get as much fine detail as early in the process as possible and then you need to preserve them in the steps after, as much as possible. A bad upscale can completely ruin a good image while a good one can take it to the next level.
At some point diminishing returns will become a factor and eventually there is a limit to the current technology. It's a lot of fun to push the envelope though and see how far we can stretch those limits.