Re: fun with AI

On 2025-05-08 23:28, john larkin wrote:

On Thu, 8 May 2025 22:28:09 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
 

On 2025-05-08 02:21, john larkin wrote:

We designed a replacement for an old high-voltage pulse amplfier, an
EG&G SG-489 ca 1990. I wrote the new manual and included small pics of
the old box and our version. I passed the manual on to an office
person to tweak the formatting to company standards. For some reason,
they decided to use some AI thing to improve the pics.
>
My original photos:
>
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/rgc5i5832uo79roxyyyo2/EGG_Real.jpg?rlkey=zw3eul405ezp61wsvkr0rg5f9&raw=1
>
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ryk995uvmohsezg96reni/P800_Real.jpg?rlkey=dvsgvq1z7zbhyhdna8uxi3lzr&raw=1
>
>
AI improvements:
>
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/5nf6pfdgzvjhjve1io3rq/EGG_AI.jpg?rlkey=wt6k4i0melq3v0vdwla2qksif&raw=1
>
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/hjq837tajjusunq3i23v4/P800_AI.jpg?rlkey=oy8jyw8d4sflr5nszq2blcal3&raw=1
>
>
>
Imagine letting AI improve a schematic!
>

>
Gosh.
>
I think you'd better hire a photographer instead :-D

 My original cell phone pics are OK. The ones I posted here were
captured from the"improved"  manual. It looks like Word throws away
resolution when you down-size a pic. That makes sense, avoiding
gigantic Word file sizes.

The non ai versions you posted are not perfect. The first one is fuzzy or unfocused. The second one has shine.

 The pics are small and look OK on a printed page.
 One of our office ladies has a side business as a professional
photographer, and she will take some better shots. But no AI this
time.

Good :-)
--
Cheers, Carlos.