> Also don't see any comparison with original high-res image so that we can see how true to life the generated images look?
Was wondering about that too. It certainly produces realistic-looking high-res images, but especially when the article talks about potential uses ranging "from restoring old family photos to improving medical imaging", it seems like accuracy may be more valued than "looking realistic".
Was wondering about that too. It certainly produces realistic-looking high-res images, but especially when the article talks about potential uses ranging "from restoring old family photos to improving medical imaging", it seems like accuracy may be more valued than "looking realistic".