Repository navigation
How is AutomaticCFG different from the other CFG tools? #53
Replies: 2 comments 5 replies
|
Let's add this to it as well: But it's a valid question. I guess a lot of other nodes are retakes of various CFG scaling and guidance research. |
|
And here I was having fun at writing yet another method lol Well, Automatic CFG is more of a simple way of avoiding burns. The method itself is pretty simple: take 25% of the highest values of each channels and 25% of the lowest values as positive. Average them all as a single value which, as I noticed while testing the idea, falls near 0.8 when the images are "good". Then proceed by playing the CFG function, using a CFG scale rescaled according to this result and aiming for a resulting value being your sampler's CFG divided by then. Since the default is 8. |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There is a whole list of CFG augmentation tools that seems to provide different results, do they tend to follow similar path to AutomaticCFG?
All reactions