Artificial Intelligence used to repaint lost edges of Rembrandt painting

[FfFfFfFF 58,072]

The missing edges of Rembrandt’s painting The Night Watch have been restored using artificial intelligence.

The canvas, created in 1642, was trimmed in 1715 to fit between two doors at Amsterdam’s city hall.

Since then, 60cm (2ft) from the left, 22cm from the top, 12cm from the bottom and 7cm from the right have been missing.

But computer software has now restored the full painting for the first time in 300 years.

AI works through machine learning, where a computer is trained by processing existing information.

The Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam - where the original painting is displayed - used two images to train the AI. The first was a high-resolution scan of the original, and the second a painted copy - made before the trimming - by Gerrit Lundens, which is displayed in London’s National Gallery.

“Our attempt here is to make a best guess, without the hand of an artist, into what The Night Watch looked like,” Robert Erdmann, senior scientist at the Rijksmuseum, said.

Source - https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-57588270

[Helxig 45,332]

 

The ghosts of these two people are now moving into the light after spending 360 years pissed that they were removed in the first place

[FATCAT 60,887]

14 minutes ago, Helxig said:

 

The ghosts of these two people are now moving into the light after spending 360 years pissed that they were removed in the first place

Or maybe the AI is conscious & placed itself in the painting 

[Sneaky Oliver 22,973]

Biology is superficial  

intelligence is artificial 

Submit

Submit

Submit

*demonic screams* 

[Economy 52,842]

Thats really cool

 

But if they knew what the edges looked like its cuz they still had them so why not just reatach the original? Or were they in bad shape?

[A MESS 3,938]

4 minutes ago, Economy said:

Thats really cool

 

But if they knew what the edges looked like its cuz they still had them so why not just reatach the original? Or were they in bad shape?

 Didn't Read the article but I think the trimmed part was Taken from the Copy

[Helxig 45,332]

6 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

Or maybe the AI is conscious & placed itself in the painting 

So that's the face of our new AI overlord huh? A 17th century man in a funny hat. Not what I expected, but all hail I guess

[Princess Diana 24,487]

this is so cool omg

[FATCAT 60,887]

17 minutes ago, Helxig said:

So that's the face of our new AI overlord huh? A 17th century man in a funny hat. Not what I expected, but all hail I guess

It’s always the ****ers in hats

[CautiousLurker 19,709]

I'm gonna be a bit more cynical about this because

1) it's a bit disingenuous how they keep emphasizing this was done without an artist's involvement - they did use Gerrit Ludens' painting and looking at the two side by side, there wasn't THAT much alteration made... Granted, the devil is in the details, and the restored pieces of the painting do look more like Rembrandt, but if you took those segments from Ludens' painting, few would notice the discrepancy as far as style goes, and besides accounting for stylistic differences is not something a professional retouch artists couldn't have handled which brings me to 

2) I lowkey think they didn't hire an artist because the novelty of using AI to any capacity will get more clicks, and that's a bit of a shame 

Sidenote: I did see Night Watch at Rijksmuseum and it's amazing - the photographs really don't do it justice, absolutely go if you have the chance 

[FATCAT 60,887]

1 hour ago, CautiousLurker said:

I'm gonna be a bit more cynical about this because

1) it's a bit disingenuous how they keep emphasizing this was done without an artist's involvement - they did use Gerrit Ludens' painting and looking at the two side by side, there wasn't THAT much alteration made... Granted, the devil is in the details, and the restored pieces of the painting do look more like Rembrandt, but if you took those segments from Ludens' painting, few would notice the discrepancy as far as style goes, and besides accounting for stylistic differences is not something a professional retouch artists couldn't have handled which brings me to 

2) I lowkey think they didn't hire an artist because the novelty of using AI to any capacity will get more clicks, and that's a bit of a shame 

Sidenote: I did see Night Watch at Rijksmuseum and it's amazing - the photographs really don't do it justice, absolutely go if you have the chance 

They probably wanted to do it this way so that the “work” would just be multiplicative of Rembrandt’s work and not additive of someone else’s “fixes”. 

[Supersonic 49,376]

2 hours ago, Economy said:

Thats really cool

 

But if they knew what the edges looked like its cuz they still had them so why not just reatach the original? Or were they in bad shape?

They knew what the edges looked like because of a copy of the painting that was done in the late 1600‘s, before the original was cut up. The trimmings from the original were most likely destroyed. 

Even if the second painting is just a copy, you couldn‘t just cut it up. It‘s of inmeasureable worth as well just because of its age alone, let alone the art historical meaning of the copy.

The AI basically was fed with data of the trimmed original and of the full-size copy and basically created an algorithm to re-create the missing pieces in the style of the original painter. 

[Roseblud Kisses 685]

Get ha, Jade 

[judaspriest 934]

3 hours ago, Luna Lovegood said:

this is so cool omg

Tech is finally put to good use

[ladygagafan1234 700]

i dont like looking at something thats not supposed to be there... if the artist didnt paint it i dont care about it