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. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
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. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
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?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions