Images 2.6
Posted by davidbarker 2 hours ago
Comments
Comment by E-Reverance 1 hour ago
Comment by cousin_it 25 minutes ago
Comment by Conscat 33 seconds ago
Comment by minimaxir 20 minutes ago
It is entirely possible to prompt engineer away from that style, but that requires effort and knowledge that said average person does not have, so it's stuck in a feedback loop.
Comment by 0x4e 13 minutes ago
This kind of content is here to stay and we’re going to see more and more of it. Unfortunately…
Comment by minimaxir 1 hour ago
SVG support is interesting but I suspect shenanigans are afoot since that's not how image generation models work, and it would likely strip any SynthID watermarks. It's possible OpenAI has pipelined a raster-to-vector tool that does the conversion automatically. (I developed a similar pipeline and it works extremely well; I'll open source it at some point)
EDIT: Per documentation, there is an explicit `output_format: "svg"`, and I am indeed correct there is raster-to-vector in play:
> The API creates a reference image and uses it to produce the SVG. The quality setting controls that reference image. Decode data[0].b64_json as base64 and save the resulting UTF-8 XML bytes with a .svg extension.
OpenAI claims 50% faster generation with Images 2.6 but curiously price is the same as Image 2.5.
Comment by vunderba 37 minutes ago
I didn't have high expectations, and I still think you can probably get better results by doing a First-Last-Frame using something like Minimax H3 but I was still rather surprised that it could do it at all.
Here are some of the results. The last one shows its ability to take an existing image and convert it into an animated GIF. It's a picture of my husky inside a snow globe.
Comment by minimaxir 32 minutes ago
Comment by vunderba 18 minutes ago
Honestly, you have to think about the use case. GIFs are going to be little throwaway things that you're pasting into Discord or meme-ing.
Nobody's reaching for a GIF if they're looking for professional results.
It's a shame that the SVG output seems to be limited to static vector graphics only though - or rather I couldn't get it to produce anything with the <animate> attribute.
Comment by brian-armstrong 14 minutes ago
If you actually want something that looks decent, it feels like tool use would at least help cover the obvious blunders. Building layers to composite would go a long way to removing some slop here.
Comment by MattDamonSpace 29 minutes ago
Ain’t wrong buuuuut…
Comment by sroussey 1 hour ago
I guess I should have been careful about “half”?
These models have a hard time imagining men with naturally blond hair getting grey.
Comment by minimaxir 1 hour ago
That said, I gave it one of my more difficult image prompts and the model now surprisingly passes (without plagiaristic cheating): https://chatgpt.com/share/6aebcbcd-6b8c-83e8-b52b-dbedf20ce4...
Comment by xp84 1 hour ago
Comment by minimaxir 55 minutes ago
When I did a similar prompt with ChatGPT 2.0 it was worse, so interesting to see improvement.
Comment by Computer0 43 minutes ago
Comment by minimaxir 35 minutes ago
It is different from earlier image models which just use a simple text encoder and struggle with conditional logic if not explicitly trained for it.
Comment by weird-eye-issue 17 minutes ago
Comment by apetresc 52 minutes ago
Comment by neom 37 minutes ago
"A macro close-up photograph of an old watchmaker's hands carefully replacing a tiny gear inside a vintage pocket watch. The watch mechanism is partially submerged in a shallow dish of clear water, causing visible refraction and light caustics across the brass gears. A single drop of water is falling from a pair of steel tweezers, captured mid-splash on the water's surface. Reflect the watchmaker's face, slightly distorted, in the curved glass of the watch face. Sharp focus throughout, natural window lighting from the left, shot on 100mm macro lens."
Comment by cgbur 26 minutes ago
Comment by neom 24 minutes ago
Comment by fernly 32 minutes ago
Comment by speak_plainly 26 minutes ago
It feels like a sleazy pattern and defeats the purpose of why I’d want to generate a gif in the first place, which to make clear is likely going to be to share with friends in a chat. I’m not interested in driving traffic to ChatGPT.com to impress my friends.
Comment by augment_me 23 minutes ago
Comment by DanHulton 49 minutes ago
Like, I'm not even an artist, so I'm sure there's a million things I'm missing, but it's just so upsetting to look at. There's weird random reflections on things that shouldn't have reflections, the coloured light absolutely doesn't actually track through the stained glass onto any surface that makes any sense, light is coming from every which way, it's just... gross to look at for anything more than a quarter of a second.
And this is what they're using to hype people up for it. /shrug
Comment by minimaxir 46 minutes ago
It's an image depicting a whale made of stained glass; realism is off the table there.
Comment by post-it 37 minutes ago
Comment by phoghed 38 minutes ago
Just an absolute race to post a contrarian take to hit the top of the comments.
Never change bros
Comment by bsboxe 1 hour ago
2.5 low, 196 tokens, $0.006
2.6 low, 823 tokens, $0.025
2.5 med, 439 tokens, $0.013
2.6 med, 1449 tokens, $0.043
Interestingly, higher quality settings show no change in token usage between the models.
Comment by bnmathm 55 minutes ago
Setting (1024x1024) Tokens Cost/image Time
2.5 medium 439 $0.014 12.0 s
2.6 low 824 $0.025 6.7 s
2.6 medium 1,449 $0.044 7.9 s
2.6 high 1,758 $0.053 8.9 sComment by jjcm 1 hour ago
I've been playing with it for the last hour or so. I immediately updated my platform to use both since 2.5 is my primary model (i run a prompt->design site).
After playing with it for an hour, I'm rolling back 2.6-flare to 2.5-flare. I've found 2.6-flare specifically to either be too simplistic in its approaches, or create outputs that are inherently broken in other cases.
Comparison examples: https://diffui.ai/app/canvas/178db5d5-ff87-4b43-aa98-2897773...
2.6-sunburst seems solid however.
Update: seems to be confirmed on arena.ai - 2.5 scores higher than 2.6 https://arena.ai/leaderboard/image/text-to-image
Comment by jjcm 15 minutes ago
This may be why text elements in particular appear more "zoomed in", and why it's providing less detail for UI design.
Comment by Computer0 55 minutes ago
Comment by jjcm 53 minutes ago
In two of the examples the images from 2.6 are inherently broken, ie: https://image.non.io/161d8f02-fc2a-40e0-91b2-9d27ceb8fef1.we...
Objectively there are tests here where 2.5 are better. Subjectively prefering the layout of 2.6 is fine, but there are blocking flaws.
Comment by alexpadula 10 minutes ago
Comment by iamgopal 9 minutes ago
Comment by alexpadula 5 minutes ago
Comment by schneehertz 51 minutes ago
Comment by dllu 56 minutes ago
> Images 2.6 is available globally today in ChatGPT and Codex across all subscription tiers on desktop, mobile, and web.
But I just updated my codex-cli to the latest version (still 0.166.0) and it is still unable to generate gifs. Very disappointing
Comment by momojo 1 hour ago
Comment by scottyah 1 hour ago
Comment by Computer0 55 minutes ago
Comment by jjcm 1 hour ago
Comment by niwrad 1 hour ago
Comment by vunderba 58 minutes ago
In terms of overall state of the art, the two major contenders are probably Nano Banana Pro (Google) and the GPT Image 2 series (OpenAI).
For pure prompt adherency, OpenAI has consistently lead the pack since the original gpt-image-1 released back in March of 2025.... but its OpenAI's fidelity has always left something to be desired. Version 2 of the series has definitely closed the gap a bit.
Comment by rarisma 1 hour ago
Comment by viraptor 1 hour ago
Comment by post-it 34 minutes ago
Comment by fractorial 1 hour ago
Comment by keraf 1 hour ago
Comment by teamolHuang 19 minutes ago
Comment by minimaxir 12 minutes ago
Comment by tintor 1 hour ago
Comment by algoth1 1 hour ago
Comment by vunderba 43 minutes ago
It's not helped by the fact that a lot of people who are not artistically inclined will generate pixel art on these image generators at 1MP resolutions (far higher than traditional pixel art), such that even the casual observer can typically see the bad smearing and fringing in the final result.
Comment by minimaxir 1 hour ago
With the right prompt engineering, it (and similar quality models) can indeed do relevant pixel art, but due to the existence of blotchiness/SynthID watermarks you'll need to do some sort of postprocessing regardless.
Comment by Dwedit 27 minutes ago
Comment by vunderba 24 minutes ago
Comment by Computer0 57 minutes ago
Comment by ramesh31 11 minutes ago
Comment by jansan 1 hour ago
Comment by minimaxir 1 hour ago
Comment by jrmg 56 minutes ago
Comment by rprwhite 18 minutes ago
Comment by phoghed 33 minutes ago
Comment by ipsum2 1 hour ago
SVG is cool though, I wonder how good it is.
Comment by solyin 55 minutes ago
> Create a GIF where xkcd 2347 gets hit by an airliner like the twin towers and the pilot is AI
and got a refusal.
> We’re so sorry, but the image we created may violate our guardrails around violence.
Comment by Den_VR 10 minutes ago
Follow by
“Make it”
Seems to resolve the refusals
Comment by shepherdjerred 2 minutes ago
Comment by shopcutout 16 minutes ago
Comment by sick_of_slop 33 minutes ago
Comment by angoragoats 58 minutes ago
Comment by kamranjon 14 minutes ago