Images 2.6

Posted by davidbarker 2 hours ago

Counter84Comment70OpenOriginal

Comments

Comment by E-Reverance 1 hour ago

Still looks like an eyesore, I genuinely want to know if the engineers who work on the product don't notice it

Comment by cousin_it 25 minutes ago

Yeah, I've been mystified for years why they can't just train the "AI look" out of images. Is it, like, something undetectable by machine? But then how come we can often detect it so easily?

Comment by Conscat 33 seconds ago

I think this is fundamental. People will probably dislike whatever it is that AI images look like, because whatever they look like is going to be associated with cheap. They could have a totally different aesthetic and I think most people's conception of cheap would adapt to whatever that is.

Comment by minimaxir 20 minutes ago

It's the opposite: the average person likes the AI look of images (the more "aesthetic" look) and RLHF keep converging toward that.

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

I still can’t believe the amount of deepfakes and slop I see just everywhere including food menus and people don’t even seem to notice.

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

Using the grid trick for animations to generate the individual frames has been around for awhile and not specific to ChatGPT: I'm surprised it took this long for one of the official providers to make it explicit. However, adherence between frames is generally tricky, and even in the examples there is a lot of noise between frames although that could be due to compression.

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

Decided to try out one of the new features in GPT Image 2.6: the ability to natively generate animated GIF files.

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.

https://imgpb.com/OzSMKJ

Comment by minimaxir 32 minutes ago

The splotchiness on that simple chess animation makes this GIF feature a nonstarter.

Comment by vunderba 18 minutes ago

That's a bit hyperbolic. The windmill one is honestly not terrible (slight flicker on the door).

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 2 minutes ago

Comment by brian-armstrong 14 minutes ago

Everyone is highly sensitive to slop, and it still looks like slop.

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

Yeahhhh but that’s like saying Dall-E isn’t good enough

Ain’t wrong buuuuut…

Comment by sroussey 1 hour ago

https://chatgpt.com/share/6aebc6f8-d660-83e8-9cb3-49bdf8caa7...

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

I would caution against using the webapp to test the quality of this new model because OpenAI does not indicate which image model and effort is being used to generate the image, to my continued frustration.

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 1 hour ago

Comment by 54 minutes ago

Comment by xp84 1 hour ago

Wow. Are those the correct Pokemon and everything? Quite cool.

Comment by minimaxir 55 minutes ago

Yes, the Pokemon are correct. Compare to my attempt a year ago with Nano Banana Pro, which plagiarized the images, didn't do interesting things with the background, and got 271 wrong: https://minimaxir.com/2025/12/nano-banana-pro/pokemongrid_hu...

When I did a similar prompt with ChatGPT 2.0 it was worse, so interesting to see improvement.

Comment by Computer0 43 minutes ago

On the back end a language model is effectively writing a long detailed prompt describing this image exactly right? The image model can't know this.

Comment by minimaxir 35 minutes ago

ChatGPT Images (and some others like Nano Banana) are autoregressive models, and the text model generates the tokens in the same way which are then passed in the correct form for an image model to decode. That is how it can reason the prime numbers + Pokemon + art style conditional.

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

Yes it thinks about it and then calls the image tool with the detailed prompt with exactly what to include in the image

Comment by apetresc 52 minutes ago

That prompt seems almost deliberately obtuse. The natural phrasing would be “greying blonde hair”. If you described someone as having half-X, half-Y hair, I’d expect to see something like that image, too.

Comment by neom 37 minutes ago

Did a considerably worse job than Image Gen 2.0 on my standard test prompt.

"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."

2.6: https://gov.f9.is/JRDpHJGu

2.0: https://gov.f9.is/cqyCwtq9

Comment by cgbur 26 minutes ago

Whatever site you are hosting images seems to trap my mobile browser and require 3-4 back buttons to get out of.

Comment by neom 24 minutes ago

Hmm, it's jumpshare one of those drag and drop file share companies (that I pay for). Thanks for the heads up I'll open a support ticket.

Comment by fernly 32 minutes ago

tweezers not holding the gear, and THOSE FINGERS, yick. What else?

Comment by speak_plainly 26 minutes ago

On a phone, if you share a gif, it creates a link to ChatGPT.com with a static image. You can also save the image to photos and share directly from there which feels like an unnecessary step.

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

But then Meta/Apple/Google gets your behavioral surplus for selling Ads instead of OpenAI. Do you want higher subscription costs?

Comment by DanHulton 49 minutes ago

That stained glass whale thing makes me especially grumpy. When it scrolled onto the page, my first thought was "whoah, what a neat idea" and then it was _immediately_ followed by "what a terribly execution."

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

> There's weird random reflections on things that shouldn't have reflections

It's an image depicting a whale made of stained glass; realism is off the table there.

Comment by post-it 37 minutes ago

Well no. I can imagine lots of things in my head that are impossible but would be correctly lit, and I could do the same in Blender.

Comment by phoghed 38 minutes ago

Unpleasable nerds with “I can tell by the pixels” ass comments is what keeps me coming back to HN year after year

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

The input and output pricing per token remains the same between 2.5 and 2.6, although using their image pricing calculator shows a quadrupling of token usage at low and medium quality settings for 2.6. For e.g. at 1024x1024:

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

Similar results for my workflow. And the Round art comes out significantly less round without prompt changes (more input tokens)

  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 s

Comment by 28 minutes ago

Comment by jjcm 1 hour ago

2.5 is better than 2.6

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

Update: based on info from design arena, it looks like gpt-image-2.6 was post-trained to output less text: https://x.com/DesignArena/status/2118124381155303918

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

I preferred 2.6 in all examples supplied!

Comment by jjcm 53 minutes ago

I firmly disagree. There's subjective comparison, and there's objective comparison.

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

I really don't like this generative AI. I may look at it like an artist but completed generated software, writing, music and imagery is a robbery of human worth. Absolutely.

Comment by iamgopal 9 minutes ago

Generative AI is created by human worth.

Comment by alexpadula 5 minutes ago

No, it's created by data scanned from the internet, books and fed to the models. How is that a good thing for anyone? I'd love your take. People spend years giving themselves value to others to live a life of worth and value.

Comment by schneehertz 51 minutes ago

The model used by codex-cli is still gpt-image-2. https://github.com/openai/codex/blob/f3074e35c079bd8a5e89b03...

Comment by dllu 56 minutes ago

The blog post says

> 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

What's the state of the art for image gen? I'm far removed and pretty happy with the free Gemini tier but its notable to me that I rarely see boasting about being "the best image generator yet" and I wonder if that's because they're all just good enough?

Comment by scottyah 1 hour ago

It has to be Google, since OpenAI always compares to other companies when it feels its winning at some benchmarks. They didn't even compare on cost, speed, or any benchmarks at all.

Comment by Computer0 55 minutes ago

How do you sensibly benchmark this product?

Comment by jjcm 1 hour ago

Depends on the use. For pics, nano banana still feels like the best. For designs/posters, gpt-image is king by a very large margin.

Comment by niwrad 1 hour ago

Generally depends on use case and style. Midjourney, Seedream, GPT Image are commonly regarded contenders IMO.

Comment by vunderba 58 minutes ago

I've been running a comparative image benchmark site for years now (see my profile for the link), ever since SDXL back in 2023, and the answer really comes down to it depends. My benchmark focuses primarily on prompt adherence, but that's just one metric you can use. (fidelity, censorship, explorative, speed, features, etc are others)

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

FOUR BILLION IMAGES PER WEEK???

Comment by viraptor 1 hour ago

I wonder if there's some weird accounting going on, or if this is real. It would mean around 24M images an hour and that's in the area of "more images than anyone will see". It means there's lots of wasted automated effort in this process somewhere, even if we assume some creators will request 8x variants of their ideas.

Comment by post-it 34 minutes ago

I don't use AI image generation anymore, but when I was fiddling with it I would generate dozens of images per idea, limited only by my patience. "The same thing but a little different" is the easiest feedback you can give anything.

Comment by fractorial 1 hour ago

How depressing.

Comment by keraf 1 hour ago

[dead]

Comment by teamolHuang 19 minutes ago

wait... did we get (sort of) sora back???

Comment by minimaxir 12 minutes ago

Video generation models work much differently than what this GIF pipeline is doing here.

Comment by tintor 1 hour ago

SVG? Who can generate a pelican on a bicycle?

Comment by algoth1 1 hour ago

Can it finally do pixel art?

Comment by vunderba 43 minutes ago

If you define pixel art as just a vague overall look, then yes, it can do pixel art. If you define pixel art as being limited to a fixed color palette, like 16 or 256 colors and aligned to a square grid, then no, not without some manual post-processing.

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

That depends on your definition of pixel art. (people are exceptionally pedantic about this)

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

There are SDXL pixel art models out there that do actual pixel art. They generate images that are 8x too large, you need to downscale them and reduce colors externally.

Comment by vunderba 24 minutes ago

yeah, the original Retro Diffusion models were an early example of that - IIRC it had models separately fine-tuned for 32x32, 64x64, etc. so you'd nearest neighbor squash'em down to that size after the initial gen to kill the high frequency noise.

Comment by Computer0 57 minutes ago

The gifs really accentuate the artifacting, not sure I would've lead with that.

Comment by ramesh31 11 minutes ago

Can we do animated sprites with alpha channel yet?

Comment by jansan 1 hour ago

Do they have an example of an SVG image created by the new model somewhere?

Comment by minimaxir 1 hour ago

Comment by jrmg 56 minutes ago

It looks like the images in there are 'based' on the "hot springs symbol" - a Japanese map symbol encoded into Unicode that seems to have become synonymous with "piping hot bread" in the West!

https://emojipedia.org/hot-springs

Comment by rprwhite 18 minutes ago

The images in the GPs link show a common pictogram for artisanal bread. The image itself is actually a close representation of the real thing. An image search for sourdough will return many images showing bread with a similar appearance. Anecdotally, I’ve never seen that hot springs symbol used for bread, and I’ve lived in the west my whole life. Not without irony, but connecting the bread symbol with the hot springs symbol feels like the sort of mistake an llm would make.

Comment by phoghed 33 minutes ago

I always thought it was coffee like the Java logo lol

Comment by ipsum2 1 hour ago

Still has the gross artifacts (visible watermarking) that the other GPT-Image-2.* has. Google's Nano banana watermarking is practically invisible.

SVG is cool though, I wonder how good it is.

Comment by solyin 55 minutes ago

lol, I tried

> 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

“Is the topic and concept from the original clear?“

Follow by

“Make it”

Seems to resolve the refusals

Comment by shepherdjerred 2 minutes ago

...I tried a similar prompt today and it refused

Comment by shopcutout 16 minutes ago

[dead]

Comment by sick_of_slop 33 minutes ago

[dead]

Comment by angoragoats 58 minutes ago

[flagged]

Comment by kamranjon 14 minutes ago

anyone else get the feeling this is a chinese model they are just hosting themselves?