Closed chrisdane closed 3 years ago
Hi Chris,
The visibility of the cloak depends on the input image. Typically, cloaks are must more visible on large, high-quality images (such as the ones you're trying to cloak). There is an inherent tradeoff between cloak visibility and protection quality.
Thanks for the answer.
Could you give a hint which pixel sizes/image formats work best for fawkes to obtain a result similar to your examples (i.e. being indistinguishable by eye)?
Thanks! Chris
Hi, just wanted to tell, that I had tried the same setup. And the results are frustratingly poor.
I am using this binary: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/fawkes-bin/.
But I also tried it (with exact the same source picture) then on windows. The results were really usable.
I can't tell what is wrong with the "fawkes-bin" using the AUR, but it is not working properly.
Hi
I used fawkes to cloak 2 jpg images of 1200 x 1600 and 4608 x 3456 pixels (width x height), taken from different cams.
The small cloaked image looks very different compared to the input image, even with
-d low
. These differences are somewhat smaller in the large image case (also-d low
), but I also can see the differences by eye in this case.Hence, I cannot reproduce your examples at all with my own pictures.
I am using this binary: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/fawkes-bin/.
Regards,
Chris