The take-away here is that steps above ~60 do nothing to the image, you're just burning gpu cycles doing nothing.
It's basically just fallen into a local minima in the latent space and nothing will ever change, no matter how many steps you add.
The benefit of this kind of approach technically is that you can add a frame-to-frame diff as you're generating and stop early once you've hit a steady state, instead of having to pick an arbitrary number of steps.
You don't even need to do a diff, the model itself actually predicts the diff (which is how it samples the image) so you could just stop once the model is predicting close to 0
The take-away here is that steps above ~60 do nothing to the image, you're just burning gpu cycles doing nothing.
On these pictures. Depending on your prompt, more steps can be beneficial—let's say you're trying to make infinitely detailed fractal monster landscapes—or it might hurt, especially with DDIM, which seems to overfit a lot.
Comments
The take-away here is that steps above ~60 do nothing to the image, you're just burning gpu cycles doing nothing.
It's basically just fallen into a local minima in the latent space and nothing will ever change, no matter how many steps you add.
The benefit of this kind of approach technically is that you can add a frame-to-frame diff as you're generating and stop early once you've hit a steady state, instead of having to pick an arbitrary number of steps.
You don't even need to do a diff, the model itself actually predicts the diff (which is how it samples the image) so you could just stop once the model is predicting close to 0
Is there a parameter for this, to stop when subsequent iterations do nothing?
I would expect both the scheduler and prompt in-use to have a significant effect on this.
On these pictures. Depending on your prompt, more steps can be beneficial—let's say you're trying to make infinitely detailed fractal monster landscapes—or it might hurt, especially with DDIM, which seems to overfit a lot.