↗ OpenReview ↗ NeurIPS Homepage ↗ Chat
TL;DR#
Image retargeting, adjusting image aspect ratios, is crucial but challenging. Existing methods often struggle to preserve key image features and prevent visual artifacts (like distortion or object loss). This paper introduces a content-aware approach called “Prune and Repaint” to overcome these issues.
The method uses semantic importance to guide pixel selection for removal (pruning), prioritizing the preservation of key objects and features. Then, it employs adaptive repainting using diffusion models to smooth out any resulting irregularities. Experiments show that this approach significantly outperforms existing ones in maintaining semantic information, aesthetics, and consistency across different aspect ratios.
Key Takeaways#
Why does it matter?#
This paper is important because it presents a novel solution to a long-standing problem in image processing—image retargeting. Its content-aware approach and adaptive repainting method significantly improve the quality and aesthetic appeal of retargeted images, surpassing existing techniques. This opens new avenues for research in image manipulation and generation, particularly in adaptive methods for preserving semantics across varying aspect ratios.
Visual Insights#
This figure displays six different image retargeting results on the same input image. The first image shows the original image; the second shows the result of scaling, which causes significant deformation; the third is a cropped version with significant object loss; the fourth is seam carving, resulting in distortion and discontinuity; the fifth shows a result with inconsistencies. Finally, the sixth image showcases the proposed method, Prune and Repaint, demonstrating successful retargeting that preserves key semantic information and avoids artifacts. This visualization highlights the challenge of image retargeting and the improvement achieved by the proposed method.
This table compares the performance of different image retargeting methods (Scale, Crop, Seam-carving, InGAN, FR, and the proposed method ‘Ours’) in terms of Saliency Discard Ratio (SDR). The SDR measures the semantic completeness; a lower SDR indicates better preservation of important image content. The comparison is conducted across four different aspect ratios (16:9, 4:3, 1:1, and 9:16), demonstrating the methods’ performance consistency across varying aspect ratios. The best performing method for each aspect ratio is highlighted in bold.
In-depth insights#
Content-Aware Retargeting#
Content-aware retargeting tackles the challenge of resizing images while preserving image quality and key semantic information. Traditional methods like scaling or cropping often lead to distortions or loss of important details. Content-aware techniques aim to overcome these limitations by intelligently analyzing the image content and selectively removing or repositioning pixels to minimize visual artifacts. This intelligent approach involves sophisticated algorithms to identify crucial image regions (e.g., faces, objects) and prioritize their preservation during resizing. A critical aspect is the balance between preserving key features and maintaining overall image quality. This is especially important for diverse aspect ratio adjustments, where simple scaling or cropping quickly becomes inadequate. Advanced methods incorporate deep learning and advanced image processing techniques to accurately assess semantic significance, ultimately enhancing both the visual appeal and the informational integrity of the resized image.
Prune & Repaint Model#
The core of the “Prune and Repaint” model lies in its two-stage approach to image retargeting. The pruning stage intelligently removes less important pixels using a content-aware seam carving method. This method is enhanced by incorporating semantic and spatial saliency maps, ensuring that crucial image details, particularly within objects, are prioritized for retention. The repainting stage, then, uses an adaptive strategy, dynamically choosing between inpainting and outpainting based on the target aspect ratio. This clever repainting mechanism leverages stable diffusion models with image guidance to ensure seamless integration and high-quality output. The model’s overall effectiveness stems from its ability to selectively preserve key semantic information while simultaneously minimizing artifacts commonly associated with traditional retargeting methods. This combination of intelligent pruning and adaptive repainting makes the “Prune and Repaint” model highly adaptable to diverse aspect ratios, leading to improved aesthetics and image quality compared to previous approaches.
Adaptive Repainting#
The Adaptive Repainting module is a crucial part of the Prune and Repaint framework, addressing the artifact issue inherent in content-aware seam carving. It cleverly combines two sub-modules: Adaptive Repainting Region Determination (ARRD) and Image-guided Repainting (IR). ARRD intelligently identifies abrupt pixels resulting from seam carving, which are crucial for maintaining image aesthetics. It leverages a 1D convolution along the mask to detect areas with a high density of deleted neighboring pixels, thus pinpointing those needing repainting. Crucially, ARRD adapts to different aspect ratios, deciding between inpainting (filling in missing parts) or outpainting (expanding the image) based on the target ratio and foreground size. The IR module employs a sophisticated method using image-conditioned stable diffusion models and an IP-Adapter to refine the repainting process, using the original image as a reference to ensure seamless integration with the surrounding content. This dual-pronged approach is key, avoiding the global repainting seen in other methods and thus efficiently mitigating artifacts while preserving crucial image details and aesthetics.
Ablation Study Results#
An ablation study systematically removes components of a model to assess their individual contributions. In the context of image retargeting, this might involve testing the model’s performance with and without specific modules like the content-aware seam carving or adaptive repainting. The results would quantify the impact of each module on key metrics such as semantic preservation and aesthetic quality. For example, removing the content-aware module might lead to a significant increase in semantic loss, indicating its importance in preserving key objects. Similarly, removing the adaptive repainting module could result in increased visual artifacts, highlighting its role in mitigating issues caused by pixel removal. A well-designed ablation study provides strong evidence for the effectiveness of each model component and the overall architectural design choices. By demonstrating improvements in both objective (e.g., quantitative metrics like SDR) and subjective (e.g., user study scores) evaluations, the ablation study builds a strong case for the proposed model’s superior performance compared to other approaches.
Future Research#
Future research directions stemming from the Prune and Repaint model could explore several promising avenues. Improving the efficiency of the adaptive repainting module, perhaps by leveraging more efficient diffusion models or exploring alternative inpainting/outpainting strategies, is crucial. Investigating the impact of different saliency models on the performance and exploring more sophisticated semantic segmentation techniques would enhance the model’s adaptability and precision. Further research could also examine the applicability of Prune and Repaint to video retargeting, demanding robust temporal consistency preservation. Finally, a comprehensive evaluation across a wider range of image types and aspect ratios, incorporating more diverse datasets and subjective assessment methods, would solidify the model’s generalizability and robustness. Addressing the limitations discussed regarding real-time applicability and the incompleteness of the current inpainting module would significantly enhance the method’s practical value.
More visual insights#
More on figures
This figure illustrates the pipeline of the proposed PruneRepaint method. It starts with the input RGB image and target aspect ratio. A saliency map guides content-aware seam carving, which performs initial retargeting. Then, the adaptive repainting region determination module identifies areas needing repainting. Finally, image-guided repainting refines the result, producing the final targeted image.
This figure illustrates the architecture of the image-guided repainting module, a key component of the PruneRepaint model. It shows how the original image and mask image are used as input to an IP-Adapter and ControlNet respectively. The IP-Adapter processes the original image (‘guide’) to incorporate its features into the diffusion process. The ControlNet, meanwhile, receives the mask image which guides the inpainting process by selectively updating the pixels according to the mask. The intermediate output from the IP-Adapter is then processed by the main U-Net-like structure which produces the final repainted image (Yt-1). This image-guided repainting module works in conjunction with the Adaptive Repainting Region Determination module to address abrupt pixels resulting from seam carving, restoring local smoothness and improving the overall quality of the retargeted image.
This figure compares the visual results of different image retargeting methods on a 16:9 aspect ratio. The methods compared include scaling, cropping, seam carving, InGAN, full repainting (FR), and the authors’ proposed method, PruneRepaint. The original image is shown alongside the results from each method, allowing for a visual assessment of how well each method preserves key content and avoids artifacts such as distortion, discontinuities, or content loss.
This figure shows a visual comparison of different image retargeting methods applied to an image with a 16:9 aspect ratio. The methods compared include scaling, cropping, seam carving, InGAN, full repainting (FR), and the authors’ proposed method, PruneRepaint. The goal is to visually demonstrate the performance differences in terms of preserving key semantic information, minimizing artifacts, and maintaining image quality.
This figure visualizes the impact of each component of the proposed PruneRepaint model. It compares the results of using only seam carving, adding content-aware seam carving (+CSC), adding background repainting (+CSC+BR), and finally adding the adaptive repainting module (+CSC+AR). The goal is to showcase how each addition improves the overall quality and effectiveness of the image retargeting process, particularly in preserving key semantic details and reducing artifacts.
This figure shows a visual comparison of the proposed Prune and Repaint method with other image retargeting methods (Scale, Crop, Seam-Carving, InGAN, and Full Repainting) on images with a 16:9 aspect ratio. The comparison highlights the ability of Prune and Repaint to better preserve semantic content and avoid artifacts compared to existing techniques.
This figure visually compares the results of six different image retargeting methods on a 16:9 aspect ratio. The methods include scaling, cropping, seam carving, InGAN, full repainting (FR), and the authors’ proposed method, PruneRepaint. The comparison highlights how each method handles the trade-off between preserving image content and avoiding artifacts, such as distortions or blurriness. The figure shows that the authors’ method better preserves important image details and achieves higher aesthetic appeal.
This figure shows a comparison of image retargeting results using different methods. The original image is shown on the far left. The next image shows the result of applying seam carving alone. The following two images show the results of applying the content-aware seam carving method with and without the spatial prior. The spatial prior helps to avoid distorting important objects in the image during the retargeting process by decreasing pixel importance from the centroid of objects outwards. This leads to better preservation of key semantic elements and an improvement to the overall aesthetics.
This figure visualizes the impact of each component of the PruneRepaint method. The top row demonstrates results on a group photo, while the bottom row shows results on an image of the Taj Mahal. Each column shows the result of a different method: the original image, content-aware seam carving (+CSC), full repainting (FR), background repainting (BR), and adaptive repainting (+CSC+AR). The comparison highlights how +CSC preserves key details, while the adaptive repainting module in +CSC+AR significantly improves results over full repainting and background repainting.
This figure shows six different image retargeting results using different methods. The first image is the original image. The second shows the result of scaling, which causes significant deformation. The third is cropping, which leads to content loss. The fourth is seam carving, resulting in discontinuity and distortion. The fifth is an InGAN method, resulting in inconsistent results. The last image shows the result using the proposed Prune and Repaint method, which successfully preserves the content and avoids artifacts. This figure illustrates the importance of a content-aware approach to image retargeting to avoid the common problems of other methods.
More on tables
This table presents a subjective evaluation of different image retargeting methods. Twenty volunteers scored the results of each method across four criteria: content completeness, deformation, local smoothness, and aesthetics. Each criterion was scored on a scale from 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating better performance. The average score across all four criteria is also provided for each method. This allows for comparison of the overall subjective quality of each method in retargeting images with a 16:9 aspect ratio.
This table presents the results of an ablation study conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of different components of the proposed image retargeting method. The study focuses on the 16:9 aspect ratio. It compares the Saliency Discard Ratio (SDR) for three different configurations: Seam-carving alone, Seam-carving with the addition of the Content-Aware Seam-carving module (+CSC), and finally Seam-carving with both the Content-Aware Seam-carving and the Adaptive Repainting modules (+CSC+AR). Lower SDR values indicate better preservation of salient image regions.
This table compares the performance of two different repainting methods: background repainting and adaptive repainting. The SDR (Saliency Discard Ratio) metric is used to evaluate the semantic preservation achieved by each method, with lower scores indicating better preservation. Adaptive repainting is shown to significantly outperform background repainting in terms of preserving salient regions of the image.
Full paper#
