I'd like to see what a real physical book looks like before I buy it though. Do you have real pictures of a printed one?
I think our kids would appreciate seeing the original (even if a small thumbnail) along side it. You can't always tell from these AI drawings that it was originally you and your family.
Also, it's REALLY expensive. $30 for a book that my kids will draw on in one or two nights and then never touch again is probably too much.
subpixel 2 hours ago [-]
It’s not cheap, but my kids treasure coloring books for a long time and probably one like this until it falls apart.
zakki 2 hours ago [-]
To the author, I have this idea, for each page, put a sheet of transparent plastic or something like that. So the owner will color the plastic which can be erased.
But it may increase the cost anc the color may not stick to the plastic.
MaxLeiter 32 minutes ago [-]
For those interested in building something similar, I prompted a story book generator using v0 and Gemini’s image generation a few weeks ago:
For what it’s worth (and it’s probably not much), it doesn’t cost that much to commission comic book-style art from an actual artist online. When you do that, the proceeds go to an artist, not to an AI company that stole from them and a software developer who wrote a wrapper around their API.
ipaddr 39 minutes ago [-]
In fairness no artists are advertising a personal coloring book. The time, effort and cost would put this out of reach for 99.99 of people.
No artists are losing income because of this and no industry is being upended. This is a new product that's available because of a technology advanced.
Why the focus the artist? Everytime you order in food online you take away a tip from a host, server, bartender and take away a job from a person who answers a phone. Why focus on artists when so many have been affected by technology.
Something1234 27 minutes ago [-]
And yet there’s plenty of adult coloring books made by a human out there if you’re willing to go to a brick and mortar shop. Got a super cool one from dick blicks, with a lot of underwater scenes. Also paper quality is important. I can’t imagine getting as far as I did in mine if it was newspaper
richardw 2 hours ago [-]
My opinion isn’t fully formed but I currently think either all content producers have a claim (potentially workable as eg a discount), or only those who contribute should get access to AI’s.
And by all I mean the AI companies owe a huge debt to all humans who wrote or designed or drew anything. The vast majority of the benefit of this technology relies on volume: the billions of pages and lines of code we wrote for other humans, but have now been repurposed. This technology relies on bulk, which was mainly unprofessional or freely given content, by those who intended it for other humans. It was not 100% built only on the output of the few who charge for their exquisite words or designs, even if their output is higher quality.
Alternatively, let the AI companies go for it but everyone who uses any kind of AI should understand that they’re standing on the shoulders of the millions of developers and nonprofessional writers whose work has now been repurposed. Not the few artists and journalists. So those artists and journalists should both refuse to contribute to, and use, AI.
* I’ve written very little of this useful content, but would be happy to pay my share to those that have built what we have. I also turn off training on my content, but I pay a lot for models. Feel free to help me think through this with comments of your own.
calebio 58 minutes ago [-]
Usually when you commission something you're asking the artist to do art and create something unique with their own artistic flair... not just line-trace an existing photo.
The intention and cost of something like that is not at all comparable to what is being offered here.
jstummbillig 1 hours ago [-]
If it does not cost that much, that is obviously because the artist is too cheap. If you find that to be a preferable equilibrium, that's a choice I guess, but I find it fairly ironic in light of the purported motivation.
bix6 1 hours ago [-]
This is a cool technological feat but what is the cost to humanity and its artists?
Some of these replies seem rather dismissive to the artists’ plight.
ronsor 16 minutes ago [-]
They're dismissive because we've had the same moral panics before with the introduction of photography, then sound recordings, and then digital art tools, and then vector art, and then 3D, and also the Internet to an extent, and...
You can see where this is going, right? In the end, humanity and even artists will be fine overall, even if the world changes.
blibble 5 minutes ago [-]
how will artists be fine when Google can steal all their work, then use that to compete with them and ultimately replace them
for the cost of showing ads?
ipaddr 31 minutes ago [-]
Cost is nothing because this service isn't offered currently. No income lost and might spark an interest in coloring books which grows the artist's income.
Artists have been around and existed in more repressive societies throughout time. The best art is usually produced from the greatest struggle. Artists will engage and create art in this new world. The cost of not providing a new surface for artists to explore is what kills art.
nxm 55 minutes ago [-]
“learn to code”
bix6 54 minutes ago [-]
Just code the food!
yieldcrv 32 minutes ago [-]
Those transactions never would have happened, and never will happen.
paulcole 2 hours ago [-]
If this person’s service was to pay human artists $24 for a 23 page custom coloring book you’d be crying on here about them not paying human artists enough.
Almost nobody is paying $100 or more for a custom 5-page coloring book.
This service isn’t taking work from human artists.
warkdarrior 2 hours ago [-]
Maybe, but then I have to negotiate with the artist, handle their refusal to draw art of my choosing, and wait for their (possibly unpredictable) schedule. AIs mostly avoid these problems.
13_9_7_7_5_18 2 hours ago [-]
[dead]
op00to 2 hours ago [-]
Didn’t the artist “steal” from artists that came before them by looking at and taking inspiration from their photos? Especially ones that would do such artistic genres as commercial coloring book art?
jmathai 2 hours ago [-]
Yes. But they are people, perhaps with families to feed. Not computers.
Cool idea. I can see keeping colored pages of these by my kids up on the fridge a lot longer than what’s on there now!
barbazoo 2 hours ago [-]
For anyone looking for a prompt to do this manually, it seems to be as simple as this:
> Generate a version of this photo that can be used as a coloring sheet
sharkjacobs 3 hours ago [-]
from clevercoloringbook.com:
> Please only upload photos that are in line with OpenAI's Usage Policy.
> We are not able to include any photos that do not follow their policy in the final printed book.
from openai.com/policies
> Editing uploaded images or videos that contain real people under the age of 18 is not permitted.
The first two sample pictures on the page contain of adolescent children. Are you concerned about this apparent contradiction?
mdeeks 3 hours ago [-]
I'm not the OP, but during the recent Studio Ghiblification craze there were a huge number of photos of families and kids passing along in facebook, twitter, and other social media. It was literally everywhere you looked. OpenAI obviously saw all of that. I don't think they actually care unless it's something bordering on illegal.
ronsor 2 hours ago [-]
I agree. In practice OpenAI is unlikely to care about families uploading their own photos. I think the policy is mostly to stop random people from engaging in creepy activities with the photos of children.
transformi 18 minutes ago [-]
Why don't you use canny/HED filter :O? (seems pretty overkill for this job..)
jw1224 15 minutes ago [-]
Do you not think the AI output looks far more polished and print-ready? Canny edges have a lot of noise and don't look at all clean for coloring book purposes.
mmastrac 3 hours ago [-]
The comics look pretty Miyazaki-inspired, like all of the comics I've seen lately. I've kinda started to dislike this look because it's _everywhere_ that low-effort comics are these days.
Maybe worth trying to train a better style for this. This is probably something where you could put a little effort in up-front (ie: using a model that's for segmentation to get outlines, using some classic image-processing for boundary detection) and then have AI touch it up a little more lightly and a less of the "default" style.
Also, do you have AI images for the "real world" samples on the left? They have a certain "I don't exactly know what, but it's creeping me out" vibe.
ronsor 3 hours ago [-]
It doesn't look particularly Miyazaki style to me; it's just a generic cartoon style.
I think the Ghiblipocalypse has gotten people on edge.
rafram 3 hours ago [-]
This has zero resemblance to Miyazaki’s style. (And I say that as someone who isn’t a fan of this idea at all.)
The cartoon owl at the top has a different vibe and would probably work for the comics as well.
vunderba 3 hours ago [-]
You'll want to really drive home the niche (through your feature set) that it's for family photos, because the generic photo to AI vectorized coloring book service has been done to death.
abaymado 3 hours ago [-]
I like GPT wrapper's that let me personalize/customize existing real world things, and this a good example of that. I like it.
gitroom 2 hours ago [-]
Nicely done, Ive always wanted something like this for my family pics. you think AI-generated art will ever feel as special as something handmade?
pelagicAustral 47 minutes ago [-]
Awesome idea, implementation and design!
themanmaran 3 hours ago [-]
Nice and simple! I'm excited for all the fun micro businesses that get enabled by the new image API.
Things like your coloring book, instant sticker/tshirt/swag creation, video game assets, etc.
Also love the "tap 5 times for a discount" feature.
avree 2 hours ago [-]
Cool idea and really nice looking site.
Pricing is quite high - 24 pages maximum for $23.99. There are 100-page coloring books on Amazon for $5.00, and the age group that really would be using this is not going to remember what was on the page a week from the day they did it.
Maybe it can work in the nice of "adult coloring books" - I've seen some social media content where people really go crazy on coloring books, and being able to get nice physical copy to work off could appeal there.
subpixel 2 hours ago [-]
Presumably you aren’t the parent of a 5-7 year-old child. I might try this manually and save some money but my kids will absolutely cherish coloring themselves, their friends, and their parents. We’re on vacation now and this is gonna be big when we get back.
Terretta 2 hours ago [-]
Seems like this cat (and various variants in similar settings) was a top rated image in Sora's explore/images a week ago. Was it yours, should it be credited, or did you hit edit prompt<enter> to get a variant?
No worries, just wondering how that should work.
xnx 2 hours ago [-]
Is there somewhere to download a PDF to print out?
kelvinjps10 2 hours ago [-]
Why not just an option to print the image?
beering 1 hours ago [-]
You can simply open up Chatgpt and generate the image yourself, faster than it’d take to transact with this third party. The cool thing is that they are printing a physical book for you.
44 minutes ago [-]
Rendered at 01:23:22 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
I'd like to see what a real physical book looks like before I buy it though. Do you have real pictures of a printed one?
I think our kids would appreciate seeing the original (even if a small thumbnail) along side it. You can't always tell from these AI drawings that it was originally you and your family.
Also, it's REALLY expensive. $30 for a book that my kids will draw on in one or two nights and then never touch again is probably too much.
Demo: https://v0-story-maker.vercel.app/
The chat: https://v0.dev/chat/ai-story-book-creator-zw7TrmkN2Eb
No artists are losing income because of this and no industry is being upended. This is a new product that's available because of a technology advanced.
Why the focus the artist? Everytime you order in food online you take away a tip from a host, server, bartender and take away a job from a person who answers a phone. Why focus on artists when so many have been affected by technology.
And by all I mean the AI companies owe a huge debt to all humans who wrote or designed or drew anything. The vast majority of the benefit of this technology relies on volume: the billions of pages and lines of code we wrote for other humans, but have now been repurposed. This technology relies on bulk, which was mainly unprofessional or freely given content, by those who intended it for other humans. It was not 100% built only on the output of the few who charge for their exquisite words or designs, even if their output is higher quality.
Alternatively, let the AI companies go for it but everyone who uses any kind of AI should understand that they’re standing on the shoulders of the millions of developers and nonprofessional writers whose work has now been repurposed. Not the few artists and journalists. So those artists and journalists should both refuse to contribute to, and use, AI.
* I’ve written very little of this useful content, but would be happy to pay my share to those that have built what we have. I also turn off training on my content, but I pay a lot for models. Feel free to help me think through this with comments of your own.
The intention and cost of something like that is not at all comparable to what is being offered here.
Some of these replies seem rather dismissive to the artists’ plight.
You can see where this is going, right? In the end, humanity and even artists will be fine overall, even if the world changes.
for the cost of showing ads?
Artists have been around and existed in more repressive societies throughout time. The best art is usually produced from the greatest struggle. Artists will engage and create art in this new world. The cost of not providing a new surface for artists to explore is what kills art.
Almost nobody is paying $100 or more for a custom 5-page coloring book.
This service isn’t taking work from human artists.
Cool idea. I can see keeping colored pages of these by my kids up on the fridge a lot longer than what’s on there now!
> Generate a version of this photo that can be used as a coloring sheet
Maybe worth trying to train a better style for this. This is probably something where you could put a little effort in up-front (ie: using a model that's for segmentation to get outlines, using some classic image-processing for boundary detection) and then have AI touch it up a little more lightly and a less of the "default" style.
Also, do you have AI images for the "real world" samples on the left? They have a certain "I don't exactly know what, but it's creeping me out" vibe.
I think the Ghiblipocalypse has gotten people on edge.
The cartoon owl at the top has a different vibe and would probably work for the comics as well.
Things like your coloring book, instant sticker/tshirt/swag creation, video game assets, etc.
Also love the "tap 5 times for a discount" feature.
Pricing is quite high - 24 pages maximum for $23.99. There are 100-page coloring books on Amazon for $5.00, and the age group that really would be using this is not going to remember what was on the page a week from the day they did it.
Maybe it can work in the nice of "adult coloring books" - I've seen some social media content where people really go crazy on coloring books, and being able to get nice physical copy to work off could appeal there.
No worries, just wondering how that should work.