1 pointby jackbventures4 hours ago1 comment
  • stevage4 hours ago
    An obvious point, but your marketing page absolutely needs a before -> after comparison. Just showing the after image doesn't work.

    Also I think it really needs to let you actually try it with your own image (watermarked or whatever). Who wants to pay 5 pounds to find out the generated image doesn't quite look like you, or looks too fake or whatever.

    The pricing seems maybe ok if you know you're definitely getting a usable image out of the process. But if there's any risk whatsoever, it feels much too expensive.

    • jackbventures4 hours ago
      Both points are valid and I appreciate the direct feedback.

      The before/after comparison is an obvious gap - I didn't include any example output on the page at all, which makes it near impossible to evaluate. That's being fixed today.

      The free preview / watermarked trial is a good idea I hadn't fully thought through. The hesitation was cost (each generation costs real money to run) but a low-res watermarked preview before payment is a reasonable middle ground. Worth testing.

      Thanks for taking the time to look.

      • stevagean hour ago
        Would your method actually generate the exact same image at the different resolutions?
        • jackbventures15 minutes ago
          No, not by default. Diffusion models are stochastic so each run produces a different image.

          The plan would be: generate once upfront, deliver a low-res watermarked version immediately, then serve the full-res after payment. One generation, two delivery tiers. The cost is the same either way - we're just changing when the user sees the output.

      • jackbventures4 hours ago
        Quick update: the before/after section is now live on the page. Shipped within 40 minutes of your feedback. The watermarked preview is still on the roadmap.