Awesome analysis as always!
Nothing to discuss about, as it matches with my own studies, but I'd like to add something else. Although is true that the more iterations, the more detail, there are another factors to take in consideration. One, is which notebook is being used, and the another one which references is taking the AI for that particular prompt and settings.
Most of the notebooks are based in the Original one, and the AI is an endless rush to still transforming pixels and shapes, so after 300-500 iterations rarely gonna get more detail, as the AI is busy transforming. The MSE one has some weights that decrease the "hunger" of transform of the AI, so the after 350 iterations the image get almost stabilized in terms of hardcore transforming and goes forward getting some more detail.
The second factor... there is nothing to do about, as we cannot control which references got the AI. So the AI gonna reach as max detail, the same amount of detail that comes from the references it got for the given prompt. So after the artwork reached it, let it run more iterations not gonna add any extra detail.
Regards and take this !PIZZA!
I agree with your statement. It is not necessarily more iteration better output or more details. As the AI converges, like most AI applications, it will stabilized at a given output. I do agree that what notebook we are using definately a factor of how well it converge. Despite we add more iteration, no additional feature will be added. As I tried and compare the different notebooks, I did found out Mse regulation is better in preserving transformation by not rushing in.
At end I let the stuff run endlessly and stop at the point I like or no more detail is added. Because sometimes, for whatever references it picked, the increase in the detail continues until a lot of iterations... once 1650 seemed to be the max. With the MSE notebook of course, the original based ones just flickers and flickers.
Regards!