GPT Image 1.5 OpenAI vs Seedream 4.0 ByteDance

GPT Image 1.5

• + Excellent photographic realism and sharpness
• + Exceptional handling of glass reflections and physical thickness
• + Perfect adherence to all spatial instructions and lighting

• − The sphere is quite large relative to the prompt 'small blue sphere'

Seedream 4.0

• + Successfully placed all requested elements in the scene
• + Accurately depicted a 'small' blue sphere as requested
• + Strong sense of cinematic natural lighting

• − The glass cube is missing its back-left vertical edge, making the geometry incoherent
• − Significant artifacting where the plant is visible through the glass

GPT Image 1.5

• + Excellent preservation of the man's facial features and hair texture.
• + High-quality rendering of the car's interior details.
• + The lighting on the man matches the beach environment well.

• − The perspective of the car feels slightly disjointed from the road.
• − The man is positioned too far back in the seat relative to the steering wheel.

Seedream 4.0

• + Perfectly preserves the specific car model (Rolls-Royce) and its details from the source image.
• + Dynamic and realistic composition with a clear sense of motion.
• + Accurately represents the man's clothing and hairstyle in the new context.

• − The man's facial details are slightly blurred compared to the source image.
• − Minor jitter in the wheel spokes due to the motion blur effect.

GPT Image 1.5

• + Excellent attention to detail with realistic rain droplets on the man's jacket and the bike frame.
• + Strong atmospheric lighting and reflections that accurately convey a rainy day.
• + Successful execution of the 'imperfect framing' prompt with the cropped car and candid feel.

• − The bike anatomy becomes a bit messy around the rear wheel and spokes.

Seedream 4.0

• + Good use of motion blur on the passing vehicle to create a sense of street movement.
• + Realistic puddles and reflections on the pavement.
• + Clearer view of the man's face and hands working on the bike.

• − The man is wearing a short-sleeved shirt in what appears to be rainy weather, which feels logically inconsistent.
• − The bicycle's physical structure is significantly warped, particularly the pedals/crankset and the front wheel spokes.

GPT Image 1.5

• + Exquisite detail on the engraved metalwork and weathered leather straps.
• + Superior skin texture with realistic pores, freckles, and fine scars.
• + Excellent use of shallow depth of field and warm, atmospheric lighting.

• − One of the beads in the hair appears to blend unnaturally into the hair strand.

Seedream 4.0

• + Strong dynamic lighting with a clear torch source and bright bokeh sparks.
• + Good interpretation of the braided hair and bead prompt.
• + Effective use of focal depth to emphasize the portrait.

• − The engraving on the armor is less sharp and detailed than Image A.
• − The leather straps under the chin have some awkward clipping issues.
• − Skin detail is slightly smoother and less hyper-realistic compared to the competitor.

GPT Image 1.5

• + Excellent text rendering with clear, legible names, descriptions, and prices.
• + Highly professional layout that functions as an actual usable menu.
• + Perfect adherence to all prompt elements, including specific food categories and color accents.

• − Overall design is a bit conservative or 'stock-photo' in style.

Seedream 4.0

• + Bold, clear heading text.
• + Modern, high-energy photo grid arrangement.

• − Fails to provide actual menu content like item names or prices.
• − The layout is just a collage of headers and photos rather than a functional menu design.
• − Large amount of wasted white space in the center of the design.

GPT Image 1.5

• + Perfect adherence to all text requirements including the specific €6.99 price.
• + High-detail textures on the bun and meat with excellent lighting consistency.
• + Balanced and professional advertising composition.

• − The image is very busy with embers, which slightly reduces the clarity of individual burger layers.

Seedream 4.0

• + Strong sense of 'magic' and motion with the swirling light trails.
• + Excellent fire effects on the title text.
• + Clean separation of the burger components against the dark background.

• − Failed the price accuracy by displaying €5.99 instead of €6.99.
• − The burger physics are a bit nonsensical with two separate patty-bun stacks forming.
• − Text spacing on 'MAGIC BURGER' is slightly uneven.

GPT Image 1.5

• + Excellent text rendering with no spelling errors.
• + Consistent and convincing chalk texture throughout all text.
• + Displays the requested date and all menu items perfectly.

• − The composition is a bit flat and clinical, lacking the 'cozy café' environmental context around the board.
• − The handwriting looks slightly more 'perfected' than natural chalk handwriting.

Seedream 4.0

• + Beautiful environmental composition that captures the 'cozy café' atmosphere requested.
• + Dynamic and natural-looking chalk handwriting with realistic variations in size and slant.
• + Captures the chalkboard texture and dust effectively.

• − Has a small typo with the word 'Butler' which was cut off in the prompt but interpreted incorrectly.
• − The date heading is slightly more crowded than in the other version.

GPT Image 1.5

• + Excellent character preservation of the face, sunglasses, and clothing from Image 2.
• + Highly accurate recreation of the complex cross-legged pose and arm positions from Image 1.
• + Successful integration of the character into the lighting and environment of the source.

Seedream 4.0

• + Successfully incorporates the clothing items (scarf and sweatshirt) from Image 2.

• − Failed character identity, retaining the long hair from Image 1 instead of the person in Image 2.
• − Significant anatomical errors, including a hovering foot and a missing second leg.
• − Distorted facial features and poor blending of the head with the body.

GPT Image 1.5

• + Excellent level of fine detail and texture in the astronaut's suit and horse's coat
• + Better composition with a clear background including planets and a lunar lander
• + Superior lighting and cinematic quality with realistic dust and debris effects

• − Failed the specific spatial instruction for the horse to be on top of the astronaut

Seedream 4.0

• + Strong dynamic pose with the horse rearing
• + Clean, vibrant colors in the nebula background
• + Good reflection details on the astronaut's visor

• − Failed the specific spatial instruction for the horse to be on top of the astronaut
• − The horse's front legs and harness have some anatomy and clipping issues

GPT Image 1.5

• + Successfully replicates the specific coat, scarf, and watch from Image 2
• + Accurately places the person in the specific beach environment from Image 1

• − Failed the negative constraint to keep the hair and face unchanged by cropping the head off almost entirely
• − The skin tone on the hands and visible chin does not match the person in Image 1

Seedream 4.0

• + Successfully incorporates the clothing, sunglasses, watch, and shoes from Image 2
• + Maintains the distinct vitiligo patterns on the subject's face/hair from Image 1
• + Matches the lighting and contrast of the source image well

• − Modifies the subject's face by adding the facial hair and structure of the person in Image 2
• − The scarf pattern is slightly simplified compared to the source

GPT Image 1.5

• + Excellent texture rendering on the capybara's fur and the leather steering wheel.
• + Clear, accurate text on the taxi cap.
• + Superior depth of field and cinematic lighting that enhances the New York night atmosphere.

• − The steering wheel placement is slightly low, appearing to merge with the dashboard.
• − The businesswoman's face is slightly blurry compared to the foreground.

Seedream 4.0

• + Includes more of the taxi's exterior and interior to establish the scene.
• + Good adherence to the 'bored expression' prompt for the passenger.
• + Natural looking paws-to-wheel placement.

• − The text on the cap is garbled ('TAT' instead of 'Taxi').
• − The capybara's face is slightly less detailed and looks less 'professional' and more like a standard animal photo.
• − Composition is a bit more generic with less dramatic lighting.

GPT Image 1.5

• + Perfect text rendering for all requested headings and details.
• + Strong adherence to the 'vintage gothic' style with sepia tones and parchment textures.
• + Excellent composition with a very clear thorns-and-webs border that frames the scene well.

• − The jack-o'-lantern carving is slightly more traditional and less 'cinematic' than Model B's.

Seedream 4.0

• + Impressive 3D lighting on the pumpkin and background trees.
• + High level of detail in the background silhouettes and atmospheric fog.
• + Creative torn-edge effect on the central parchment layer.

• − Text in the scroll banner is messy and barely legible compared to the other text.
• − The thorn border is less cohesive, with some thorns appearing to float or break the frame erratically.
• − Small typo in '7pm' which looks more like '7pm' with a merged 'm'.

GPT Image 1.5

• + Natural hair texture that matches the beard style
• + Seamless integration of hair with the original facial features
• + Excellent preservation of background and lighting

• − Slightly altered the shape of the glasses frames

Seedream 4.0

• + Followed the instruction for 'thick' hair very literally
• + Maintained the original background and lighting well

• − Hair looks like a wig with an unnatural, stiff texture
• − The hairline is too low and lacks realistic transition
• − The vertical volume of the hair feels out of proportion for a natural head of hair

GPT Image 1.5

• + Excellent text rendering with clean, professional-looking typography.
• + Sophisticated PBR materials and lighting that balance realism with a miniature aesthetic.
• + Includes more varied elements like the soy sauce bottle and teapot that add to the diorama feel.

• − The diorama base is a bit busy compared to the request for minimal garnish and plate.

Seedream 4.0

• + Simple and clean interpretation fits the 'minimal' part of the prompt well.
• + Correct isometric 45-degree angle.
• + Accurate text spelling and centered composition.

• − The 'JAPAN' text layout is a bit awkward with the flag placement.
• − Materials look more plastic and less 'refined' compared to Image A.
• − Lower level of detail in the food textures.

GPT Image 1.5

• + Excellent caricature style with highly exaggerated features that suit the request.
• + Rich, vibrant background incorporating all requested themes (news desk, dogs, hockey game).
• + High-quality rendering with no major anatomical issues or artifacts.

• − Changes the character's clothing and eye color, losing some of the source identity.
• − Text is slightly generic compared to the visual density.

Seedream 4.0

• + Maintains the subject's original outfit and features more accurately than Model A.
• + Preserves the background elements of the source image while overlaying the news desk.
• + Cleverly combines the hockey and anchor themes through the jersey and stick placement.

• − The caricature deformation on the face has some artifacts around the mouth and eyes.
• − The composition feels a bit cluttered with the phone, microphone, and desk overlapping awkwardly.

GPT Image 1.5

• + Excellent fur texture and fine detail on all four animals.
• + Expressive facial features that perfectly match the 'joyful' vibe.
• + Stronger adherence to the 'tumbling together' request with close, intertwined positioning.

• − The kitten has an anatomically strange third hind leg/paw visible at the bottom.
• − The fox's front paw has a slightly merged, undefined look.

Seedream 4.0

• + Dynamic composition that captures the 'chasing' aspect better by showing the animals in motion.
• + Beautiful bokeh and lighting effects with well-distributed dew sparkles.
• + The animals are clearly distinguishable and appropriately sized relative to one another.

• − The kitten has a very small, somewhat distorted front paw while reaching up.
• − The fox kit's red fur is slightly over-saturated, bordering on unrealistic compared to the other animals.

GPT Image 1.5

• + Excellent preservation of the original subjects' clothing patterns and poses
• + Captures the warm, nostalgic, and dreamy lighting requested in the prompt
• + Maintains the depth of field from the source image with the foreground girl blurred

• − Art style leans more towards generic shojo anime than distinct Studio Ghibli aesthetics
• − Faces are a bit too modernized for a nostalgic Ghibli look

Seedream 4.0

• + Perfectly captures the Studio Ghibli hand-painted watercolor aesthetic
• + Highly accurate character facial expressions that match the source while adopting the target style
• + Exceptional execution of hand-painted textures and soft pastel colors

• − The dreamy background replaces the urban street with abstract colors, losing some environmental context
• − The foreground character's blur is removed, making the composition flatter than the original

GPT Image 1.5

• + Successfully added a large volume of flying leaves for a high-energy feel.
• + The hair is dramatically windswept, effectively conveying motion.
• + Maintains high image clarity and facial details from the original.

• − The leaves appear pasted on top and don't always interact realistically with the depth of the scene.
• − Slightly altered the woman's facial features compared to the source image.

Seedream 4.0

• + Excellent preservation of the woman's original face and expression.
• + The wind effect on the hair is realistic and well-integrated.
• + Leaves are placed with a better sense of depth and motion blur.

• − Significantly lower resolution and overall sharpness compared to the source and Model A.
• − Fewer flying leaves makes the scene feel less 'energetic' than requested.

GPT Image 1.5

• + Excellent classic typography with a custom feel
• + Included the grave accent on 'Caffè' correctly
• + Good use of texture and shading on the cloche

• − Ignored the request for a light background
• − Banner integration is slightly clunky compared to the text

Seedream 4.0

• + Followed all prompt instructions including the light textured background
• + Clean and balanced vector-style composition
• + Legible and well-spaced typography

• − Used an acute accent (é) instead of the requested grave accent (è)
• − The steam lines are somewhat generic

GPT Image 1.5

• + Perfect adherence to all six requested steps with appropriate icons.
• + Exceptional text rendering for all labels including crew names.
• + Highly professional vector aesthetic with a consistent and clean layout.

• − One minor text cut-off at the very top of the image.

Seedream 4.0

• + Accurately followed the color palette and basic steps.
• + Clean, readable typography for the main title and numbered steps.
• + Included the requested 'Tranquility' location marker.

• − Confusing visual layout where the Lunar Module is used for both 'Descent' (5) and 'Landing' (6) without a clear icon change.
• − Icons are significantly less detailed and polished compared to the other model.
• − Text for 'Translunar' is slightly cramped/misaligned.