281–290 of 311 posts
It's there any copyright protections for a person's voice? If not, David Attenborough and Morgan Freeman will be lead voice actors in my next game project
I wouldn't try it without heavy modification of the voice. Since for example a Morgan Freeman earns money with his voice, you've effectively robbed him of income (even though there's virtually no chance that he'd have participated).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow. TIL x 2! Now I understand why I liked adding a bit of reverb when listening to old MOD/IT/S3M audio files - it covered up the "digitalness" of the song structure a bit. Thanks for the live vocals tidbit too, that's definitely something to file away. I wonder how far you could push that in a presentational context (ie, when giving speeches), or whether "who left the speakers in 'dramatic cathedral' mode" would ha…
In my (admittedly limited) experience mixing for both recording and live settings, I can say that the "sounds great" comes a long way before the "dramatic cathedral mode". If you can listen to it and hear reverb (unless you're going for that effect) you're doing it wrong. What you want is a bit of fullness, slightly softer edges at the end of words/sentences. It's similar to the difference between 24fps cinema and 60…
A standard quality video is just a projection, a high quality video stream on a 4k set running full 122hz is a weird window from wich we don't get stereo depth clues. The brain constantly has to rethink it's not real as we shift the head and the pov doesn't adjust.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "potentially suspicious" History is now doomed. Crackly recordings are obviously fakeable. Children will listen to JFK's "We shall not go to the moon" speech, proof that the moon landings are a liberal conspiracy and all that grainy footage is just CGI with a noise filter.
This idea hit me harder than I expected -- I am reminded of the scene in Interstellar, where the main character's daughter's teacher asserts that we never went to the moon. I don't recall whether she genuinely didn't believe it, or whether she felt it was better to lie to the kids to keep them motivated in the present, but apparently we are getting much closer to having gatekeepers of knowledge be able to actively su…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Awesome... Not sure if the voice thing can be done in realtime yet, but you're right... the combination of these two would be awesome
Holy shit this is crazy!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Holy shit this is crazy!
Yeah vote me down coward. Because I used a "evil" forbidden word. I even used in a positive context to show how amazed I am about this facial manipulation (much much more then about the voice thing) Flag me ban me I do not fucking care. I can make another account.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Holy shit this is crazy!
Yeah vote me down coward. Because I used a "evil" forbidden word. I even used in a positive context to show how amazed I am about this facial manipulation (much much more then about the voice thing) Flag me ban me I do not fucking care. I can make another account.
I suggest you rethink your assessment of what is happening here.
Combined with Face2Face[1] live video impersonation, it is truly time to be very careful verifying videos or even live streams. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohmajJTcpNk
Without a doubt, our concept of personal identity will be completely unreliable within a few generations. Forget about privacy--we will soon have literally no way to verify who we're talking to.
Funny thing is, this is approximately where CIA was with similar technology in closer to 2000. They did some demos for politicians about how they can given anyone's fake their messages. That stuff is golden for propaganda means, and for confusing stuff like military chains of command. Today the CIA probably has worked out all the robotic artifacts already, and their output is really indistinguishable.
> Funny thing is, this is approximately where CIA was with similar technology in closer to 2000 Source?
I do not think the technology involved artificially generated voice though, but simply morphing someone's voice into sounding as the target voice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow. TIL x 2! Now I understand why I liked adding a bit of reverb when listening to old MOD/IT/S3M audio files - it covered up the "digitalness" of the song structure a bit. Thanks for the live vocals tidbit too, that's definitely something to file away. I wonder how far you could push that in a presentational context (ie, when giving speeches), or whether "who left the speakers in 'dramatic cathedral' mode" would ha…
In my (admittedly limited) experience mixing for both recording and live settings, I can say that the "sounds great" comes a long way before the "dramatic cathedral mode". If you can listen to it and hear reverb (unless you're going for that effect) you're doing it wrong. What you want is a bit of fullness, slightly softer edges at the end of words/sentences. It's similar to the difference between 24fps cinema and 60…
> If you can listen to it and hear reverb (unless you're going for that effect) you're doing it wrong.
I was thinking precisely that; I figured it'd need to be subtle and just-above-subliminal to have the most effect.
Completely agree about the 24fps-vs-60fps thing. I think this is a combination of both the fact that the lower framerate is less visual stimulation, and that I'm used to both the decreased visual stress and the overall more jittery aesthetic of 24fps.
Regarding >24fps, I think how it's used is critical.
I remember noticing https://imgur.com/gallery/2j98Y4e/comment/994755017/1 (yes, a random imgur gif - discovering that imgur doesn't have an FPS limit was nice though). I think this particular example pushes the aesthetics ever so slightly, but still looks pretty good.
I don't know where I found it but I remember watching a 48fps example clip of The Hobbit some time back. That looked really nice; I completely agree 48fps is a great target that still retains the almost-imperceptible jitter associated with 24fps playback.
To me the "nope"/sad end of the spectrum is motion smoothing. I happened to notice a TV running some or other animated movie with motion smoothing on while in an electronics store a few months ago... eughhh. It made an already artificial-enough video (I think it was Monsters Inc University) look eye-numbingly fake (particularly because the algorithm couldn't make its mind up about how much to smooth the video as it played, so some of it was jittery and some of it was butter-smooth). I honestly hope the idea doesn't catch on; it'll ruin kids and doom us to having to put up with utterly unrealistic games.
But I can see that's the direction we're headed in: 144Hz LCD panels are already a thing, and VR has a ton of backing behind it, so it makes a lot of sense that VR will go >200Hz over (if not within) the next 5 or so years.
The utterly annoying thing is that raising the framerates this high almost completely removes the render latency margins devs can currently play with. Rock-steady 60fps (with few drops below ~40fps) is hard enough but manageable on reasonable settings in most games nowadays (I think?), but when everyone seriously starts pining for 144fps+ at 4K, it's going to get a lot harder to keep the framerate consistent - now that we've hit ~4GHz, Moore's law won't allow breathing room for architectural overhead as has been the case for the past ~decade, and with current system designs (looking holistically at CPU, memory, GPU, system bus, game engine) we're already pushing everything pretty hard to get what we have.
So that problem will need to be solved before 144fps+ becomes a reality. A friend who has a 144Hz LCD says that going back to 60Hz just for desktop usage is really hard because the mouse is more responsive and everything just "feels" faster and more fluid. I'm not quite sure whether the games he plays keep up with 144fps though :P
On a separate note, I've never been able to make the current crop of 3D games "work" for my brain - everyone's pushing for more realism, more fluidity, etc etc, and it just drives things further and further into the uncanny valley for me, because realtime-rendered graphics still look terribly fake. Give me something glitchy and unrealistic in some way any day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, they are. Very surprised. This is so good I'm wondering whether this is actually a massive (massive) sound bank. I think it might be a sound bank. A random radio receiver site I found that doesn't require Flash, tuned to NOAA for Akron OH: http://tunein.com/radio/NOAA-Weather-Radio-1624-s88289/ The list I got the above link from (^F "noaa"): http://tunein.com/radio/Weather-c100001531/ I suspect the warbling I'm…
The one I listen to will occasionally mispronounce something in a way that a human never would, or say the name of a punctuation mark.