[dead]
VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution
111–120 of 243 posts
Re: VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution
#112Video quality seems really good, but limitations are quite restrictive "Our model encounters challenges when processing extremely long videos (e.g. 200 frames or more)". I'd say most videos in practice are longer than 200 frames, so lot more research is still needed.
Break into chunks that overlap by, say, a second, upscale separately and then blend to reduce sudden transitions in the generated details to gradual morphing.
The details changing every ten seconds or so is actually a good thing; the viewer is reminded that what they are seeing is not real, yet still enjoying a high resolution video full of high frequency content that their eyes crave.
Re: VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution
#113I am personally much more interested in frame rate upscalers. A proper 60Hz just looks much better then anything. Also would really, really like to see a proper 60Hz animate upscale. Anything in that space just sucks. But when in the rare cases it works it really looks next level.
Frame-rate upscaling is fine for video, but for animation it's awful.
I think it's almost inherently so, because of the care that an artist takes in choosing keyframes, deforming the action, etc.
Re: VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
> is exactly what the AI safety field is attempting to address Is it though? I think it's pretty obvious to any neutral observer that this is not the case, at least judging based on recent examples (leading with the Gemini debacle).
Yes, avoiding creating societally-harmful content is what the Gemini "debacle" was attempting to do. It clearly had unintended effects (e.g: generating a black Thomas Jefferson), but when these became apparent, they apologized and tried to put up guard rails to keep those negative effects from happening.
> societally-harmful content
Who decides what is "societally-harmful content"? Isn't literally rewriting history "societally-harmful"? The black T.J. was a fun meme, but that's not what the alignment's "unintended effects" were limited to. I'd also say that if your LLM condemns right-wing mass murderers, but "it's complicated" with the left-wing mass murderers (I'm not going to list a dozen of other examples here, these things are documented and easy to find online if you care), there's something wrong with your LLM. Genocide is genocide.
Re: VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but if you mention that here, you’ll get accused of wokeism. More seriously, though, yes, the thing you’re describing is exactly what the AI safety field is attempting to address.
> is exactly what the AI safety field is attempting to address Is it though? I think it's pretty obvious to any neutral observer that this is not the case, at least judging based on recent examples (leading with the Gemini debacle).
Yeah, I don’t think there’s such thing as a “neutral observer” on this.
Re: VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution
#116It's impressive, but still looks kinda bad? I think the video of the camera operator on the ladder shows the artifacts the best. The main camera equipment is no longer grounded in reality, with the fiddly bits disconnected from the whole and moving around. The smaller camera is barely recognizable. The plant in the background looks blurry and weird, the mountains have extra detail. Finally, the lens flare shifts! Che…
>I think the 4x/8x expansion (16x/64x the pixels!) is pushing the tech too far. I bet it would look great at I believe this applies to every upscale model released in the past 8 years, yet undeterred by this scientists keep pushing on, sometimes even claiming 16x upscaling. Though this might be the first one that is pretty close to holding up at 4x in my opinion, which is not something I've seen often.
Re: VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
The average shot length in a modern movie is around 2.5 seconds (down from 12 seconds in 1930's). For animations it's around 15 seconds.
Huh, I thought this couldn't be true, but it is. The first time I noticed annoyingly fast cuts was World War Z, for me it was unwatchable with tons of shots around 1 second each.
So sad they didn’t keep to the idea of the book. Anyone who hasn’t read this book you should, it bares no resemblance to the movie aside from the name.
Re: VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution
#118Video quality seems really good, but limitations are quite restrictive "Our model encounters challenges when processing extremely long videos (e.g. 200 frames or more)". I'd say most videos in practice are longer than 200 frames, so lot more research is still needed.
The Wright Brothers' first powered flight lasted 12 seconds Source: https://www.nasa.gov/history/115-years-ago-wright-brothers-m... .
Our invention works best except for extremely long flight times of 13 seconds
Re: VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution
#119Video quality seems really good, but limitations are quite restrictive "Our model encounters challenges when processing extremely long videos (e.g. 200 frames or more)". I'd say most videos in practice are longer than 200 frames, so lot more research is still needed.
I think it encounters memory leaks and the usage of memory goes over the roof