121–130 of 243 posts
Is anyone else concerned at the societal effects of technology like this? In one of the examples they show a young girl. In the upscale example it's quite clearly hallucinating makeup and lipstick. I'm quite worried about tools like this perpetuating social norms even further.
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.
Video 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.
Is anyone else concerned at the societal effects of technology like this? In one of the examples they show a young girl. In the upscale example it's quite clearly hallucinating makeup and lipstick. I'm quite worried about tools like this perpetuating social norms even further.
I don't know, it's a mirror, right? It's up to us to change really. Besides, failures like the one you point out make subtle stereotypes and biases more conspicuous, which could be a good thing.
Earlier 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.
Is anyone else concerned at the societal effects of technology like this? In one of the examples they show a young girl. In the upscale example it's quite clearly hallucinating makeup and lipstick. I'm quite worried about tools like this perpetuating social norms even further.
I don't know, it's a mirror, right? It's up to us to change really. Besides, failures like the one you point out make subtle stereotypes and biases more conspicuous, which could be a good thing.
Their 128x128 to 1024x1024 upscales are very impressive, but I find the real artifacts and weirdness are created when AI tries to upscale an already relatively high definition image.
I find it goes haywire, adding ghosting, swirling, banded shadowing, etc as it whirlwinds into hallucinations from too much source data since the model is often trained to work with really small/compressed video into an "almost HD" video.
Earlier 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.
The textures of objects need to maintain consistency across much larger time frames, especially at 4k where you can see the pores on someone's face in a closeup.
Wonder how long until Hollywood CGI shops have these types of models running as part of their post-production pipeline. Big blockbusters often release with ridiculously broken CGI due to crunch (Black Panther's third act was notorious for looking like a retro video-game), adding some extra generative polish in those cases is a no-brainer.
You'd have to train it to go from a reduced resolution to the original resolution, then apply that to small parts of the screen at the original resolution to get an enhanced resolution, then stitch the parts together.
I 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.