131–140 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.
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.
I don't think we're far away from models that are able to take video input of an almost finished movie and add the finishing touches.
Eg. make the lighting better, make the cgi blend in better, hide bits of set that ought to have been out of shot, etc.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At 24fps that's not even 10 seconds. Calling it extremely long is kinda defensive.
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.
Also, it's less likely that you'd want to upscale a modern movie, which is more likely to be higher resolution already, as opposed to an older movie which was recorded on older media or encoded in a lower-resolution format.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Yeah, the average may also be getting driven (e: down ) by the basketball scene in Catwoman
Earlier 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).
Yeah, I don’t think there’s such thing as a “neutral observer” on this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's offtopic, but this is very good advice. As near as I can tell, there aren't any real similarities between the book and the movie; they're two separate zombie stories with the same name, and honestly I would recommend them both for wildly different reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At 24fps that's not even 10 seconds. Calling it extremely long is kinda defensive.
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.