It seems likely that our brains are doing something similar.
I remember being able to add a lot of detail to the monsters that I could barely make out amidst the clothes piled up on my bedroom floor.
VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution
181–190 of 243 posts
Re: VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution
#182What exactly does this do? They have examples with a divider in the middle that you can move around and one side says "input" and the other "output". However, no matter where I move the slider, both sides look identical to me. What should I be focusing on exactly to see a difference?
Re: VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution
#183Earlier 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.
I believe the relevant data point when considering applicability is the median shot length to give an idea of the length of the majority of shots, not the average.
It reminds me of the story about the Air Force making cockpits to fit the elusive average pilot, which in reality fit none of their pilots...
Re: VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution
#184What exactly does this do? They have examples with a divider in the middle that you can move around and one side says "input" and the other "output". However, no matter where I move the slider, both sides look identical to me. What should I be focusing on exactly to see a difference?
It has clearly just loaded incorrectly for you (or you need glasses desperately). The effect is significant.
Re: VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution
#185Earlier 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.
The first time I noticed how bad the fast cuts are we see in most movies was when I watched Children of Men by Alfonso Cuarón, who often uses very long takes for action scenes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_Men#Single-shot_se...
Re: VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution
#186What exactly does this do? They have examples with a divider in the middle that you can move around and one side says "input" and the other "output". However, no matter where I move the slider, both sides look identical to me. What should I be focusing on exactly to see a difference?
It has clearly just loaded incorrectly for you (or you need glasses desperately). The effect is significant.
Tried again, same result. This is what I get: https://imgur.com/CvqjIhy
(And I already have glasses, thank you).
Re: VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution
#187Would be neat to see this on much older videos (maybe WW2 era) to see how it improves details.
That is essentially what Peter Jackson did for the 2018 film They Shall Not Grow Old: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7905466/ They used digital upsampling techniques and colorization to make World War One footage into high resolution. Jackson would later do the same process for the 2021 series Get Back, upscaling 16mm footage of the Beatles taken in 1969: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9735318/ Both of these are really i…
[deleted]
Re: VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once AI tech gets fully integrated, the movie industry will cease to exist.
Hollywood has incredible financial and political power. And even if fully AI generated movies reach the same quality (both visually and story wise) as current ones, there’s a lot of value in the shared experience of watching the same movies as other people, that a complete collapse of the industry seems highly unlikely to me.
What quality? Current industry movies are, for lack of better term, inbred. Sound too loud, washed out rigid color scheme, keeping attention of the audience captive at all costs. They already exclude large, more sensitive, part of population that hates all of this despite the shared experience. And AI is exceptionally good at further inbreeding to the extreme.
While of course it isn't impossible for any industry to reinvent itself, movie as an art form won't die....having doubts about where it's going.
Re: VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution
#189This is great for entertainment (and hopefully the main application), but we need clear marking of such type of videos before hallucinated details are used as "proofs" of any kind by people not knowing how this works. Software video/photography on smartphones is already using proprietary algorithms that "infer" non-existent or fake details, and this would be at an even bigger scale.
Yeah I was curious about that baby. Do they know how it looks, or just guess? What about the next video with the animals. The leaves on the bush, are they matching a tree found there, or just generic leaves perhaps from the wrong side of the world?
I guess it will be like people pointing out bird sounds in movies, that those birds don't exist in that country.
Re: VideoGigaGAN: Towards detail-rich video super-resolution
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I didn’t rate the film really, but loved the book. Apparently it is based on / taking style inspiration from real first hand accounts of ww2.
It’s style is based on the oral history approach used by Studs Terkel to document aspects of WW2 - building a big picture by interleaving lots of individual interviews.