Earlier quoted context omitted.
Direct image link: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GBaikRhX0AEcjuy?format=jpg
What the actual FUCK is that???
I think they cheaped out and re-filmed a bunch of action figures. :-)
AI made these movies sharper – critics say it ruined them
191–200 of 270 posts
Re: AI made these movies sharper – critics say it ruined them
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Hard to believe Cameron thought this looked better I doubt he even looked, he's too busy with his blue monkeys these days. Most likely someone duped him on taking on the AI upscaling and he signed off on it without looking and the movie studio just shipped the output without QA to save time and money, because they're going to streaming not in cinemas.
He’s insanely detail oriented. I’m almost certain he either approved everything, or, he no longer has right of refusal.
I also found the studio audio description track for Aliens very ordinary. It's a film that says "aliens" on the tin, but there are no verbal descriptions for them other than "giant", "towering" and "beast". Not really doing Giger, Winston or Cameron justice there. I'd be surprised if he heard it, or read the script prior to recording.
Re: AI made these movies sharper – critics say it ruined them
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get how a film buff might care, and agree the original version should be available, but isn’t there space for people who just want to see the story but experience it with modern levels of image quality? The technical details of technology at some point of time is definitely interesting to some people, but as say the writer or others associated with the creative and less technical aspects of a film I may find the te…
One perspective: 'Film buff' responses are common to every major change in technology and society. People highly invested in the old way have an understandably conservative reaction - wait! slow down! what happens to all these old values?! They look for and find flaws, confirming their fears (a confirmation bias ) and supporting their argument to slow down. They are right that some values will be lost; hopefully much…
Feels like people have had over 20 years to move on from the narcissistic butchery Lucas did to Star Wars IV, but it seems we're still at Step 2.
Maybe ... just maybe ... Step 2 is where it stops sometimes because it was a bad idea and did make the films worse.
Re: AI made these movies sharper – critics say it ruined them
#194Maybe I'm old, but do we really watch the movies because they are sharper, have vivid colors, etc or because of the story ? On the other hand, I would probably pay for an AI that will 'undark' that new super artistic movies, because some of them, have worse lighting than the Blair With Project...
a lot of the people who purchase a lot of films buy them because they are sharper, have more vivid colors.
Who knows if those whales are even watching most of their own collection.
Re: AI made these movies sharper – critics say it ruined them
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
Turn up volume on center speaker.
I wonder what percentage of home movie watchers have a centre speaker that they can turn up the volume on? Or is the thinking more that if you don't have a centre speaker you can turn up the volume on, you're not really into movies and thus not part of our target audience?
I can't answer that. It's the solution that worked for me.
Re: AI made these movies sharper – critics say it ruined them
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the case of Aliens, James Cameron is explicitly saying he just went with Kodak film that was available at the time, which everyone was using. I will submit that directors are not generally the right people to call the shots here. A director can never watch his own movie the way the audience does. They always see an unfulfilled vision, a compromise being made here and there because of technology being limited, and…
Curious, how is Aliens a "goofy 80s film"? It contains very little of humour, all the cast and the director are taking it seriously. I'll buy Goonies as a goofy film, but Aliens? I remember someone glued to a wall and screaming in agony as a creature tears its way out of her chest. I remember the ratcheting tension of the motion-detectors getting more and more high pitched as nothing is happening but we're expecting…
[dead]
Re: AI made these movies sharper – critics say it ruined them
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
The upscaled versions also screwed up the camera focus blur by artificially removing it, and unnecessarily took out the film grain. Even leaving the grain and blur aside, the texture of the objects depicted is also getting seriously screwed up, with unrealistic looking smoothing and weird places of heightened contrast unrelated to the original scene. More generally, automatically second guessing the artistic choices…
> second guessing the artistic choices This is the original sin of this process. They are tampering with the artistic object, it's no longer what the artists intended. Some might say this is being pedantic, but the quality of the image has a huge impact on the feel of a movie. For some films, such as Blade Runner, the mood and feel created by the (dark, obscured) look of the film is easily half of the impact. Changin…
[dead]
Re: AI made these movies sharper – critics say it ruined them
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
Glad you pointed that out, because literally all the “after” images look dreadful. But then im also of the opinion that most HDR content is too damn dark anyway.
> most HDR content is too damn dark anyway. It's not, though -- it's entirely the problem with players. Not just software players but also TV's. There are lots of TV shows now that are available in 1080p SDR and in 4K HDR. When you play them both on any player or TV, they should have the same brightness in "regular" scenes like two people talking in a room. They're meant to. HDR is only meant to make a handful of ele…
[deleted]
Re: AI made these movies sharper – critics say it ruined them
#199It used to be that (rational) people would be fairly in agreement that one cannot extract information which is not there. That's why we laugh at the "zoom -> 9 pixels -> enhance -> clear picture -> zoom ->.." trop in movies.. AI does not change this.. It adds stuff that's not there, sure, it adds stuff that might be there, or could have been there, but it literally cannot know, so it just paints in plausibility.. Whi…
Thats not true.
When you have moving film, you have 24fps from the same scene, a lens and a compression algorithm.
There is a higher chance for pixel a to be color y if over a span of x frames and compression artifact this pixel shows value z.
You will also have the chance to track details visible from frames/stills/pictures from seconds or even minutes ago if the actor just has the same cloth.
And you can estimate the face of the actor across the movie and create an inherant face.
Nonetheless, besides this type of upscaling, if an AI is trained to upscale based on probability of the real world and the movie is from the real world, it is still more than just random.
Btw. there have been plenty of movie makers making movies the way they did because thats the only way they were able to make it. Low light high end camera equipment is expensive.
And if you watch The Matrix without editing on a oled 60" and higher, it looks off because greenscreen details are more noticable than it has been before. Its aboslutly valid to revisit original material to adjust it to today (at least for me).
Re: AI made these movies sharper – critics say it ruined them
#200My biggest gripe with these AI film enhancements is that they are adding information that was never there. You're no longer watching the original film. You no longer have a sense of how contemporary film equipment worked, what its limitations were, how the director dealt with those limitations, etc.
Its definitly an interesting point you bring up with the contemporary film equipment.
Nonetheless, i do believe that most film makers are actually want to make a film not work around contemprary limitations.