31–40 of 176 posts
I loved watching the movements in the "Detected Pose" corner. I felt like I could see the forms of the dance more clearly. I wonder if ML could learn aesthetically pleasing dance forms, then perhaps we could get some generative choreography!
I could see this being used in the same way that auto-tune type effects are added to singers voices. The editing of music videos could include a tool like this to make sure all of the dancers behind the main one are moving just right. And just like auto-tuned voices, it will come off as janky and fake.
Practically all singers use "pitch correction", which is essentially "autotune that's not done for artistic effect". If done properly, it's not really janky or fake sounding at all.
It can't really help with a live performance and a for a good singer, recording multiple takes is going to be faster/more economical, punching in/out is so easy and with modern digital DAW's like ProTools (which does this by default) it keeps all your takes for you anyway - no need to waste another track on your 24 track tape or tape over the previous one.
Here's another viewpoint:
https://www.quora.com/Do-all-most-singers-use-pitch-correcti...
Fantastic vocal performances were captured all throughout the last century without the parachute of pitch correction/autotune. I'd rather listen to an imperfect take with flaws than to a machine assisted correction any day. Each to their own I guess.
So this is a cool demo --and it has applications in cinema, MVs, etc. But, this is being presented as something which could allow Jane Q User to portray herself as an accomplished dancer --just transfer a style onto herself. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I think if we take this idea and walk with it, it has the potential to trivialize actual accomplishment. Maybe I'm overthinking it.
I think that's all it's intended to be right? A cool demo. And it looks pretty amazing for what it is really. We're not going to see The Running Man style/quality fake videos any time soon, and the media kinda runs with this an exaggerates; making people wonder if camera footage may one day no longer be considered evidence. We're far from that. At the most, the quality of the transfers here is about the same as what…
It looks impressive, I just don't understand why computer games don't use these techniques to feature realistic human bodies/faces.
You appear to be shadowbanned. Most of your (reasonable-looking) comments are showing up as dead to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that's all it's intended to be right? A cool demo. And it looks pretty amazing for what it is really. We're not going to see The Running Man style/quality fake videos any time soon, and the media kinda runs with this an exaggerates; making people wonder if camera footage may one day no longer be considered evidence. We're far from that. At the most, the quality of the transfers here is about the same as what…
Are we really that far?
I could see this being used in the same way that auto-tune type effects are added to singers voices. The editing of music videos could include a tool like this to make sure all of the dancers behind the main one are moving just right. And just like auto-tuned voices, it will come off as janky and fake.
The autotune you refer to as "janky and fake" is when autotune is used with intention to create that sound as an artistic syle. Autotune is used across most pop (and other) music, but in such a way that that you never realise it is there. It is similar to special effects. People complain about how bad and fake they look, but this is only for the effects that are bad enough that they are noticible. People don't realis…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Practically all singers use "pitch correction", which is essentially "autotune that's not done for artistic effect". If done properly, it's not really janky or fake sounding at all.
Maybe for recorded mainstream pop music that is true, but we can tell because the performance then sounds bowdlerised and dull. It can't really help with a live performance and a for a good singer, recording multiple takes is going to be faster/more economical, punching in/out is so easy and with modern digital DAW's like ProTools (which does this by default) it keeps all your takes for you anyway - no need to waste…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Practically all singers use "pitch correction", which is essentially "autotune that's not done for artistic effect". If done properly, it's not really janky or fake sounding at all.
Maybe for recorded mainstream pop music that is true, but we can tell because the performance then sounds bowdlerised and dull. It can't really help with a live performance and a for a good singer, recording multiple takes is going to be faster/more economical, punching in/out is so easy and with modern digital DAW's like ProTools (which does this by default) it keeps all your takes for you anyway - no need to waste…
Known Knowns - done for the clear effect, which is audible by everyone (as popularised, but not invented by Cher, T-Pain, etc).
Known Unknowns - ones where most people wouldn't notice, but if you've listened to autotune a lot you'd swear it's been done (sustained notes with vibrato added seem to be clear contenders here to me, such as one in 'Angels' by Robbie Williams
Unknown Unknowns - There are lots of recordings I've worked on for people (mixing, mostly) where the vocal sounds perfect, and it's actually been autotuned/processed. Subtly, but still processed. I only know this because the person who's done it has confirmed it. In the context of a mix there's little evidence, if any at all. And if you listen to backing vocals of the last decade versus BVs from say 30 years ago, you really hear the difference - not because modern ones necessarily sound like they've been worked on, but because the old ones sound just a little bit out of tune in comparison.
I've done work on singers' recordings where I've fixed the pitch and they haven't even noticed it on their own voice, in isolation (which really is the sound everyone knows best). If done well (and appropriately), it doesn't turn it into awful processed rubbish, it can tweak an otherwise brilliant performance and make it near-perfect. I say this as a recording engineer who loves the sound of a band playing together, and would always sacrifice separation / absolute recording quality for the communication and feel that you get with a live band playing together how they normally do - I wouldn't sacrifice personality for pitch, but I think you can improve on nearly everyone's performance in some places.
Having said that, the flip side of this is that people think 'they can fix that in the mix' when they've not given a great performance... and that's never the case!