Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Veo 3 and Imagen 4, and a new tool for filmmaking called Flow

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 570 posts

Re: Veo 3 and Imagen 4, and a new tool for filmmaking called Flow

#421

Post by TheAceOfHearts »

I tried Whisk to generate images which I then animated, thinking it would be using the newest model. But then I noticed that Veo 3 and Imagegen 4 are only usable through Flow, and only if you're on the most expensive plan. AI Studio also only shows Imagegen3 and Veo2 as media generating options.

My main issue when trying out Veo 2 was that it felt very static. A couple elements or details were animated, but it felt unnatural that most elements remained static. The Veo 3 demos lack any examples where various elements are animated into doing different things in the same shot, which suggests that it's not possible. Some of the example videos that I've seen are neat, but a tech demo isn't a product.

It would be really cool if Google contracted a bunch of artists / directors to spend like a week trying to make a couple videos or short movies to really showcase the product's functionality. I imagine that they don't do that because it would make the seams and limitations of their models a bit too apparent.

Finally, I have to complaint that Flow claims to not be available in Puerto Rico: "Flow is not available in your country yet." Despite being a US territory and being US citizens.

Re: Veo 3 and Imagen 4, and a new tool for filmmaking called Flow

#423

Post by RobertBobert »

gpt5 wrote: post #305
Workaccount2 wrote: post #53

I'm sure by this point, and if not, pretty soon, everyone will have seen a clip of AI generated video and not thought twice about it. Its something that is only obvious when it is obvious. And the more obvious examples you see, the more non-obvious examples slip by.

I saw a video today [1]. Millions of views, ten thousand comments, not a single commenter mentioned that it's AI generated. If you look at the shadows in the background, you can see how they appear and disappear, how things float in the air, and have all the AI artifacts. The video is also slowed down (lower FPS) to overcome the length limit of AI video generator. But the point is not how we can spot these, because i…

[dead]

Re: Veo 3 and Imagen 4, and a new tool for filmmaking called Flow

#424

Post by ZoomZoomZoom »

jackphilson wrote: post #249
ZoomZoomZoom wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is effort a requirement? That's how human brains work. People have an intrinsic need to sort, build hierarchies and prioritize. Effort spent is one of viable heuristics for these processes. > Why should being an artist be a viable job? Art itself has great value, if it weren't, museums, theaters and live shows wouldn't exist. > Would you be against technology that makes medical doctors obsolete? The analogy doe…

I think the result of an art piece is "wow that looks pretty cool / makes me feel this certain way". Human properties aren't required there. Sure, some art rests on there being human properties, but then AI wouldn't be able to replace it by definition. You can argue that AI lowers the discoverability of art that falls in the latter category, but I'd say that it's a solvable problem that can be fixed with better recom…

> I think the result of an art piece is "wow that looks pretty cool / makes me feel this certain way".

This is an expansive definition and thus not useful, because it would include:

1. Natural phenomena (sand on a vibrating plate is pretty cool).

2. Folk crafts (this hand-woven rug sure ties the room together!).

3. Advertisement.

4. Industrial design (this soap dispenser looks like a droid head, awesome!).

5. Drug induced experiences.

6. Art forgery and plagiarism.

Nothing in the list is really art. Rough definition of art is an intentional process (or the results thereof) of self-expression, and/or interpretation/modeling of reality performed with symbolic means. This implies intentionality and a conscience, which current "AI" doesn't have.

> AI lowers the discoverability of art that falls in the latter category, but I'd say that it's a solvable problem that can be fixed with better recommendation algorithms.

Theoretically it is. However, it won't be ever solved and implemented widely due to the lack of incentives and the fact that just replacing it all with "AI" is much more profitable and exploitable.

Re: Veo 3 and Imagen 4, and a new tool for filmmaking called Flow

#425

Post by Cthulhu_ »

bamboozled wrote: post #328
brunoborges wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Growing fast" is questionable these days. There is an ever growing percentage of new AI-generated videos among every set of daily uploads. How long until more than half of uploads in a day are AI-generated?

In the future, a new intelligent species will roam the earth, they will ask, "why did their civilization fall?" The answer? These homo-sapiens strip mined the Earth and exacerbated climate change to generate enough power to make amusing cat videos...

At this point heat death through cat videos sound more appealing than nuclear apocalypse, lol

Re: Veo 3 and Imagen 4, and a new tool for filmmaking called Flow

#426

Post by Cthulhu_ »

julianpye wrote: post #126

An indie film with poor production values, even bad acting can grip you, make you laugh and make you cry. The consistency of quality is key - even if it is poor. The directing is the red thread throughout the scenes. Anything with different quality levels interrupts your flow and breaks your experience. The problem with AI video content at this stage is that the clips are very good 'in themselves', just as LLM result…

Hollywood and other "real" films is like the 1% of video content though, as is youtube which has a top 1% of good content and a lot of shit.

AI tools used for any content will / are being used to add to the pile of shit.

Re: Veo 3 and Imagen 4, and a new tool for filmmaking called Flow

#427

Post by ofrzeta »

Uehreka wrote: post #335
ipnon wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is indicative of marginal improvements instead of new breakthroughs. iPhone 1 was a paradigm shift. iPhone 10 was essentially iPhone 9 with tweaks. As an AI optimist I would be disappointed to find we are already seeing diminishing returns on R&D.

Not only did the iPhone 9 never exist, the iPhone X was a huge paradigm shift in design and capabilities. That was the phone that introduced edge-to-edge OLED screens to the iPhone line, as well as the IR camera that enabled FaceID and the first generation of Portrait mode. I know it well since it also introduced the ability for developers to build facial motion capture apps that would’ve previously required expensiv…

Arguably OLED screens and IR cameras are no paradigm shift. At least nothing comparable to "no smartphone" to iPhone 1.

Re: Veo 3 and Imagen 4, and a new tool for filmmaking called Flow

#428

Post by hooverd »

Clamchop wrote: post #282
alpaca128 wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gatekeeping means restricting power or opportunities. Is it gatekeeping when a skill can be learned for free, and on top is also optional? Is it also gatekeeping to forbid students from using ChatGPT for homework because it would force them to go through the hardship of earning an education? I have seen what 99% of people are doing with this "clear and present value". Turns out when you give people a button to print…

I stated exactly what the enumeration of arguments that I know of are and which one is gatekeeping. (It's still the first one, devaluing or dismissing work out of hand if AI was involved, regardless of other merit.)

Good, it's a socially corrosive technology. Much like you might dismiss a quality product made with child labor.

Re: Veo 3 and Imagen 4, and a new tool for filmmaking called Flow

#429

Post by hooverd »

ahtihn wrote: post #185
duped wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why can't people be happy that more individuals would be soon able to create freely in a more accessible way? The gates are wide open for those that want to put in effort to learn. What AI is doing to creative professionals is putting them out of a job by people who are cheap and lazy. Art is not inaccessible. It's never been cheaper and easier to make art than today even without AI. > Personally I can't wait to se…

> The gates are wide open for those that want to put in effort to learn. Why is effort a requirement? Why should being an artist be a viable job? Would you be against technology that makes medical doctors obsolete?

Why do you want to destroy social mobility? Do you think you'll be on the safe side of the line?

Re: Veo 3 and Imagen 4, and a new tool for filmmaking called Flow

#430

Post by vessenes »

jplusequalt wrote: post #154
lxe wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been doing AI art since 2022 and I'm still both disappointed and not quite surprised that this still is a pervasive view of what it takes to create anything high quality using AI. If you take any high quality AI content and ask their creator what their workflow is, you'll quickly discover that the complexity and nuance required to actually create something high-quality and something that actually "fulfills your…

>If you take any high quality AI content and ask their creator what their workflow is, you'll quickly discover that the complexity and nuance required to actually create something high-quality and something that actually "fulfills your vision" is incredibly complex This comes off as so tone deaf seeing your AI artwork is only possible due to the millions of hours spent by real people who created the art used to train…

I also feel unhappy when painters get formal art training which summarizes millions of human hours of work. Even worse they then go to Florence and waste their time stealing art by painting..exact copies of other people’s paintings!

I feel a real artist would make their own tools: brushes, paint, canvas, and above all be truly creative by not unfairly using anything that’s gone before. If they did they aren’t creative; they’re a thief.

Post reply on HN