51–60 of 152 posts
So it's really good, and we have reason to believe, never again, anything that happens in a video. Unless there's a super-product somewhere to authenticate footage?
Browser crashes while scrolling because of all the auto playing videos. Please use IntersectionObserver to pause the video when not in display.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the opposite. It allows more people to be creative. Similar to how the DAW allowed more people to become musicians. You can produce a hit song with just a laptop now. Now you can have people producing videos without needing a crew of people.
The potential for harm is so much greater with video than creating an mp3. You can stoke hate and fear so easily.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, during most blockbuster movies lately all I can think is: "All pixels, no plot."
Project Hail Mary was largely real sets and a puppet .
About the misunderstood puppet: A real Rocky puppet was indeed used on set (actually a few different puppets) and some of the puppet is sometimes seen on camera. But most of the puppet was digitally replaced with CGI or CGI-enhanced in most of the scenes. However, using a much more realistic puppet on set is indeed notable but not because the character wasn't CGI. The puppet is worth talking about because it directly enabled the final mostly-CGI character be really good CGI. It's good because shooting the physical puppet gave the VFX character animators an ideal reference that's "grounded" in the physical reality of the set, camera and lens. The subtle interplay of light, shadow, texture and specularity in the CGI are all grounded in reality. The puppet also let the actor interact with something closer to reality. It's a wonderful technique and should be celebrated instead of obfuscated to promote a "No CGI!" falsehood that trends well on social media.
Also, PHM did use real sets (like most movies) and they were able to avoid using green screen for some of the ship exteriors but those backgrounds were still digitally replaced with CGI rendered elements, they just didn't use green screen to pull the matte. But on social media, "No green screen" (true) was conflated into "No CGI" (false). Instead of green screen they used a black backdrop with careful lighting and some hand rotoscoping to extract the digital mattes. Doing it this way had the advantage of not needing to digitally remove green spill on reflective surfaces by hand and it saved money over doing a StageCraft virtual volume at that size. Done well, a green screen could have produced the exact same shot but it would have cost more and taken longer.
But influencers and media are unintentionally perpetuating "No CGI" myths instead of focusing on the actually interesting, more nuanced reality. Using more and better physically grounded references on-set IS a breakthrough that helps turn bad CGI into great CGI. Another example is Top Gun where "artfully misleading but technically true wording" in studio press releases grew into outright falsehoods online. Tom Cruise was truthful in saying that he was flown in a jet right alongside other REAL jets doing simulated dog-fighting. The lost nuance is that all the other jets Cruise flew with in those dog fight scenes were old Soviet trainer jets that look quite different and are much smaller than real MIGs. So the trainer jets were entirely replaced by CGI MIGs in post and are never seen in the final film. And we couldn't tell because the digitally removed jets provided ideal grounded reference for the CGI pixels that replaced them. And that's how we ended up with several famous YouTubers proclaiming "These are REAL jets, not CGI!" while showing 100% CGI jets. Same with Wicked and the CGI tulips. The fact that Wicked used thousands of specially grown tulips on-set (true) was confused into proclaiming "ALL these tulips are real, no CGI!" (false) while showing a scene where >90% of the tulips were CGI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The potential for harm is so much greater with video than creating an mp3. You can stoke hate and fear so easily.
The method in the madness is to generate so much on demand slop no one will accidentally find your hate and FUD content anyway.
At first usage I'm not impressed. I've probably spent a couple grand on Seedance 2 to date, and I can't find anything google omni flash does better than Seedance from running a handful of samples through the system. You can find some of the videos I've made in my HN bio link.
In my day job I program rigid body behaviour in real time amongst other simulations. I think rigid body contact is hard to learn as it is inherently discontinuous.. something you discover when trying to code a solver. As such I always use this prompt as a test: "A video of a jenga brick tower falling over as a brick is removed. The physics of each brick must be realistic." It gave me a video of where bricks suddenly…
> Prompt: Make it look like the weird shape of my hand hole super zooms and magnifies the ground it's looking at in sharper quality. There's got to be a reason this is phrased so insanely, right?
> Prompt: A skeuomorphism stop motion explainer about how the brain hippocampus works with a compelling voiceover. Don’t add seahorses. No voice cuts at the end. Don’t add text
Seahorses???