|
Why are these fuzzy photos of framed art?
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2024 21:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 21:38 |
|
|
monochromagic posted:It's book ads on Kindle and my phone is old That makes more sense than my initial reaction of "haunted AI art gallery".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2024 23:36
|
|
|
Deep Glove Bruno posted:wow! this poo poo sucks! It's impossible to deny how good that video looks compared to even a couple months ago. I'm reminded of digital photographs (and eventually green screen) replacing hand painted backdrops in film; this quote from one of the last remaining scenics seems appropriate: quote:In the early ’90s, Denering was working at Warner Bros. when a group of Japanese technicians came through with big cameras capable of simulating hand-painted backings. “I thought, oh man, here we go. We got a sample of what they printed. It was so blurry and horrible that we didn’t worry about it, but we knew it was coming.” This absolutely isn't good enough for scripted television, but small-to-mid budget local advertising? Within months.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2024 20:36
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:"Good enough" isn't the same as "Good." You can use horrible AI created images but they are going to look various degrees of crappy and off to anyone who is doing more than glancing at them. Like we're still not even at the point where hand-crafted CGI can be comfortably mistaken for reality in most situations, AI isn't going to do that better. That depends what you mean by CGI. A foreground human character in a fully-populated word? A crowd of people in the background? A gunshot? A CGI skyline? A vehicle? A composited out building? The first one is very difficult to seem real, but the others are barely perceptible now and commonplace. That work took decades. LLM/AI went from those Balenciaga videos (which were pretty decently post-processed) to that balloon one in a year.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2024 23:12
|
|
|
This poo poo was nineteen months ago: and now we're at "this full-motion video is over-fitting the training data" Take a look at the old ProcGen thread and tell me this isn't a dramatic increase in capability at a startling pace.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2024 23:42
|
|
|
I am not advocating for the goodness of AI, just remarking on its capabilities. I deeply hate it and it's poisoning the well for creative jobs and creativity in general.DontMockMySmock posted:And despite all that progress, that balloon-head video is poo poo. It could've been done better by one bored videographer with decent editing skills and the help of a cameraperson. And, I guess, access to a nursery with a cactus aisle. Don't be disingenuous. Even if you did it with 90% stock footage, that's still a few man-days of traditional vfx on top of a day or two of filming.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2024 00:57
|
|
|
Let me be more specific then. I don't think coherent prompt to videos longer than a few seconds are possible with current tools. But the current tools are also much more granular than "tighten up the graphics on scene 2" and don't require a full re-render each time like the basic consumer platforms. Yes, this video and OAI's others are probably totally cheesed and heavily cherry-picked examples because OpenAI's primary business venture is juicing their share price. It was almost definitely done for less than the cost of shooting it for real with a small camera team and in a fraction of the time, which is why I think marketing agencies and smaller production companies will start using it for real videos soon, much like how we're starting to see AI static images in the wild. When I say it's poisoning the well for creativity, I mean that this will be used to eliminate creative and technical jobs in the arts, and soon. My whole argument is that some people itt are underestimating the scope of these developments and how quickly they're happening. Deep Glove Bruno posted:then why do you sound like those guys jumping into the press as soon as their poo poo released, doing home alone hands saying "oh no! oh dread! we've done an oopsie, we've created an AI so powerful it will destroy all society and rule over us as a god! give me some more money so I can program some ethics in before it's too late! and more money because I swear any day now it'll replace all mental work!" it doesn't do poo poo even related to creativity. Most people don't understand what ML models actually do. We understand that it's just regurgitating its inputs, but most people, including the ones who hire creative professionals, either believe it's thinking or don't care that it's not. It'll coopt creative work because the actual technical artists who make film will get less experience on set. They're not going to jump right from Tron to Toy Story, except in these pr pieces. There's lots of room for AI generated videos like this to replace things like B-roll or far background shots or static art, like we saw in True Detective. I have friends at agencies who say their leadership desperately want to pivot to more AI and get rid of pesky humans and it's starting to affect freelancers. theflyingexecutive has a new favorite as of 03:45 on Mar 28, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2024 03:15
|
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:who do you think the market is, for generated video like what Sora is producing that gives you 60 seconds of non-determinative output based on a single prompt sentence? who is going to pay to have these created and how do you think they're going to be used in a way that replaces a guy with a camera and the talent to use it? a very high percentage of people on the planet have a pretty high quality camera in their phone but there's only a couple of Ridley Scotts and Martin Scoceses and Stanley Kubricks, why do you think this bullshit is somehow going to replace talent lol There are a lot of ads that have forgone studio cameras for iPhones and there's press content that used to be shot in studio being shot at home or in hotel rooms by phones (which started as a Covid thing but continues now) and aired on news and talk programs. I have no clue where you're getting the idea that I think this is anywhere near useful for 9-figure blockbusters. We're going to start to see it in ads first and then things like kids' cartoons or music videos and then as b-roll or establishing shots on TV shows. If you want to bring up those famous directors, they all started with basic jobs in film and photography that are already being eliminated by high quality phone cameras. The more you squeeze people out of these industries, the fewer talented artists will emerge.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2024 04:09
|
|
|
Phthisis posted:Yeah but is your argument actually based on anything besides looking at pictures? I worked in film for seven years and am in a big community of professional artists.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2024 04:10
|
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:yes that's what I said, there are high quality cameras in the hands of the majority of people on the planet and have been for many years now but only a few of them use them to make money, why do you think that is? why isn't everyone doing those basic jobs in film and photography despite having very good tools for it at their fingertips, why do those jobs still exist? Those jobs don't really exist anymore. News outlets don't hire photographers and videographers, they are happy to just use social media posts for free. If you were doing one of those jobs, you'd have a more senior coworker or editor actively critiquing your work and making you better while you got paid to do it. You can be a completely self-taught savant making beautiful works of art, but there are far fewer outlets now to show them and have them critiqued. Those jobs went away and art programs (and whole art colleges) went away with them. Sora isn't even out yet. I'm just pointing out how quickly the goalposts have shifted in just a couple years.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2024 05:30
|
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:this just isn't true at all Film sure, photography no.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2024 06:37
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Which is it? Getty royalty payments have dropped 98.5% in the last twenty years.. Even Getty is doing badly: they have 15x as many photos for licensing as they did in 2006, but their revenue has decreased by more than half. This is a healthy industry full of lots of opportunities. How about this study, where entertainment executive said they're already using AI. quote:The jobs most susceptible to consolidation, replacement, or elimination will be concentrated among entry-level positions. These have rarely been glamorous or high If you think it can't happen with live-action video, you are wrong. Even if AI is a total bust built on lies and there's an ideological revolution against it such that nobody ever uses it again, artists are going to lose their jobs for at least a couple years.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2024 10:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 21:38 |
|
|
Chewbecca posted:I get the AI is cheap/free or whatever to use - but do the producers not see that the output looks like poo poo? Do they see the mangled hands and bizarrely proportioned whatever's and just say that's it folks, we got 'em The art department (probably one person) sure as poo poo knows, but the producers are the dad from Elf. Once, I had a producer yell to the crew, "let's go, we're not winning any Emmys here". theflyingexecutive has a new favorite as of 09:25 on Apr 20, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2024 09:21
|
|