4 ms·
I don't understand that example. Either face recognition is off in my brain, or both top and bottom look like Carrie Fisher. Am I missing something?
by linkmotif 9y ago
I don't understand that example. Either face recognition is off in my brain, or both top and bottom look like Carrie Fisher. Am I missing something?
- jobigoud 9y agoNone of them are Carrie Fisher. Top one is CGI and is from the movie, bottom one is another actress + deepfake. It's supposed to show that the deepfake one is just as good as the Hollywood one.
- linkmotif 9y agoOk but are you saying either one is nick cage?
- michaelbuckbee 9y agoNeither, it was a different experiment with the same tech.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- homero 9y agoHow'd he get another video without cgi
- stochastic_monk 9y agoSo you're saying that is from one of the "new new" star wars movies, after Carrie Fisher's death? [I live under a rock, sorry.]
- dharmab 9y agoIt's from Rogue One, which is set just before the original and thus needed a double for young Carrie Fisher.
- tomp 9y ago> bottom one is another actress + deepfake You sure? Didn't they just run the deepfake algorithm (trained on photos of young Carrie) on the CGI scene? So it went from "Hollywood CGI actress" to "allegedly improved deepfake actress"...
- SamBam 9y agoBottom one is CGI + deepfake, as far as I understand. I don't see how it could be otherwise. They basically just ran the algorithm on the existing movie scene. The result is a fairly plausible Carrie Fisher, made more plausible (to my eyes) with deepfake. Obviously it helps that someone already made the original fake Carrie Fisher, because deepfake had to do less work, but it highlights the fact that deepfake could be useful in the industry: Make a plausible CGI version, and then improve it with deepfake.
- StavrosK 9y agoTo me, neither looks like Carrie Fisher. The bottom one's mouth looks oddly fake, though.