4 ms·

Is it just me who thinks the title is sensationalised? I can barely see any difference between the two, and the one made by the YouTube builds on top of the ori

by mmkos 5y ago

Is it just me who thinks the title is sensationalised? I can barely see any difference between the two, and the one made by the YouTube builds on top of the original one.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
I agree with that, and, while I can't put my finger on why, the new deepfake actually seems a little less real to me.
nocturnial 5y ago
It's not just you. I can't tell the difference either. Maybe it's just something someone has to explain to us what to look for. It could be a curse to know why some people think the deepfake is better. I once talked to a graphics artist about why they thought some effect looked bad because I didn't see it. They explained it in detail. Now I can't unsee what they were talking about and can easily spot that mistake. I don't know. Maybe it's better not knowing and enjoying the results or knowing and each time you see it thinking: "Hey, they made that mistake"
aazaa 5y ago
If you hid the cation, there's no way I could tell, either.
yourenotsmart 5y ago
Building "on top of the original one" is not an asset in the deepfake process, it's a hindrance, because then the deepfake inherits the unnatural 3D facial animation, which is most of the reason why traditional VFX 3D facial replacement works so poorly.
- jcims 5y ago
  100% this is why the example looks so bad. Here's another example from the same channel with a live actor (Robert Pattison as Batman): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmuYz0aZGgU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmuYz0aZGgU A careful examination will find all sorts of artifacts but an unprimed general populace wouldn't have any clue.
dang 5y ago
Ok we've replaced that with a more neutral description from the article body. Thanks!
knuthsat 5y ago
The deep fake one looks very weird to me. The mouth is sometimes not closed and there is minimal movement on the upper lip on words that would need more.
MajorBee 5y ago
I think the key difference is how the eyes are “reanimated” in the deepfakes. Rendering realistic eyes (with that trademark “spark of life”) has always been a challenge in real life emulating CGI, but now these new clips kind of capture the spark in the actors eyes much better. Luke Skywalker's eyes in the original clip kind of look dead plastic, the kind you’d find in real-time gameplay (not to mention this nose also looks like the product of bad rhinoplasty). The deepfake does this much better, in my opinion. Elsewhere in this thread, someone posted a similar comparison clip about The Irishman and the difference is even more pronounced there. De Niro’s eyes actually look the age they’re supposed to be in that scene. The original scene had two key problems, in my option; one, they decided not to touch the eye and focused on smoothening the skin (I assume this is because of the technical limitations of doing the deaging in painstaking CGI); two, and this is a little more of a mystery, is that they thought they could get away with using De Niro’s current 80 year old voice on a character that is supposed to be 35 (ages are ballpark numbers). The raspy voice of an old man is just not something you expect out of a supposedly much younger and healthier man. They should have just gotten a voice actor who could do a convincing impression of De Niro in the 70s and dubbbed him in.
- Multicomp 5y ago
  > (with that trademark “spark of life”) h This was the big winner for me. The deepfake had "Tarkin" and "Leia" on screen. The originals had 3D GCI (very good CGI, but CGI) with dead eyes. To further my anecdoe, I totally missed Leia's sequence the first watch through because I was watching the content and zoned out, forgetting to evaluate her face for deepfake pixels because it looked real enough for me to suspend disbelief. I have never been able to look at Leia's face in the original Rogue One scene without forcing myself to say "they did their best, they'll redo it someday for the 8K release, until then grin and bear the dead eyes".
- yourenotsmart 5y ago
  > They should have just gotten a voice actor who could do a convincing impression of De Niro in the 70s and dubbbed him in. The director's focus was on the most genuine De Niro expression, not on the most impressive young De Niro impression. Scorsese doesn't make tech demos, he makes stories with characters, and he respects his actors a great deal. What could've been done here is use another AI technology, deepfake for voice, basically, train it on young De Niro's voice, and then reproduce De Niro's own lines with his younger voice, using the original lines as input (not just text). No voice actor could match a performance THAT closely as AI can these days.
bluebubble56 5y ago
Not just you - I can't really see the difference either, both look pretty uncanny to me, tbh.

by mmkos 5y ago

Is it just me who thinks the title is sensationalised? I can barely see any difference between the two, and the one made by the YouTube builds on top of the original one.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

I agree with that, and, while I can't put my finger on why, the new deepfake actually seems a little less real to me.

nocturnial 5y ago

It's not just you. I can't tell the difference either. Maybe it's just something someone has to explain to us what to look for. It could be a curse to know why some people think the deepfake is better. I once talked to a graphics artist about why they thought some effect looked bad because I didn't see it. They explained it in detail. Now I can't unsee what they were talking about and can easily spot that mistake. I don't know. Maybe it's better not knowing and enjoying the results or knowing and each time you see it thinking: "Hey, they made that mistake"

aazaa 5y ago

If you hid the cation, there's no way I could tell, either.

yourenotsmart 5y ago

Building "on top of the original one" is not an asset in the deepfake process, it's a hindrance, because then the deepfake inherits the unnatural 3D facial animation, which is most of the reason why traditional VFX 3D facial replacement works so poorly.

jcims 5y ago
100% this is why the example looks so bad. Here's another example from the same channel with a live actor (Robert Pattison as Batman): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmuYz0aZGgU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmuYz0aZGgU A careful examination will find all sorts of artifacts but an unprimed general populace wouldn't have any clue.

dang 5y ago

Ok we've replaced that with a more neutral description from the article body. Thanks!

knuthsat 5y ago

The deep fake one looks very weird to me. The mouth is sometimes not closed and there is minimal movement on the upper lip on words that would need more.

MajorBee 5y ago

I think the key difference is how the eyes are “reanimated” in the deepfakes. Rendering realistic eyes (with that trademark “spark of life”) has always been a challenge in real life emulating CGI, but now these new clips kind of capture the spark in the actors eyes much better. Luke Skywalker's eyes in the original clip kind of look dead plastic, the kind you’d find in real-time gameplay (not to mention this nose also looks like the product of bad rhinoplasty). The deepfake does this much better, in my opinion. Elsewhere in this thread, someone posted a similar comparison clip about The Irishman and the difference is even more pronounced there. De Niro’s eyes actually look the age they’re supposed to be in that scene. The original scene had two key problems, in my option; one, they decided not to touch the eye and focused on smoothening the skin (I assume this is because of the technical limitations of doing the deaging in painstaking CGI); two, and this is a little more of a mystery, is that they thought they could get away with using De Niro’s current 80 year old voice on a character that is supposed to be 35 (ages are ballpark numbers). The raspy voice of an old man is just not something you expect out of a supposedly much younger and healthier man. They should have just gotten a voice actor who could do a convincing impression of De Niro in the 70s and dubbbed him in.

Multicomp 5y ago
> (with that trademark “spark of life”) h This was the big winner for me. The deepfake had "Tarkin" and "Leia" on screen. The originals had 3D GCI (very good CGI, but CGI) with dead eyes. To further my anecdoe, I totally missed Leia's sequence the first watch through because I was watching the content and zoned out, forgetting to evaluate her face for deepfake pixels because it looked real enough for me to suspend disbelief. I have never been able to look at Leia's face in the original Rogue One scene without forcing myself to say "they did their best, they'll redo it someday for the 8K release, until then grin and bear the dead eyes".
yourenotsmart 5y ago
> They should have just gotten a voice actor who could do a convincing impression of De Niro in the 70s and dubbbed him in. The director's focus was on the most genuine De Niro expression, not on the most impressive young De Niro impression. Scorsese doesn't make tech demos, he makes stories with characters, and he respects his actors a great deal. What could've been done here is use another AI technology, deepfake for voice, basically, train it on young De Niro's voice, and then reproduce De Niro's own lines with his younger voice, using the original lines as input (not just text). No voice actor could match a performance THAT closely as AI can these days.

bluebubble56 5y ago

Not just you - I can't really see the difference either, both look pretty uncanny to me, tbh.