12 ms·

Absolutely, particularly if you see this as simply another tool in the belt, like how Jurassic Park's thirty year old special effects absolutely stand the test

Absolutely, particularly if you see this as simply another tool in the belt, like how Jurassic Park's thirty year old special effects absolutely stand the test of time because of them being a convincing mix of early CGI and puppetry. It's not hard to imagine that this kind of thing could end up doing a lot of the heavy lifting for things like background scenes in the future, opening up the kind of stuff we saw in The Mandalorian, Game of Thrones, and the LOTR film trilogy to increasingly lower and lower budget productions.

vsareto 4y ago
Most of the AI generated images are good enough to be first drafts or sketches, and with some editing, they can be coherent images. This makes AI generators a good tool. Not sure the same is true for video though. It feels like you'll need reliable still image creation before you can get to a video generator that's useful since editing video takes a bit more than a still image.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
The first Jurassic Park holds up unusually well. They used CGI for things they couldn't convincingly do any other way, and used practical effects for almost everything else. And for the most part they hid the CGI well, they took a lot of care to mix it up with close ups of practical effects, the way they framed the shots to direct audience attention, etc. I think in a lot of modern stuff they go too far. They now use CGI for things that could easily be practical effects, but they go with CGI because it's simply cheaper or because they want to A/B test different colors of wall paneling behind a character in post production, or who knows what. The end result is apparently good enough to make a billion dollars, but I can't stand it. Movies don't feel authentic anymore. It's hard to describe rationally, but the word 'soulless' sums up how movies made the new way make me feel. Even the scenes which are wholly practical/real get degraded; the excessive CGI and compositing used in the rest of the movie cast a miasma of unrealness across the entire movie. https://64.media.tumblr.com/248d25e2185a58bf827d329490480fb9/55a1eb08812b2f02-d3/s500x750/c1b6e7b7b6e21956bd7f60f7195794ea1e4998e9.jpg https://64.media.tumblr.com/248d25e2185a58bf827d329490480fb9...
- whoooooo123 4y ago
  I can't stand it either. CGI excess has ruined movies. This video does a good job of explaining why, I think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DY-zg8Oo8p4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DY-zg8Oo8p4
  - mikepurvis 4y ago
    Haha, why did I know this was going to be a Critical Drinker video. For real though, I think the best CGI has always been when it's a light touch, providing only slight enhancements to an otherwise mostly-practical scene. And that's also when it's most invisible— so while superhero movies are obvious CGI-fests and can be clearly said to have been "ruined" by it, I think the most interesting modern CGI use is in lower-budget productions like TV shows, enabling the insertion of fantasy- or period-themed backdrops that would never be possible if you had to actually come up with all those props and extras in real life. And I think to the extent that this is already happening, it's a lot harder to track because it's so much more subtle than the bombastic in-your-face effects of a Marvel movie showdown. It would be interesting to see a revival of a show like Drive [0] as that was pretty ambitious and expensive for its time, but might be a lot more possible to do now. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive_(2007_TV_series) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive_(2007_TV_series)
- mikepurvis 4y ago
  Absolutely. I remember listening to the DVD commentary track for X2 (from 2003), and loving that scene near the beginning where Nightcrawler is hiding out in a cathedral but losing control of his teleportation powers because he's being remotely controlled/possessed by the villain of the story. Bryan Singer talks on the track about how great it was to fling the character (can't remember if it it was actually Alan Cumming or a stuntman) from the rafters, and how much better and more weighty it looked to have a "real" shot and just have to remove wires/harnessing vs filming it as a blank canvas and having to insert the character digitally.

vsareto 4y ago

Most of the AI generated images are good enough to be first drafts or sketches, and with some editing, they can be coherent images. This makes AI generators a good tool. Not sure the same is true for video though. It feels like you'll need reliable still image creation before you can get to a video generator that's useful since editing video takes a bit more than a still image.

MichaelCollins 4y ago

The first Jurassic Park holds up unusually well. They used CGI for things they couldn't convincingly do any other way, and used practical effects for almost everything else. And for the most part they hid the CGI well, they took a lot of care to mix it up with close ups of practical effects, the way they framed the shots to direct audience attention, etc. I think in a lot of modern stuff they go too far. They now use CGI for things that could easily be practical effects, but they go with CGI because it's simply cheaper or because they want to A/B test different colors of wall paneling behind a character in post production, or who knows what. The end result is apparently good enough to make a billion dollars, but I can't stand it. Movies don't feel authentic anymore. It's hard to describe rationally, but the word 'soulless' sums up how movies made the new way make me feel. Even the scenes which are wholly practical/real get degraded; the excessive CGI and compositing used in the rest of the movie cast a miasma of unrealness across the entire movie. https://64.media.tumblr.com/248d25e2185a58bf827d329490480fb9/55a1eb08812b2f02-d3/s500x750/c1b6e7b7b6e21956bd7f60f7195794ea1e4998e9.jpg https://64.media.tumblr.com/248d25e2185a58bf827d329490480fb9...

whoooooo123 4y ago
I can't stand it either. CGI excess has ruined movies. This video does a good job of explaining why, I think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DY-zg8Oo8p4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DY-zg8Oo8p4
- mikepurvis 4y ago
  Haha, why did I know this was going to be a Critical Drinker video. For real though, I think the best CGI has always been when it's a light touch, providing only slight enhancements to an otherwise mostly-practical scene. And that's also when it's most invisible— so while superhero movies are obvious CGI-fests and can be clearly said to have been "ruined" by it, I think the most interesting modern CGI use is in lower-budget productions like TV shows, enabling the insertion of fantasy- or period-themed backdrops that would never be possible if you had to actually come up with all those props and extras in real life. And I think to the extent that this is already happening, it's a lot harder to track because it's so much more subtle than the bombastic in-your-face effects of a Marvel movie showdown. It would be interesting to see a revival of a show like Drive [0] as that was pretty ambitious and expensive for its time, but might be a lot more possible to do now. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive_(2007_TV_series) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive_(2007_TV_series)
mikepurvis 4y ago
Absolutely. I remember listening to the DVD commentary track for X2 (from 2003), and loving that scene near the beginning where Nightcrawler is hiding out in a cathedral but losing control of his teleportation powers because he's being remotely controlled/possessed by the villain of the story. Bryan Singer talks on the track about how great it was to fling the character (can't remember if it it was actually Alan Cumming or a stuntman) from the rafters, and how much better and more weighty it looked to have a "real" shot and just have to remove wires/harnessing vs filming it as a blank canvas and having to insert the character digitally.