4 ms·

Sigh. I haven't seen the True Lies transfer so I won't comment on that. But I have to take issue with that 4k 60fps clip ("The lumiere family goes on a trip 1

by nlh 3y ago

Sigh. I haven't seen the True Lies transfer so I won't comment on that. But I have to take issue with that 4k 60fps clip ("The lumiere family goes on a trip 1895") and They Shall Not Grow Old. The author calls both "disgusting" and "really fucking bad". I'm sorry, but I think they're both incredibly impressive feats of engineering and super impressive. Both films have done something which is otherwise impossible with original, grainy, out-of-sync b & w footage: Given us viewers a sense of immersion and realness that we'd otherwise be unable to experience. None of us know what it was like to see the world of 1895 or 1914. And grainy black and white footage doesn't change that. But 4k 60fps footage gives us a true sense of "being there" and in that reality and I think that's damn incredible (and I'm thankful for it). I think the author err'd using documentary footage as an example of what's bad about this. Taking an old film (a piece of art) and upscaling it is one thing. Taking real-world footage and making it more real is another thing entirely.

anathem143 3y ago
[dead]
forgetfreeman 3y ago
That something is impressively engineered is orthogonal to it being quality cinema.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
toast0 3y ago
You keep saying real and true, but it's engineered from the authentic film. Certainly it could be more immersive and give more of a sense of being there, but colorized b&w film is not real, it's guesses (maybe very good guesses).
- xcv123 3y ago
  Because it's not about the film in this case. It's about the reality that was filmed. The AI upscaled interpolated version looks closer to reality.
  - Applejinx 3y ago
    A key point about this, whether here or in AI restoration of classic audio from yesteryear or indeed AI restoration to use in court as forensic audio or video… It ain't. It's made up, synthesized in a sophisticated way to become what is normally present in such a context. As such it is by definition fake and not reality, but a sort of consensus opinion of what usually goes into any given spot. You are not even approaching reality. You're approaching what is typically expected, synthesized to most plausibly fill in the gap. If there is some unusual detail in the original media, the restoration will read it as damage or a glitch, and will wrest it from you and force it into a more predictable form.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - xcv123 3y ago
      This is not a forensic video. No one is claiming that the colours are actually real. As a documentary this brings us closer to the experience of reality than the black and white jerky movements of the original film. It definitely does approach reality. Grass is green, not grey. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHHt-CBKkS0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHHt-CBKkS0
- WalterBright 3y ago
  b&w film isn't real, the world isn't black and white. I know that colorized film sometimes picks the wrong colors, but really, so what? It's still way better and more watchable than b&w.
  - ekianjo 3y ago
    > b&w film isn't real, the world isn't black and white. What does that mean? Then color pictures are not real either because the world is not limited by 10 bits of color. Makes no sense.
  - toast0 3y ago
    No film (or other imaging) is real, of course. But film without unnecessary processing is a reflection of reality. IMHO, color processing from color film is necessary. > It's still way better and more watchable than b&w. Well, we can agree to disagree on this; clearly I'm in the minority that wants to watch films as originally captured/presented. But I wouldn't object to someone saying the altered versions are more watchable --- more people are willing to watch them; and better I wouldn't object vigorously too. I'm objecting to it being called real and true. The original images, limited as they are are more real than an intepreted image based on the actual image. Just as actual images are more real than a reenactment, even though a reenactment allows for much nicer image capture that could be more immersive and better.
  - Mr_Minderbinder 3y ago
    The unaltered black and white footage is "real" in the sense that the information it records, the shades of grey, are actually causally connected to the event it depicts. If I colourise it, the cause or the information is coming from me, the shade of red you see is just my arbitrary choice, it is determined by me and not by the actual light bouncing off the blood of a soldier in 1914. As such the information added by colourisation is less "real" in this sense or entirely "false".
bsder 3y ago
I agree with this. AI interpolation for the two historical clips with extreme technical difficulties and film which would be nigh unwatchable is perfectly reasonable. Applying AI to something like "Get Back" is not. The footage for "Get Back" is perfectly reasonable even if it was suboptimal. Even worse, at some point the original footage will get lost and the AI contaminated stuff will become the reference.
5350-uiop-1130 3y ago
the whole article has a kind of arrogant and condescending tone.
ogurechny 3y ago
People are not passive perceiving robots reacting to pre-processed data inputs. “Thinking” doesn't happen only on “complex stuff”, it continues all the time, but we're used to things we're used to. When you call something “real”, it just means that your idea of what is “real” matches, and that your imagination (which actually does all the work) starts working. However, there is no rule that it should sleep on other kinds of content.
ekianjo 3y ago
> But 4k 60fps footage gives us a true sense of "being there" and in that reality and I think that's damn incredible (and I'm thankful for it). There is a difference between making things watchable and making things look worse with shitty colors

by nlh 3y ago

anathem143 3y ago

[dead]

forgetfreeman 3y ago

That something is impressively engineered is orthogonal to it being quality cinema.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

toast0 3y ago

You keep saying real and true, but it's engineered from the authentic film. Certainly it could be more immersive and give more of a sense of being there, but colorized b&w film is not real, it's guesses (maybe very good guesses).

xcv123 3y ago
Because it's not about the film in this case. It's about the reality that was filmed. The AI upscaled interpolated version looks closer to reality.
- Applejinx 3y ago
  A key point about this, whether here or in AI restoration of classic audio from yesteryear or indeed AI restoration to use in court as forensic audio or video… It ain't. It's made up, synthesized in a sophisticated way to become what is normally present in such a context. As such it is by definition fake and not reality, but a sort of consensus opinion of what usually goes into any given spot. You are not even approaching reality. You're approaching what is typically expected, synthesized to most plausibly fill in the gap. If there is some unusual detail in the original media, the restoration will read it as damage or a glitch, and will wrest it from you and force it into a more predictable form.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - xcv123 3y ago
    This is not a forensic video. No one is claiming that the colours are actually real. As a documentary this brings us closer to the experience of reality than the black and white jerky movements of the original film. It definitely does approach reality. Grass is green, not grey. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHHt-CBKkS0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHHt-CBKkS0
WalterBright 3y ago
b&w film isn't real, the world isn't black and white. I know that colorized film sometimes picks the wrong colors, but really, so what? It's still way better and more watchable than b&w.
- ekianjo 3y ago
  > b&w film isn't real, the world isn't black and white. What does that mean? Then color pictures are not real either because the world is not limited by 10 bits of color. Makes no sense.
- toast0 3y ago
  No film (or other imaging) is real, of course. But film without unnecessary processing is a reflection of reality. IMHO, color processing from color film is necessary. > It's still way better and more watchable than b&w. Well, we can agree to disagree on this; clearly I'm in the minority that wants to watch films as originally captured/presented. But I wouldn't object to someone saying the altered versions are more watchable --- more people are willing to watch them; and better I wouldn't object vigorously too. I'm objecting to it being called real and true. The original images, limited as they are are more real than an intepreted image based on the actual image. Just as actual images are more real than a reenactment, even though a reenactment allows for much nicer image capture that could be more immersive and better.
- Mr_Minderbinder 3y ago
  The unaltered black and white footage is "real" in the sense that the information it records, the shades of grey, are actually causally connected to the event it depicts. If I colourise it, the cause or the information is coming from me, the shade of red you see is just my arbitrary choice, it is determined by me and not by the actual light bouncing off the blood of a soldier in 1914. As such the information added by colourisation is less "real" in this sense or entirely "false".

bsder 3y ago

I agree with this. AI interpolation for the two historical clips with extreme technical difficulties and film which would be nigh unwatchable is perfectly reasonable. Applying AI to something like "Get Back" is not. The footage for "Get Back" is perfectly reasonable even if it was suboptimal. Even worse, at some point the original footage will get lost and the AI contaminated stuff will become the reference.

5350-uiop-1130 3y ago

the whole article has a kind of arrogant and condescending tone.

ogurechny 3y ago

People are not passive perceiving robots reacting to pre-processed data inputs. “Thinking” doesn't happen only on “complex stuff”, it continues all the time, but we're used to things we're used to. When you call something “real”, it just means that your idea of what is “real” matches, and that your imagination (which actually does all the work) starts working. However, there is no rule that it should sleep on other kinds of content.

ekianjo 3y ago

> But 4k 60fps footage gives us a true sense of "being there" and in that reality and I think that's damn incredible (and I'm thankful for it). There is a difference between making things watchable and making things look worse with shitty colors