4 ms·
I think this kind of AI "enhancement" is where CGI was in the 90s. It might be state of the art tech, but it's still very unrefined, and in ten or twenty years
by chilmers 3y ago
I think this kind of AI "enhancement" is where CGI was in the 90s. It might be state of the art tech, but it's still very unrefined, and in ten or twenty years these remasters will look painfully dated and bad.
- josefx 3y agoPeople who knew what they where doing could pull of some timeless art with 90s CGI and a decade of improvements did not stop people from ruining otherwise good movies with bad GCI either. AI is just another tool that needs to be used correctly.
- mrob 3y agoI think it's worse than bad CGI. With bad CGI, you can use your imagination and interpret as what it would have looked like if they had unlimited time and budget. You can't do that with bad AI "enhancement", because it's an automation of that same imaginative process. You'd have to somehow mentally reverse the AI processing before imagining a better version, which is much more difficult.
- gdubs 3y agoI dunno – I look at the original Jurassic Park and it still looks pretty amazing to me. Same with Terminator II. In many ways I feel like as directors got more and more capabilities with the tools they became comically overused. I don't think it's the sophistication of the tools, but the way that they're wielded that will make them look dated, or timeless.
- Arainach 3y agoThe original Jurassic Park made extensive use of practical effects and models rather than relying primarily on CGI.
- gdubs 2y agoYea but I was obsessed with that movie so I know what's what lol.
- bamboozled 3y agoI find most movies CGI these days almost impossible to watch it looks so crap. Then I watch Star Wars and I just cannot believe they did this back in the day.
- mhh__ 3y agoEven now some CGI still looks very poor despite big spending (e.g. most marvel movies)