5 ms·

The upscaled versions also screwed up the camera focus blur by artificially removing it, and unnecessarily took out the film grain. Even leaving the grain and b

The upscaled versions also screwed up the camera focus blur by artificially removing it, and unnecessarily took out the film grain. Even leaving the grain and blur aside, the texture of the objects depicted is also getting seriously screwed up, with unrealistic looking smoothing and weird places of heightened contrast unrelated to the original scene. More generally, automatically second guessing the artistic choices of whoever originally color graded the film, for the sake of adding narratively gratuitous features like HDR or extremely high resolution, is a nasty thing to do. There might be moderately more dynamic range in the original physical film than there was in a digital copy; if so, by all means try to capture it in a new digitization while trying to match the visual impression of a theater projection to the extent practical. The "AI" features demonstrated here are incredibly tacky though. People put in charge of making new versions of beloved artworks need to have good taste and exercise some discretion. Art from different times and places looks different due to changes in both the medium and the culture, and we should enjoy those differences rather than trying to erase them all.

dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
> second guessing the artistic choices This is the original sin of this process. They are tampering with the artistic object, it's no longer what the artists intended. Some might say this is being pedantic, but the quality of the image has a huge impact on the feel of a movie. For some films, such as Blade Runner, the mood and feel created by the (dark, obscured) look of the film is easily half of the impact. Changing that film would be a crime against humanity, yet I imagine it's only a matter of time before it gets regraded so people can see the film "properly".
- fsloth 3y ago
  ”Some might say this is being pedantic, but the quality of the image has a huge impact on the feel of a movie.” Hardly pedantic, the quality of the image is one of the key variables in cinema.
- Almondsetat 3y ago
  Most movies ever made were not meant to be watched on home TVs. Playing it on your crappy 50" Samsung with a soundbar is as much of a sacrilege as running it through an AI. I guess you have never done that, right?
  - dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
    So if I have vision issues, I'm also the problem, right? The first time I saw Blade Runner was on a CRT TV from VHS tape and it was still faithful to the original, which I've seen on the big screen and various digital formats too. Poor reproduction doesn't add something that isn't there in the original, it just degrades the image. That generally can't be controlled and is a lot different to intentionally changing the image.
    - Almondsetat 3y ago
      >Poor reproduction doesn't add something that isn't there in the original It quite literally does >That generally can't be controlled Yes it can, just don't make any VHS versions
  - licebmi__at__ 3y ago
    Yes, that’s exactly right, and that’s why people still go to the movies when almost everyone has a screen they could watch movies if they so desired. Despite the hyperbole of “original sin” or “crime against humanity”, what people are saying is that AI filtered movies are crappy just like watching a good movie in a shitty screen; but I would argue that our social outlook is worse because nobody would say that they’re improving movies by using a shitty screen and shitty audio system, yet we do see that with all the AI hype.
- Daddy_cat 3y ago
  [dead]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
chefandy 3y ago
Right. That director almost certainly chose that particular film because that particular grain lent the film the vibe they were looking for. Directors always look for ways to implement their artistic vision within the bounds of the medium, but the end results is almost certainly their artistic vision. A lot of that missing information is missing for a reason. Surely someone could use AI to invent things that go in all of the little shadows in Nosferatu, or steady the handheld video camera footage David Lynch was into for a while, but those things serve a purpose. If people want to AI-enhance movies for their own viewing pleasure, then great. Watch it in reversed color or with a face-swap for all I care. But "improving" the original by inventing detail that the director probably never wanted to show to begin with is a parlor trick devoid of any artistic merit.
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  Next up: AI-improved Poor Things (2023), all black and white scenes converted to 60 fps full color.
  - chefandy 3y ago
    People seem to enjoy that we've been enhancing dead celebrities by digitally digging them up and making them dance for us on stage, so why not? Beyond that, why stop at colorization? Maybe there's other artistic decisions we could enhance. Like we could change the plots of existing movies to reflect our more sophisticated modern experiences. Let's regenerate Mad Men but everyone has smart phones, and make the USO scene in Apocalypse Now an Ariana Grande show.
  - mauzy 3y ago
    Ai stabilized Blair Witch Project for those who got motion sick the first time.
- incrudible 3y ago
  In the case of Aliens, James Cameron is explicitly saying he just went with Kodak film that was available at the time, which everyone was using. I will submit that directors are not generally the right people to call the shots here. A director can never watch his own movie the way the audience does. They always see an unfulfilled vision, a compromise being made here and there because of technology being limited, and some like Cameron or Lucas will make misguided attempts to modernize to make up for it. This disregards that Aliens will always be a goofy 80s movie and not a movie from them 2020s. Its look should be preserved, be that the film grain, or its color grade. At least, the few people who still buy optical media should be given the choice, as they are the most likely to care.

dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago

> second guessing the artistic choices This is the original sin of this process. They are tampering with the artistic object, it's no longer what the artists intended. Some might say this is being pedantic, but the quality of the image has a huge impact on the feel of a movie. For some films, such as Blade Runner, the mood and feel created by the (dark, obscured) look of the film is easily half of the impact. Changing that film would be a crime against humanity, yet I imagine it's only a matter of time before it gets regraded so people can see the film "properly".

fsloth 3y ago
”Some might say this is being pedantic, but the quality of the image has a huge impact on the feel of a movie.” Hardly pedantic, the quality of the image is one of the key variables in cinema.
Almondsetat 3y ago
Most movies ever made were not meant to be watched on home TVs. Playing it on your crappy 50" Samsung with a soundbar is as much of a sacrilege as running it through an AI. I guess you have never done that, right?
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
  So if I have vision issues, I'm also the problem, right? The first time I saw Blade Runner was on a CRT TV from VHS tape and it was still faithful to the original, which I've seen on the big screen and various digital formats too. Poor reproduction doesn't add something that isn't there in the original, it just degrades the image. That generally can't be controlled and is a lot different to intentionally changing the image.
  - Almondsetat 3y ago
    >Poor reproduction doesn't add something that isn't there in the original It quite literally does >That generally can't be controlled Yes it can, just don't make any VHS versions
- licebmi__at__ 3y ago
  Yes, that’s exactly right, and that’s why people still go to the movies when almost everyone has a screen they could watch movies if they so desired. Despite the hyperbole of “original sin” or “crime against humanity”, what people are saying is that AI filtered movies are crappy just like watching a good movie in a shitty screen; but I would argue that our social outlook is worse because nobody would say that they’re improving movies by using a shitty screen and shitty audio system, yet we do see that with all the AI hype.
Daddy_cat 3y ago
[dead]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

chefandy 3y ago

Right. That director almost certainly chose that particular film because that particular grain lent the film the vibe they were looking for. Directors always look for ways to implement their artistic vision within the bounds of the medium, but the end results is almost certainly their artistic vision. A lot of that missing information is missing for a reason. Surely someone could use AI to invent things that go in all of the little shadows in Nosferatu, or steady the handheld video camera footage David Lynch was into for a while, but those things serve a purpose. If people want to AI-enhance movies for their own viewing pleasure, then great. Watch it in reversed color or with a face-swap for all I care. But "improving" the original by inventing detail that the director probably never wanted to show to begin with is a parlor trick devoid of any artistic merit.

actionfromafar 3y ago
Next up: AI-improved Poor Things (2023), all black and white scenes converted to 60 fps full color.
- chefandy 3y ago
  People seem to enjoy that we've been enhancing dead celebrities by digitally digging them up and making them dance for us on stage, so why not? Beyond that, why stop at colorization? Maybe there's other artistic decisions we could enhance. Like we could change the plots of existing movies to reflect our more sophisticated modern experiences. Let's regenerate Mad Men but everyone has smart phones, and make the USO scene in Apocalypse Now an Ariana Grande show.
- mauzy 3y ago
  Ai stabilized Blair Witch Project for those who got motion sick the first time.
incrudible 3y ago
In the case of Aliens, James Cameron is explicitly saying he just went with Kodak film that was available at the time, which everyone was using. I will submit that directors are not generally the right people to call the shots here. A director can never watch his own movie the way the audience does. They always see an unfulfilled vision, a compromise being made here and there because of technology being limited, and some like Cameron or Lucas will make misguided attempts to modernize to make up for it. This disregards that Aliens will always be a goofy 80s movie and not a movie from them 2020s. Its look should be preserved, be that the film grain, or its color grade. At least, the few people who still buy optical media should be given the choice, as they are the most likely to care.