5 ms·

Clearly Sauron is a jealous ringmaker and doesn't like hobbits using his ring to shitpost.

Joel_Mckay 2y ago
Probably just disappointed at the wasted bandwidth: 24fps * 52 facial 3D marker * 16bit packed delta planar projected offsets (x,y) = 19.968 kbps And this is done in Unreal games on a potato graphics card all the time: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/live-link-face/id1495370836 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/live-link-face/id1495370836 I am sure calling modern heuristics "AI" gets people excited, but it doesn't seem "Magical" when trivial implementations are functionally equivalent. =3
- scotty79 2y ago
  I think the point here is to make it photorealistic which everything apart from AI still fails at superhard.
  - Joel_Mckay 2y ago
    Take a minute to look something up first, and then formulate a more interesting opinion for us to discuss: https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/metahuman https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/metahuman The artifacts in raster image data is nowhere near what a reasonable model can achieve even at low resolutions. =3
    - scotty79 2y ago
      I know metahuman. As impressive as it is, when you judge by the standards of game graphics, if you are ever mislead into thinking metahumans are real humans or even real physically existing things it's time to see your eye doctor (and/or do MRI head scan). On the other hand AI videos can be easily mistaken for people or hyper realistic physical sculptures. https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aYQ776w_460svvp9.webm https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aYQ776w_460svvp9.webm There's something basic about how light works that traditional computer graphics still fails to grasp. Looking at its productions and comparing it to what AI generates is like looking at output of amateur and an artist. Sure, maybe artist doesn't always draw all 5 fingers but somehow captures the essence of the image in seemingly random arrangement of light and dark strokes, while amateur just tries to do their best but fails in some very significant ways.
      - Joel_Mckay 2y ago
        "AI" videos make many errors all the time, but most people are not aware of what to look for... Undetectable CGI is done in film/games all the time, and indeed it takes talent to hide the fact it is fake. One could rely on the media encoder to garble output enough to look more plausible (people on potato devices are used to looking at garbage content.) However, at the end of the day the "uncanny valley" effect takes over every-time even for live action data in a auto-generated asset, as the missing data can't be "Magically" recovered with 100% certainty. Bye =3
        scotty79 2y ago
        Undetectable CGI in games ... right. I don't think you are a gamer. In movies it can be done with enough of manual tweaking by artists and a lot of photographic content around to borrow sense of reality from it. "Potato" devices by which I assume you mean average phones, currently have better resolutions than PCs had very recently and a lot still do (1080p). And a photo on 480p still looks more real than anything CGI (not AI). Your signature is hilarious. I won't comment about the reasons because I don't want this whole thread to get flagged.
        Joel_Mckay 2y ago
        I think most "AI" slop content falls under this phenomena: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo Several 8bit games had their own aesthetic charm, but were at least fun... Cheers, =3

Probably just disappointed at the wasted bandwidth: 24fps * 52 facial 3D marker * 16bit packed delta planar projected offsets (x,y) = 19.968 kbps And this is done in Unreal games on a potato graphics card all the time: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/live-link-face/id1495370836 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/live-link-face/id1495370836 I am sure calling modern heuristics "AI" gets people excited, but it doesn't seem "Magical" when trivial implementations are functionally equivalent. =3

scotty79 2y ago
I think the point here is to make it photorealistic which everything apart from AI still fails at superhard.
- Joel_Mckay 2y ago
  Take a minute to look something up first, and then formulate a more interesting opinion for us to discuss: https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/metahuman https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/metahuman The artifacts in raster image data is nowhere near what a reasonable model can achieve even at low resolutions. =3
  - scotty79 2y ago
    I know metahuman. As impressive as it is, when you judge by the standards of game graphics, if you are ever mislead into thinking metahumans are real humans or even real physically existing things it's time to see your eye doctor (and/or do MRI head scan). On the other hand AI videos can be easily mistaken for people or hyper realistic physical sculptures. https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aYQ776w_460svvp9.webm https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aYQ776w_460svvp9.webm There's something basic about how light works that traditional computer graphics still fails to grasp. Looking at its productions and comparing it to what AI generates is like looking at output of amateur and an artist. Sure, maybe artist doesn't always draw all 5 fingers but somehow captures the essence of the image in seemingly random arrangement of light and dark strokes, while amateur just tries to do their best but fails in some very significant ways.
    - Joel_Mckay 2y ago
      "AI" videos make many errors all the time, but most people are not aware of what to look for... Undetectable CGI is done in film/games all the time, and indeed it takes talent to hide the fact it is fake. One could rely on the media encoder to garble output enough to look more plausible (people on potato devices are used to looking at garbage content.) However, at the end of the day the "uncanny valley" effect takes over every-time even for live action data in a auto-generated asset, as the missing data can't be "Magically" recovered with 100% certainty. Bye =3
      - scotty79 2y ago
        Undetectable CGI in games ... right. I don't think you are a gamer. In movies it can be done with enough of manual tweaking by artists and a lot of photographic content around to borrow sense of reality from it. "Potato" devices by which I assume you mean average phones, currently have better resolutions than PCs had very recently and a lot still do (1080p). And a photo on 480p still looks more real than anything CGI (not AI). Your signature is hilarious. I won't comment about the reasons because I don't want this whole thread to get flagged.
        Joel_Mckay 2y ago
        I think most "AI" slop content falls under this phenomena: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo Several 8bit games had their own aesthetic charm, but were at least fun... Cheers, =3