pouët.net

You can’t make a good movie which will also be a good 3D movie. The whole concept is different. Other sort of shots work good in 3D. Trying to do both you usually end up with a decent “normal” movie and a horrible 3D movie. Sometimes the other way around. I hated seeing stupid and unneccessary shots in movies being aware they are there because they would create a wow factor in 3D. I found The Hobbit nearly unwatchable because of this. So THAT is my main problem with 3D. It screws up movies. It should be decided upfront whether you’re making a movie or a 3D movie, and we all know that’s not gonna happen. Because of this situation I wish 3D would go away completely. And “clear and crisp HFR” makes movies look like mexican soap operas to me, my TV tried to do that dumb inbetweening to 50fps on me once and I nearly puked. Damn you, man, you’re constantly luring me offtopic ;-)

Hmm.. so you are saying 3d is bad, because some movies have old-school in-your-face 3d scenes and your setup is bad?

I do prefer certain movies the way "you could see it with your own eyes", so natural 3d (not overdone) and at least 48fps. It's not good for every movie and there is surely a room for artistic cinema.

Going back to AI - it's not so much off-topic, since maybe AI today is in the "in-your-face" stage.The biggest problem with all of AI tools so far (besides the lack of regulation how the training data is obtained) is they all pretend to do more than they actually can. No honesty, just smoke&mirrors to attract users.

To build on topic in hand, Facet's entry to Outline wildcompo was a good example how AI entries will have value, in my opinion, when in right category. His artistic talent is used throughout the product, it is consistent and it has that human touch which separates good product from just prompting https://youtu.be/gfPfbGnPoiA?t=380

No. I’m saying this: it would really feel awkward to quote my previous post here, so go back and read it. If you come to the same conclusion, then sorry I can’t help you.

The only way to make it right(er) would be to make 3D movie making a whole separate thing, nothing to do with “normal” movies, which as I said will not happen.

I think they were forcing directors to have 3D in mind, and most of them didn’t like that. Just a guess. The way I see it is 3D is a failure because the people making movies hated it. Not because I don’t like it. And it is a failure, you do know that? It’s not ‘the future’, it’s a failure, it’s almost out.



And the high(er) framerate is well known to be a personal preference. It’s hard for one group to explain itself to another. There’s 3 groups: first one does not perceive/care about difference between 24 and 50/60 fps, the second absolutely hates high framerate in movies (I’m in here), and the third actually likes it (that’s you). For me it’s very hard to explain. When I try to watch a movie in high framerate it just doesn’t look “cinematic”, somehow I lose interest, it becomes literally unwatchable. Like I’m watching a cheap TV production. I guess it’s because we’ve been primed with decades of 24fps movies, and it’s hard to “cleanse the palate”. Games in high framerate? Yes. Sports in high framerate? Yes. Motion gfx in high framerate? Yes. Demos in high framerate? Yes. Movies in high framerate? Nooooo.

Ok, I see what's going on - this is another "forcing hand" topic. So yes, indeed, some directors might have been forced to do 3d, the same way, today, many developers are forced to worked on AI against their will. And it's not as easy as saying "no" if you are low on money/power. So yes, I agree with you - it sucks. But is it really 3d/AI that you are after or is it more like power imbalance in general and the fact tech-bros has too much money/influence for whatever stupid shit that is now "in" (crypto, NFT, metaverse, VR, now AI) ?

I think this is very easy to comprehend. Forget the “forcing hand”. I’m off.

Ah yeah, the manipulation through FOG (fear, obligation and guilt). Classic! Good bye, sir!

I’m such a fool. Trolled by the same creature twice.

Look, I don't like your manipulations - conscious or not. And it is clearly just that, because first you say "I'm off" and then you are back - in previous thread it was exactly the same. I didn't follow directly on your "so go back and read it", because I really had nothing much to add, plus I don't really have to. And now you call me a "creature". What's next?

You two get a room.

@rexbeng:
Now that is disturbing and soulless.
Additionally: https://twitter.com/asallen/status/1788428991118164356

@tomkh:
I’m sorry if “creature” hurt you man. It wasn’t meant as an insult. Your inability or unwillingness to read with comprehension seems to really get to me every time. Like there’s this wall between us, and you just don’t hear me, but instead you invent my parts and keep talking to the wall. It’s unlike any other conversation I ever had. Conversations usually progress by building on what’s being said. This communication problem we have gets so severe that it brings me to the point of not being sure are you a real human, or a child, or are you a troll having fun, maybe a script, a bot, or an intelligent alien or perhaps GPT? And I mean no insult with these words, mind you. So “creature” was meant as “entity”. Anyway, I apologize once again if my handling of this situation insulted you, now I go back into my fog.

@Mysdee
All that is cool. I seem to have a slight problem when this: https://csdb.dk/release/?id=242821 comes on top of this: https://csdb.dk/release/?id=242825 in a compo.

I perfectly understand that this decision was made by the audience. But.
If it wasn’t for AI, conversion, etc. this wouldn’t be the case.

we are all AI's creatures

We are slow thinking, slow observing, slow communicating protein-based mechanisms. AI could be potentially faster and cheaper if done right, but so far it's a bit disappointing.

Golden calf.

AI content should be treated as stock footage. You didn't create it, so you don't get credit. If you are demonstrating a compression algorithm, you need images to compress. It doesn't matter whether you get them from a stock image website (which we know doesn't pay creators properly either) or from AI. "Attack of the Ego Bots" should have been properly explained as a demonstration of a compression algorithm with AI images, not just "a demo".

We all know the demoscene only cares about copyright if there's a risk someone might get sued. All other times, it only cares about taking credit. Even though parties have strict copyright rules they're obviously not always followed. Half of 8088 Domination is pirated movies. It could have used stock footage of ducks quacking or something, but it wouldn't be as interesting then, would it? If "Attack of the Ego Bots" was made 5 years ago, it might have shown a copyright-infringing part of a real comic book too.

We might as well accept that AI models owned by billionaires are de-facto legal, just like everything else billionaires do. They might go after open source ones, but the worst the commercial ones might get is a slap on the wrist and an order to close the websites. There is zero chance that all Stable Diffusion users get sued.

Nobody seems to be mentioning the non-copyright uses of AI technology, either. I saw an effect that was clearly created by zooming an AI-generated image while re-applying the AI each frame - it gives the effect of an image that is moving but also staying the same, and looks unlike anything else. That's a demo effect, period. Especially if you pare down a large model to only work for that specific sequence, and run it in real time.

About everything is wrong here, so you might want to reread this and the thread accompanying the production to base your assessment on correct information. Short: Everything you see we created ourselves. Compression was a secondary issue to be solved along the way.

@rexbang/PA I think Apple should have a put a bunch of human artists and their children into the junk press too so we can see their fucking blood gushing!

@tomkh:


This is perhaps the most depressing thing I've read on this thread so far. And believe me, the bar has been set pretty high

There is something I don't quite understand. In the 90s every kid seemed to be excited about skynet or HAL 9000 like AI. And now that we are slowly realizing it may as well be possible, everyone is suddenly like yikes, we didn't mean it, it can take people jobs, humanity might be over etc...wtf everyone so scared? And again, I think those toy products today is really poor reincarnation of it. We are talking hardcore sci-fi AI here

Wait, WAT?

And I, the fool, was rooting for John Connor, and against Skynet.

We weren’t excited about skynet or Hal, we were excited about the good guys fighting those AI’s.