Comment by jerf

Comment by jerf 10 months ago

10 replies

It's even worse than that. Most people have no idea how far CGI has come, and how easily it is wielded even by a couple of dedicated teens on their home computer, let alone people with a vested interest in faking something for some financial reason. People think they know what a "special effect" looks like, and for the most part, people are wrong. They know what CGI being used to create something obviously impossible, like a dinosaur stomping through a city, looks like. They have no idea how easy a lot of stuff is to fake already. AI just adds to what is already there. Heck, to some extent it has caused scammers to overreach, with things like obviously fake Elon Musk videos on YouTube generated from (pure) AI and text-to-speech... when with just a little bit more learning, practice, and amounts of equipment completely reasonable for one person to obtain, they could have done a much better fake of Elon Musk using special effects techniques rather than shoveling text into an AI. The fact that "shoveling text into an AI" may in another few years itself generate immaculate videos is more a bonus than a fundamental change of capability.

Even what's free & open source in the special effects community is astonishing lately.

jhbadger 10 months ago

And you see things like the The Lion King remake or its upcoming prequel being called "live action" because it doesn't look like a cartoon like the original. But they didn't film actual lions running around -- it's all CGI.

bee_rider 10 months ago

Plus, movies continue (for some reason) to be made with very bad and obvious CGI, leading people to believe all CGI is easy to spot.

  • PhunkyPhil 10 months ago

    This is a common survivorship bias fallacy since you only notice the bad CGI.

    I'm certain you'd be shocked to see the amount of CG that's in some of your favorite movies made in the last ~10-20 years that you didn't notice because it's undetectable

    • xsmasher 10 months ago

      This is an amazing demo reel of effects shots used in "mundane" TV shows - comedies and produce procedurals. - for faking locations.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clnozSXyF4k

      • vundercind 10 months ago

        Luckily, for those of us who prefer when film photography meant at least mostly actually filming things, there’s plenty of very good film and TV (and even more of lesser quality) to keep a person occupied for a couple lifetimes.

      • bee_rider 10 months ago

        That is really something even as somebody who expects lots of CGI touch-up in sets.

      • ars 10 months ago

        And keep in mind - that video is 14 years old!

      • coderedart 10 months ago

        I hate this. I did not notice the vast majority of them. So many backgrounds/sets are just green screens :(

    • bee_rider 10 months ago

      I won’t be, I’m aware that lots of movies are mostly CGI.

      But, yeah, I do think it is some kind of bias. Maybe not survivorship, though… maybe it is a generalized sort of Malmquist bias? Like the measurement is not skewed by the tendency of movies with good CGI to go away. It is skewed by the fact that bad CGI sticks out.

      • bee_rider 10 months ago

        Actually wait I take it back, I mean, I was aware that lots of Digital Touch-up happens in movie sets, more than lots of people might expect, and more often that one might expect even in mundane movies, but even still, this comment’s video was pretty shocking anyway.

        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41584276