Comment by eviks

Comment by eviks 4 hours ago

> One’s an accurate recording of how a real thing looked.

> The other’s fake noise

But since there is no such thing as the real thing, it could just as well match one of the many real noise patterns in one of the many real things floating around, or a real thing at a different point in time with more/less degradation. And you wouldn't even know the difference, thus...

> It makes sense that some folks might care about the difference

Not really, it doesn't make sense to care about identical noise you can't tell apart. Of course, plenty people care about all kind of nonsense, so that won't stop those folks, but let's not pretentd there is some 'real physics' involved

phantasmish 4 hours ago

But… of course there is? A record of a real thing is different from a statistical simulation of it.

Reply View 6 replies

eviks 4 hours ago

I think you missed the "a" vs " the", you can encode different sources that would have different grains, or the same source would have different grain at different times.
But also a simulation called compression of a real thing is different from that real thing, so that purity test had already been failed

Reply View | 5 replies
- phantasmish 4 hours ago
  
  I just feed AI the IMDB summary and let it re-create the movie for me. Just as “pure” as high-bitrate h.265, after all.
  
  Reply View | 4 replies
  
  eviks 3 hours ago
  
  You've chosen your argumentative perch very well, it's indeed right down there with the AI slop where you can't see any difference in reality
  
  Reply View | 3 replies