OP
OP
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
How do random people on YouTube do better deepfake than Hollywood professionals?
- Thread starter DiipuSurotu
- Start date
It's clearly fake due to the hairline and body obviously not matching, but those shouldn't be an issue if this technique had been used in footage actually shot for it.
Isn't deep fake tech using pictures from the actor from other movies? I'm thinking Hollywood probably could do a better job with the same tech but the problem is in licensing said pictures.
Just guessing here for I too think deep fakes look a hell of a lot better than most cg faces (looking at you Tron).
Just guessing here for I too think deep fakes look a hell of a lot better than most cg faces (looking at you Tron).
It's really cool tech but realistically, most examples look worse than what Hollywood produces.
The really amazing stuff is a needle in a haystack that gets the spotlight. It showcases the potential it could have in real-world production down the line, but it's not at all representative of average performance.
With these kinds of examples, you get to choose your problems and only show off the best fraction of a percent. That's not an option in real projects.
The really amazing stuff is a needle in a haystack that gets the spotlight. It showcases the potential it could have in real-world production down the line, but it's not at all representative of average performance.
With these kinds of examples, you get to choose your problems and only show off the best fraction of a percent. That's not an option in real projects.
I should have read better. here's my take then:
Essentially in any art, you're gonna find amateur's that are clearly better than professionals even with lesser tools.
Happens a lot in my field.
Certain artists get complacent, don't strive to be better. Also: They are on a budget/time also, don't get time to master their tools.
They are working on it. But are waiting until it is up to their standards. Here's Disney's video on their work in it from earlier this year.
Edit: and a link to their research on it. https://studios.disneyresearch.com/...tion-neural-face-swapping-for-visual-effects/
Time is a big reason. Your average joe just crunching this stuff out is doing it leisurly. A production company has a strict schedule and budget. Its never about making things look awesome, its about how good can you make it look within the budget and time constrainsts. Otherwise everything would be beautiful masterpieces
Yes there is potential legal issues with using deep fakes in commercial ventures, also depends heavily on having enough source material to use to recreate the image decently. Deep fakes look good at times, but they are not really better than what we are getting with full cg characters either, they still look fake as heck especially when it comes to moving heads and bodies.
It's novelty tech, but it's not really better, and in many cases looks just as bad as doing the full cg character masks.
I honestly think it's because VFX artists on productions aren't generally just working on "a face", they probably deal with other things meaning they have to reach a state of "good enough" rather than perfection.
If you watch The Mandalorian's last episode, the character in question is rather static, there's not a lot of natural movement to aid that production simply because it makes it easier to work with.
If you watch The Mandalorian's last episode, the character in question is rather static, there's not a lot of natural movement to aid that production simply because it makes it easier to work with.
Are they better tho? I've yet to see one (and I've seen probably all of 'em lol) and they're always slightly wooden and the uncanny valley effect is in full-swing. Maybe I'm just sensitive to it, idk. I don't find a bunch of special effects in movies that good either lately. Not saying it's not impressive, def is.
Practical effects wow me after learning they were.
Practical effects wow me after learning they were.
The de-aging in Irishman was utterly laughable and it was embarrassing to see how excited they were over something that looked so terrible.
The deep fakes I've seen still don't look right but they certainly look more natural. The issue with them is more in matching the lighting in-scene and avoiding smearing and glitches. They don't have that dead-eyed, rubber-mouthed look of the standard CGI.
yeah they are definitely more natural looking. Just clean it up later and call it done.
CGI is trying to recreate that realism factor that deep fakes nail out the gate because its copying whats already real, and reshaping it. CGI is trying to light/render for realness.
I wonder what would happen if you took a CGI thanos, then deep faked him with Brolins face as an additional process. I wonderrrr...
Thanos is one of the most impressive digital 'humans' ive seen so far. That was an amazing effort. But it wasn't copying something that our mind knows is real (filmed).
If I'm watching both the deepfake videos and Hollywood movie clips in similar quality (both blurry/low res on YouTube) then I'm not sure why it's not fair to compare them, and one still clearly looks better to me.
If you're saying deepfakes only look good because of YouTube compression or low resolution, you'd think applying the same thing to Hollywood de-aging effects would be similarly beneficial to them. But the clips I see on YouTube still look bad (in my opinion)
This is the only real person's face onto a fully cg character that I've seen, I think.
Last edited:
thats fucking cool. I think the concept is sound. Like do the 100% cgi thanos, at that quality. Then push it over the edge slightly with deep fakery, I thin its a winner. Because Naughty dog animated him, nathan just looks like the cgi drake, but a bit more real. Its nailing the hand animated + motion capture. So it still looks a bit, not as emotive as real life. Like the ps5 version of the game. I bet a cgi drake deep faked to filon would look more or less pretty realistic.
Or, Or, reverse it. Get your base cgi Thanos, and deep fake him based on footage of the actor.. Since you own the 3d model, you can feed any number of facial targets to the learning process.
all of these avenues should be explored. The most impressive thing about the deep fakes, is how it matches the lighting. Thats a huge part of it.
i wish i could code...
Isn't the clear answer that you're looking at people using technology that has only really come into its own in the last year or two and comparing it to productions that are three or more years old, likely originating in production five years ago. Tron came out a decade ago.
I'd assume current productions would be investing heavily into this technology. They should be able to throw way more cpu cycles at the problem than any hobbyist as well.
I'd assume current productions would be investing heavily into this technology. They should be able to throw way more cpu cycles at the problem than any hobbyist as well.
Last edited:
1) legality, using images without permission is a copyright violation and potentially trademark depending on what's used and how their registered 2) deep fakes can suck 3) can't direct a deep fake and make wanted changes, youre dependent on a machine 4) you're mastering in lossless 8k and see a lot more errors than a little youtube clip
as things progress they'll use the tech more but i wouldn't put you're random dude using a program and make him equal to a Visual Effects professional.
Also, movies are art not just trying to recreate reality.
as things progress they'll use the tech more but i wouldn't put you're random dude using a program and make him equal to a Visual Effects professional.
Also, movies are art not just trying to recreate reality.
yeah deep fakes have an enormous amount of unlitigated copyright/trademark/patent issues to litigate before anyone does anything not in-house
Last edited:
I mean, all these deep fake people are going over a built from scratch image though. Let's see these deep fake youtuber's create a cgi luke from scratch like Lucasfilm did and see how it turns out.
Making a youtube video of a hashed together deepfake is extremely different to using the tech to make something thats film quality and holds up on a giant screen.
Wow, that looks so goddamn much better. Shame they couldn't have used this back then. They should use it for home video releases/streaming from now on. Just looks so much less off-putting. Especially Leia.
Deepfakes work really in low resolution, with small screens, and heavy compression. It masks many of the flaws while also hiding a lot of the fine details in the professional versions. The flaws come to life extremely quickly as resolution and screen size increase, and compression decreases. Deep fakes also have a lot more limits in where they can be implemented.
I thought Tarkin was fine in theaters, but it does hurt when you look at it for flaws. This is one of the first times we really saw this done in that capacity too. The deepfake seems to have better shadows, less detail in his face. With all of these, I know I'm watching a special effect and none of it really ever bothers me. If I'm engaged in the movie and character, my mind just tries to gloss over anything that looks weird due to the special effects.
Also important to note for Deepfakes you need lots and lots of high res source material, for older actors like Tarkin that's harder to come by.
I always assumed that there were licensing issues on top of everything else posted. Is Deepfake tech free?
Kinda important to keep in mind most of these example are putting a deep fake on top of a non-deep faked version that is already really fucking close. I dont think deep fake could keep up with raw footage of an actor that didnt look similar. Only example Ive seen where its basically perfect is the Jim Carrey in The Shining swap.
There are a quite few different ones and the cost varies. It's also likely that most VFX software manufacturers and studiis are heavy into researching and developing their own that can work, well, better than what's available. I posted some of Disney's work on Deepfake stuff earlier. It's something newer so it will probably take awhile. CG animation took a long time before you started seeing it for special effects everywhere in a convincing manner.
I just want to point out that as impressive as its, it's not, far from it.
The eyes and nose are weirdly sharp in contrast to the rest of his face.
Been mentioned before, but the problem with deepfake is the lack of consistency. The quality of the effect can vary wildly from one shot or from one angle to another. It's not a coincidence that the most successful deepfakes are those where the characters are always staring straight ahead.
It also does not hold up at all on close-ups because the resolution is very low.
This is (obviously) not acceptable for a professional production.
Last edited: