I mean, is this really about ai? Or is this just standard digital effects stuff? It feels like AI is getting thrown around everywhere just because it's the hot buzzword that will get clicks.
I mean, they scan someone's body, then just map it onto a 3d model that has been motion captured from another extra. No "ai" really needs to be involved there.
Of course, from the actor's perspective, there is no difference, they still don't get any follow up work.
The data is still going to be there when there's cost effective AI tech...
But my point is that they can already replace the actor today without any ai tech. I mean that's basically how video games work that use actor's likeness (such as sports games). They take someone in and scan them, then they can make them do whatever they want without needing the actual person to act out all of the individual actions.
Replacement is just one application. What about generating entire performances? Can't do it yet, but the data will be there when they figure it out.
I found this part interesting.
The studios have strongly taken issue with this characterization, claiming a background actor's digital replica would only be used on projects the performer was hired for, not indefinite future productions.
The cynic in me wonders if they're mass scanning like this for AI use. Consider that they have maybe 1000 extra for a movie and maybe less (or more?) for a TV series.
Say they just routinely scan them all. How long before they have enough data to use diffusion or similar techniques in order to spit out new unique "extras" based on all this data but, not any specific person?
How could you even prove you're part of any of these generated "people" ?
It's pretty much guaranteed they'll go that route. Have enough body types, slap on a new generated face like you get from thispersondoesnotexist.com and there you go.
artists are first in line to get decimated by AI.
I guess Avatar-like films are going to be the norm for awhile
Most likely you won't even notice some of the changes. Reasonably believable cars can already be added to films in post, so no reason why humans couldn't be. This might not be driven only by AI, but instead on more general tech developments in vfx and such.
Really, extras have been being replaced for decades with lots of ways. You don't need to fill a stadium with people, just use cut outs. Or CGI in an army instead of paying for a lot of people and costumes. This is the next logical step
There's a technique called 'tiling.' You hire, say 100, extras and have them move as a unit from one part of the arena to another. Mix them up so people don't see the guy in the green hat sitting next to the redheaded woman all the time.
You are insinuating that lotr did not hire 100000 extras for the rotk battle scenes? Preposterous!
That's one reason I like the pre-CGI movies. When you see a crowd or an army, you know it's real people.
Two movies I recommend to everyone. 'Waterloo' with Rod Steiger. To make 'War And Peace' the Soviets trained 16,000 Red Army troops in old time cavalry, artillery, and infantry tactics. They later rented those troops out to Hollywood. The battle at the end of the movie is one of the most authentic reenactments ever filmed.
'Thunderball' with Sean Connery. So, James Bond tells the CIA SPECTRE is smuggling stolen A-bombs underwater. The Navy paradrops 100 SEALs into0 the middle of the ocean, where they put on scuba gear and fight bad guys armed with sea sleds. All real guys...
A few non-union background have already been scanned for video games. It seems like a good deal; you get 10 hours pay for about five minutes of posing.
Great deal. You get 10 hours pay, they get perpetual use of your likeness for all eternity and you don't have to work ever again! Great deal for somebody.
I love the term 10 hrs pay too. 10 hrs pay of what? $20/hour? CA min wage of $15.50? Fed min of $7.25/hour?
Even the median wage ($30/hr) would only be $300 (pre tax), what does that get you, a week's worth of rent?
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
