Sound in AI generated videos. - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2025, 01:55:46 pm
content: It has finally been done, see here:Give it a decade and Hollywood will begin to go bust.Only the top of the top stars and stories will still use live filming.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2025, 02:53:33 pm
content: People said something similar about digital making film obsolete, or CGI making live action obsolete - I think there will still be a preference to have films that are knowingly real, and the star-studded cast will be part of that. No doubt, people will watch films with a lot more AI generated imagery in them, perhaps even whole films that are AI generated, but I don't think traditional films are going anywhere yet. I think the best example of a film style that has been replaced by modern technology is the transition from hand-drawn cel animation to CGI: we don't see hand-animated films like the originalLion Kingin the mainstream any more simply because the cost is too high compared to CGI.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2025, 03:23:49 pm
content: Actually there are reports lately that Disney is considering bringing back hand drawing animation.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2025, 02:51:55 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on May 22, 2025, 03:23:49 pmI think that past the initial "wow" effect, people will get bored pretty soon with AI-generated stuff and the demand for more "genuine" content will grow. Disney is probably anticipating this. They already have experience with it: just considering computer-generated 3D animation movies: this has been done for a couple decades now and people are now starting to lose interest. I'm willing to bet that anything "AI" generated will make people lose interest much faster yet.

author: pdenisowski
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2025, 03:57:59 pm
content: As someone who has made and narrated over 270 videos as part of his job: I think a lot of people like the idea of using generative AI to create things, but no one likes being on the receiving end of generative AI.I've actually had people ask me if the audio in my videos is my "real voice" or if I'm using AI Not sure if I should be flattered by that or not ...https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKxVoO5jUTlvsVtDcqrVn0ybqBVlLj2z8

author: kmoonwalker
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2025, 06:00:58 pm
content: Quote from: pdenisowski on May 26, 2025, 03:57:59 pmanyway looking back to my university time when we tried some simple neural networks and had a multitude of applications for them from shape comparison to mor eadvanced things that only recently are becoming (in simple form) a reality I kinda feel strange and torn with opinion on all of that- it was expected that some may use that to immitate things but we as always underestimated ingenuity of some folks- while talking with some folks I had that overwhelming feeling they already started running gears towards something alike Butlerian Jihad from Frank Herbert's Dunehmm perhas in future there might be a requirement to indicate if something was AI made or not and perhaps it will not be a bad thing to have but some are clearly going to extreme with some aspects

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2025, 08:35:51 pm
content: Quote from: kmoonwalker on May 26, 2025, 06:00:58 pmI would certainly be in favor of such a requirement.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2025, 09:08:01 pm
content: YouTube already has that requirement, to disclose if something is substantially synthetic. The trouble is, how do you prove it?In the next 5 or so years, it will become impossible to prove if something was taken for "real". That eliminates a whole source of possible evidence sources for law enforcement, journalists, activists etc. It could become the case that courts of law will not accept video evidence unless a chain of custody can be demonstrated (for instance, a CCTV camera in private premises will probably not be sufficient evidence of a crime to convict someone on any more.)That's quite scary really.

author: Fflint
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2025, 08:15:06 am
content: Who cares? (other than the actors of course, but for long time replicating visual expressions of an actual actor will be much more realistic and cheaper than AI generating the whole thing).The most important is the story not how the video is created. Hollywood and most other "Western" production centers have lost the art of good story making long time before AI arrived. Give me a great story filmed on a theater stage and I'll be way more entertained than with amazing visuals but crappy story.In fact this tech if it becomes cheap enough may be a good thing. It will level the playing field between the small and large filmmakers and it's often the small ones that create the most compelling stories.

author: JPortici
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2025, 09:45:04 am
content: Quote from: Fflint on May 27, 2025, 08:15:06 amI do, because ofQuote from: tom66 on May 26, 2025, 09:08:01 pmQuite scary indeed. As soon as it is possible we will see a wave of scams and fabrication of evidence. I won't be surprised if lots of regular people will go to court after being framed by fake video evidence.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2025, 10:02:55 am
content: Quote from: Bud on May 22, 2025, 03:23:49 pmDisney have a thousand problems, to the point where bankruptcy would be preferable to trying to fix it.Quote from: tom66 on May 22, 2025, 02:53:33 pmBut it did. CGI is used where it's absolutely unnecessary. Se below. This is pointless, it's just an actor sitting in a room with one prop, and they replace like 70% of the scene. And then they mess up the story from the start, do full fidelity digital reshoots 10 times over, and then accept one of the reshoots. And because it was done 10 times, the budget becomes 300 million, and the end result is bad. Because instead of focusing on the results from the start, a burned-out studio has to spend 100 hours week making the same thing over and over.Back in the Blade runner days, you had a vision, you built a scene, you gave it everything you got, and sometimes you could only shoot the scene once. It looked better than today.And very rare we get a stunning looking movie like Dune. The rest is idiots blowing money on data that gets deleted.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2025, 10:03:24 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on May 26, 2025, 09:08:01 pmI know how my topic is about sound, but, in the case of security cameras, if a fake AI generated video also included AI generated sound, this is the one flag which may be used in court to prove the video was a fake or not. For the fake video with sound to work, the fake will need to replicate the quality, positioning of the existing camera's microphone with the proper ambient environment sound and echos.It would be easy work for expert forensics in the field to prove the video was a fake, though it would cost time, money and all the faker needs to do is make sure their security equipment doesn't have sound capabilities providing mute videos.We will enter a time where only security cameras which come with proof of original un-edited stream codes embedded in the video stream for authentication purposes will be acceptable in court.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2025, 10:46:20 am
content: Quote from: BrianHG on May 27, 2025, 10:03:24 amDoctoring video is nothing new. Success prosecutions seldom rely on CCTV footage alone. There's normally something else: multiple eyewitnesses, fingerprints, DNA, tools, weapons etc.

author: AndyC_772
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2025, 11:10:24 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on May 26, 2025, 08:35:51 pmI suspect such a requirement would end up like the California Prop 65 requirement. Literally everything contains *something*, even in some vanishingly small proportion, that is "known to the state of California to cause..." something bad. The signs and labels are so ubiquitous as to mean nothing, and to make the law itself an international joke.Suppose I shoot an image or video of something cool. The video is formatted to suit a particular screen, say 16:9, but I also want to produce a mobile-friendly version that fills a phone screen. So, I zoom out so the subject is within the frame, then use an AI-powered tool to extend the background instead of just using black bars. The video now contains AI content, but it's not in any way misleading, or depriving anyone of work, or infringing on anyone's rights - it's just a useful tool to make content look better in some context.Would that need labelling? If so, why? Who benefits from the label?

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2025, 10:07:49 pm
content: Quote from: AndyC_772 on May 27, 2025, 11:10:24 amIt will probably need to be labeled. Just because AI was used as it will be to complicated otherwise. Probably nobody will benefit from this sort of labeling and it will unlikely not be done.I remember a few years ago some phone manufacturer (maybe Samsung but not sure) used AI when taking photos of the Moon and so you could try to take a photo of a small light point in a dark room and the phone AI will think that is the Moon so it added the details like crater's basically a fictional photo since there was no photons reflected by Moon surface hitting the sensor.The same with beauty filter's in all modern cameras making you look better than in real life using AI.I predict that by the end of this year half of videos on YouTube will be fully AI generated and my the end of next year we will see something similar in robotics where it will be hard to distinguish a humanoid robot from a real person due to very natural motion.There is a world AI race, so things will evolve very fast.