Slashdot Mirror
Someone Used a Deep Learning AI To Perfectly Insert Harrison Ford Into "Solo: A Star Wars Story" (gizmodo.com)
Andrew Liszewski, writing for io9: Casting anyone other than Harrison Ford in the role of Han Solo just feels like sacrilege, but since Ford is now 76 years old, playing a younger version of himself would be all but impossible. Or at least impossible if you rely on the standard Hollywood de-aging tricks like makeup and CG. Artificial intelligence, it turns out, does a pretty amazing job at putting Ford back into the role of Solo. The YouTube channel "derpfakes" has been posting videos that demonstrate the impressive, and at times frightening, capabilities of image processing using artificial intelligence. Using a process called deep learning, an AI analyzes a large collection of photos of a given person, creating a comprehensive database of them in any almost any position and pose. It then uses that database to intelligently perform an automatic face replacement on a source clip, in this case replacing actor Alden Ehrenreich's face with Harrison Ford's.
It's far from perfect, and the bitrate on that video is abysmal. If he tried this on Blu-ray footage and kept the quality up, Harrison Ford's face would stick out like a sore... face.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
no not perfectly at all
The uncanny valley comes to mind. In some scenes the face droops a bit too much for it to be unrealistic. He's done similar ones on his channel in which the problems are more clear, fitting one face on another is possible but not invisible.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Frankly I preferred the original actor face to the replacement.
Now what I would have liked, was to tweak the audio so he sounded more like Harrison Ford, with at least a bit deeper voice. This clip was educational in that respect as when watching the movie I was trying to think why he didn't seem much like the original.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
would be better with blockchain.
Can they erase Jar-Jar? Or replace Hayden Christensen with an actual wooden post?
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
His previous work of inserting Elon Musk as Bond is even better.
So we can sexually assault someone now by creating pixels on a screen? Man this world sucks more and more each day.
Using them in sexual videos without their consent should be considered sexual assult.
I'm all for protecting people from sexual assault and harm, but really? This is what you call assault? Let me guess, if someone looks at you and you don't want them to, you consider it sexual assault. This is the problem with calling everyone Hitler, or a racist, mysognist, pedophile, etc. After a while those words have no meaning and you have to amp it up even further.
How about we call it misuse of someone's likeness, or just plain rude and obnoxious. If there are laws against this, then they should be charged. But let's not go full tilt stupid.
I think it's not unreasonable to find more de-aging being done (like in Ant-Man and the Tron Sequel). Actors better have good estates that can defend (and license) their likeness because it's going to get easier and easier to replicate them as technology gets better and better. The money involved would be crazy. Imagine if Terantino got Clint to do voice over work for a new Spaghetti western style flick where the actor is being played by a stand in that is manipulated by CG to look like Clint from the 60's. If it was done right and believable people would line up at the theater to see it.
Looks as realistic as Jar-Jar. But it is deep learning AI so it must be good.
Now let's go back to Episodes 4,5,6 and remove all the added Lucas crap to the original theatrical releases, and oh yeah, Han shoots first...(yeah I do know about the fan versions and have them.)
Then back to 1,2,3 and remove Jar Jar, except for killing the character in EP 1
Then you could make it look like Hayden actually cared about being in a movie, instead of waiting in a line for a new iPhone.
Nope. He's right. These words have specific legal meanings. You can't have "assault" without physical harm. Otherwise you might as well call it "rape" and be done with it.
Now if you had said "sexual harassment" or "defamation", you might have had a point.
... as much as the atrocious writing in that tire fire of a movie. And their ain't much we can do to fix that, at least not for the foreseeable future.
Using them in sexual videos without their consent should be considered sexual assult.
That would be contrary to the plain definition of assault: "make a physical attack on" and even the extended legal (in some jurisdictions) definition fo assault: "a credible threat or attempt to cause battery" (where battery refers to the actual bodily contact). I'm not arguing against the idea that using someone's likeness in photos or videos without their consent being illegal, just the idea that it be labeled as "assault." Otherwise, this would dilute the definition of assault. Perhaps someone could come up with a more appropriate label apart from borrowing one from a different kind illegal act.
Ok, here's the problem. I have a neighbor that's on the sex offender database. I asked him about it.
Turns out, he was caught peeing an an alley next to a bar. Being a little gross, but harming nobody. The cop booked him for indecent exposure, and it snowballed from there.
All of a sudden, there's no line between a rapist and a drunk kid. Do you see the problem with labeling everything as "Sexual Assault"?
Your daughter gets banged like a screen door every Thursday at the truck stop.
Deepfakes is using only existing footage of the actors and of the movie it is inserted in.
In your scenario, there would instead be access to a 3D-scan of the original actor's face which could be fixed up and animated based on motion capture dots on the new actor's face. With those, you could produce an even better result.
While Peter Cushing is not alive, life-casts of his face remain -- once made for making rubber appliances for make-up effects. The same goes for many actors.
As with any old genuine movie props, there are also people who collect nth generation life-casts of famous actors...
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
With this kind of parental upbringing you are showing he'd probably voluntarily stay away. People with messed up childhoods are often too difficult to be worth the hassle.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Wasn't meant to be.
That would be contrary to the plain definition of assault: "make a physical attack on" and even the extended legal (in some jurisdictions) definition fo assault: "a credible threat or attempt to cause battery" (where battery refers to the actual bodily contact). I'm not arguing against the idea that using someone's likeness in photos or videos without their consent being illegal, just the idea that it be labeled as "assault." Otherwise, this would dilute the definition of assault. .
Oh, and we certainly can't have that.
Someone hasn't been watching the news lately.
Ok, let's try it this way, hypothetically:
Your daughter comes home, and says "Mommy/Daddy, I've been sexually assaulted!".
Do you want to know if they were Raped, Flashed, or photoshopped into an image? Are those three things really entirely equivalent to you? you have no more questions?
I have two daughters myself. I'm not interested in yours. I also want words to have meaning, and not just use one scary phrase to describe any kind of harm that may come to a person.
This kind of deepfake could fall under libel laws, which include both written information and pictures. Libel is certainly different from a physical attack, and is clearly a type of harm.
Lose = not win
I'm guessing you've never heard of slander/libel laws?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Wouldn't defamation of character be a better charge for this?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Short people are easy to spot based on the head to torso ratio. While not exactly short, Ehrenreich does not have the same stature as Ford. It makes the fake look really weird to me.
the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
Using a person's likeness in photos or videos without the person's consent should be illegal.
To a certain extent, it is. Little fan works like this might go under the radar, but Lucasfilm, even though they own all the footage of Harrison Ford from the Star Wars days, would need to get permission from Ford to insert him into a new movie, just like they needed from Peter Cushing's estate to get Cushing inserted into Rogue One.
Many of these rules date back to Back to the Future Part II, where test footage of Crispin Glover (George McFly) from the first movie was used along with actor Jeffrey Weissman who used chin, nose, and cheek prosthetics to appear as Glover. Glover sued, and now the SGA has clauses in their contracts forbidding the use of an actor's likeness without permission. That's why when there's an actor replacement for a role, very little effort is done to make the new actor look like the old character. If you make the "new" character look too much like the old one, there can be legal action if this wasn't already worked out with the old actor.
Do you want to know if they were Raped, Flashed, or photoshopped into an image?
Yes, so I can know whether to use a red hot pair of pliers to remove his genitals and stuff them down his throat, smack the person upside the head, or fry their system.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Pretty amazing job my ass. Looks absolutely terrible.
Yeah I know this is a fanboi job and I give *him* credit for this, but boo on Gizlozer for overhyping it.
Ok, fine. We should call it "misuse if someone's likeness in a sexual manner" and force the guy register on a "misuse of someone's likeness in a sexual manner" database and to send out notifications to all if his neighbors that he misses people's likeness in a sexual manner.
Yeah, great idea. We should create a database for everyone. Anyone who speeds shouldn't be allowed to drive. We should put alcoholic and pot smokers on a list.too, or should we make a list for individual drugs? Anyone who can think should go on a list too, obviously they're a threat. You obviously need to be on the list of people who should be medicated.
While the sexual predator list sounded like a good idea in theory, in practice it's a fucking disaster. Some who gets caught taking a piss in the bushes doesn't belong on that list. It a biological function and we all have to do it. When did a picture of someone partially or fully naked become porn? Context matters. Or should we burn and destroy any art with nudity? Medical texts should also all be burned as porn right?
Stay the hell away from my daughter. Creep.
I never mentioned or have any interest on you daughter. Perhaps you're a little too obsessed with you own daughter and are projecting you mental health issues. It looks to me like you forgot your medication today
That sounds like an excellent new topic for the ever expanding area of Social Justice.
One of the worst aspects of "Solo" was the actor's thin reedy voice v.s. Ford's deep super-masculine voice.
This has been a REALLY WEIRD curveball that I've noticed out on the fringes. Violence doesn't have to be violent anymore. Words can be violent. You can "cause violence" against someone without ever even being in the same room as them or knowing their name. It's all utter bullshit, but for some reason they want to redefine terms until.... I dunno.... it's easier to claim victim status?
Next step;
Keep Ford, and replace everything else with the footage and story from A New Hope.
The article doesn't say anything about the technology, other than to describe it as "deep learning AI." What exactly does this mean? Is it a neural network? If it's not, it's not really "AI." Deep learning? Maybe, or maybe it's just brute force that runs on really powerful equipment. Can't tell from the article.
$1000 sounds like a perfectly reasonable punishment. Being labelled a sex offender for an act that was entirely not sexual is not reasonable.
I get the feeling that this Dallas May character is someone who screams "RAPE" at the top of her lungs when people won't let her cut them in line at the grocery store.
She'll justify it by saying that they're "raping" her time by making her stand in line, just like everyone else.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Yea, If I were a big movie star I'd have my face detail mapped when I was young (or immediately to retain as much youth as possible) so that in my later years the accuracy would be there. I wonder if some big actors are voluntarily doing that yet?
It looks like someone wearing a Harrison Ford mask. It shows, very clearly, just how good Harrison Ford is as an actor.
This is certainly his face, but it isn't his facial expressions. It isn't his smile. It isn't his brow furl. Those aren't the way that his eyes widen.
Simply put, it doesn't move correctly.
And that means that the mechanisms by which Harrison Ford's face is attached to his head are betrayed. Dimples might be there, but they don't restrict the skin's movement.
It's awesome, in terms of technology, and it's certainly enough to make a casual viewer believe that this is Harrison Ford. But it's also enough to make an expert acting coach believe that Harrison Ford is a terrible actor.
It's libel at worst. There's no way Deep Fake videos would qualify as assault or sexual assault. This is basic jurisprudence. It's much closer to stating publicly that "Stacey is a slut" versus assaulting Stacey.
gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.