• Varyag@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    While cool application of the tevh, this is peak vertical video brainrot. Stop making vertical videos.

  • Mastens@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Saw the clips. Not impressed.

    Outside of it being a new clickbait trend the movies, the example they are using lose way more because they are totally changing the scene composition.

    Consider the attention to detail and visuals in Akira. If they expanded the visuals to be portrait oriented they wouldn’t have such drab, empty, uninspired art in the added space. Which is exactly what AI does in this instance. It makes the examples (Akira especially) look less compelling, less focused, and in the event it does have something decently render takes away from the true composition of the shit so it ruins the content of said shot.

    My two cents.

  • ShootBANGdang
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I love when AI is used to give us different perspectives, belying the impact to artist’s original intent. More of a curiosity in this case, a “what if?” Of sorts

  • getseclectic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is cool as a proof of concept but I tend to agree with the ‘dissenters’ that the composition is much stronger in many of the unaltered scenes.

  • xpsking@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Actually super well done and an interesting concept.

    These are all static shots from the film that suit the format and method well, so definitely could not do the whole film like this.

    I think it looks neat, it’s not viable for a whole movie, but it’s cool!

    • jtmetcalfe@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      I hate it too but there’s a reason books have a portrait resolution, it’s easier to scan when you’re holding it in front of your face

      • Poggervania@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        My guy, books were portrait-oriented because you can get more words on paper that way. They were literally made before phones were even a thing.

      • ᕮᐯIᒪ Tᕼᕮ ᑕᗩT@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        24
        ·
        1 year ago

        takes a deep breath

        Okay, let’s do an autopsy of your reply:

        1. Books don’t have a resolution. They’re paper.

        2. “Portrait” is an orientation, not a resolution.

        3. Movies aren’t books.