the Future of Cinematography

Something to think of. When I bought this 20 years ago it cost about 1.8 M€/TB, It is still worth about 100k€/TB, sadly it is just 340 MB they go for 30 to 100 euro on eBay.

MicroDrive.jpg (278.53 KiB) Viewed 5041 times

Now reflect that 20 years ahead. I do not dare to, not even guess. Even couple of years from now is on heavy mist. Computational videography, fast editing platforms with AI assisted tools, Deepfake and just pure AI generated Video...

I would have guessed Morgan Freeman is the real one on this, maybe the voice convince me too much.

Maybe in twenty years… still deep down there somewhere trying to climb up.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

Cool. In 20 years MAYBE I can afford a 1TB Angelbird CFast card. Maybe I could trade a box of them for an off the shelf laser hologram neutron card.

I used to work in farming automation and there was a tractor auto-steer unit that could only use up to a 64MB card (sd? CF?) That size was already obsolete then so we were paying more for those when we could find them than we would pay for the biggest and best of the day. That gives me hope that my boxes of ethernet cables and coax might eventually fund my retirement.

I have followed BMD Cinematography for long long time, and it feels that during the last year it has gone really really quiet.

Maybe it is as no new cameras for a while, but is it. How are other Cinematography (gear) related forums?

Concerning deep fake technology...

I believe we will struggle 20 years from now with validation of what is true and what is not. I think institutions will have to be installed who's sole purpose is to authenticate information.

I think these "advancements" will most likely create a fundamental lack of trust in reality that mankind has never had to deal with before. It's already happening even without perfectly faked videos, audio "recordings" or "photos" and it will get a lot worse with them.

Microsoft's OpenAI now only needs a 3 second voice snippet to produce scarily good text to speech recordings.
https://valle-demo.github.io

I also believe that, as with global warming, governments will take too long to acknowledge the problems and warnings to take action. In fact they should have set up regulations similar to the human cloning act already.

Scary and tedious times ahead.

I did my first test of AI generated video. ChatGPT got task: YouTube Shorts script, people are freaking out because of ChatGPT and DALL-E, do not mention people. it gave also description of the shots that I fed to DALL-E telling Picasso Style, The Script I did but true https://voicemaker.in and then some editing.

Ok, it is terrible, and not really video, but it is my first trial, 3 hours of work to make it for the first time.

Or maybe I should just say

Watch as our A.I. duo ChatGPT and DALL-E, create chaos and then fix it in this awesome short film.

https://youtube.com/shorts/iiHTCvW3XR4?feature=share

I am sure the ChatGPT will get much better very fast now and it is already good tool, there is many video related AI tools also coming. Maybe it will take years before they are great. but I am afraid we will start seeing a lot AI generated stuff. Not because the AI is actually intelligent, but because it is convenient, easy to start using with no skills, and I am sure we will see some great stuff also, but mostly it will be just awful experience and there will be so much of that....

This is interesting, it is getting good

on this they are mostly demonstrating the extreme effects, and it is currently just talking head, wondering how long it will take until we something like this on DaVinci Resolve it is the section of the forum that has plenty going on.

Ai will be to the content industry a major shift that will affect everything, below and above the line. some trades might even disappear. Actors will be relegated for a time to voice or motion capture and then only to the theatre (if holography remains undevloped} From top to bottom the content will be totally made on computers and all the skills and trades will be done on the computer. I'm sure there will be hold-out rebels but it will be a losing war. Ai could become the overlord of everything.


Ricardo Marty

It WILL become the overlord of everything if we don't install strict, global regulations, fast. But we won't, or too late. So here's to our children's struggle to distinguish real from fake.

It WILL become the overlord of everything if we don't install strict, global regulations, fast. But we won't, or too late. So here's to our children's struggle to distinguish real from fake.

The internet experience will be tapered to your stored profile making anything you see a controlling factor.
Agreed, Meaning the results of your search and the content you ingest.
but it will very difficult to reach them and not to trust what they see, read and hear on any screen. A true nightmare.


Ricardo Marty

At 80's there was in most countries well controlled few TV channels and news paper.

But even then it looked it had come to that very fast and we had so much, some thought too much

Very few could afford any kind of camera, and even fewer publish the pictures.

At 90's we got the internet, and it took awhile to get where we are now, and it feels we have too much

Maybe it is just proof I am getting old, but difficult to see how the next 10 years can be good for anyone.

and I do love technology.

11289419_483605845128551_580045446709772226_o.jpg (173.47 KiB) Viewed 4281 times

And we are doing it to ourselves.


Ricardo Marty

My prediction is that we will see the rise of AI start-ups taking over several branches by storm because AI technology will allow them to offer their service very cheap, undercutting traditional services.
I can see this happing for tax lawyers/tax accounting, notary, PR agencies, graphic designers, architects, interior designers, web design and creative industries in general.
Even for average software development.

Many will be surprised when AI will replace them because they thought that they can’t be replaced.

I can see creative work losing value a lot again. And it could make mankind lazy, uncreative, undecided, and visionless in the long run. If anybody can be a random creative without effort, no one is a creative.

We will get swamped with AI art, like we’ll get swamped with meaningless pictures and videos now.

Movies will be AI-d. You tell the AI your planned movies idea framework, then it generates several pitches based on that idea. You select one and let the AI generate characters, story line, locations. Then it generates your script. Finally you select your actors from a database and then let the AI generate everything, including music.
This could lead to a flood of mediocre and trivial movies (many more than nowadays).

I have no doubt that big studios will exploit those possibilities to the max, because you do not need actors, filming crews, locations and other things anymore. But they could recycle known actors ad infinitum.

They will. A silver lining, at least in the beginning, might be that the first iterations will be flawed and people quick to dismiss it. Eventually it will succeed though. Two steps forward, one step back.

But AI in art and movies isn't what I personally worry about as much as how AI will fundamentally disrupt our understanding of reality in every aspect of our lives.

How will we tackle the mass unemployment? The growing struggle to authenticate information being true or false? The social stress of having to identify anything as real or fake? The forces that will use the general uncertainty to their advantage? That will use AI to actively disrupt societies / structures? The big corps that will only gain power by leveraging their influence using AI?

We need strict, global regulations and we need them yesterday.

In considering the Future of Cinematography, it is perhaps interesting to consider the past. This actual Mitchell NC Standard serial number #257, was bought by Universal Studios in 1929 and was then used for many films: from the first Oscar winner, All Quiet On The Western Front, the famous Universal horrors, the Technicolor Disney animations such as Pinocchio, Fantasia, Bambi and Dumbo (shooting each frame 3x through coloured filters, to free up actual Technicolor 3 strip cameras) through to the special effects for Star Trek, the original series and well beyond, for well over 40 years. It still works, bought by a private collector and could happily shoot on film tomorrow.

BMD released their first digital camera less than 10 years ago. Will our cameras still be working in five years? Will we even be using cameras at this rate - I know I will if I can but disruptive technologies such as AI are only going to get more prevalent, since many young people now really believe the filters on the mobiles show them as they truly are, but films will never get better told through technology alone, no matter how clever.

lf.jpg (45.99 KiB) Viewed 4120 times

AI has the possibility to disrupt almost everything. College students will rely on it. Then one day in the future, when everything that we do know is only vaguely remembered someone, somehow will pull the plug, and we will be left knowing nothing not even how to plug it in again.

Ricardo Marty

At 80's there was in most countries well controlled few TV channels and news paper.

But even then it looked it had come to that very fast and we had so much, some thought too much

Very few could afford any kind of camera, and even fewer publish the pictures.

At 90's we got the internet, and it took awhile to get where we are now, and it feels we have too much

Maybe it is just proof I am getting old, but difficult to see how the next 10 years can be good for anyone.

and I do love technology.

11289419_483605845128551_580045446709772226_o.jpg

The USSR had six. I got to watch them right after the USSR fell apart. Insane how different things were there.

Oh AI....

What a love hate relationship I have with the reality of it.
On one hand, if someone can provide me a tool that allows me to generate truly usable storyboards without me incompetently trying to sketch with my non-existent drawing talents? I'm all in.
I've also been toying with AI helping me to write some color grading tools to analyze reference images and output useful data (to mixed success).

I suppose I am welcoming to the idea of using AI as the tool that informs the art, but doesn't particularly produce it. A tool that speeds up the creative process of the human, but doesn't replace it. An era in which the access to tools is not the barrier in creativity, but actually one's understanding of what dissimilar pieces we can push together to make something unified and whole is the trick to creating great art.

That being said, I too fear the endless glut of mediocre, derivative images all based on the same basic algorithms. I feel it happening already. I fear that replacing an industry with generative AI patterns really just means, art will essentially slow to a trickle in its diversity and ingenuity. Those in charge of hiring for creative, whether in film, tv, or business will not find it easy to justify spending the extra time and money to create things that are novel. That's too expensive and reduces ROI. AI can generate something tolerable and safe for very little cost.

The pessimist in me sees this as just one more expression of the homogenization of all content.
The optimist in me believes there are a lot of people who will intrinsically "feel" the difference. And like vinyl is to the MP3 for a certain set of listeners, I'm truly hoping and believing there will always be some segment of people who choose art that comes about from human endeavor, instead of algorithms and averages.

The AI era may well be defined by the tastes and preferences of those who are in it.
What do we like to see? Do we care how it was made?

My rambling .02c
Best,
-Daniel

Ah the vinyl my preference source for music.

Screenshot 2023-03-23 at 8.58.04.jpg (175.77 KiB) Viewed 3121 times

I do not think the reasons are technical, not directly technical that the vinyl it self would be better media.

I think the reason is more that once they got the ease of editing on computer and doing all kind of noice removal, compression, pitch correction etc. the digital era just killed the music.

Movies, some times the modern movies succeed, but too often the story and storytelling is just weak, replaced with all kind of effects, and making those effects is just getting much easier, but the story telling just remains as hard, for time being anyway, but that is actually not true, not from all perspectives.

Youtube optimisation is already defining much the content we see, and with AI it will get much 'better', we in average get the content we most consume... where is the art on that.

Having just seen Black Adam, it seems to me that no more than 30 minutes (and I’m being kind) of the movie were created by sentient beings that had a rather simple outline to flesh out in ways that might entertain another sentient being (I’m being inclusive here and not assuming a universe of only **** Sapiens) based on their experiences of how our hearts and minds work.

The entire rest of the movie was clearly fully realized by artificial intelligence artificially creating or plagiarizing visuals and audio including the music without more than programmed innovations designed to obscure their AI is only derivative. If you enjoyed the movie, fine you will enjoy your future. If you agree with any of the sentiments in this post, you only hope you live long enough for the stranglehold of the current fad to loosen its grip and allow you to enjoy a good night’s sleep that knits the raveled sleeve of care once again. Sadly for many on this forum, we’re unlikely to see that turn unless we make it happen rather than fill our minds with empty calories until our minds atrophy.

AI has been winning chess matches for decades, but not always.

I don’t know, but I’m guessing Black Adam was made by humans. The funny thing is, AI might actually do the job of Hollywood screenwriter BETTER. I had a seven year mini-career as a feature screenwriter, during which I and my writing partner sold a spec script which never got made, followed by years of rewrite gigs. During that time, I realized that a huge part of the job was to essentially act as a computer, synthesizing concepts and plot points from other successful movies, to create something “new”. The mantra of the studios at the time was “Fresh, but familiar”. In pitches, you would constantly reference other hit movies, to reassure executives that your idea wasn’t TOO creative, that it was essentially a blending of other, financially proven films. The term is “the Cuisinart method”, and every screenwriter does it. Just think of the cliche for pitching… “It’s (successful movie) meets (other successful movie)”. And if we’re being honest… this is EXACTLY what A.I. does incredibly well.

Just yesterday, the WGA, in the middle of pre-strike negotiations, announced that they were fine with A.I. being used to write the foundation of scripts, as long as a writer gets paid for every project. And let me tell you, if I was in that game, I’d be using the hell out of it for plot point ideation. And I guarantee that almost every working screenwriter will use it in some capacity. I would not remotely be surprised if, in the next two years, most scripts will be heavily dependent on AI plotting, even if the writers deny it.

Humans will still be needed to write the dialogue effectively, at least until A.I. gets better at humor and quirkiness. But yeah, A.I. is absolutely the future for studio-level story generation and plotting. That’s not a good thing, per se, but oddly enough, the effectiveness of the “Cuisinart method” will be far better than the human version we’ve seen so much of in the past 40 years of screenwriting.

How did you determine that AI will produce "BETTER” mash-up scripts, on the order of "_________ meets _______" than humans do? And what’s the meaning of “better”? Surely not in a literary sense? Do you mean more marketable? Or actually selling more tickets?

It wouldn't be surprising if machines prove to be better at fulfilling the expectations of movie executives than actual writers, since the writer's personal inclinations and any literary talent or taste won't interfere with the product as the executive suites conceive it, based on the screenwriting books they've read and seminars they've attended. “Plot point ideation” since you mention it, is case in point. What actual writer thinks or works that way? It's an administrative notion, as is (for example) three act structure (in mass-market movies!?! Please!).

So are the machines writing better or more profitable movies, or just better at giving executives what they think they want?

Sincerely thanks for the well-informed perspective.

I’m even more afraid that algorithmic scriptwriting, however effective and satisfying it may well be for many, is very dangerous. A pitch as you describe it certainly makes sense, but not a complete script or edited film that could emphasize subtle political correctness more and more over genuine value. There’s gold and there’s fools gold, they can seem close enough.

As this question keeps popping up, one thing to keep in mind is that according to the current interpretation of the law, AI generated content is not protected under US Copyright. So, at least at this point, the potential for monetization of AI art is very questionable.

Will the US Congress get together in a bipartisan fashion to completely rewrite copyright law in a way that would cover the needs for both human generated and AI content? Given that at this point no one knows what such a law would look like, and no one knows what such a Congress would look like, I won't hold my breath for that.

As this question keeps popping up, one thing to keep in mind is that according to the current interpretation of the law, AI generated content is not protected under US Copyright. So, at least at this point, the potential for monetization of AI art is very questionable.

Will the US Congress get together in a bipartisan fashion to completely rewrite copyright law in a way that would cover the needs for both human generated and AI content? Given that at this point no one knows what such a law would look like, and no one knows what such a Congress would look like, I won't hold my breath for that.

I beg to differ. Just read an article (cant find it) where it states that AI art cannot be copyrighted if it was just made by input in a dialogue box. it needs to have been further manipulated by the artist, say like with photoshop, ae, paint, excetera. It also said that someone copyrighted a comic book with ai generated art and said that the images by them selves cannot be copyrighted but the compilation with the storyline in the comic could be, and was. So iguess that this will apply to creative arts in general. Everything that comes out of ai has been generated by anything in the servers it feeds from and all these have creators.


Ricardo Marty

It's usually easy to prove (for example) that a machine chose a particular sequence of chess moves, because no human would ever make such unintuitive choices. It's plain that the moves were a product of blunt force calculation, not thought.

Whether that will also be true of AI-generated stories remains to be seen. My guess is, the statistical element in AI operations will produce story lines no storytelling human would ever come up with. And just about none of them will be usable, at least not from beginning to end. What could be interesting is trying to integrate the hallucinations of the machine, plot developments which would never occur to an actual writer, into something new, a form of art-house movie prompted by the mad suggestions of machines, and enlarging audience expectations of what a story must deliver, the way a David Lynch movie can.

But as for copyright, I don't think that will deter anyone, even if anyone could prove the machine wrote every word of the script and therefore the material was public domain. Hollywood already makes the same movies over and over again. There were parodies of gunslinger Westerns as early as 1906.

… enlarging audience expectations of what a story must deliver, the way a David Lynch movie can… Hollywood already makes the same movies over and over...

Great points, John. Except now the AI will have consumed this post and ‘understood’ that it must include unpredictable but nevertheless possible illuminating elements in its next AI story which will convince us only a creative human could have written it! Is it too late to save us, are we doomed?

The chess example got me thinking why I didn’t like the recent Banshees of Inisherin: to me it plays it’s pieces like that illogical chess game between two King pieces including the surprise escape of the Queen piece. And I wanted to like it.

Well, "Banshees" was definitely written by a human, a renowned playwright in fact, but you could argue that the senselessness of the whole thing reveals a poverty of the [human] imagination. Or too much Quentin Tarantino.

The more I think about this question, I'm convinced that (returning to David Lynch) "Mulholland Drive" was written by a machine, because in 2000+ years of recorded storytelling I don't think anyone else had ever gotten the course of the story to fully reveal itself after it was already told and without any tricks (like, say, the tricks in "The Sixth Sense").

"Structure" isn't quite the right word for it. But, if you ask me, he captured in the shape of the story something truly unique and mind-altering, never done before. The horror, hinted at throughout much of the "faux" movie, is revealed only *after* you come to see what the real story is, and no need of hokum or supernatural malarky. It's the actual story which holds the horror. But you don't know that while you're watching. What comes later alters what came before..... Very strange and satisfying. Thank ChatGPT. Or David Lynch.

I have been lately watching couple of series.

The Peaky Blinders, just great, and while not agreeable it lets one in to a very different mindset, and builds a story of a small time gangster that gets in to power outsmarting the ones that pull the ropes on our society. That reminds me of something very familiar today.

And Astrid, Bright Minds, while not as great on all aspects it tells a crime story in every episode in a way that next day one does not remember who was guilty and it was not relevant, it is all about Astrid. The individual stories on that are not strong, but it succeeds to tell something more if one gives it the time, it peaks when Astrid falls in love with a man who's passion is to study (1+square-root(5))/2.

One gets in to the mind of Astrid and maybe finds something in one self, very well done.

So there is some hope, but for movies I am not sure.

This is veering into the Future of Storytelling rather than the Future of Cinematography, but the streaming services that will, if not already, dominate how we consume stories, seem determined to sideline traditional 20th century visual storytelling (aka ‘movies’) for 19th century episodic literary storytelling. In the 19th century the weekly episode (aka chapter) was voraciously consumed in weekly editions as the tastiest meat in the sandwich of news and advertising. And if the stories were very popular, all the weekly chapters would likely be assembled in a ‘novel’ published afterwards.

Fast forward today and studios are delivering several times the number of weekly episodes compared to movies. And it’s seen as abject failure if you can’t milk the episodic ‘story’ for at least three seasons (years) with some stories going on for about a decade or more. In my mind, that is not as kind nor perceptive as Kim’s, I’ve come to the conclusion that these long term episodes in total should not be called a story at all. Each episode has the potential to be a story, but in most series, they fail at that as we merely experience characters and plot lines moving forward at a glacial pace for ten years.

There may be exceptions as I’m painting the scene with a broad brush. I loved the adapted Game of Thrones until the bereft lazy lunacy of the last year. I loved The Vikings until the bereft lazy lunacy of the last year. But I wish more of these strange 21st century things had a beginning, a middle, and an end (a hook, development, and a purpose achieved). Instead Game of Thrones and The Vikings subverted the purpose of everything that went before the conclusion, slapped their audience abandoned in a sadistic sewer.

The future of cinematography will be programs like unreal engine and ai. everything could be done in the software.


Ricardo Marty

thankfully, my line of business, mostly documentaries, are actual, authentic stories that can only be catered to and facilitated by actual people that care and want the best for the people in them.

thankfully, my line of business, mostly documentaries, are actual, authentic stories that can only be catered to and facilitated by actual people that care and want the best for the people in them.

...or will AI replace documentaries with aggregated concepts of history, unverified stories, and imagery of figures that have been invented? Genghis Khan will be reanimated, Mona Lisa will tell us what her expression really was, and the founding fathers will explain that they didn't really mean for us to pursue life and liberty, but instead to pay our taxes like dutiful citizens to the monarchy!

I jest, of course. But only after reading your post did I first think about how with AI tools, history itself could become very muddled with truth, aggregate truth, and complete fiction. I suppose history is always muddled by the medium (fallible humans). But this adds another layer to it all. I sincerely hope that my joke really stays just a joke.

I appreciate the musings in this thread! It's a real beast of a thing we are just now having to really think about - and dare I say, embrace to some degree or another.

Best,
- Daniel

Forget AI. "Actual, authentic stories" is a contradiction in terms. A story is a story. It's shaped and formed, by humans. Anyone who goes to documentaries for "truth", in any but the most trivial sense, is going to be disappointed or deceived.

Forget AI. "Actual, authentic stories" is a contradiction in terms. A story is a story. It's shaped and formed, by humans. Anyone who goes to documentaries for "truth", in any but the most trivial sense, is going to be disappointed or deceived.

I regret everything.

Regrets are futile. The past is. The future is what we make of it.

Where is the cinematography going regarding the gear and technology, other than AI. Those aspects are far from perfect but is there drive to make it better? Is there demand to make it better?

thankfully, my line of business, mostly documentaries, are actual, authentic stories that can only be catered to and facilitated by actual people that care and want the best for the people in them.

That's great but not all documentaries are like yours. And even yours could bebefit from AI a lot. If the interview cant make it get his permmission and create him in AI and generate his approved lines also with AI. the posibilities are endless.

Ricardo arty

That is known as Deep Fake. It has no place in a documentary unless the audience knows the subject is deceased and in the so-called documentary the subject is brought back to ‘life’ to either quote from material spoken or written by the subject will alive. That’s clearly not a documentary but may fly as a biopic such as Blonde.

I just think your suggestion crosses the red line of Integrity and passes into a form of Propaganda. Please think about the consequences of what you are saying. A documentary aspires to be the best form of ‘journalism on film,’ but it’s not worth watching if one cannot know what’s true or false.

That is known as Deep Fake. It has no place in a documentary unless the audience knows the subject is deceased and in the so-called documentary the subject is brought back to ‘life’ to either quote from material spoken or written by the subject will alive. That’s clearly not a documentary but may fly as a biopic such as Blonde.

I just think your suggestion crosses the red line of Integrity and passes into a form of Propaganda. Please think about the consequences of what you are saying. A documentary aspires to be the best form of ‘journalism on film,’ but it’s not worth watching if one cannot know what’s true or false.

Yes and no. If the person cant make it and he or she gives authorization and you use some previously recorded material or an ai generated image and the persons approved writing I see no problem if you give notice.


Ricardo Marty

Right now in the 21st century, as the new technologies associated with artificial intelligence are being applied in tools for creatives, it’s like the Wild West in the 19th century. In those days whoever was most willing to use their firepower to force their will upon others ruled. I’m sure they all had rationales to justify their approach as that’s human nature. There were laws in some jurisdictions but often an inability to enforce those laws. And in new territories there was often an absence of any laws for decades as settlements spread faster than wildfire. It does take time for management of capabilities to develop. Say a few centuries in some cases.

Today many are rushing into the new territory of AI eager to take advantage where they can for their own good while the societal structures, cultural mores, and laws don’t seem defined or able to act as an effective constraint. It’s up to you at this time to be very careful and do no harm with your creations likely to influence how we learn, what we learn, and why we are or become what we eat.

AI Deep Fake can be powerful, but is it the truth? Where is it appropriate?

Nothing inherently wrong with pretending, with fantasy, with fiction; augmented reality is useful and harmless only when you know it’s augmented. Artificial intelligence as a tool has the capability to appear to be intelligent, even imperceptible, but we will lose something when verisimilitude replaces reality. You’re not talking about a Marvel Universe background when you apply AI to your documentary subject’s content.

Will we see the day when AI is awarded Best Editing or Best Score or Best Actor at the Oscars? Don’t think that you’re in control today because you asked an app to grade your film as Film Noir and edit your film as Suspense and score your film as Conflict.

Don’t worry much about documentaries, we may soon have deceased politicians for president.

Appreciate your comment. Both humorous and terrifying.

As AI is today, it luckily is not intelligent at all, just automated processing and it is fully up to humans how to use it.

So it is not really AI we should be scared of, but humans, and that is us.

Now that it is out of the bottle, there is no putting it back. Sure there will be legislations, too late as always, how and for what it may be used, and ways around it. The change is coming and there is no stoping it, just to adapt, and those who will not, may find their niche, or not.

It has been very fast change already, that good quality video cameras and post production tools have come available for so many, and distribution channel are free to use, and you may even get paid, if people like your content, and watch it for the whole standard 10 to 15 minutes. And that is what I am afraid as content consumer. The content gets more an more pleasing the algorithms, to optimise the number of views and watch time.

As content creators we will have plenty of new tools and many of us will use them. We already have had audio enhancements for long now also re-lighting the video etc. and it will not stop there.

What are the limits one can do for documentary film. Adjust the high, low and mid levels of exposure, adjust the direction of light, remove a modern car from historic scene, generate a scene how things might looked 1500 years ago...

As someone who has been developing gimbals and camera control systems etc. it is amazing that as wonderful cameras we have now, we are still stuck with the time code, and video synch developed over 50 years a go, the camera interfaces are so bad and lacking, how lens control is so bad, I do know this stuff and it is frustrating. DJI has understood this, and the control the whole system, on their closed environment.

I leave you with this with an example how combining unexpected things can come something great.

I long thought it was about actual historic events, but maybe not, anyway it is about first time going to fight and only few returning and rebuilding their lives. For that it does not really mater if it actually happened or not, it is the same story told many times, this time a bit differently, with language you might not understand, but you still get the message.

… I long thought it was about actual historic events, but maybe not, anyway it is about first time going to fight and only few returning and rebuilding their lives. For that it does not really mater if it actually happened or not, it is the same story...

In the context of a drama, even based on actual events, say the dropping of the atomic bombs in WWII, characters have a life of their own in telling the story. So some may be very accurate and some may be a composite of several real people and some may be invented to fill a role in the story. We understand that and are ‘entertained’ by the telling of a story.

In the context of a documentary of actual events, say the dropping of atomic bombs in WWII, we aren’t entertained as much as we are informed within the limits of human memories and available evidence that was accessible. We know it’s virtually impossible to know the whole truth and see all sides of a story, but it matters very much that we are not misled intentionally or by the error of omission to educate a viewer with a fair perspective within the telling of that story.

I simply don’t trust AI to tell that story well.