Ridiculously cheap Craigslist ad looking for editor

I think to truly make something feel as "real" as something shot/edited by humans you would need a true AI. even more, you would need to give it a backstory and simulated life experience. Maybe it lets a shot of a little girl linger just a few frames longer than necessary cause its own daughter was taken by its wife in a nasty divorce. That sort of thing.
 
puredrifting said:
The other factor is the "robot economy" Have been continually reading and hearing that a vast majority of physical labor jobs as well as driving, strategy, etc. are going to be taken over by non human workers over the next two decades. There is no reason why intelligent drones with ridiculuously high resolution audio and video gathering ability could not replace the vast majority of camera ops, cameramen, etc. by then. Same with editing, there are already algorithms, AI, learned intelligence in computing that will make much of editing and post production possible by automation and computing. How much of what people consume for media is true, imperfect art versus just competently shot video content made by professionals? Not saying there will be no more jobs in production but a lot of what WE do today as cinematographers, cameramen, sound mixers, editors may be largely performed by computers within a decade or two. This all sounds like futuristic sci-fi but the experts and engineers assure us that this is coming, the same as driverless cars. Not quite here yet but soon enough they will be.
Click to expand...

Never mind the robots... it is the vast amount of electronics, SW and "AI" in cameras both pro and consumer that me ands that as long as the rank amateur (i.e. my 87 year old mum) takes the lens cap of, turn's it on and points it in the right direction she will get "good enough" video and pictures. You only have to look at some of the youtube videos with multi million views that you would rather delete than use. There are very many videos that are sort of OK shot by amateurs that people are happy with. The electronics have made up for a lot of skill. the Pro cameras just let you turn off the auto and mess about with the settings.

What they can't automate is the artistic framing and the editing. That is very fuzzy logic. but you can get 1000's of effects that you can drop into the shot (still or moving) with the click of a mouse or swipe of the screen. Effects that used to need a skilled person to do. the skill that they can't automate is knowing when to apply them.
 
nah, man. They could program an AI to understand composition,etc. Rule of thirds, program in every movie ever made and have the AI analyze them to understand WHY x is framed y way. It could be done.
 
In sports it would be somewhat simple to put a tracker inside a football (American or the rest of the world), and then program the main game cameras to follow the ball. That could cut out anywhere from 2 to 5 camera operators on most sporting events, leaving two or three to set everything up and operate handheld for close ups of the teams. You could probably program a computer to cut between the cameras depending on the situation, or just program it to listen to the director and cut to his/her commands. Would be a simple script for each director to say to teach the computer what they are saying and what to do when said. If my car can dial the phone, or play the song/album/artist when I tell it to, a switcher could be programmed to do the same.

But the quality of the production goes down when you take the humans out of it, and so far that is saving the remote TV industry (but it is sliding downhill fast).
 
Actually I am not a real person but a camera with a personality module that can access this forum whilst downloading to FCPX.....
 
Greg_E said:
In sports it would be somewhat simple to put a tracker inside a football (American or the rest of the world), and then program the main game cameras to follow the ball. That could cut out anywhere from 2 to 5 camera operators on most sporting events, leaving two or three to set everything up and operate handheld for close ups of the teams...
Click to expand...
Dunno how many of yous watched hockey in the 1970's but that era broadcasts always had a closeup camera on the goal itself and would cut to it when the puck got near it. Otherwise, it was a wide angle shot from about the red line (middle of the rink) panning each way. The idea was that the puck was small enough and its movement was fast enough that a closeup of a goal was necessary.

These days, with HD coverage, they don't do closeups off a separate camera ... but ... they don't always track a puck quickly enough as it flashes across the frame. Now, that's the sport that will benefit from 4K and 8K because that would allow a much wider framing.

Soccer and Am. foot balls don't travel nearly as fast and the subjects themselves are much bigger than a small hockey puck. When I was a young boy, a typical soccer match was followed by one center line camera and it was actually good enough for the vast portion of any match. Behind-the-goal replays were unveiled for the 1970 World Cup (the US networks had replays since the early 1960's), as was the live color telecast. Cable cams hadn't taken off until recently, though ABC used them as far back as the 1984 Olympics.

jagraphics said:
Actually I am not a real person but a camera with a personality module that can access this forum whilst downloading to FCPX.....
Click to expand...
That personality could use an urgent firmware upgrade (I kid, I kid ... I hate people taking jokes seriously ... like that "28 hour time zone difference" line).
 
When things on the "newsy" side started to go downhill(i.e.: producers being given handycams instead of using real camera people with real cameras) I said the only real "safe" place is shooting on live sports broadcasts. Now, as much as I hate to admit it, a lot of live sports could be covered without camera people operating some of the cameras. Especially the "main" live game cams, because the shots are so wide and mostly just panning(i.e.: main game cam for NFL and NBA).

Man, I wish I would have dumped my money into Apple stock instead of camera gear when I first started 20 years ago.
 
Josh Bass said:
I think to truly make something feel as "real" as something shot/edited by humans you would need a true AI. even more, you would need to give it a backstory and simulated life experience. Maybe it lets a shot of a little girl linger just a few frames longer than necessary cause its own daughter was taken by its wife in a nasty divorce. That sort of thing.
Click to expand...

I have a relative who works in and develops AI for JPL, he's kind of a genius. He has told me that this is coming faster and cheaper than you can imagine. Moores Law is relentless.
 
Since we are off on a big tangent, when I was doing football we generally had a game and tight camera at the 50, then camera at each 25. Endzone or both endzones and at least one handheld moving back and forth on the floor. Lacrosse was a different story because of the danger. Soccer would generally be cut back to 4 cameras due to budget and ad revenue. Basketball was normally 5 with one camera at the top of the stadium locked down on a wide shot, sometimes 2 POV in the nets as the cost got lower for decent POV cameras. Hockey depends on the rink, camera placement can be difficult and often covered with 2 high at center and 2 handheld with POV behind goals and above penalty box. Baseball was a 5 camera deal (mostly because we had 5 cameras). High home, center outfield, high first and third with one low in a dugout. Sometimes it was high first with two in the dugouts (depends on what the teams allow).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top