|
Post by Dylan Heath on Feb 5, 2017 9:21:38 GMT
Reminds me of Monkeys typing Shakespeare. Eventually they will do it, but it could take a million years. Same theory. Although I said similar with chroma dot recovery too... Computers are a lot faster than monkeys, we just need to wait until they're advanced enough which won't be longer than a few decades I should think considering how technology increases in power exponentially over time.
|
|
|
Post by John Green on Feb 5, 2017 10:22:20 GMT
Reminds me of Monkeys typing Shakespeare. Eventually they will do it, but it could take a million years. Same theory. Although I said similar with chroma dot recovery too... It was an infinite number of monkeys, given potentially an infinite amount of time...It's more difficult-or do I mean easier?- because Beppo, Jeppo, and the rest would be aiming at several texts-Good and Bad Quartos,the First Folio (including variants introduced by the editors and type-setters while it was at the press), plus the plays added in the Second Folio, emendations suggested since the eighteenth century...(I love this stuff). And that's just the plays. And what about the lost play, Cardenio? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_Cardenio And possibly Love's Labour Won? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love's_Labour's_Won Wouldn't it be easier to genetically modify the monkeys so that they can resemble the original cast, and re-enact the stories? Or should I just mention that I've copyrighted the 'hitting keys at random' bit?
|
|
|
Post by jayglover on Feb 5, 2017 10:42:05 GMT
I think I understand what you mean and it's something I have theorised for a while. Technology is getting exponentially better as days go by, for The War Machines there was a couple of seconds of frame missing in part 4 so for the DVD release they got a computer to predict what the frames would have been like and it looks absolutely indistinguishable from the actual thing. With that in mind say 20 to 40 years in the future, what if computers are so advanced that based on the script, telesnaps and other bits of material relating to the episode, would a computer be able to if a little inaccurately predict what each frame of missing episodes would have looked like? I know it's a bit out there but so was something like the Internet 20 years before it was invented, we know it's possible for computers to reach this kind of insane level of logical prediction if it was powerful enough so if I'm right we may have a viable alternative to original copies of the episodes even if the technology takes a few decades to develop. Yes, I am a big fan of that story and know every cutaway and recreated shot of by heart, I would love to see more of that kind of thing maybe on the 8mm clips where the could try and recreate a bit of the picture
|
|
|
Post by richardwoods on Feb 5, 2017 11:35:51 GMT
Reminds me of Monkeys typing Shakespeare. Eventually they will do it, but it could take a million years. Same theory. Although I said similar with chroma dot recovery too... Computers are a lot faster than monkeys, we just need to wait until they're advanced enough which won't be longer than a few decades I should think considering how technology increases in power exponentially over time. Or alternatively they could use totally lifelike CGI that's bound to arrive before so long..... Mind you some of us will be in our dotage by then........
|
|
|
Post by Sue Butcher on Feb 5, 2017 12:06:52 GMT
Yes, but CGI on its own can't recreate the acting. That'll always have to be an educated guess of the part of the animators, and if they're in a hurry they'll avoid the problem completely and produce something photographically accurate but lifeless.
By the way, if the Universe is actually infinite in size - and for all we know it could be - exact replicas of you, me, all the missing episodes of everything, and all the shows that never got made are out there at a very great distance because there are only so many ways you can arrange atoms in space before you repeat yourself. That idea is even less useful than arranging pixels randomly.
|
|
|
Post by richardwoods on Feb 5, 2017 14:01:54 GMT
Yes, but CGI on its own can't recreate the acting. That'll always have to be an educated guess of the part of the animators, and if they're in a hurry they'll avoid the problem completely and produce something photographically accurate but lifeless. By the way, if the Universe is actually infinite in size - and for all we know it could be - exact replicas of you, me, all the missing episodes of everything, and all the shows that never got made are out there at a very great distance because there are only so many ways you can arrange atoms in space before you repeat yourself. That idea is even less useful than arranging pixels randomly. What we need is something like Stargate SGI's quantum mirror & raid archives in alternative universes. That'll work.
|
|
|
Post by Dylan Heath on Feb 5, 2017 17:03:12 GMT
Computers are a lot faster than monkeys, we just need to wait until they're advanced enough which won't be longer than a few decades I should think considering how technology increases in power exponentially over time. Or alternatively they could use totally lifelike CGI that's bound to arrive before so long..... Mind you some of us will be in our dotage by then........ I honestly think a computer guessing the frames will come round sooner than that being cheap though.
|
|
|
Post by simonashby on Feb 5, 2017 21:39:08 GMT
Or alternatively they could use totally lifelike CGI that's bound to arrive before so long..... Mind you some of us will be in our dotage by then........ I honestly think a computer guessing the frames will come round sooner than that being cheap though. But there isn't enough information to make that happen. If you have 0 existent frames of a 25 minute programme, it's all guesswork. If you have tele snaps that number in the 10s, not even 100s, then it's still guesswork. A computer is only as good as the information that you feed it. This isn't filling a gap of a handful of frames, or even a few dozen. This is hundreds and possibly thousands of missing frames between what currently exists. It will never happen that way. On the other hand, it may aid a CGI reconstruction. In the future GCI will certainly be able to create a convincing but inaccurate (with respect to the original footage) programme.
|
|
|
Post by richardwoods on Feb 6, 2017 18:29:27 GMT
I honestly think a computer guessing the frames will come round sooner than that being cheap though. But there isn't enough information to make that happen. If you have 0 existent frames of a 25 minute programme, it's all guesswork. If you have tele snaps that number in the 10s, not even 100s, then it's still guesswork. A computer is only as good as the information that you feed it. This isn't filling a gap of a handful of frames, or even a few dozen. This is hundreds and possibly thousands of missing frames between what currently exists. It will never happen that way. On the other hand, it may aid a CGI reconstruction. In the future GCI will certainly be able to create a convincing but inaccurate (with respect to the original footage) programme. Yeah, that's what I thought too, good CGI building on tele snaps really is the best we can hope for. With the time growing between the last time the missing episodes were viewed by those of us "lucky" enough to be the wrong side of 50, if no copies anywhere exist of episodes, any lost subtleties with the acting in the reconstruction is a moot point really, particularly as the memory cheats. I remember camera angles, acting and scenes in the Invasion being different from my memory of the broadcast when I watched the VHS release.
|
|
|
Post by Dylan Heath on Feb 6, 2017 18:42:58 GMT
I honestly think a computer guessing the frames will come round sooner than that being cheap though. But there isn't enough information to make that happen. If you have 0 existent frames of a 25 minute programme, it's all guesswork. If you have tele snaps that number in the 10s, not even 100s, then it's still guesswork. A computer is only as good as the information that you feed it. This isn't filling a gap of a handful of frames, or even a few dozen. This is hundreds and possibly thousands of missing frames between what currently exists. It will never happen that way. On the other hand, it may aid a CGI reconstruction. In the future GCI will certainly be able to create a convincing but inaccurate (with respect to the original footage) programme. Obviously that's true now but in the future using a variety of sources computers can build somewhat accurate reconstructions.
|
|
|
Post by timmunton on Feb 7, 2017 0:03:00 GMT
The accuracy should be somewhat testable at each stage of future CGI development by having a control model; where a fully existing episode ( eg Wheel In Space 6 ) is stripped away to say just some several dozen (pseudo-)telesnaps & audio & camera script & is then presented to the computer program in this form, as well as with some other episode where that really is all that exists ( eg Evil Of The Daleks 6 ).
The computer program will also have access to all other available Dr Who material (just not the 'flesh' of Wheel 6 ) & images of relevant actors etc in other programmes & so on.
Then the program recreates not only Evil 6 but also Wheel 6 ( ie from roughly the same amount of respective input data from both ).
If the recreated Wheel 6 is uncannily close to the ( still existing ) original it would be reasonable to assume Evil 6 is probaby likewise very close!
If Wheel 6 has large disparities it's likely Evil 6 is likewise flawed...
Would be fascinating to see - using relevant control episodes in this way - if/how each evolving computer program gets closer to the original of the control episode & hence very probably closer ( as just theorised ) to the lost originals of actual missing episodes.
|
|
|
Post by ianphillips on Feb 7, 2017 3:55:34 GMT
Honestly, this might not be a very popular opinion, but I would be just fine if reconstructions did not perfectly mirror the episodes, as long as they looked real and portrayed the actors and sequences in a realistic way in which they might have happened. We have records of camera angles used in some episodes and me know a lot of the mannerisms that Troughton, Hartnell, and the companions put into their roles so, even if the reconstruction were not perfect, it would still be an accurate representation of what it could have been like. If someone who didn't know that it was missing watched it and proclaimed it to be the real thing then that's good enoguh for me. That's why I think that a lot of the animated episodes like Moonbase 1 and 3 and the Invasion 1 and 4 are not particularly desired as say EOTD, FFTD, or DMP is (that's not to say that we don't want them returned, but there is less urgency in them). I think this is because we do have those episodes in a visual medium in a semi-accurate representation of how it may have looked, even if it is not the most ideal medium. We can enjoy the episodes as they were meant to be enjoyed, visually, even if they are not perfect recreations. I once read in the youtube comment section a statement that I think is very indicative of my point here. It said something along the lines of "Once a good enough reconstruction comes along, the episode is no longer missing." While this isn't entirely true, of course the episode would still be missing and of course the original would be preferable, but it just presents the point that, given that any who saw the original screenings will most likely never see most of the missing episodes again and younger viewers such as I will most likely never see them once, if a reconstruction comes along of roughly equivalent quality, style, and enjoyability as the original, the episode will be able to be enjoyed in the same way to the same degree as it was when it first aired, despite not being a perfect recreation of the original. The episode will have, essentially, regenerated. It looks different externally, but internally it is just the same as it always was.
|
|
|
Post by Richard Tipple on Feb 7, 2017 9:29:50 GMT
Sadly there are episodes we'll never seen again. I'm accepted that. It's really sad but ultimately you can't wish things back into existence - once they're gone, they're gone.
I thought the recent attempt to bring Cushing back to Star Wars was exceptionally exciting. It cost many, many million of dollars and isn't anywhere near affordable for home use so it isn't something that applies directly to Doctor Who. However, I must admit, I have dreamt of recreating missing episodes, with full sets and actors wearing greenscreen masks and mo-cap, to digitally produce a likeness of Hartnell et al. It's nothing more than a pipe dream at the moment though, far far too expensive and the results aren't convincing enough,
|
|
|
Post by Dylan Heath on Feb 7, 2017 21:25:44 GMT
Sadly there are episodes we'll never seen again. I'm accepted that. It's really sad but ultimately you can't wish things back into existence - once they're gone, they're gone. I thought the recent attempt to bring Cushing back to Star Wars was exceptionally exciting. It cost many, many million of dollars and isn't anywhere near affordable for home use so it isn't something that applies directly to Doctor Who. However, I must admit, I have dreamt of recreating missing episodes, with full sets and actors wearing greenscreen masks and mo-cap, to digitally produce a likeness of Hartnell et al. It's nothing more than a pipe dream at the moment though, far far too expensive and the results aren't convincing enough, In the future however it certainly will be a possibility as the technology becomes better and cheap. Certainly not coming soon but I'm certain that it'll be possible in my lifetime.
|
|
|
Post by Dan S on Feb 7, 2017 21:54:03 GMT
Can someone explain this to me in a easy understandable way You know the thing about having an infinite amount of monkeys bashing away at an infinite number of typewriters and they'll eventually come up with the complete works of Shakespeare? Well that site is an infinite amount of monkeys throwing pixels at a screen. EDIT: Oh someone already mentioned it at the top of this page/bottom of the previous page. I'd not read that far.
|
|