|
Post by lousingh on May 26, 2019 0:41:17 GMT
Hi, all.
This has come up as a possibility for recreating missing episodes, but now we have the alternate possibility of attempted fraud. I had hoped that the person who brought it to my attention would post here, but he demurred.
An old friend of mine suspects that there is a deep fake of a scene from "The Roof of the World" making the rounds. Based on his information, I agree it is almost certainly fake -- another film in the guy's possession proves that even most Canadians don't know that James Doohan kept his Canadian accent when he cameoed on "Wayne and Shuster" specials that directly referenced both "Star Trek" and their work together post WWII. Those appearances are as Canadian as a Montreal Expos uniform autographed by William Shatner at the NLCS and probably interest most SciFi fans less than acapellascience on YouTube.
I think this one was nipped in the bud, but as I thought about it, I started having concerns because I expect that we will see more of this in future.
1. Any general advice that might qualify as FAQs?
2. To whom should I direct clips I don't recognise to verify their authenticity? I would feel a lot better if someone who remembered the originals and/or an greater expert than I were available before I kicked something on to the BBC.
3. What should I do if money is requested first? I should have a reputation that my word is my bond and that I will adhere to both the letter and the spirit of an agreement, but trust is not exactly high in some parts of the underground trading world.
Thank you all very much.
blts
|
|
|
Post by Scot Ferre on May 26, 2019 2:05:33 GMT
What did this Roof scene look like? What was the context?
|
|
|
Post by Alistair Gordon on May 26, 2019 7:24:24 GMT
Until the real thing is announced, let's enjoy the fakes. If they are good then we can stop waiting for the originals.
|
|
|
Post by richardwoods on May 26, 2019 20:14:42 GMT
Couldn’t agree more!
|
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,857
|
Post by RWels on May 27, 2019 8:02:52 GMT
I'd be more interested in James Doohan and Wayne & Shuster myself. A duo almost forgotten - they were hardly even on the IMDb until recently (in a moment of boredom, I added many seasons there myself). Hi, all. This has come up as a possibility for recreating missing episodes, but now we have the alternate possibility of attempted fraud. I had hoped that the person who brought it to my attention would post here, but he demurred. An old friend of mine suspects that there is a deep fake of a scene from "The Roof of the World" making the rounds. Based on his information, I agree it is almost certainly fake -- another film in the guy's possession proves that even most Canadians don't know that James Doohan kept his Canadian accent when he cameoed on "Wayne and Shuster" specials that directly referenced both "Star Trek" and their work together post WWII. Those appearances are as Canadian as a Montreal Expos uniform autographed by William Shatner at the NLCS and probably interest most SciFi fans less than acapellascience on YouTube. I think this one was nipped in the bud, but as I thought about it, I started having concerns because I expect that we will see more of this in future. 1. Any general advice that might qualify as FAQs? 2. To whom should I direct clips I don't recognise to verify their authenticity? I would feel a lot better if someone who remembered the originals and/or an greater expert than I were available before I kicked something on to the BBC. 3. What should I do if money is requested first? I should have a reputation that my word is my bond and that I will adhere to both the letter and the spirit of an agreement, but trust is not exactly high in some parts of the underground trading world. Thank you all very much. blts Oh dear, I wouldn't ask question 2. You run the risk of a hundred people all shouting "ME! ME! ME!". Let Paul V. handle it. 3. No way. (Let Paul V. handle it.) Re 1, there are things that a forgery would be likely to get wrong. Only, I'm not sure if I should point them out openly. It would be a bit like telling someone they can't rob the bank because they brought too little dynamite. There'll be a next time...
|
|
|
Post by jonwitchell on May 27, 2019 17:38:24 GMT
The MP situation reminds me of a few years back where Ian Levine was told by someone that said person was uploading MP for people to see. I myself remember sitting ready to watch the file, only to discover it was all bulls**t.
Does anyone else remember this?
|
|
|
Post by Dan S on May 28, 2019 10:49:03 GMT
If someone's made a fake that looks so good that people are finding it hard to detect whether it's fake or real then let's enjoy it for what it is. It's gotta be better then the creepy "moving mouths" reconstructions I saw on VHS about 20 years ago.
It'd be a bit off to charge money for them though, unless it's a tenner for a completed DVD of the entire story in which case fair enough (although the BBC would object). If it's just clips people should put them on youtube so we can either admire how good it looks or laugh at how bad it looks, depending on what's applicable.
|
|
|
Post by Simon B Kelly on May 28, 2019 12:21:15 GMT
The MP situation reminds me of a few years back where Ian Levine was told by someone that said person was uploading MP for people to see. I myself remember sitting ready to watch the file, only to discover it was all bulls**t. Does anyone else remember this? I remember it. The file turned out to be a link to Rick Astley singing "Never Gonna Give You Up". Obviously someone thought it funny to rickroll Doctor Who fans...
|
|
|
Post by Richard Tipple on May 29, 2019 22:00:31 GMT
If someone's made a fake that looks so good that people are finding it hard to detect whether it's fake or real then let's enjoy it for what it is. It's gotta be better then the creepy "moving mouths" reconstructions I saw on VHS about 20 years ago. It'd be a bit off to charge money for them though, unless it's a tenner for a completed DVD of the entire story in which case fair enough (although the BBC would object). If it's just clips people should put them on youtube so we can either admire how good it looks or laugh at how bad it looks, depending on what's applicable. Deep fakes take hours and hours and hours to compile and rely on thousands of pieces of data being driven by some very complicated code. That code requires masses of data to train just one deepfake algorithm. If someone managed to achieve this herculean task, what would be 'a bit off' about charging money for it?
|
|
|
Post by Dan S on May 30, 2019 1:12:06 GMT
If someone's made a fake that looks so good that people are finding it hard to detect whether it's fake or real then let's enjoy it for what it is. It's gotta be better then the creepy "moving mouths" reconstructions I saw on VHS about 20 years ago. It'd be a bit off to charge money for them though, unless it's a tenner for a completed DVD of the entire story in which case fair enough (although the BBC would object). If it's just clips people should put them on youtube so we can either admire how good it looks or laugh at how bad it looks, depending on what's applicable. Deep fakes take hours and hours and hours to compile and rely on thousands of pieces of data being driven by some very complicated code. That code requires masses of data to train just one deepfake algorithm. If someone managed to achieve this herculean task, what would be 'a bit off' about charging money for it? Because it's only going to be a short clip, and probably not very convincing, and people are going to be trying to rip people off by trying to convince them it's an excerpt from the complete episode which they'll try and convince people they're hoarding. Those fakes are convincing enough when it's someone standing still and talking. You could do it with a telesnap. Once you try and make things move a bit more, a few pans, a bit of action, it's not going to look very convincing because you have no information for that part and it's a stretch too far for the software to extrapolate something it has no information for, it's going to be all too obvious it's a fake.
|
|
|
Post by Richard Tipple on May 30, 2019 12:36:56 GMT
Deep fakes take hours and hours and hours to compile and rely on thousands of pieces of data being driven by some very complicated code. That code requires masses of data to train just one deepfake algorithm. If someone managed to achieve this herculean task, what would be 'a bit off' about charging money for it? Because it's only going to be a short clip, and probably not very convincing, and people are going to be trying to rip people off by trying to convince them it's an excerpt from the complete episode which they'll try and convince people they're hoarding. Those fakes are convincing enough when it's someone standing still and talking. You could do it with a telesnap. Once you try and make things move a bit more, a few pans, a bit of action, it's not going to look very convincing because you have no information for that part and it's a stretch too far for the software to extrapolate something it has no information for, it's going to be all too obvious it's a fake. You've made an awful lot of assumptions there.
|
|
|
Post by jamesvincent on May 30, 2019 13:31:36 GMT
You could absolutely do a very good fake with deepfake and also SamsungAI which actually produces better results.
I do wonder if the next animated release might use such a method.
|
|
|
Post by marcacrylic on May 30, 2019 18:08:34 GMT
You could absolutely do a very good fake with deepfake and also SamsungAI which actually produces better results. I do wonder if the next animated release might use such a method. That would be very interesting to see. Problem is, the controversy surrounding DeepFakes might cause people to misinterpret it as the real thing, and of course people would spread misinformation causing further confusion and such. You can never be too sure unfortunately, at least in my opinion.
|
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,857
|
Post by RWels on May 30, 2019 21:33:17 GMT
Because it's only going to be a short clip, and probably not very convincing, and people are going to be trying to rip people off by trying to convince them it's an excerpt from the complete episode which they'll try and convince people they're hoarding. Those fakes are convincing enough when it's someone standing still and talking. You could do it with a telesnap. Once you try and make things move a bit more, a few pans, a bit of action, it's not going to look very convincing because you have no information for that part and it's a stretch too far for the software to extrapolate something it has no information for, it's going to be all too obvious it's a fake. That's more or less what I was thinking too.
If the operation was so advanced that they could do an entire episode, with actors getting their heads replaced and all, then they might as well go legit. But in that case, I'm not sure if that's still an adequate money making scam (providing that that's the deal, as opposed to attention seeking).
|
|
|
Post by andrewfrostick on May 31, 2019 6:14:03 GMT
Deep fakes take hours and hours and hours to compile and rely on thousands of pieces of data being driven by some very complicated code. That code requires masses of data to train just one deepfake algorithm. If someone managed to achieve this herculean task, what would be 'a bit off' about charging money for it? Because it's only going to be a short clip, and probably not very convincing, and people are going to be trying to rip people off by trying to convince them it's an excerpt from the complete episode which they'll try and convince people they're hoarding. Those fakes are convincing enough when it's someone standing still and talking. You could do it with a telesnap. Once you try and make things move a bit more, a few pans, a bit of action, it's not going to look very convincing because you have no information for that part and it's a stretch too far for the software to extrapolate something it has no information for, it's going to be all too obvious it's a fake. The Hartnell Bradley deep fake is amazing and shows what could be achieved - tinyurl.com/HartnellBradley. There are calls for them to try Hartnell over Hurndall in The Five Doctors. With a bit more sophistication this could be a nice dvd extra.
|
|