I think I could handle unrealistic colors but the way they flicker so much frame to frame is really jarring.
It's interesting that the algorithm seems to generate chromatic aberration at hard edges? Most clearly around the letters on the title cards.
What really made me laugh was the blue smoke followed by a headline implying that was all at night. The AI filled in pristine blue skies and inverted the wreckage colors. It actually made up history. I'm calling it: Unintentional automated disinformation.
I couldn't make this up. My jaw just hit the floor when it was explained to me the first time. I still shake my head typing it up to post here.
What tool should have been used to do that conversion (in reverse)? To their credit, it sounds like they solved the problem and moved on.
They, as you, decided it was acceptable to do whatever needed to be done at whatever expense rather than taking 10 minutes to find the proper workflow which would have saved them money. A simple phone call to the company they used to transfer the film to video would have been able to explain to them how to do this in less than 5 minutes. I know because I worked for the company doing the film transfer and had helped several other clients with the video for film post workflows. Today, it's even easier because there's like a bazillion write ups on how to do this posted on the web.
Edit: I didn't answer the question directly after pontificating. IVTC is the process that needed to be applied. Many many tools exist(ed) for this. The tools at this company's disposal would have been After Effects, Avid, etc. Later more tools became available like AVISynth, FFMPEG, and other dedicated tools were created by people to tackle this directly.
Supposedly the original newsreals still exist, preserved by the National Film Registry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster_newsreel_f...
Only things like TV screens and other displays (and some interesting objects covered with micro surfaces that can cause light interference) can change color that rapidly given the same color incident light.
This video proves to me that you can’t do denoise, upscale and then color without stabilizing first. The result is too jarring once image stab is a known transform.
I'm not a bit against ML restoration. We've been paying artist to color BW in the early days, this is just replacing the artist by machines.
Judging from the video, it looks like no inter-frame relation is considered, so color varies wildly from on frame to another. The video still lacks some form of stabilization. Frames still have defects inherited from the film.
Also, it clearly was recorded in different speeds, so people have an uncanny walk in the last scenes.
I hope, in the not too distant future, these flaws will be taken care of and we'll see restorations that are very hard to differentiate from original footage.
> We've been paying artist to color BW in the early days, this is just replacing the artist by machines.
And some people are very upset over those. (Have you ever actually seen classic movies like "It’s a Wonderful Life" in colour?) But this ML nonsense doesn't even hold a candle to those. In the manual process, for every object, they pick a colour and stick with it.
Are painting artists not allowed to train by repainting Picassos until they get good?
In our current technological, digital zeitgeist, everything that seems like higher and better resolution is universally better and must absolutely replace what was there before. But this is just a shifting fad, unrecognizable to the people who were alive then, and probably unrecognizable to people in the future.
Preserve, conserve, protect and pass on. Don't corrupt and "better" these things.
At least part time content creators know that creation is harder - because that first step to actually doing something is mentally hard (pure consumers find it impossible). People will make crappy things before they make good things and they'll share them with each other.
Perhaps the problem is when pure consumers, seeking further stimulus, enter creator spaces. Or where part-creators accidentally expand the audience for their fellow creators into pure consumer spaces or more-consumer-than-creator spaces like HN.
There's a difference between showing your friends and family something, but opening up the entire public with posting to YouTube and asking "tell me what you think" means you must be pretty proud of it. If you were proud of the results from this, then just wow.
In full disclosure, I've spent many an hour in the chair of restoring film/video. I've written many a tool to help with this endeavor for internal use as well as used professional tools. I have beta tested software that later went to production release. I have sent content out to outsource the work and critically evaluated the results. If this was the result someone sent me after suggesting they could do the work, I would never send them the work as well as vocally tell others not to waster their time.
This isn't even good enough to send someone's 8mm footage to for viewing on modern devices let alone professional.
You’re writing this comment of yours and posting it publicly. Are you so incredibly proud of it? It’s riddled with typos and wouldn’t get you a passing grade in middle school.
That’s what I would say if I were being overly critical of someone sharing their opinion. It really doesn’t need this degree of hyperbolic value judgment. If it’s such rubbish it will easily be outcompeted for attention.
> Suddenly - The fatal moment!
I think it indicates that the problem posed to ML was defined wrongly.
The studio itself won't commission the necessary professional work for an HD (or at least upscaled) re-release.
> Update (7/17/2021): The article below has been superseded by the results discussed in “Far Beyond the Stars” and the accompanying tutorial, “How to Upscale Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.” These articles are the latest that I’ve published and the best showcase for my latest work.
as is done to this day. FTFY
Yeah, I wonder why. Once you are able to create colors, I'd think stabilizing the picture must be really easy. And since we're doing fancy interpretation (yeah, I say "interpretation" 'cos ML can't know the exact colors, just see the craft turning red and blue all of the time), then it'd be nice to go to the end of it : color, stabilization, speed fixing, the whole thing.
Besides, how do we know how such "interpretation" is close or far from reality ? What sort of validity testing is done ?
Sharp edges and shifting red-blue colours is not what I would call restoration.
Fatalities 36 (13 passengers, 22 crewmen, 1 bystander)
Survivors 62 (23 passengers, 39 crewmen)
Looking at the video, you certainly would not expect two thirds of the people on board to survive the hellish fire.
The three things that saved them was A) an airship, even one leaking and on fire, had a slow enough fall to safely evacuate B) the majority of fuel sources were above the crew and guests and C) most of the guests had an easy exit.
More miraculously when you have seen that footage is to realize that some of the passengers and crew walked away without major injury.
I'd estimate that most people who died were trapped or unable to move. Those who were free to run and had enough "air" were very likely to survive.
Slightly related question: this film talks about “white hot steel”. It wasn’t steel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duralumin#Aviation_application...). Was it white hot?
Edit: that’s not quite correct, Wikipedia has a better summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster
Drop the word "especially" and I might agree, but a mere party balloon of hydrogen mixed with oxygen in a stoichiometric ratio going off will sound like a rifle and rattle windows.
The boom was so loud that management folks on the other floors sent people down to see WTF was happening. I don't think he got into (much) trouble, but he sure never did that again.
In the film you link the entire rear half of the craft is on fire from the first frame.
This gives a much better view into what everyday life must have been like at that time, it almost reminds me in some ways of movies such as Koyaanisqatsi.
The stabilization, however, is ... well, astonishing. There is zero visible judder except in a very few places.
Here is another one:
Barcelona, Spain (1911): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-3NlMAdq9I
I'm perfectly happy without colorization, but also willing to overlook it.
Edit: The one from the Netherlands is lovely though, and an example of how life in our cities could be without cars.
Providing actual video as input to the NN could probably do away with this.
Or maybe you could feed in some reference photos with the same objects, but already colorized. And then the algorithm could match objects from the reference photos to those in the black and white ones to get the colors.
And I've been unaware that Manhattan had so many skyscrapers at the time. Or maybe not. But one can glimpse that for a few seconds in the video. Awesome.
I was away from Amsterdam for about a decade before coming back there after having lived there before for a stretch of nearly 28 years (with a few longer absences) and what surprised me is how little had changed, and yet, here and there there were buildings that I was pretty sure weren't there before or some familiar landmarks that had gone. Over many decades or even centuries that kind of change will add up, and even though for Amsterdam in particular at some point there was a plan to 'overhaul' it and make it more modern (which fortunately got arrested in the earliest stage, but it did do a lot of damage to the east side of the river Amstel) the vast bulk of the city has been unchanged since decades.
What real change there is is expansion wherever there was undeveloped land, but that isn't change insomuch as it is simply growth, what was there before remains.
My mom still remembers that just behind the Olympic stadium in Amsterdam there were meadows and cows grazing! (That's now deep inside the city).
If you're interested in when buildings in Amsterdam were first constructed you can find that information in:
Just zoom in on the city, click on any building outline on the map and on the right hand side you will find all kinds of interesting information, including the year that ground was broken or the building was formally entered into the registry. This information is not always available but it still contains a wealth of information.