Blu-ray Review I Love Lucy: The Complete Series Blu-ray Review (2 Viewers)

[chrislong2]

Unfortunately, I must confirm that there is an obvious use of AI on at least that one episode mentioned in that link Dave linked to on the "other site". I have compared the DVD and blu of the scene in question and there is zero doubt that what we are seeing on the blu has been "artificially enhanced". This isn't a scan issue. On the DVD, even understanding limitations of SD, the faces all remain appropriately blured in the background. On the Blu-ray, they go in and out of a weird looking sharpness depending on where Ricky's face is positioned and quite bluntly they look "odd" in the way that only AI can do. If that was the way the film itself was, we'd still see that phenomena on the DVD and we don't. I have slowed down the scene and watched numerous times and it's like watching the AI algorithm in process. This is very sad to me because I'll bet the same workflow was used on at least the rest of the S7-9 episodes which means this probably isn't an isolated thing. I don't blame Josh or anyone else that hadn't noticed this before as I didn't either and it's easy to get caught up in how otherwise these episodes look incredible. And I hadn't actually and still haven't actually watched any of the S7-9 episodes - just sampled a few scenes. But there is some funny stuff goin' on and it probably should be concerning to all of us.

 

[smithb]

I don't typically post here anymore, but thought I'd make an exception in this case. I saw the screen capture at the other site and decided to watch the episode myself. Going in I knew approximately the scene where the issue takes place. However, I chose not to do freeze frames or to slow down the playback, but to just watch as I normally would, and I completely missed it. Obviously, somebody noticed it and it was disturbing enough to post about it. That said, I feel fairly confident that the majority of folks would have missed it as well. This is the one aspect of these types of forums I try to ignore. A flaw can likely be found in almost any release when overly dissected, and it can be hard to remove such information once known. Over on the other site they are out for blood. My advice, just watch and enjoy, and don't overly indulge in looking for things that may hinder that enjoyment.

 

[TravisR]

I don't typically post here anymore, but thought I'd make an exception in this case. I saw the screen capture at the other site and decided to watch the episode myself. Going in I knew approximately the scene where the issue takes place. However, I chose not to do freeze frames or to slow down the playback, but to just watch as I normally would, and I completely missed it. Obviously, somebody noticed it and it was disturbing enough to post about it. That said, I feel fairly confident that the majority of folks would have missed it as well. This is the one aspect of these types of forums I try to ignore. A flaw can likely be found in almost any release when overly dissected, and it can be hard to remove such information once known. Over on the other site they are out for blood. My advice, just watch and enjoy, and don't overly indulge in looking for things that may hinder that enjoyment.

I highly doubt that I'd notice it either but I am glad that others are spotting this kind of AI junk and calling it out so the technology improves due to demand from studios or so they stop using it all together.

 

[Dave H]

Here it is in motion. Ugh.

 

[OttoIsHere]

Here it is in motion. Ugh.

That's. . .unsettling. . .

I just don't understand who this benefits.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I highly doubt that I'd notice it either but I am glad that others are spotting this kind of AI junk and calling it out so the technology improves due to demand from studios or so they stop using it all together.

That's not going to happen.

 

[TravisR]

That's not going to happen.

I agree that using AI won't stop but I think it's fair to expect it to get better.

 

[Mark-P]

Yeah, AI is lacking some intelligence and still has to learn the difference between focus and low definition.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I agree that using AI won't stop but I think it's fair to expect it to get better.

I agree with the expectations for improvement.

 

[BobO'Link]

Current use of "AI" isn't all that different from early use of DNR. It just wasn't "up to snuff" but was used anyway. It got significantly better both in execution and situations in which it was truly needed.

 

[tenia]

I can't say about what might or might not happen if bothered and concerned people were to voice their issue with this kind of use of AI, but if one wants for nothing to ever change, sure, yeah, not voicing anything is a pretty good way to ensure that.

 

[Richard M S]

Oh yes, that seriously creepy AI screenshot was widely circulated all over X.Com yesterday by several critics I respect. Here is what one such comment featuring the above screenshot:

"Sometimes I think about how I lived through the golden age of film restoration for home video only to see it devolve into … whatever this is. I would honestly welcome a Butlerian Jihad against all this shit."

Based on that "Lucy" screenshot alone I canceled my purchase of the I Love Lucy bluray set. The previously-released dvd box set, which admittedly I only sporadically watched, will suffice.

It's not just blu-rays though. About a week ago, I went to Amazon to order the $250 Life Hollywood 2 volume set from Taschen. However, it seems AI was used there as well, per a reviewer who provided an equally disturbing illustrated example. The next time I go to a Barnes and Noble I will check the book myself, but no more blind purchases, especially at those prices.

 

[Konstantinos]

not voicing anything is a pretty good way to ensure that

Applauding also this kind of use of AI, doesn't help either!

 

[tenia]

Applauding also this kind of use of AI, doesn't help either!

Even without actively applauding it, which I don't see many people doing, giving it some kind of pass or being defeatist is enabling this to keep happening.
While I can understand it has its limitations in pratice, I do think that the responsible of this need to be kept accountable, and it starts with not letting this pass even once. By standing our ground.
Otherwise, where's the limit ? Oh it's in the background, but when it starts going in the foreground, when does it start being an issue ? I know there's always a good reason not a move a finger, but is this really a topic we want to look at from the backseat ?
I don't.

 

[Konstantinos]

I agree that using AI won't stop but I think it's fair to expect it to get better.

What does "get better" mean exactly?
Do you mean we wouldn't get those creepy faces, but we would get non-creepy faces?

 

[tenia]

It's likely these tools will become much better at extrapolating details from a given source, and that they will just do that, without generating as side effects the current issues such as creepy faces, problems with depth of field, and gibberish texts.
Once/if they achieve that, they will become less intrusive, and as such much more "invisible", which would be fine. The current issue is how noticeable their use is. If it stops being so, then it will be better because we won't notice it. Plenty of digital tools are used when doing digital restorations, but we're OK with them when they're used with care, and that the results don't look artificial. Once/if AI-related tools get to a certain level, they'll join these tools.

 

[RMajidi]

Continue reading...

Approaching my tenth as a member here, and this has got to be one of the most wonderful reviews I’ve read on HTF.

Josh, this was beautiful, heartfelt and insightful, adorned with generous helpings of you and your family’s relationship with this show.

So well-written in fact that I read it twice in quick succession. The second time, aloud to my better half who also loved your write-up.

We were delighted when news first arrived of Paramount’s impending release of this restored set; but didn’t want to rush in until we had reliable word of its quality.

We have just placed our order for the set.


I’ve also been reading posts the about the AI generated anomalies, and seen the isolated video clips. Thank you to @Konstantinos and other members for highlighting these. I think vigilance and openness can collectively benefit all parties in the long-term by encouraging improved tools, processes and quality control.

However, I’m puzzled that some appear to have boycotted this release on some sort of principled stance. I’m not sure what that principle is supposed to be. Is it a general objection to the use of computer software categorised as AI in the digital restoration process? If so, how is that any different to other computer software using averaging and other algorithms to reduce/remove A/V noise, blemishes etc.

Even more puzzling is that there seems little acknowledgment that if AI tools have been used in this restoration, then it’s highly likely they were used elsewhere in this set (apart from seasons 1 & 2, which were restored ten years ago). So, the A/V high quality that Josh and others have reported is at least in part due to the judicious use of these toolsets, not just the brief segment being highlighted as unacceptable.

Boycotting this release on the purist notion that somehow the restorers cheated by using one category of computer software instead of another to aid in restoration can potentially complicate the picture, if such bad press leads to significantly less sales than otherwise might be expected. What message does the studio take from this? They are to abstain from using certain toolsets on religious grounds? Even if those very toolsets could potentially significantly increase the quality and completion rate of restoration projects, thus making the projects more viable?

It seems that so far no other such anomalies have been reported (and I’ve no doubt there are many eyes looking at this set for more such instances). That reassures me that this is just a minor glitch/oversight and that more than likely, I’d never have even noticed it, if it hadn’t been highlighted.

So, while I’m grateful that eagle-eyes dissect, debate and discuss all aspects of such releases in minute detail - thus in time leading to more accurate, true-to-intent restorations - I don’t think it is healthy or helpful to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[chrislong2]

I don't think anyone should necessarily "throw the baby out with the bathwater", BUT I do think there is an important distinction to be made between standard digital cleanup/processing tools (say like DNR etc) which modify/alter what already exists on the raw scan versus an AI tool that is actually trying to CREATE images/detail of images that DOES NOT EXIST on the film scan. The example in question for this set seems to pretty clearly show that the latter was used, at least on one episode and I would think likely more. Regardless of how great something looks, if some of the image you are watching isn't actually on the film as it was filmed in the 1950's but is instead the result of some 2020's era AI technology "guessing" at what the detail/image is supposed to be, I personally consider that a notable problem, no matter how great it might otherwise make things look (setting aside the "horrible example" scene). But then again, I'm not even a fan of retroactively applied HDR for pre-HDR-era movies either, so maybe I'm being too strict on this.

 

[RMajidi]

I don't think anyone should necessarily "throw the baby out with the bathwater", BUT I do think there is an important distinction to be made between standard digital cleanup/processing tools (say like DNR etc) which modify/alter what already exists on the raw scan versus an AI tool that is actually trying to CREATE images/detail of images that DOES NOT EXIST on the film scan. The example in question for this set seems to pretty clearly show that the latter was used, at least on one episode and I would think likely more. Regardless of how great something looks, if some of the image you are watching isn't actually on the film as it was filmed in the 1950's but is instead the result of some 2020's era AI technology "guessing" at what the detail/image is supposed to be, I personally consider that a notable problem, no matter how great it might otherwise make things look (setting aside the "horrible example" scene). But then again, I'm not even a fan of retroactively applied HDR for pre-HDR-era movies either, so maybe I'm being too strict on this.

Thanks, Chris. I appreciate your reply and your view, although I don’t agree on all counts.

AI software is just that… software. It has no will or intent to try to create anything. Its practitioners, who provide the parameters for the tasks to be done, are the ones with the intent.

I can’t imagine for a moment that the intent on their part here was to create these images. If so, they’d have ensured the software would do a much better job than these partial and changing facial images. Far more likely in my view that they missed spotting an unintended mistake. Reminiscent of the colours stretching from one item to another in the revamp of Grease a few short years ago (no AI involved there). The tool overstepped, QC missed it - blemish made it to release - nothing more than that.

Every video and audio software editing tool changes and creates. By averaging, sharpening, masking frequencies, or replacing segments altogether by (its operator) copying and pasting from other regions of the same or nearby frames. I don’t therefore see a distinction between the use of any of these tools and that of AI. Simply whether their execution has been successful.

If the highlighted segment is the only instance in the many hours of the overall restoration (and it bypassed not only QC, but many viewers’ notice) but its results are otherwise as good as reviewers claim, then that in my view is a successful project, and so I’ve just supported it with my purchase.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Thanks, Chris. I appreciate your reply and your view, although I don’t agree on all counts.

AI software is just that… software. It has no will or intent to try to create anything. Its practitioners, who provide the parameters for the tasks to be done, are the ones with the intent.

I can’t imagine for a moment that the intent on their part here was to create these images. If so, they’d have ensured the software would do a much better job than these partial and changing facial images. Far more likely in my view that they missed spotting an unintended mistake. Reminiscent of the colours stretching from one item to another in the revamp of Grease a few short years ago (no AI involved there). The tool overstepped, QC missed it - blemish made it to release - nothing more than that.

Every video and audio software editing tool changes and creates. By averaging, sharpening, masking frequencies, or replacing segments altogether by (its operator) copying and pasting from other regions of the same or nearby frames. I don’t therefore see a distinction between the use of any of these tools and that of AI. Simply whether their execution has been successful.

If the highlighted segment is the only instance in the many hours of the overall restoration (and it bypassed not only QC, but many viewers’ notice) but its results are otherwise as good as reviewers claim, then that in my view is a successful project, and so I’ve just supported it with my purchase.

I must say that AI is a lightning rod for discussion and dismay among us.