24p is outdated

[JulioD]

I think it is similar to what happened with the digital revolution.

Filmmaking used to be expensive.  It acted as a kind of gate keeper to the unwashed masses who wanted t make movies and was a kind of filtering of the kinds of films that could get made.

Digital technologies dramatically lowered the cost of entry.  Now anyone can make a movie.  Not only that but anyone can DISTRIBUTE that movie too, you’re not relying on old school distribution any more.

All that happened over the last 20 years and what has it added up to?

I’d say a lot more garbage / noise films that no one watches on YouTube.  

The digital revolution means anyone can now make a movie.  It doens’t mean “anyone” can actually make a movie worth watching.  

AI will be the same.  Just because you CAN make a film with AI doesn’t mean you SHOULD make a film.

 

 

[mercer]

4 minutes ago, Jedi Master said:

It would be interesting to see Hollywood "resurrect" actors like Bogart and Brando in the form of CGI.

I kinda agree with that. And maybe if there was a public domain law for people's likeness, that could be interesting... after 50 years... or something. 

[fuzzynormal]

2 hours ago, JulioD said:

It doens’t mean “anyone” can actually make a movie worth watching.  AI will be the same.

Filmmaking will remain an art for more careful consideration.  AI will be for bland content.

AI will (and does) significantly help with the technical aspects of craft, but actual art is an intangible.  Even if AI eventually learns how to manipulate the various elements of filmmaking into emotional "beats" --I still think it'll feel fake.

That'll be good enough for non-discriminating people, but it'll remain in an emotional uncanny valley for others.

[Ty Harper]

2 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

Filmmaking will remain an art for more careful consideration.  AI will be for bland content.

For now I think there will absolutely be a great and lucrative (albeit temporary) lane for AI-linked filmmaking that is indeed an art for "more careful consideration". What will (and is) changing are the fixed jobs that humans in the film world traditionally occupied (like video editors, DOPs, audio engineer, etc). Many of those traditional jobs will/are becoming obsolete - and in their place you will just have creators who use tools (including AI based ones) to do alot of the stuff that was once left to colleagues who specialized in mastering specific said tools.

And eventually, yes, AI will likely be for "bland content" or said differenty, mass consumption. But what that really means is that there will be less and less opportunities for human filmmakers to monetize their art for personal longterm economic gain. This will likely also signal the end of producers, showrunners screenwriters, etc as we know it (i.e. any job that essentially revolves around mining data to create the building blocks of storytelling and filmmaking).

Maybe I'm wrong, but from my real-time vantage point working in an adjacent/intersectional field of arts & entertainment - the writing seems to be on the wall.

 

[fuzzynormal]

Just now, Ty Harper said:

lucrative lane for AI-linked filmmaking

Not sure how AI could do editing better than talented people, but, sure, you're right, it'll probably prove me wrong.  

I concede that AI right now can do automatic editing better than some people in general, but these are typically the content creators that just want to slap some shit together.  The standards are lower.

But, seriously, how could AI ever surpass some gal or guy that has earned wisdom (plus the context of it) and knows how to use that experience artistically?

I mean, I'm in edits all the time where I'm debating the need to drop or add a single frame --or knowing when to use a flawed shot because it has more "heart" than a previous take where the camera didn't loose focus.  

Now, what happens when you're the creative and you're doing the artistic 'algebra' where you have to consider how various takes combine over multiple edits to create a scene...

Yeah, I just wonder if it can replace that sort of vibe.  Maybe. 

[kye]

10 hours ago, 92F said:

I always like your reasonable comments so continue to post things that I don't like..this allows dialogue. thank you

On the other hand, the title is indeed 24 p... it's so stupid to believe that this is what makes the magic of cinema that it's something to laugh about... it's so much more complicated.

There are even some who believe that in 25p it's still a camcorder and in 24p one image less and watch.... I make cinema (lived experience)...

A lot of crazy in the field of creation and audiovisual is no exception: light / lens / ... play a much more important role.

 I understood that you are following another idea from the discussion

Have a nice day and continue to share your wise thoughts 👍

Of course, 24p doesn't make the magic of cinema!

But, the counterpoint is pretty strong - for many/most (as evidenced by this thread) the absence of 24p sure destroys it.

I think that perhaps one of the most overriding (and infuriating) principles at work here is that to make something truly cinematic requires that everything be at a high standard - there's very little room to move on the knife edge.

Of course, how much you can deviate from perfect and not ruin the whole thing is different for each element - the quality of acting or production design or sound design or writing might be more or less important than other elements, and are also going to depend on the viewer as well - one person is tolerant of mediocre acting and the next person will walk out of the cinema because of it.

For whatever reason, these forums tend to focus the discussion on the image.  At our best we talk about it with a certain emphasis over other aspects, and in our worst moments we talk about it like no other aspect of film-making exists.  For better or worse this often attracts people to drop into the forums who have no concept that the other aspects even exist, then the resulting discussions are just separated from the reality that almost everyone else lives in. 

7 hours ago, Jedi Master said:

I predict that in a few years, movies will be entirely CGI created by AI systems, including the actors. Since "realism" doesn't seem to be necessary in movie making, I don't see this as a problem, and it'll save the studios zillions of dollars and lots of time.

I think AI will replace the farcical comic-book blockbusters that the Hollywood sausage-factory is currently configured to create, but to confuse the seemingly infinite stream of Insect-man and the Saviours of the Metaverse sequels for the entirety of "movies" is a mistake.

Cinematic "realism" is a much more nuanced concept than you might think, because I want movies to be intellectually "realistic" and/or emotionally "realistic".

People don't react well to serious movies with shallow and contrived plot lines, nor do they react well to bad acting, these are both forms of the movie not being realistic in other ways that do matter.

I've been contemplating this concept of "realism" and to be perfectly honest, the more I think about it the more I realise the entire concept is completely non-sensical.  If we take "realism" to its logical conclusion then:

• Gone With The Wind, a movie that takes place over the course of the US Civil War and its aftermath, would have been over 5 years long - jumping forwards in time to just look at the "important" bits isn't even remotely realistic.
  During screenings the audience will be made to partly starve due to the war-torn conditions.
   
• John Wick would be awful.  Making it realistic would result in something like this:
  You get told to go kill John, you are nervous on your way there, you see him and run at him yelling, he almost immediately shoots you in the head, the movie is over in 17m42s.  The theatre has specially designed seats that break your legs at the 17m12s mark.
  or,
  You are John Wick, to be realistic from the perspective of almost every audience member worldwide, the 78 people in the first scene who are sent to kill you succeed.  You die in 3m27s.  The seats stab you from 5 different directions to simulate being shot.

etc.

If you think these are completely preposterous, which they absolutely are, then you need to accept that some aspects of film-making are not best when made more "realistic".  From there it is possible to start to have a sensible discussion.

3 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

Filmmaking will remain an art for more careful consideration.  AI will be for bland content.

AI will (and does) significantly help with the technical aspects of craft, but actual art is an intangible.  Even if AI eventually learns how to manipulate the various elements of filmmaking into emotional "beats" --I still think it'll feel fake.

That'll be good enough for non-discriminating people, but it'll remain in an emotional uncanny valley for others.

Human beings are exceptionally finely tuned animals when it comes to certain things like facial expressions and how things move in 3d environments etc, so I suspect that the uncanny valley will take a while to cross, probably a lot longer than most would imagine.

However, I think it will be crossed eventually because people are also great at personification and interpretation, as things like the Kuleshov effect show, especially if we are invested in the subject matter.

With enough data, AI will get there.

40 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

Not sure how AI could do editing better than talented people, but, sure, you're right, it'll probably prove me wrong.  

I concede that AI right now can do automatic editing better than some people in general, but these are typically the content creators that just want to slap some shit together.  The standards are lower.

But, seriously, how could AI ever surpass some gal or guy that has earned wisdom (plus the context of it) and knows how to use that experience artistically?

I mean, I'm in edits all the time where I'm debating the need to drop or add a single frame --or knowing when to use a flawed shot because it has more "heart" than a previous take where the camera didn't loose focus.  

Now, what happens when you're the creative and you're doing the artistic 'algebra' where you have to consider how various takes combine over multiple edits to create a scene...

Yeah, I just wonder if it can replace that sort of vibe.  Maybe. 

I find that people mis-interpret AI.  Here's how I suggest that you think about it.

The CPU of a computer has about as much sophistication as a pocket calculator.  I'm not kidding, they can literally only do binary logic operations.  Modern computers are billions of tiny little pocket calculators built to go screamingly fast.

AI is us programming them to analyse a bunch of input data and then make output data that fits the pattern.  ChatGPT is literally trillions of screamingly fast tiny calculators playing a game of "what comes next?" with a gargantuan database.

If the tiny calculators can learn to write a doctoral thesis, in English, or learn to make a photorealistic image of a monkey climbing a tree, then there is no logic in saying that it can analyse and mimic those things but not a nice edit.  

In my mind it's like saying that someone has walked 10,000 miles and has made it to the outskirts of the city, but that there's no way it could ever make it to the central train station.

[KnightsFan]

4 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

AI will (and does) significantly help with the technical aspects of craft, but actual art is an intangible.  Even if AI eventually learns how to manipulate the various elements of filmmaking into emotional "beats" --I still think it'll feel fake.

In my opinion as a software engineer at a company extensively using AI, it is a mistake to believe that there is anything humans can do that AI will never be able to do. ChatGPT was launched barely over a single year ago. Midjourney was launched less than 18 months ago. Imagine where they will be next year. Or, more fairly, imagine where these models will be when they are the age of a working professional--then remember that the models will keep learning indefinitely, not tied to a human lifespan.

Just like machine learning models, all people--including highly skilled professionals--start with 0 knowledge, and their opinions and artistic vision/instincts are formed from sensory inputs. The building blocks of our brains are not complex, though humans have more training data and a lot more neurons than today's ML models.

[Jedi Master]

1 hour ago, kye said:

Of course, 24p doesn't make the magic of cinema!

But, the counterpoint is pretty strong - for many/most (as evidenced by this thread) the absence of 24p sure destroys it.

I think that perhaps one of the most overriding (and infuriating) principles at work here is that to make something truly cinematic requires that everything be at a high standard - there's very little room to move on the knife edge.

Of course, how much you can deviate from perfect and not ruin the whole thing is different for each element - the quality of acting or production design or sound design or writing might be more or less important than other elements, and are also going to depend on the viewer as well - one person is tolerant of mediocre acting and the next person will walk out of the cinema because of it.

For whatever reason, these forums tend to focus the discussion on the image.  At our best we talk about it with a certain emphasis over other aspects, and in our worst moments we talk about it like no other aspect of film-making exists.  For better or worse this often attracts people to drop into the forums who have no concept that the other aspects even exist, then the resulting discussions are just separated from the reality that almost everyone else lives in. 

I think AI will replace the farcical comic-book blockbusters that the Hollywood sausage-factory is currently configured to create, but to confuse the seemingly infinite stream of Insect-man and the Saviours of the Metaverse sequels for the entirety of "movies" is a mistake.

Cinematic "realism" is a much more nuanced concept than you might think, because I want movies to be intellectually "realistic" and/or emotionally "realistic".

People don't react well to serious movies with shallow and contrived plot lines, nor do they react well to bad acting, these are both forms of the movie not being realistic in other ways that do matter.

I've been contemplating this concept of "realism" and to be perfectly honest, the more I think about it the more I realise the entire concept is completely non-sensical.  If we take "realism" to its logical conclusion then:

• Gone With The Wind, a movie that takes place over the course of the US Civil War and its aftermath, would have been over 5 years long - jumping forwards in time to just look at the "important" bits isn't even remotely realistic.
  During screenings the audience will be made to partly starve due to the war-torn conditions.
   
• John Wick would be awful.  Making it realistic would result in something like this:
  You get told to go kill John, you are nervous on your way there, you see him and run at him yelling, he almost immediately shoots you in the head, the movie is over in 17m42s.  The theatre has specially designed seats that break your legs at the 17m12s mark.
  or,
  You are John Wick, to be realistic from the perspective of almost every audience member worldwide, the 78 people in the first scene who are sent to kill you succeed.  You die in 3m27s.  The seats stab you from 5 different directions to simulate being shot.

etc.

If you think these are completely preposterous, which they absolutely are, then you need to accept that some aspects of film-making are not best when made more "realistic".  From there it is possible to start to have a sensible discussion.

Human beings are exceptionally finely tuned animals when it comes to certain things like facial expressions and how things move in 3d environments etc, so I suspect that the uncanny valley will take a while to cross, probably a lot longer than most would imagine.

However, I think it will be crossed eventually because people are also great at personification and interpretation, as things like the Kuleshov effect show, especially if we are invested in the subject matter.

With enough data, AI will get there.

I find that people mis-interpret AI.  Here's how I suggest that you think about it.

The CPU of a computer has about as much sophistication as a pocket calculator.  I'm not kidding, they can literally only do binary logic operations.  Modern computers are billions of tiny little pocket calculators built to go screamingly fast.

AI is us programming them to analyse a bunch of input data and then make output data that fits the pattern.  ChatGPT is literally trillions of screamingly fast tiny calculators playing a game of "what comes next?" with a gargantuan database.

If the tiny calculators can learn to write a doctoral thesis, in English, or learn to make a photorealistic image of a monkey climbing a tree, then there is no logic in saying that it can analyse and mimic those things but not a nice edit.  

In my mind it's like saying that someone has walked 10,000 miles and has made it to the outskirts of the city, but that there's no way it could ever make it to the central train station.

Try this site:

https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/

Every time you refresh it it creates a photo of a person who doesn’t exist using AI. Looks pretty realistic to me. 
 

The big tech companies are pouring billions into AI research right now and progress is rapid. Imagine where it’ll be in a decade. 

[kye]

3 minutes ago, Jedi Master said:

Try this site:

https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/

Every time you refresh it it creates a photo of a person who doesn’t exist using AI. Looks pretty realistic to me. 

Sure, but how does this relate to what I posted about?

[Jedi Master]

15 minutes ago, kye said:

Sure, but how does this relate to what I posted about?

It’s an example of what can be done and how realistic AI can make human forms look. 

I didn’t imply that I think movies can be generated using AI by telling an AI system “create a movie about a team of commandos infiltrating a mountain redoubt to rescue a scientist who develop a warp drive engine.”

I expect that human writers will still need to write the scripts and production designers will need to design the visual elements and then let the AI generate the images. 

[kye]

45 minutes ago, Jedi Master said:

It’s an example of what can be done and how realistic AI can make human forms look. 

I didn’t imply that I think movies can be generated using AI by telling an AI system “create a movie about a team of commandos infiltrating a mountain redoubt to rescue a scientist who develop a warp drive engine.”

I expect that human writers will still need to write the scripts and production designers will need to design the visual elements and then let the AI generate the images. 

The ability of an AI to make a single still image does not mean that AI can generate a series of images that are coherent with each other.

The ability of an AI to make a series of images that are coherent with each other does not mean that AI can generate a 3D world that feels like our reality.

....and even if an AI can do that it doesn't mean that the people in that reality will move how we move.

....and even if an AI can do that it doesn't mean that the movement of the people will be believable in-context.

....and even if an AI can do that it doesn't mean that the movement will be emotionally relevant to the situation.

....and even if an AI can do that it doesn't mean that the emotional appearances will be of note, let alone at the standard of winning awards.

There is a huge way to go.  In a discussion about cinema, pointing to an image generator is like having a discussion about poetry and pointing to a video where a monkey can write basic words with a crayon.

No disrespect intended here, but it really seems to me that cinema is an art-form that you don't seem to really understand, and don't really seem to be interested in understanding.  All the discussions that I've seen you participate in seem to be where your approach is just at-odds with the entire concept.  There is a huge body of discussion and debate about cinema and even what is an isn't cinema, but I haven't seen a perspective so remote from the others.

I feel like I'm trying to talk about poetry with someone who thinks that everything should be in full sentences, and the only purpose of the written word is to communicate factual data, that the purpose of life is to optimise human productivity, and that everyone else also thinks this because it's obviously true.  The discussion of details is wrong because the context is wrong  because the entire nature of what you think is going on and what we are trying to achieve is just wrong.

I don't really see how much else can be accomplished with such fundamental differences of thought, when it's pretty obvious that you weren't welcoming of the idea that other people see this very differently to you and you're not really interested in learning about this seemingly new other perspective, despite the fact that this other perspective is integral to the entire way that the entire art-form operates.

I wish you the best of luck filming your ultra-realistic nature videos.

[Jedi Master]

1 hour ago, kye said:

There is a huge way to go.  In a discussion about cinema, pointing to an image generator is like having a discussion about poetry and pointing to a video where a monkey can write basic words with a crayon.

No disrespect intended here, but it really seems to me that cinema is an art-form that you don't seem to really understand, and don't really seem to be interested in understanding.  All the discussions that I've seen you participate in seem to be where your approach is just at-odds with the entire concept.  There is a huge body of discussion and debate about cinema and even what is an isn't cinema, but I haven't seen a perspective so remote from the others.

Yes, there is a huge way to go, but I have no doubt that we'll get there, and a lot sooner than people think.

Yes, my view of what cinema is is probably different from that of most people on this forum. Is that a problem? Is this a zero-sum game, where my views on cinema somehow diminish or denigrate yours? If so, I'll just go away. Otherwise, my personal views on cinema are just as valid as anyone else's. Is this is discussion forum or an echo chamber?

I do admit that as someone in a highly technical career field, and who is involved in lots of things on a hobby level that mostly involve tech, I'm probably much less artfully inclined than most people here. Where some see art, I see the tech behind the art, and that is what interests and fascinates me. I'd much rather read the ACES specification or the history behind why it's 23.976 FPS rather than 24 FPS than read someone's opinion on why Citizen Kane is a good or a great movie. Where some look at a Vermeer painting and wax lyrically about its artistic merit, I wonder how the heck he nailed the perspective in his paintings so accurately and whether he used mechanical or optical aides. That's just my nature.

[kye]

4 hours ago, Jedi Master said:

Yes, there is a huge way to go, but I have no doubt that we'll get there, and a lot sooner than people think.

Yes, my view of what cinema is is probably different from that of most people on this forum. Is that a problem? Is this a zero-sum game, where my views on cinema somehow diminish or denigrate yours? If so, I'll just go away. Otherwise, my personal views on cinema are just as valid as anyone else's. Is this is discussion forum or an echo chamber?

I do admit that as someone in a highly technical career field, and who is involved in lots of things on a hobby level that mostly involve tech, I'm probably much less artfully inclined than most people here. Where some see art, I see the tech behind the art, and that is what interests and fascinates me. I'd much rather read the ACES specification or the history behind why it's 23.976 FPS rather than 24 FPS than read someone's opinion on why Citizen Kane is a good or a great movie. Where some look at a Vermeer painting and wax lyrically about its artistic merit, I wonder how the heck he nailed the perspective in his paintings so accurately and whether he used mechanical or optical aides. That's just my nature.

No, it's not an echo chamber, and people are free to have whatever perspectives they want.

But take this thread as an example.  It started off by saying that 24p was only chosen as a technical compromise, and that more is better.  

Here we are, 9 pages later, and what have we learned?

• The OP has argued that 60p is better because it's better.  What does better even mean?  What goal are they trying to achieve?  They haven't specified.  They've shown no signs of knowing what the purpose of cinema really is.
• You prefer 60p.  But you also think that cinema should be as realistic as possible, which doesn't make any sense whatsoever.  You are also not interested in making things intentionally un-realistic.
• Everyone else understands that 24p is better because they understand the goal is for creative expression, not realism.

If we talk about literally any other aspect of film-making, are we going to get the same argument again, where you think something is crap because you have a completely different set of goals to the rest of us?

Also, the entire tone from the OP was one of confrontation and arguing for its own sake.  Do you think there was any learning here?

I am under no illusions.  I didn't post because I thought you or the OP had an information deficit, but were keen to learn and evolve your opinion.  I posted because the internet is full of people who think technical specifications are the only things that matter and don't think about cameras in the context of the end result, they think of them as some sort of theoretical engineering challenge with no practical purpose.

A frequently quoted parallel is that no-one cared about what paint brushes Michelangelo used to paint the Sistine Chapel except 1) painters at a similar level who are trying to take every advantage to achieve perfection, and 2) people that don't know anything about painting and think the tools make the artist.

I like the tech just as much as the next person, but at the end of the day "better" has to be defined against some sort of goal, and your goal is diametrically opposed to the goal of the entire industry that creates cinema and TV.  Further to that, the entire method of thinking is different too - yours is a goal to push to one extreme (the most realistic) and the goal of cinema and TV is to find the optimum point (the right balance between things looking real and un-real).

[mercer]

4 hours ago, kye said:

No, it's not an echo chamber, and people are free to have whatever perspectives they want.

But take this thread as an example.  It started off by saying that 24p was only chosen as a technical compromise, and that more is better.  

Here we are, 9 pages later, and what have we learned?

• The OP has argued that 60p is better because it's better.  What does better even mean?  What goal are they trying to achieve?  They haven't specified.  They've shown no signs of knowing what the purpose of cinema really is.
• You prefer 60p.  But you also think that cinema should be as realistic as possible, which doesn't make any sense whatsoever.  You are also not interested in making things intentionally un-realistic.
• Everyone else understands that 24p is better because they understand the goal is for creative expression, not realism.

If we talk about literally any other aspect of film-making, are we going to get the same argument again, where you think something is crap because you have a completely different set of goals to the rest of us?

Also, the entire tone from the OP was one of confrontation and arguing for its own sake.  Do you think there was any learning here?

I am under no illusions.  I didn't post because I thought you or the OP had an information deficit, but were keen to learn and evolve your opinion.  I posted because the internet is full of people who think technical specifications are the only things that matter and don't think about cameras in the context of the end result, they think of them as some sort of theoretical engineering challenge with no practical purpose.

A frequently quoted parallel is that no-one cared about what paint brushes Michelangelo used to paint the Sistine Chapel except 1) painters at a similar level who are trying to take every advantage to achieve perfection, and 2) people that don't know anything about painting and think the tools make the artist.

I like the tech just as much as the next person, but at the end of the day "better" has to be defined against some sort of goal, and your goal is diametrically opposed to the goal of the entire industry that creates cinema and TV.  Further to that, the entire method of thinking is different too - yours is a goal to push to one extreme (the most realistic) and the goal of cinema and TV is to find the optimum point (the right balance between things looking real and un-real).

Great rundown Kye, and to add, @Jedi Masterstated in an earlier reply that he watches movies for escapism, yet he wants them to look as real as possible?

I also question the motives, or rationale, of people who consistently argue in favor of HFR filmmaking/exhibition because they base their opinions on practically no films that exist since 99.9% of all films have been shot at 24fps. So maybe they just don't like movies.

[Jedi Master]

5 hours ago, kye said:

your goal is diametrically opposed to the goal of the entire industry that creates cinema and TV.

The goal of the entire industry that creates cinema and TV is to make money. That may sound cynical, but it’s true. 

[John Matthews]

20 minutes ago, Jedi Master said:

The goal of the entire industry that creates cinema and TV is to make money. That may sound cynical, but it’s true.

I didn't see Lord of the Rings The Hobbit because it was 48p because it makes the film look cheap and theatrical- not a fan. That cost them in my case.

 

[92F]

8 hours ago, kye said:

 

 

 

[92F]

Let's be reasonable!

4K/8K is quite far from cinema...a good FHD is softer and creamier with an FF sensor and an old lens...etc.
It's not a few extra images that change much: real cinema isn't silent cinema in black and white with a real piano in the room? Lol 

Tell me, have you tested when you lose the cinematic sensation: at 25p, 26p, 27p, 28p ...29.5p ..more?! Please, it's not a bit ridiculous...who decides, is it you?
Is slow motion filmed in 60p 120p no longer cinema? : no, stop, we have to wait for the film to return to the original 24p !? Amusing .

Cinematic rendering is a personal matter. Sometimes old high-budget films on silver film then remastered have a very clean rendering, but not sharp...very beautiful, very cinematic visual experiences

Cinema is just an illusion that arouses passions and 24p is a matter of broadcasting habits and laziness... and for TV broadcasting everything has to be readjusted,  so 24p disappears.
For video games it's only cartoons so the cinema experience here, I don't understand, it's irrational !?

Now if you are a purist, only go to cinemas and choose those where you are sure of the broadcast quality... but don't force anyone to only see 24p which jerks at the slightest important panning.

To say that 24p will disappear one day is not important, just a provocation... perhaps it will happen, I am neither for nor against it?

[Emanuel]

19 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

Not sure how AI could do editing better than talented people, but, sure, you're right, it'll probably prove me wrong.  

(...)

Yeah, I just wonder if it can replace that sort of vibe.  Maybe. 

Will never be replaced. The same way painting didn't when the camera was invented.

[Jedi Master]

20 hours ago, kye said:

The CPU of a computer has about as much sophistication as a pocket calculator.  I'm not kidding, they can literally only do binary logic operations.  Modern computers are billions of tiny little pocket calculators built to go screamingly fast.

This couldn't be further from the truth. As someone who designs CPUs for a living, probably know a little more about this than most. Yes, all computers perform binary logical and arithmetic operations, but they are far more sophisticated that a pocket calculator, and it's not just speed.

It doesn't take much to implement a pocket calculator. One of the first, the HP-35, used a 1-bit CPU with a serial ALU. More recent calculators tend to use more general-purpose CPUs, but the sophistication needed is not that great. By contrast, modern desktop and laptop CPUs have 64-bit data paths, can address gigabytes of memory, run at multi-gigahertz speeds, are superscalar (can execute more than one instruction per clock cycle), implement sophisticated branch prediction and speculative execution of instructions. They implement virtual memory, hyperthreading, virtualization, support for multiple SMID instruction set extensions, floating-point coprocessors, support for PCI Express, DDR4 and DDR5 memory interfaces, and have megabytes of on-chip cache. Some even have hardware support for encoding and decoding H.264/H.265, ProRes, and VP9. Yes, modern desktop and laptop CPUs have multiple cores, but not billions of them (four to 24 cores is typical). What they have billions of is transistors.

Comparing a modern CPU with a pocket calculator is like comparing a Ford Model T with a Lamborghini. 

Supercomputers used to be very fast single core machines (like the Cray-1), but modern ones use thousands of the same CPUs and GPUs used in desktop PCs. These computers are increasing in power and sophistication every year, and combined with the advancements in AI, will soon be able to do the things no one dreamed of ten years ago.

The human brain, by contrast, isn't as fast as a modern computer, but is massively parallel in a way that's as yet unmatched by even the most powerful supercomputers. We can still do things computers can't, but the gap is closing.