I agree it was a useful video, specifically addressing misleading or deceptive claims.
Saying it doesn´t modify geometry is a truism if it´s just screen space filter which doesn´t even access geometry files.
But that´s fundamentally deceptive if it is outputting things which don´t correspond to the real source geometry.
Saying it enhances material properties is outright deceptive if it isn´t interacting with material files at all, but only ¨sees¨ final output.
So if there were a death penalty for corporate lies they would be in trouble, but of course there isn´t.... so far.
To his broader take-away, the entire ¨control¨ seems to be about fine-grained ability to turn it off - masking, alpha blends, etc.
That is to say, there is no deep control here - it has one ¨target¨ of ¨realism¨ which it applies as filter to the image.
This is apparently influenced by it´s training data as to what female faces look like, what male haircuts look like etc.
If there is variation in how it ¨treats¨ different scenes, that is essentially obtuse and unavailable to direct in meaningful way.
(i.e. we can see from examples it isn´t universally ¨yassifying¨ or adding make-up etc to every character, but there is no control of this)
This goes beyond ¨makeup¨ - It apparently lacks ability to ¨target¨ different lighting styles - it´s just driven by it´s training data.
(hypothetically that could be tweaked to allow designating examples of target lighting, but clearly they aren´t even trying to claim that)
There could be more confidence if they were transparent and open about this rather than deceptive and evasive about the issues.







