> Not nearly as impressive as Sora. Sora was impressive because the clips were long and had lots of rapid movement
The most impressive Sora demo was heavily edited.
The most impressive Sora demo was heavily edited.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFzXwBZgB88 (posted the day after the short debuted)
https://openai.com/index/sora-first-impressions (no mention of editing, nor do they link to the above making-of video)
>The videos below were edited by the artists, who creatively integrated Sora into their work, and had the freedom to modify the content Sora generated.
https://web.archive.org/web/20240513050023/https://openai.co...
They also just added a link to the making-of video.
It's quite early to race to the conclusion that one is better than the other when not only they are both unreleased, but especially when the demos can be edited, faked or altered to look great for optics and distortion.
EDIT: It appears there is at least one commenter who replied below that is upset with this fact above.
It is OK to cope, but the truth really doesn't care especially when the competition (Google) came out much stronger than expected with their announcements.
Distortion is easiest when the products really work. :)
The intention wasn't to show "This is what Sora can generate from start to end" but rather "This is what a video production team can do with Sora instead of shooting their own raw footage."
Maybe not so obvious to others, but for me it was clear from how the other demo videos looked.