• AutoTL;DRB
    71 month ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:

    But quickly the documentary became a source of controversy, as fans started noticing glaring flaws in images used in the movie, from weirdly mismatched earrings to her nose appearing to lack nostrils, the Daily Mail reported, in a post showing a plethora of examples of images from the film.

    Futurism was among the first to point out that these flawed images (around the 28-minute mark of the documentary) “have all the hallmarks of an AI-generated photo, down to mangled hands and fingers, misshapen facial features, morphed objects in the background, and a far-too-long front tooth.”

    But Jeremy Grimaldi—who is also the crime reporter who wrote a book on the case and provided the documentary with research and police footage—told the Toronto Star that the images were not AI-generated.

    One photographer, Joe Foley, wrote in a post for Creative Bloq that he thought “documentary makers may have attempted to enhance old low-resolution images using AI-powered upscaling or photo restoration software to try to make them look clearer on a TV screen.”

    “The problem is that even the best AI software can only take a poor-quality image so far, and such programs tend to over sharpen certain lines, resulting in strange artifacts,” Foley said.

    Neither Raw TV, the production company behind What Jennifer Did, nor Netflix responded to Ars’ request for comment.

    The original article contains 563 words, the summary contains 220 words. Saved 61%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!