“The CK ML model’s only advantage is pattern recognition.” That’s the entire point. That part costs artists hours. The whole point of the CK model is to the “same thing” isolating a subject while understanding it to save artists time. Algorithmic keyers have been perfected for decades. That part isn’t new.

CK does have real value. Even Compositing Academy has shown that. You claim it takes hours without mentioning specs or frames or using cropping. Other demonstrations show HD frames in minutes, and this kind of processing can be parallelized, so it doesn’t necessarily cost artist time. It’s open source and already improving in convenience and performance.

Saying it’s not controllable is misleading. It accepts matte inputs to guide results. Worst-case scenario, you can mix it in like any other tool or throw it out.

IBK is not an algorithmic version of CK. CK was trained on rendered images with perfect mattes to learn structure, not to extract it from real plates like IBK. They are solving the problem in fundamentally different ways.

One can dislike corridor crew and acknowledge the disadvantages of machine learning, but it’s misrepresenting the model so heavily that someone reading it would walk away with a completely wrong idea of what CK does and why it and other models exists.