3 ms·

I think you're incorrect - this is the future of animation. Whilst these are pasted together samples - imagine the power of animating a piece, then being able

by gedy 11y ago

I think you're incorrect - this is the future of animation. Whilst these are pasted together samples - imagine the power of animating a piece, then being able to adjust the style at will. This takes a ton of manual work out of that, and quite magical to me.

tacos 11y ago
This isn't animation, it's painting. And animation is composited in layers so it wouldn't need any of this (poorly done!) scene segmentation. You really think Hollywood hasn't done these sorts of obvious shader experiments and tossed them out because... well, they look like schlock and middle America doesn't get the art history reference anyway? If you want to make something look like an oil painting dig out SIGGRAPH papers from 20 years ago. If you want to cop the style of a reference painting (fad!) then code it up properly inside Blender and render something. Even if artists decide to use this approach, this isn't the way the technology will be deployed in animation.
- gedy 11y ago
  How about dynamic games or real-time augmented reality that paints your world in any style? There's countless applications beyond what an artist would want tweak by hand
- nitrogen 11y ago
  Surely one could use this to previsualize stylistic changes before committing to repainting by hand?
  - tacos 11y ago
    That really isn't the way it works. Hollywood spends millions developing a look. If they want to see a mockup, they spend the bucks, because the magic really does come from the human element. If anything, seeing a robot do it poorly turns off producers. It's anti-inspirational. It implies something is either cliche or about to be commodified. That's the last thing they want before embarking on a multi-year, couple hundred million dollar artistic endeavor -- whether movie or game. There are tech teams inside these companies (of course) and they do take input from academia (Gollum's skin...) but, having been there, it most certainly doesn't look like this.

by gedy 11y ago

tacos 11y ago

This isn't animation, it's painting. And animation is composited in layers so it wouldn't need any of this (poorly done!) scene segmentation. You really think Hollywood hasn't done these sorts of obvious shader experiments and tossed them out because... well, they look like schlock and middle America doesn't get the art history reference anyway? If you want to make something look like an oil painting dig out SIGGRAPH papers from 20 years ago. If you want to cop the style of a reference painting (fad!) then code it up properly inside Blender and render something. Even if artists decide to use this approach, this isn't the way the technology will be deployed in animation.

gedy 11y ago
How about dynamic games or real-time augmented reality that paints your world in any style? There's countless applications beyond what an artist would want tweak by hand
nitrogen 11y ago
Surely one could use this to previsualize stylistic changes before committing to repainting by hand?
- tacos 11y ago
  That really isn't the way it works. Hollywood spends millions developing a look. If they want to see a mockup, they spend the bucks, because the magic really does come from the human element. If anything, seeing a robot do it poorly turns off producers. It's anti-inspirational. It implies something is either cliche or about to be commodified. That's the last thing they want before embarking on a multi-year, couple hundred million dollar artistic endeavor -- whether movie or game. There are tech teams inside these companies (of course) and they do take input from academia (Gollum's skin...) but, having been there, it most certainly doesn't look like this.