6 ms·

Did We Just Change Animation Forever?

16 points by _ZeD_ 4y ago

gardenfelder 4y ago
Got tired of the commercial breaks. But: this is about adapting stable diffusion to video. Pretty cool.
- jeron 4y ago
  ublock origin + sponsorblock, you can thank me later
  - faebi 4y ago
    Or just buy Premium
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- xeromal 4y ago
  They gotta get paid somehow
  - rtkwe 4y ago
    They have a subscription service with longer and exclusive videos I'm sure outstrips the revenue from Youtube.
- singularity2001 4y ago
  No offense to the creators and not to discourage them, but the whole process already looks so arduous and antique. We're not there yet but I bet that with GPT-x-video-diffusion we get similar results with MUCH less work rather soon. BTW Google just released the other way: a new video-to-text model today.
- invalidname 4y ago
  A couple of years ago a friend casually complained about ad breaks on YouTube and I was surprised. I had no idea YouTube had ads in the videos. Turns out that uBlockOrigin on Firefox or one of my other plugins just blocks that out. I never saw an ad. Still don't.
AlexandrB 4y ago
Counterpoint: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GOwxXj1EIXM&pp https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GOwxXj1EIXM&pp
- Waterluvian 4y ago
  “An insult to artists.” Oh boy. This is going to be one of those thinly veiled arguments about “authenticity” and how the method is important, but is really just “old man yells at cloud” isn’t it? I don’t care about your process. If it takes all kinds of esoteric stuff to create a Miyazaki masterpiece, then great! But if we can make the same masterpiece in a fraction of the steps, even better. If artists feel that the market cares about process and authenticity then they shouldn’t feel threatened. They have a strict advantage there.
  - kridsdale1 4y ago
    The value of a masterpiece is quantified in the human ingenuity and labor (aka craftsmanship) that it took to produce. Michealangelo’s David is a masterpiece that took one of the greatest marble workers and masters of human anatomy to carve. A completely identical David produced by a machine, or a 3D print of it, based on a model derived by a GAN, is worthless.
    - Waterluvian 4y ago
      And if that matters to the audience, then the 3D print won’t fare well in the market. People won’t want to see it if the real value is to sit and admire how a human could have done that to a slab of marble. But oftentimes people are happy to buy a print rather than the original because they just like the end product. Trying to assign value to art is perilous. Who cares if my print that I admire every day isn’t an original? I’m not trying to launder money.
- drewcoo 4y ago
  Wow! Does he have the same vitriol for Ralph Bakshi or anyone else who's done rotoscoping? I know . . . I know . . . the first rule of animator fight club is . . .
beefman 4y ago
Posted earlier here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35141859 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35141859
lambdaloop 4y ago
Responding to this video, I really liked this take from Aaron Blaise (animator on Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin and director of Brother Bear) on AI in animation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm7BwEsdVbQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm7BwEsdVbQ > To be honest with you, the biggest threat to our industry is not the AI. I mean when you look at any technology's ever come along in the entertainment industry, the expressiveness, the ability to create new films and new ideas has exploded. As an end result it has actually created more jobs and budgets have actually gone up. If you look at the budgets now compared to what they were back in the 90s, they're doubled. > The biggest threat I think is an age-old threat: it's bad stories and bad management. That's what's going to get rid of jobs, if you're putting out consistently bad movies under bad management, because no one's going to go see them. > So the idea is that it doesn't matter what technology you're putting on it. Make sure that the story underneath all of that technology is good, make sure it's engaging, make sure it's something that people want to go to, so they can laugh and cry and be scared and learn something.
- MattDemers 4y ago
  This means that management needs to be good enough to realize that it's a good idea to include young talent, give them opportunity, and respect their different perspectives. This means better stories, and also means that the management holds those beliefs as principles, and are willing to take risks "for the sake of it." But that seems counter to the idea of a management pastiche drooling over the cost-cutting potential of AI.
tim-fan 4y ago
Seems like the key to consistency will be generating multiple images in a sequence simultaneously, rather than generating frames independently. Are models being developed along these lines?

16 points by _ZeD_ 4y ago

gardenfelder 4y ago

Got tired of the commercial breaks. But: this is about adapting stable diffusion to video. Pretty cool.

jeron 4y ago
ublock origin + sponsorblock, you can thank me later
- faebi 4y ago
  Or just buy Premium
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
xeromal 4y ago
They gotta get paid somehow
- rtkwe 4y ago
  They have a subscription service with longer and exclusive videos I'm sure outstrips the revenue from Youtube.
singularity2001 4y ago
No offense to the creators and not to discourage them, but the whole process already looks so arduous and antique. We're not there yet but I bet that with GPT-x-video-diffusion we get similar results with MUCH less work rather soon. BTW Google just released the other way: a new video-to-text model today.
invalidname 4y ago
A couple of years ago a friend casually complained about ad breaks on YouTube and I was surprised. I had no idea YouTube had ads in the videos. Turns out that uBlockOrigin on Firefox or one of my other plugins just blocks that out. I never saw an ad. Still don't.

AlexandrB 4y ago

Counterpoint: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GOwxXj1EIXM&pp https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GOwxXj1EIXM&pp

Waterluvian 4y ago
“An insult to artists.” Oh boy. This is going to be one of those thinly veiled arguments about “authenticity” and how the method is important, but is really just “old man yells at cloud” isn’t it? I don’t care about your process. If it takes all kinds of esoteric stuff to create a Miyazaki masterpiece, then great! But if we can make the same masterpiece in a fraction of the steps, even better. If artists feel that the market cares about process and authenticity then they shouldn’t feel threatened. They have a strict advantage there.
- kridsdale1 4y ago
  The value of a masterpiece is quantified in the human ingenuity and labor (aka craftsmanship) that it took to produce. Michealangelo’s David is a masterpiece that took one of the greatest marble workers and masters of human anatomy to carve. A completely identical David produced by a machine, or a 3D print of it, based on a model derived by a GAN, is worthless.
  - Waterluvian 4y ago
    And if that matters to the audience, then the 3D print won’t fare well in the market. People won’t want to see it if the real value is to sit and admire how a human could have done that to a slab of marble. But oftentimes people are happy to buy a print rather than the original because they just like the end product. Trying to assign value to art is perilous. Who cares if my print that I admire every day isn’t an original? I’m not trying to launder money.
drewcoo 4y ago
Wow! Does he have the same vitriol for Ralph Bakshi or anyone else who's done rotoscoping? I know . . . I know . . . the first rule of animator fight club is . . .

beefman 4y ago

Posted earlier here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35141859 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35141859

lambdaloop 4y ago

Responding to this video, I really liked this take from Aaron Blaise (animator on Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin and director of Brother Bear) on AI in animation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm7BwEsdVbQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm7BwEsdVbQ > To be honest with you, the biggest threat to our industry is not the AI. I mean when you look at any technology's ever come along in the entertainment industry, the expressiveness, the ability to create new films and new ideas has exploded. As an end result it has actually created more jobs and budgets have actually gone up. If you look at the budgets now compared to what they were back in the 90s, they're doubled. > The biggest threat I think is an age-old threat: it's bad stories and bad management. That's what's going to get rid of jobs, if you're putting out consistently bad movies under bad management, because no one's going to go see them. > So the idea is that it doesn't matter what technology you're putting on it. Make sure that the story underneath all of that technology is good, make sure it's engaging, make sure it's something that people want to go to, so they can laugh and cry and be scared and learn something.

MattDemers 4y ago
This means that management needs to be good enough to realize that it's a good idea to include young talent, give them opportunity, and respect their different perspectives. This means better stories, and also means that the management holds those beliefs as principles, and are willing to take risks "for the sake of it." But that seems counter to the idea of a management pastiche drooling over the cost-cutting potential of AI.

tim-fan 4y ago

Seems like the key to consistency will be generating multiple images in a sequence simultaneously, rather than generating frames independently. Are models being developed along these lines?