4 ms·

Have you seen: https://youtu.be/_9LX9HSQkWo https://youtu.be/_9LX9HSQkWo

by p1esk 4y ago

Retric 4y ago
Yea, they used actors to maintain consistency while manually animating quite an bit, and it still looks janky. It’s an interesting process but more trying to include X in a workflow than a significant advantage. Imagine trying to do a flight scene where characters are tossing fireballs at each other with that workflow. That said, it’s very possible for this to be used on a specific movie. The pick a plot that works with the limitations and let the jank be part of the art stile…. I doubt you could watch it for an hour without getting headache, but used sparingly it could work.
- p1esk 4y ago
  I admit I don't know much about that field. But I don't see why video generation methods not follow similar rate of improvement as image generation. There's almost infinite amount of training data (e.g. YouTube), and the hardware keeps improving. I can easily imagine - in a couple of years - typing "generate a 30 seconds video in style X where characters are tossing fireballs at each other (optional description of the characters and the scene)" and getting professional looking results. And in another couple of years generating entire movies.
  - Retric 4y ago
    It’s a question of internal consistency. The video you linked skipped that by starting with actual actors, but “generate a 30 second video” means no shortcuts. There’s a common issue in AI generated still art for dynamic shots like someone dunking a basketball to have extra arms. This doesn’t show up in pictures of people standing still because the training set is completely dominated by people standing with their arms to the sides. But in dynamic shots either seems fine and it doesn’t understand the underlying limitations the way a human does. I don’t think it quite needs AGI to “make a 30 second clip of a fireball fight” but it’s much much harder than a still image of a “wizard holding a fireball.”

Have you seen: https://youtu.be/_9LX9HSQkWo https://youtu.be/_9LX9HSQkWo

by p1esk 4y ago

Have you seen: https://youtu.be/_9LX9HSQkWo https://youtu.be/_9LX9HSQkWo

Yea, they used actors to maintain consistency while manually animating quite an bit, and it still looks janky. It’s an interesting process but more trying to include X in a workflow than a significant advantage. Imagine trying to do a flight scene where characters are tossing fireballs at each other with that workflow. That said, it’s very possible for this to be used on a specific movie. The pick a plot that works with the limitations and let the jank be part of the art stile…. I doubt you could watch it for an hour without getting headache, but used sparingly it could work.

p1esk 4y ago
I admit I don't know much about that field. But I don't see why video generation methods not follow similar rate of improvement as image generation. There's almost infinite amount of training data (e.g. YouTube), and the hardware keeps improving. I can easily imagine - in a couple of years - typing "generate a 30 seconds video in style X where characters are tossing fireballs at each other (optional description of the characters and the scene)" and getting professional looking results. And in another couple of years generating entire movies.
- Retric 4y ago
  It’s a question of internal consistency. The video you linked skipped that by starting with actual actors, but “generate a 30 second video” means no shortcuts. There’s a common issue in AI generated still art for dynamic shots like someone dunking a basketball to have extra arms. This doesn’t show up in pictures of people standing still because the training set is completely dominated by people standing with their arms to the sides. But in dynamic shots either seems fine and it doesn’t understand the underlying limitations the way a human does. I don’t think it quite needs AGI to “make a 30 second clip of a fireball fight” but it’s much much harder than a still image of a “wizard holding a fireball.”