3 ms·
> With a computer, one will need a much smaller movie staff. Part of the problem is that their estimate for the number of computers was off by many orders of m
by nomel 3y ago
> With a computer, one will need a much smaller movie staff.
Part of the problem is that their estimate for the number of computers was off by many orders of magnitude. In a decade or two, with all of the generative tools, they might be much more wrong on the compute side of things, but more right on the direct-staffing side.
- majormajor 3y agoIf you can do the same thing as today's biggest movies with fewer people, it means that you'll need to do more to separate your big movies from the rest of the pack. TV and movies today use extensive visual effects for stuff that would've been shot on-set or on-location and not retouched at all 20 years ago. All the soccer field and stadium stuff in Ted Lasso, for instance. The 20 year ago version probably would've had stock photos/video and hard splits between shots of "the stadium fans" and shots of "the coaches by the sideline," and nobody would've complained... but try to get away with that today as a top-end TV show and you'd get panned for how fake and cheesy your penny-pinching looks compared to your competition. I certainly don't think I can predict what that "more" looks like in twenty years, but I doubt it's purely "throw more generative tools at it." It could be something like "throw an army of hundreds of people to review, collate, and cherry-pick the coolest out of hundreds of thousands of generative outputs" - if everyone has access to good tools, then maybe the truly breathtaking stuff will be the stuff from people who can afford the time to curate to a specific vision.