3 ms·
A few questions since I'm clearly missing some basics here: 1) we've had CGI for a long time, right? What's new here is using AI to automatically generate the C
by xwowsersx 3y ago
A few questions since I'm clearly missing some basics here: 1) we've had CGI for a long time, right? What's new here is using AI to automatically generate the CGI so some CGI designer doesn't need to go and generate the whole thing by hand? 2) There has to be better CGI than that second row of "people" in the clip here, no? I mean this is so bad, but there is or will be AI that can do way, way better than this, no? Perhaps not enough to cross the uncanny valley, but what we're seeing in this clip is just comedically awful, obviously.
- jncfhnb 3y agoThis is not AI generated. This film is not worth the effort to do good CGI and that’s about the short of it. These characters are probably reused from some other context where they would be much further away. The thing that makes them look so awful here isn’t the rendering (which is bad) but the fact that they’re animated in a way that clearly uses an awkwardly small amount of bones. E.g. their fingers don’t move. And their faces. We can surely do better CGI. But it might not be worth the cost here. To be clear, a background actor probably is worth the cost here because they are incredibly cheap. AI could bridge this gap in both quality and cost though. Just need better tooling