Thread 149794400

>CGI is an interesting and potentially useful tool, no doubt, but it'll never take the place of traditional methods. I mean, take a look at Pixar! Even with Steve Jobs, the best they could do was a two-minute short about fucking DESK LAMPS! There's no way you could ever make a decent feature film or TV series using it alone.
People who assume AI animation will never become a major part of the industry are probably going to sound just as ridiculous in hindsight in about ten years tops.

>>149794400 (OP)
>11 AM in india
Good morning, sir.

>>149794400 (OP)
CGI is easily scalable. it’s geometry, which is repetitive and consistent.
AI is probability, it’s stochastic, inconsistent, and difficult to control.
plus that lamp animation is way more than what we can do with AI right now. forget scenes, we can’t even get different 5-second shots to show consistent features. things are random and change every time.
just use your common sense and you can see why one is easy to scale and the other is not

>>149794400 (OP)
CGI was already being used when Pixar came around. Your example would be like saying the Germans were the first to use tanks during ww2

>>149794400 (OP)
CGI is a great example of a new tech thing that became valuable and worthwhile once it cleared traditionalist doubts because it could create something new instead of being literally conceived to produce cheap imitations of something that already existed.

It will never not be funny how shartgen shills consistently base their "position" in dumb broad comparisons that actually work against it rather than helping it.

>>149794400 (OP)
Anon, if your ham-fistedly made up quote is longer than your "point", that's an indication that you don't really have one lmao

30 years most people still agree 2d is superior and more appealing

No shit, the point that they're lamps is because they were attempting to give inanimate objects with no human features a sense of weight, character action, and believable sense of emotions before anything else. That's the real foundation of all animation. Luxo Jr. was about crafting an excellent very short comedy using the framework of something unrealistic, and they succeeded in doing that.

>>149796816
>because it could create something new
Not only that, but it was used for that from the very beginning. In fact, it famously was the people who only saw potential or value in technological developments that could make something that already could be made but faster or cheaper the ones who rejected CGI at first (since it couldn't really be used for that at the time). And that sort of mindset is EXACTLY the target audience of sloptech.

https://youtu.be/LvIDRoO8KnM?t=90

AI will become good enough to add elements that are slightly edited post-production (if it is not a negative stain on a film perception wise)
It will never make a full coherent film on its own, as in prompting making Zootopia 3 and having a film a day later that can be slightly edited to finalize

>>149796833
Nah