Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

EpicProdigy t1_ja6jtef wrote

Animators do not use video reference to make 1:1 copies of it. And in many cases, its impossible to create 100% reliable reference for what you want to animate. Just look at some crazy anime fighting scenes that straight up defy what humans are capable of doing. Animators often push and exaggerate things to make things more expressive and dynamic. Hell, people even often breaks characters limbs for a frame or two to create a desired effect. Enough to capture a certain feeling from the animation, but not long enough for the person watching to say "what the hell happened to their leg?!" Animation is full of little things like this. And its a highly iterative process.

Unless you can make an high level thinking thinking AI that can understand and apply 12 principles of animation, and also not need to rely on video reference, I cannot see this tech doing the hard work.

What I could see, is people using 3D animation to create reference for the AI to then make 2D animation. Because with 3D animation, you can make more animation in less amount of time, while having the type of movement youd find in 2D that's not possible or easy for a person to do in real life. Because no matter how hard someone tries, they often cant move like a cartoon character. And in some cases, it would be down right dangerous to even try lol.

I could see this for small indie creators who just want an cinematic animation for their story, but dont even have the small budget of a million dollars to pull it off. But personally, I view this tech as a way for 3D animation to finally pull off the 2D look. Which the anime industry has been doing trying to do for a long time because its much cheaper, but can never get it right. (Ok well Studio Orange gets it pretty close)

33

Nukemouse t1_ja6q7n7 wrote

For many years 3D artists attempted to replicate anime style (and other 2d animation styles) using 3D models. Recently, they began having some success (dragon ball fighterz particularly), but for a very long time their attempts lacked many of those small touches you are talking about, but they were released anyway. I suspect we will simply see a volume of AI made releases despite certain "shortcuts" commonly used in anime that are directly responsible for its style not being replicated.

Also in the 3D animation that tries to replicate anime they always dial down the framerate so it looks choppy and its horrible. Like of all the things to replicate why would you want to replicate the framerate?

18

EpicProdigy t1_ja6s5e7 wrote

Yes improvements have certainly been made: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TxPRlnnBLoBut ultimately, the thing about 3D anime with toon shaders, is that when theyre still, they can look just like 2D. But when they move, you can tell its CGI. Its probably because that they lack the imperfections 2D has which in my opinion is much needed and can be quite appealing. AI has the potential to rectify this issue.

Also any 3D animation that simply lowers its frame rate is not replicating how 2D animation works. They're just making their animation choppy. 2D animation almost never feels choppy despite it being "lower fps". 2D animation typically works on 2s. So for ever 2 frames, theres 1 image. This can change dynamically over a shot. So it can go from being on 2s, to being animated on 4s, to then in some rare instances, being animated on 1s. The youtube link I provided does exactly this. (Go through the video using the < > keys to see where they animate on 1s, 2s, and even 4s) To recreate this effect in 3D, you basically have to animate in the same process as if you were animating using 2D.

The most painful way of doing it, is animating at your standard 24 fps getting a nice result, and then just lowering it to 12 fps and creating a janky mess. Its a lazy practice with bad outcomes in a desperate attempt to make it have a hand drawn feel.

7

Nukemouse t1_ja6un3d wrote

I would love polygon pictures if they used decent frame rates and embraced being 3D instead of being stuck in the past

1

Mickhead t1_ja6sy1l wrote

Did we watch the same video? The entire point of the video is that none of this is true. AI did do the hard part -- the small flourishes were done with basic VFX and 2 people. Meaning that you could create really convincing anime with even just a modicum of more resources.

This is an order of magnitude efficiency gain as high as cars were over horses, in my opinion. Sure it doesn't do everything but that's like saying cars aren't better than horses because it can't go over steps.

14

EpicProdigy t1_ja6tett wrote

My first sentence is that animators do not recreate 1:1 animation based on their video reference. They do not rotoscope over real life images, because you can create much better moving characters by just using irl movements as inspiration, but applying your own knowledge to create moving characters in a much more appealing way.

Im sorry, but I watched the full video on their other channel, and the way the characters move are cool, but weird. But I personally would never watch an anime with that type of movement unless the story was good. This is isnt an issue with flickering or anything. Recreating animation 1:1 with real footage is often just not appealing animation. Its like some weird motion capture 2D animation and can look uncanny.

And why do you think most animation studios don't use motion capture for 3D animation other than when they want to create realistic movement, like for a realistic video game or movie? The power to "replace animators" for 3D has existed for decades. Motion capture is pretty much perfected, its "cheap" and even then, they need animators to clean it up and make it more appealing. Most animation studios (in the category of Pixar, Sony image works, Fortiche, etc) dont use it because they want more stylized animation movements. Because to many its the most appealing type of animation.

Motion capture by small indie 3D animation studios is much more commonly used. But every time they get bigger, they phase that out and hire more hand keyed animators. Like Rooster Teeth and their RWBY franchise. This tech is basically exactly motion capture, but for 2D animation. And so will likely follow the same path. I do not ever see AI that basically rotoscopes over a video reference ever replacing 2D animators. Because thats not what they do.

11

Mickhead t1_ja6v1du wrote

You seriously interpreted my previous comment as "the boolean inverse of every statement in your post is true" and started arguing against that. I hope you're getting the treatment for your autism you need.

I'm just talking about your thesis, friend. This is like you ranting maniacally about the intricate process of affixing horsehoes onto horses while I'm admiring a car.

2

EpicProdigy t1_ja6v69m wrote

Alright.

7

deltaback t1_jaaa9bb wrote

Just wanted to say I appreciate your responses man. I love people with zero animation experience explaining shit they have no idea about and then when you create a reasonable, coherent response, receive a “lol you mad bro”

Most people here who never animated, let alone work in the actual industry have zero idea of what makes animation good. They look at something that surface- level looks similar and think it changes everything. The fact that we’ve had motion capture for decades, and it’s still preferable to use it as reference and hand animate most things shows it’s pretty clear that simply recording motion and generating images from it isn’t going to cut it.

3

AllNinjas t1_ja6tj07 wrote

Niko and Dean, the 2 main people coordinated everything and did a lot of heavy lifting, but it was a handful of Corridor folks as they mentioned they worked on that for months r/Corridor

2

Mickhead t1_ja6v2tw wrote

Sure, I'm just using the exaggerated number they use while filming in the studio.

0

Beatboxamateur t1_ja6zf5a wrote

Yeah, this is kind of similar to people thinking that changing anime clips to 60fps on youtube using AI interpolation somehow makes it better. People are too quick to think something's already been usurped by new technology, when it really hasn't yet.

5