I'm a traditional artist and film industry professional who now also builds AI tools for the film industry, so I think I have some unique perspective to offer here.
Every single person I consult with points out that AI is useful to them in the domains that support them, but will certainly never be able to operate in their specific role.
What this means is that Directors will use AI for research, for concepts, boards etc, but AI will never direct.
Storyboard artists will see the benefits of using AI to create their films, because 'storyboarding is the real craft', and directing is just putting it on camera.
Researchers will use AI to collate the data into a digestable form, but AI will never research.
Writers will use AI to do research, but AI will never write.
Each the master of their domain, supported by any technology that can aid them in THEIR vision. It's the goal, and the agency that is retained, not the interplay between roles.
Everything else is a supporting act that can "obviously" be automated or streamlined.
Behind the scenes, of course, to support this you must build general intelligence that can handle - to some reasonable degree - the entire pipeline end to end. It's only from this place that each individual can insert themselves back in to conduct the orchestra in their own unique way.
It's my personal opinion that AI is a collaborative medium first and foremost, and that you want to bring your collaborators into your latent space to maximise the human surface area. Like so many people holding up a canopy.
But it's still fascinating to me that everyone's perception of the "irreplaceable human spirit" generally begins and ends at their own passions.
So yes, of course AI "may be useful" for VFX because VFX isn't this director's domain.
And he will gladly accept the title of "defender of humanity" while acknowledging that SOME roles (certainly not his) may be usefully augmented by AI.
Rest assured that everyone feels the same. The only honest anti-AI position here is that you will use AI where it elevates you, and reject it where it usurps you.
An arguably more objective position is that AI allows people the option to choose to collaborate with any number of people from any set of diverse skills, knowing that you can still ship an outcome from that specific configuration of talent and budget.
And that of course you will honour your creative collaborators and use the technology only where it helps bridge the gap between collaborators, and between the human experience of the creator and of the audience.
One basic thing to keep in mind is consistency of lighting across AI-generated sequences.
For this gritty Downtown LA crime sequence, the goal wasn't just getting a cool frame. It was maintaining a believable sodium vapor lighting look shot after shot. That dirty orange-yellow glow is such a huge part of the visual language of LA crime films. Once it shifts too much between cuts, the illusion starts to break.
The other thing that doesn't get talked about enough is pacing.
A lot of people focus on the generation itself, but editing is where tension is actually created. How long you stay on a face. When you cut. When you don't cut. The space between dialogue. That's what makes a sequence feel cinematic rather than a simple montage.
As these tools improve, consistency, rhythm and pacing become even more important than raw image quality.
"AI HAS NO PLACE IN FILMMAKING!" say the luddites and then the G.O.A.T drops this. If you are listening to the haters telling you AI has no place in in filmmaking and ignoring Scorsese, Spielberg, Cameron, Davies, Schrader, Aronofsky, then you need to check yourself.
I imagine in the near future AI video gen tools will give users the ability to navigate a generated space in 3D, much like in a traditional DCC or game engine, to directly control camera angles and shots.
I think this will really unlock generative filmmaking and AI cinematography.
But I can't really imagine what the UI or software will look like to give directors control of the "actor" performances (other than something like traditional performance capture, which we already have).
We need fine tuned control over expressions, movement, line delivery, line of sight, etc. Like we would in traditional 3D animation.
I can't picture what this tool looks like but I'm confident eventually the tech will get there.
#aifilmmaking @Kling_ai@magnific
RIP Rec Room, it's pretty disheartening to see such a pillar of the VR industry since the start of my career crumble so quietly. It served as an inspiration for so many, and I hope years down the line it's still remembered as such.
My inner "uhm achstually" guy
* PS1 could not deliver a poly count close to this, it's dreamcast level min
* PS1 could not bilinear filter textures like this
* PS1 could not gorouard shade this smoothly
* PS1 can't achieve this colour depth
The term PS1 graphics lives differently in everyone's mind. Its almost lost all meaning at this point.
Apple just dropped a research paper called HeadsUp days before WWDC.
Trained on 10,000+ real faces to reconstruct a fully animatable 3D Gaussian Splat that you can rotate and light.
Excited to see Personas in visionOS 27.
Chris Nolan doesn't hate AI, lol
"I feel that AI can still be a very powerful tool for us. I’m optimistic about that. I really am. But we have to view it as a tool. The person who wields it still has to maintain responsibility for wielding that tool."
This has been making the rounds and one thing I want to point out is that at the time this level of interactive shading — even in marionette form — was incredibly exotic.
Us normal folks had wireframes that would update at atrocious frame rates.
This solo indie dev is making a survival horror game based on Thalassophobia
- Stranded on a small boat
- No mini-map, navigate using only a compass, stars & sounds
- Do not fall into the water
Would you play this? It's called Open Waters.
"All art is based on technology."
George Lucas, one of the great visionaries in film, said it. Cave paintings, film, digital... now AI. Every wave is the same impulse with a different tool. New tools open new stories. He calls it "freeing the medium." Freedom is art's destiny.
La primera película de Toy Story (1995) requirió 800.000 horas de máquina usando un grupo de 117 computadoras y 110 empleados.
La pelicula tiene 114.240 cuadrados de animación. Pixar podía renderizar menos de 30 segundos de la película por día.
Hoy cuanto demorarían? 🤔
This indie dev is making a hide-and-seek game where you literally paint your own body to blend into the environment
- Your artistic skills are key to survival
- Pose to blend in
- Up to 10 players in public or private matches
Would you play this? It's called MECCHA CHAMELEON.
This indie team is making a kart racing game where your vehicle is an office chair
- Drift office chairs through hallways
- Each chair & driver has unique perks
- The longer you drift, the faster you go
Would you play this? It's called Need for Seat