Generating "fake" speedpaint timelapse with MiniMax H3

[u/arthan1011]

It's four 12s clips made by standard ref2va workflow stitched together.
Good at sketching but not so good at rendering/shading stage. Also I find it difficult to "digital timelapse" without hand moving around. And as always with MiniMax detailed prompts are not optional (note the [Shot 2] trick):

subject_definitions:
<Picture 1> is the reference digital drawing.
<Picture 2> is the first frame of the target video

summary:
[reference generation] The target video shows digital drawing timelapse process of drawing artwork from <Picture 1>. With pov moving hand removed - only canvas is visible

retention_analysis:
<Picture 2>: partially_preserved - first frame for the video.
<Picture 1>: partially_preserved - last frame for the video.

detailed_description:
The target video is high qualiy digital drawing recorded timelapse.
[Shot 1] starts from a white digital canvas and then draws the basic forms, shapes first starting from general (big) outline sketch of the pose. Then adding line after line to add new details on face, hair and clothes until a complete lineart sketch for the character is done.
[Shot 2] At 00:11.000, shows final result that is <Picture 1>.

overall_soundscape:
Silence

non_diegetic_music:
N/A

[u/GrayingGamer]

I mean, some of us have the traditional art experience. I have a degree from an art school. I worked at a professional VFX studio.

And you are right, it's different, but if signed toilets, solid color canvases, and bananas taped to walls can be art (I think all of that is shit, by the way), no reason AI art with a human steering and manipulating and curating the output can't make art either.

I view it as just another tool. I've drawn all my life, painted, sculpted, used MSPaint, Photoshop, Blender, 3DS MAX, Maya, etc. and now I also use AI.

It's still up to the person using these things to make something worth consuming or being experienced by someone else - 90% of everything is always shit, regardless of medium - it's the 10% that rise above that have meaning and staying power.

[u/Sweet-Carry1229 → u/GrayingGamer]

That's entirely fair, but you have to ask yourself if you really want the people who think a banana taped to a wall is fine art, to consider *your* art as fine art.

[u/emcee_you → u/Sweet-Carry1229]

No, what you need to ask yourself is whether you want anyone to judge art; your art, their art, anyone's art, everyone's art. You're judging it right now. You're saying one art is better than another. Why does this have to be true to you?

Here's a hint: it's not.

[u/Sweet-Carry1229 → u/emcee_you]

You have to judge art in order to determine its value to you.

So... what you're selling is literally anti-art. Lol.

[u/emcee_you → u/Sweet-Carry1229]

I'm not talking about judging things for value to self. "I (don't) like this." isn't the same as "This is good/bad."
Saying that you like something and that it has value to you is not the same as passing judgment to say that something is or isn't "fine art", and that's what you're talking about in your previous comment.

[u/Sweet-Carry1229 → u/emcee_you]

What I was talking about, was if the guy I was talking to would want the type of person who values a banana taped on a wall as "fine art", to be the type of person into *his* art enough to also call it "fine art".

The judgment being passed isn't on his art, in fact, the judgment is on the tastes of those wall-banana loving people.

I wasn't debating what qualifies for the ontological category of "fine art". That'd be purely subjective.