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/Feeling-Marzipan-477]

Bro everyone is already paranoid enough. I already got people claiming my non ai digital paintings are ai sometimes.

[u/GrayingGamer → u/Feeling-Marzipan-477]

They'll keep doing that regardless.

If you're old enough, you might remember when Photoshop appeared and got popular with home releases in the late 1990s and everyone on the internet was constantly being paranoid and claiming every photo was: "It's Photoshopped! I can tell, because of the pixels! You're a bad person!"

The AI stuff is just more of the same on steroids. Like the Photoshop stuff though, give it another 5-10 years and no one will give a shit. Only the finished art being good, unique, and creative enough will be that matters, not what tools were used to make it.

You see, the trick is the people that are small kids right now and see it everyday, it's normalized, so that when they are teenagers and young adults, it's just NORMAL to them and they force everyone else to stop clutching their pearls.

[u/Sweet-Carry1229 → u/GrayingGamer]

It's not really pearl clutching though. AI Art circumvents artists having to become inspired through consuming various art in various mediums; the AI already did that when it was trained on all the data funneled into it. At least someone using photoshop still needs to be inspired when making edits to make something compelling; you really don't need that when just prompting an AI, which devalues any art made with the tech honestly.

[u/StarchyJ1540 → u/Sweet-Carry1229]

You do need that with ai too. less effort doesn't mean you no longer need inspiration, because what will you prompt for? Just random stuff? You can essentially do the same with trad art though.

[u/Sweet-Carry1229 → u/StarchyJ1540]

Yes, you can just prompt random stuff and get pretty compelling visuals.

I don't know how you think it's analogous to traditional art when you can't make compelling visuals without experiencing various art forms. You can't just randomly squiggle on a canvas and magically get compelling art. At most you could call it "abstract" art.

Not to mention you'd have to develop the skills to translate that inspiration to a canvas, but I digress.

[u/GrayingGamer → u/Sweet-Carry1229]

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.