Digital Art is to Traditional Animation what AI art will be to current art. It will be worse, but cheaper, and people will slop it up.
Digital animation is just a different way of doing animation. It has nothing to do with intrinsic quality and everything to do with the vision and quality of the artists involved. Also, once the hype of AI wears off and they have to make it profitable it won't be used for much of anything because a peak of 70 percent success rate is worse than even a novice artist, who is ten times cheaper.
>>147142170this book rocks, more animators should own and read it
>>147142170If it's going to be ubiquitous, why didn't you post some as a relevant example?
>>147142170Nobody is buying what you're selling. Good luck improving AI when all the microchips double in price in a week with the new tarriffs.
>>147143111You are acting like I want AI to succeed when I don't>>147142418It is almost always worse.
>>147143111If it means more microchips will be made in America by white men, all the better.
>>147142418>Also, once the hype of AI wears off and they have to make it profitable it won't be used for much of anything because a peak of 70 percent success rate is worse than even a novice artist, who is ten times cheaper.Pure cope. Zero animators being hired is still zero. You're in no position to demand anything.
>>147142170>the animator's survival kitReminder.
>>147142170>Digital Art is to Traditional Animation>using the animators guide as an OP pichow does changing from drawing on paper instead of drawing directly on the screen change the principles of the animators surivval guide?whether you draw on paper, cels, uploaded line art, or directly on the screenyou still need to draw wind-up, follow-through, and add accompanying actions the principles of animation remain the same, you want a bouncing ball to speed up and slow down as it arcs through the air, and squash when it hits the ground and stretch as it bounces up
>>147143866He is part of the problem for not training people.
>>147142170
>>147143866Can we blame boomers for this too?, technically modern "art" slop was a thing before the 60s.
>>147143866Oh, I was looking to be depressed today
>>147143920That lady in red does things to me.
>>147143866>number two: our mostly rich students - on whom we count on for our funding - don't WANT to learn to draw. They would rather decorate themselves as living works of art - and that's exactly what they do.This book was made in like 2001?
>>147143111>Good luck improving AI when all the microchips double in price in a week with the new tarriffs.You're not a poorfag, are you anon? How is this a significant problem?
>>147143928>before the 60s.The oldest boomer turned 20 in the 60s. Art being divorced from meaning predates that.
>>147142418>>147143870I agree with both of you but digital animation also brought forward still lifeless puppet animation (unless you're counting that thing hannah barbera was testing), which made it possible to produce slop such as the million of "adult animated sitcoms" you see everywhere.
>>147144144>digital animation also brought forward still lifeless puppet animationpuppet animation still abides by the principles of animation if you want it to look goodyou still need to be at least a half-decent artist with a grasp of artistic fundamentals to work with puppetsand obviously, someone needs to have drawn the puppets in the first placemore skill is baked into the tool to save time, but you still need to have a decent toolmaker to make the tools in the first place
>>147144157Of course, but the barrier of entry and stuff to learn still goes down, and stuff like family guy very rarely abides by the principles, so i get where OP is going.
>>147144168the transition to digital helped make the bargain bin cartoons look less obviously low budget, if anythingHB was the first to capitalize on scanning line art to edit and color it digitally, and their 90s output actually experienced a jump in qualitywhereas their original 60s/70s lineup had low budgets and looked the partthe reduction of the barrier of entry actually benefited low-cost productions because more of the limited budget could be spent on real work done rather than on just the bare minimum
Listen I only like highly detailed art which often requires intensive labor by its very nature to achieve. Shit like Goya's work where he mastered etching for printing is remarkable for what is meant to be just unserious straight to market/publication illustrations or animated works such as The Thief and The Cobbler or Dragon's Heaven are incredible to watch. If digital art can achieve similar results, it is art. If AI can can do it, it is art. But at the moment the latter cannot and so I consider it in the same vein as most modern or abstract art as not being art at all.
>>147142170>It will be worseIt doesn't have to be worse, it's all about how well the AI model is trained which in turn depends on money/time spent and access to training data.Inbetweeners are going to be gone first, this is perfect for automation, key animators are harder to replace, and thus they will stay around for longest.When it comes to animation in general, voice acting will become 100% AI, however good/popular voice actors will be able to license their voice for training and will be cashing royalties without ever entering a recording studio.Background artists will also be far fewer, since the art director will be generating background concepts which the few remaining background artists will simply clean up.But yeah, eventually it will all be automated, there's quite a window of time before that finally happens though.
>>147144349>But yeah, eventually it will all be automated, there's quite a window of time before that finally happens though.I'm a betting man and I'm willing to say confidently that 2025 will be the last year traditional jobs in art will still be seen as professions and not hobbies. Anyone who still thinks Art will be a viable career in 2026, 2027 or 2028 are just hurting themselves.It will just be too easy to buy a $2000 AI subscription that can do anything you want with some slight mistakes, as opposed to paying out millions of dollars every year to staff hundreds of people on a payroll who want vacations, time off or they fool around on the clock./Co/ can hate me all you want but it's business 101. No business ever cared about maintaining "soul". Cartoons and comics are just products they sell so the CEO doesn't end up homeless on the streets.
>>147143970Yup.
>>147144507>and I'm willing to say confidently that 2025 will be the last year traditional jobsOh come onI will grant you that if you are a teen and choosing animation or concept artist as your career path now, you are retarded.However, the need for established animators and concept artists will remain for at least 5-10 years, depending on how well said groups are at adapting and making use of AI to speed up their workflows.We can just take image generation, which is the artform the AI has gone furthest in, it's not at a professional level, it still struggles with details and consistency, and while it has managed to overcome obstacles like hands, there is a lot left needed for it to replace actual professional artists.Of course this is a HUGE opportunity for professional artists, they can train a model on their own art, this model will be MUCH better than any other model made on their art, since they have access to a shit ton of their own art never published, and also since they can fill gaps in the model by drawing new works for certain subjects.So they train a model on their art, the model can then, on consumer hardware, output thousands of artworks in their style, composition etc, from which the artist can pick those they like the most, and redraw. Voila! Now they have created new 'clean' artworks without having to spend the time conceptualizing, which is a huge time sink.
>>147144644When Flash cartoons came out in the early 2000s, there was never a concern that they animated a tad worse than Feature Films or even 90s TV Shows that came before them.While some companies still had the money to throw around on making beautiful shows, there was still a downwards trend of making them look cheaper and cheaper and fewer and fewer of them got made. What's the lesson to be learned? Unless audiences vote with their wallets, companies will stay in business for slashing budgets and production quality, not the inverse. And AI making those mistakes but only costing the company $2000 a year to rent a license, is still far more attractive then having to pay out $350,000 ~ $1 million an episode and having to explain to shareholders how this model suppose to be sustainable or profitable. Toy sales aren't making up the difference anymore. Streaming also isn't the cash cow like it was back during Covid. Cable TV viewership is also down so that's not a real path either. These declines are killing them and there's only so much layoffs you can do rather than admit animation is failing business model unless production costs go down.
>>147142170Jesus fucking CHRIST OP, how many fucking AI threads have you made so far?https://desuarchive.org/co/thread/147134166/https://desuarchive.org/co/thread/147117502/This is like your third goddamn thread this past week alone. What, are you trying to see how long you can spam this shit before even the mods get fed up? This is beyond pathetic.
>>147145165Becauae
