Not going to bother with this until the temporal cohesion issue is solved. The results are cool, but the variety in frames makes it look like a very specific and distracting art style instead of true animation.
There is no need to figure out how to recreate this style as you will be able to find it on these platforms in the future. The commenter understood you, but you did not understand the commenter.
But I still think that's missing the point of my (not entirely serious) comment.
People still have access to analogue amplifiers but digital simulations of them are still developed.
As models and workflows improve, if people want a flickery old-school look then they may well simulate it rather than go through the hassle of running old tools that might not mesh well with newer workflows.
That's because analog stuff requires hardware. There's "something to simulate". You don't simulate digital computers, perhaps you "emulate" them.
More generally, analog stuff is really different from digital stuff. Some "audiophiles" argue about which lossless compression algorithm applied to .wav files gives the best sound, but we know it's just bits. Bits are fungible. By contrast, you can never make a perfect copy of something analog (you can often make a copy that's indistinguishable for all purposes that matter, but there's still a difference). People still make and buy LPs, the sales are increasing. I don't expect that to ever happen for CDs, unless perhaps combined with scratching or otherwise damaging them on purpose.
Of course, nostalgia goes beyond such mundane distinctions, which gives rise to thingsike pixel art. But there's still nothing to simulate there.
Well, what is "true animation"?
There are number of types of traditional animation where you draw both the characters and the backgrounds from scratch for every frame, so you get this variety naturally.
Or you have more practical techniques like strata-cut animation[1], where again you get what we might think of today as a very "ML-like" effect of the background constantly shifting.
All of these techniques are very time intensive, so you don't often see them in commercial animation.
I suspect depth maps (SD2 already supports them) could be used to achieve that in the future.
I wonder if a diffusion model could accept an "onion skin" noise, so the transitions between frames would be less jarring. Can someone with more knowledge than me explain what's the most promising approach here?
People will really grasp at anything to find something to critique in generative AI, huh?
OK i'll fix that.
It's perfect. Stop all work and development on it now guys, it's perfect. It has no flaws and makes no mistakes. Amazing I guess.
I don't even see an issue with that particular artefact, I think it's an interesting problem from a technical pov, hence literally every other part of my comment.
It is improving super rapidly and it will be a pretty seamless soon enough in all likelihood. We are in the intermediate stage right now, and the results are going to be incredible.
But its not an issue really! This is just what AI art is. It is something different from just painting: somewhat less and somewhat more in different dimensions. You trade in individual expression and authorship for bricolage and universality. That's cool, but it will always be "specific."
If you just want pretty anime girls or the like, you'd get a lot farther with dumber tools like motion-detection on spine-based animation anyway.
The StyleGAN3 project page shows some good videos: https://nvlabs.github.io/stylegan3/