Non-photo-realistic (NPR) 3D art goes back a surprisingly long way in animations. I rewatched the 1988 Disney cartoon "Oliver and Company" recently, and I was surprised to see that the cars and buildings were "cel-shaded" 3D models. I assumed that the movie had been remastered, but when I looked it up, I found out that it was the first Disney movie ever to make heavy use of CGI[0] and that what I was seeing was in the original. The page I found says:
"This was the first Disney movie to make heavy use of computer animation. CGI effects were used for making the skyscrapers, the cars, trains, Fagin's scooter-cart and the climactic Subway chase. It was also the first Disney film to have a department created specifically for computer animation."
References ----------
Tron came out 1982, six years before Oliver & Company.
[1] https://filmschoolrejects.com/tron-costumes-glowing-effect/ Thanks legions of Taiwanese animators (:
Sounds pretty heavy to me.
>Eleven minutes of the film used "computer-assisted imagery" such as the skyscrapers, the taxi cabs, trains, Fagin's scooter-cart, and the climactic subway chase
I think Tron wins in terms of CGI
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mix9rStOqoI
Now I am curious to watch it
https://youtu.be/P5hHV2torG0?t=126
Wait, you're telling me that computers have enabled us to have fewer artists and thereby replacing artists for a long time now?!
Just like pretty much every industry out there?!
And that it's widely accepted so long as people get their cheap plastic goods from China?!
And that the current outrage won't even be remembered in 20 years?!
Which tells, AI hatred don't necessary come from what pro-AI thinks where it comes from, people potentially just find AI art rage inducing.
Like, not even specific technical aspect of AI is bad or could use improvements. It just sits at the wrong side of the uncanny valley, and arguments clump around that.
That's the real problem with generative AI.
I remember seeing this blog write up on what 3D animators do to make things look acceptable. Like make a character 9 feet tall because when the camera panned them, they looked too short at their "real" in-system height. Or archway doors that are huge but at the perspective shot, look "normal" to us. Or having a short character stand on an out-of-scene blue box to make them having a conversation with a tall character not look silly due to an extreme height difference? Or a hallway that in real life would be 1,000 feet long but looks about 100 in-world because of how the camera passes past it, and how each door on that 1,000 foot hallway is 18 feet high, etc.
I wonder if shows like Futurama used those tricks as well, so when you sort of re-create the 3D space the animators were working in by reverse engineering like this, then you see the giant doors and 9 foot people and non-Euclidian hallways, etc. Just because it looks smooth as the camera passes it, doesn't mean that actual 3D model makes sense at other perspectives.
[0]: https://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2013/11/20/the-t...