Nvidia has announced Omniverse Machinima, a new application designed to render real-time animations using game assets and stock content. The program will feature several AI technologies to make animation accessible to gamers and enthusiasts: the ability to create facial animation based only on audio and Pose Estimator that drives a character’s body movements based on video captures from a webcam. Omniverse Machinima will be available in beta next month. Find out more on Nvidia’s website.
Now, that’s what I call the end of industry. 80% of projects is substandard quality and clients are ok with that for the price they offer, so why bother with pro artists, when there is an “enthusiast” around the corner?
The content still has to come from somewhere, a company can’t just hire some enthusiast to make them content with a games copyrighted assets. People have been making these types of movies from games for years, this tool just allows them to create more customized material.
If the only thing that separates you from a high school kid with a machinima software skill-wise is that you’ve spent/wasted time overcoming unnecessary learning curve of more complicated/advanced software, then you indeed should be very, very worried. Especially in next few years.
No matter what kind of field you are in – If an average school graduate can catch up with you in just a few months, because you don’t spend time working on improving your skillset, and all you rely on to keep you afloat is the high barrier of entry to your field in form of an upfront investment or software learning curve, then you are doomed, because both of these barriers are quickly disappearing.
Even if all of us were using this new Machinima software, those who are willing to spend most of their day every day to improve their skill and their output quality will rise to the top, and clients will choose them and be willing to pay for that quality.
This is a great thing. I can’t wait to be able to be more creative by creating character animations by simply performing in front of a webcam instead of having to deal with BS like skeletal rigs and mesh skinning, once the tech quality gets there. All I want is to transfer items, motions (animations) and worlds from my imagination onto 2D screens or 3D VR headsets. Specific technical intricacies are just necessary evil to achieve that goal, but if I could skip those steps, I would not think twice. I mean who would?
I really despise this “I wish things weren’t so easy these days” mentality of people whom are worried (rightfully so) about being replaced by enthusiasts because tools are getting easier to use and afford.
Everyone can afford a piece of paper, a pencil, or a piece of a canvas with a brush and set of colors, and almost everyone knows how to pick up these and start drawing some shapes, yet painters and drawers still have plenty to do these days.
I’d almost go as far as to argue that the simpler the tools get, the more lazy people get on average, so the smaller proportion of them are willing to spend their time to master the tools, regardless of how simple the tool is.
Even if we were to have some sort of magic AI software which can literally materialize a full 3D scene just out of your mind’s mental picture, the imagination itself is still a skill, and those who will train and exercise it each day will once again rise to the top, and their services will be disproportionately more demanded and rewarded.
So yeah, what makes one a professional is willingness and motivation to improve their skills and proficiency with their tools on daily basis, and dedicate major portion of their life to it. NOT a barrier of entry.
@Ludvik you use the same term “skills” to refer to both technical / tool / art skills, which makes your post a bit hard to read. I agree with you at 1 point – the technical progress will make it easier for non-technical persons to operate in CGI industry. Now… the rest is what I totally disagree with. You make an assumption that the clients always want highest quality. This isn’t true. The clients want acceptable quality. By them or their own clients. They work within budgets. Most free market industries operate under the rule which is about that: we want it good enough but no better than that if possible, since this means more time spent and higher costs (of course it depends on whether you operate under fixed or hourly rate, and whether your clients define business with artists as relation not exploitation, like in the East). As I mentioned in my posts, 80% of projects (this is some rough estimate using Pareto distribution, actually I think it might be higher) are mediocre/substandard quality projects, because this is enough. High-end CGI branches like VFX has a much higher quality threshold, but this is only the fraction of what is there.
I never made an assumption that clients always want highest quality. I just said that those clients that want it will always be willing to pay for it. But if someone wants only “good enough” quality, then that’s perfectly fine. Why should they pay $3000 to some Artur to do it in some high end 3D package when they can pay $500 to some high school student to do it in his AI Machinima software?
If all they need is that degree of quality, why should not they have the option to get it. Or do you believe that there should be some monopoly/cartel to force clients to have to pay more money for the output quality they do not need in the first place? It should be their decision. Remember that you are a service provider in the CG field, but you are in a client position in other fields.
I am sure there will be some examples of overpriced things with many unnecessary features both me and you are forced to buy simply because there are no alternatives on the market, but if some new disruptive company appeared on the market offering an alternative for 1/3rd price mainly because they removed the unnecessary features most people do not need, I am quite confident both me and you would immediately flock there to buy it.
But there are not many of such examples exactly because of the reason that the market forces almost always inevitably win. Almost every product has many different tiers that balance the quality/performance/features with price so that the companies can reach all levels of customer needs. Computer generated imagery is no different in this regard.
I am really having a hard time interpreting your argument in any other way than thinking you really want to force clients to buy higher quality than they need. What I am arguing for that it should always be their choice. If they are satisfied with the output from a simple Machinima software, who are we to dictate them otherwise?
@Ludvik first of all sorry for late reply, lot’s of client work. Regarding the assumptions argument – that may be, but I have a feeling that you made an assumption that I think it is bad for the industry that CGI would have less entry barriers, which is wrong. CGI will end as we know it, gradually, not only because of this 1 software package, but many others, including UX advances in existing packages. Long term, it will be good for CGI. More artists, more creativity, less technical bumps. Short term, clients will be able to negotiate lower prices for the same job, hence not so much nice for artists who invested much in building the skill set. Costs of transformation dumped on the weakest side of business, normal procedure. Anyway, it seems we are speaking different languages here, so let’s drop this thread 😉
i appreciate your posts alot, exactly something one would hope to read on a forum like this.
your arguments regarding human nature and laziness, in particular, are very insightful and on point.
in the end act of creating transcends tools and removing any limitations should in essence be a liberating thing.
i´d like to think that tech like this might usher an new era of auteur artists that single-handedly make feature length animations and movies. hopefully resulting in a golden age of cg visual arts.