Exactly, it's not the medium. It's like saying movies like Up aren't beautiful because of CG.
SharkAttak 97 points a year ago
smiletolerantly 54 points a year ago
Yep.
Those older movies are beautiful achievements for sure. But it's disingenuous to say that there isn't a plethora of movies and shows today that rival and surpass those older examples visually. Not to speak of just how much more fluent animation has become.
Many of the people who worked on those older masterpieces are still in animation today, and have only become better at their art.
TexasDrunk 18 points a year ago
That's actually a really good point. The flaws make the beauty more human the same way music recorded reel to reel back in the 70s was very human because of the limitations of the day. And it is beautiful.
Not that a flawless thing can't be beautiful. I just have a bias towards the humanness (pencil strokes, tape flutter) of the older stuff because that's what I grew up with.
blargh513 12 points a year ago
I also like how when a kid was a voice actor, they sounded like a damn kid, mistakes and all.
The Aristocats comes to mind, the song Scales and Arpeggios is a great example. I hate hearing weird robotic kids who are flawless or its clear they edited the shit out of a dozen takes.
RaivoKulli 5 points a year ago
I don't think it actually looks very good. The computer generated look is pretty fugly. Story is a different matte
ChexMax 7 points a year ago
Yeah, Up was a weird example for me, too, but as someone who has watched Moana two dozen times, it's always beautiful. The people are aged, with deep lines, the sand and the water and the straw, all the textures, all beautiful, and the setting is of course gorgeous.
Lilo and Stitch is a similar background, also so so beautiful, but it doesn't make Moana ugly or useless in comparison.
SharkAttak 1 point a year ago
Fugly? De gustibus, I guess...
smiletolerantly 12 points a year ago
I guess it's a matter of taste then. I really enjoy the vibrancy and fluidity of animation we get today. And I find them to be no less expressive.
sundray 105 points a year ago
Interestingly enough, 101 Dalmatians was the first Disney film to adopt the process of Xeroxing the animators' drawings directly to cels, rather than hand-tracing them. It's still a beautiful movie of course, but it's also an advance in animation technology that often gets over-looked!
sqgl 4 points a year ago
Thanks. Fascinating read. However...
The character Roger Radcliffe in Dalmatians was entirely outlined in black
This is not true, as you can see in their provided still. Some internal "outlines" are not in black, especially his hat and shoes (hard to tell with his jacket whether dark brown or black). It is similar to their Sleeping Beauty (supposedly) counter-exanple.
GraniteM 80 points a year ago
My kid got into Lady and the Tramp, so I watched it about a dozen times in a row, and Holeee shiiit is that thing beautifully animated. The backgrounds are needlessly lavish, and look at this...
I'm in awe of the work done on Tramp's ears. The expressiveness, and the subtle balance of flexibility and internal structure is exquisite. You can find other examples of masterfully-done materials all throughout the movie.
Other movies might get more attention, but Lady and the Tramp is worth looking at for some peak Disney animation.
LadyButterfly 15 points a year ago
It's one of my favourites!
primal_buddhist 5 points a year ago
So how many frames is this, do we think, just for this clip...
mojofrododojo 4 points a year ago
24fps, nearly 3 seconds long, so somewhere near 72 frames total, BUT... these animations were done on 2's - meaning every other frame. https://businessofanimation.com/...
choochooMF 4 points a year ago path: 0 19242009 19251873 19256894, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 1
EldritchFeminity 2 points a year ago
While true, with hand drawn animation it's slightly different as not every frame is drawn (usually). Disney films looked so good because they were done "on the two's" instead of the industry standard of "on the three's" - meaning that Disney films had a drawn frame for every 2 fps instead of every 3, or 12 drawn frames per second instead of the normal 8. Your brain interpolates the rest of the between frames, but this is why Disney looks so much more smooth.
Another great example is Akira, which was done on the 1's and 2's. That it has 12 to 24 hand drawn frames per second makes the visual quality difference really visible when compared to other movies.
CalmChaos72 41 points a year ago
I totally agree, Disney’s Robin Hood from 1973 is peak hand-drawn cartoon
teslasaur 22 points a year ago
Eeeeeeh... Maybe not. It's pretty good, but there is so much recycled animation that you might aswell call the Jungle book the best aswell.
Forgot about Fantasia?
Lion king?
Don bluth cartoons?
Anything made by Miyazaki.
CalmChaos72 4 points a year ago
I’m with you on the studio Ghibli stuff; and the Lion King while a better movie is very polished and to me lacks the hand made feel of Robin Hood
prettybunnys 8 points a year ago
The lion king famously used CGI though.
CalmChaos72 1 point a year ago
I’m aware it’s hand-made, I meant how polished and ‘perfect’ it is - like it was redrawn 100 times from the original sketch - it just lacks a certain je ne sais quoi of Robin Hood
MegaUltraChicken 13 points a year ago
That gif better not awaken something in me.
BuboScandiacus 2 points a year ago
The first time
Kolanaki 39 points a year ago
They used a lot of rotoscoping back in the day. Basically they filmed a scene normally with real people, then traced over every frame to give us those fantastic moments of fluid movement in things like Snow White, Mary Poppins, and Beauty and the Beast (which also used 3D by the way).
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA 11 points a year ago
Dude Ralph Bashki made things weird for fun. Maybe if I volunteer to watch the Bashki LOTR with my wife, who loves that movie, I can convince her to watch Wizards with me. I have been wanting to watch that.
arcayne 11 points a year ago
Fun fact, some of the more impressive examples from that era (like Mary Poppins) primarily used the sodium vapor process to get perfect mattes directly in-camera, no rotoscoping needed. It's a fascinating and impressive bit of tech: https://www.historicmysteries.com/...
quid_pro_joe 7 points a year ago
That is indeed a fun fact! I am somewhat obsessed with sodium vapor lights and the bandwidth of light they produce. I would love to have seen the original camera rig and their special prisms, but apparently they only made three and they've been lost.
Snowpix 5 points a year ago
High intensity discharge lamps are awesome, can confirm. I miss when streetlamps were still HPS/LPS and mercury vapor, the lighting felt a lot more comforting than the harsh LEDs used nowadays.
ArmchairAce1944 7 points a year ago
Rotoscoping is quite old, too. I think it even predates ww1.
Nangijala 25 points a year ago
Fun fact: 101 Dalmatians was the first Disney movie to be produced with the help of xerox. This was as a result of the financial flop that was Sleeping Beauty, that almost bankrupted the company and cut their budgets for future movies all the way from the 60s to the financial success of the little mermaid in 1989. This is why Disney movies within that time period has a rougher look when it comes to the characters' lineart and the more simple backgrounds compared to the very detailed, painted backgrounds and colored lineart of all Disney movies up until 101 Dalmatians.
The xerox was a cost cutting method to save time and money and while it absolutely killed Walt Disney to have to compromise on the art, it also paved the way for a new look and feel that, especially in the case of 101 Dalmatians, created a timeless look that still looks as fresh and modern today as the day it was made.
Without the invention and utilization of the xerox, there most likely would have been no Disney company today.
Nangijala 6 points a year ago
Not arguing with you there xD I have basically boycotted Disney. Last straw for me was their Mulan remake.
Didn't watch it. Heard it was trash like all the other remakes, but the thing that did it for me was when I learned they had used actual concentration camp prisoners for free labor on the movie. That was it for me.
FlashMobOfOne 24 points a year ago
Actual, handmade art and films are why so many of us look back on the 80's nostalgically, whether it's the Muppets, or Freddy's handmade makeup and practical effects, or the Goonies' crew building a whole-ass pirate ship on a soundstage. Practical effects will always be 100% better than CGI or some crap spat out by an LLM.
JimVanDeventer 17 points a year ago
This was 1961 which is definitely not the ‘80s. However, I get your point; practical effects may have been — and were often — jank, but it was real and tangible and I loved it, warts and all.
barooboodoo 3 points a year ago
Sauce on that gif por favor?
JimVanDeventer 8 points a year ago
The movie is called Deadly Friend. I wouldn’t necessarily recommend taking the time to watch the whole thing just for the gif moment. It is totally ‘80s cheese, if you are into that sort of thing.
Edit: I’m looking at what community I have posted in and realizing I probably could and should have picked literally any scene from Mary Poppins but I didn’t and now you all have to watch a watermelon in a wig explode.
4grams 6 points a year ago
My theory is that since practical effects ultimately rely on physics of the world we occupy, that despite their unpolished look, they feel more real. The hyper realistic, but completely reality breaking effects of today just hit the same way cartoons do.
Speaking of cartoons, I love finding the shortcuts that animators would take, there’s something so artistic about how they did it.
I am just so much more engaged when I can watch a movie while also trying to figure out how they pulled off an effect.
exasperation 2 points a year ago
The line has blurred enough for make it difficult to draw a clean line between true practical effects and special effects. Visual effects studios can and do merge real photography with digital rendering or retouching. Over 20 years ago, Andy Serkis had to don a special motion capture suit to play Gollum in the Lord of the Rings movies, but the advances since then now allow for more subtle (or less subtle) transformation of characters. The Mandalorian made extensive use of digitally rendered scenes actually projected on set so that the reflections and actor interactions feel more real in a computer-generated environment.
And of course, actual movie editing tricks have always been around, where cuts and multiple takes can create real footage presented in a fictional sequence: a single actor playing twins/doppelgangers by simply filming each side's lines separately, and then editing them together. Plus things like costume design and wardrobe, set design, props, etc.
The effectiveness of all these tricks do depend a lot on the skill and effort of the people involved, and that often means budget (including time). Rush jobs, or farming the work out to cheaper/less skilled workers, on any of these mean that corners will be cut and the end result will be less convincing, regardless of actual method.
4grams 2 points a year ago
Nah, I mean that even thought they look so picture perfect, my brain just doesn’t see them as real, and parks them in the same category as a cartoon.
Whereas a practical effect, might look hilariously bad, but sometime a jello filled, papier-mache head exploding, is the perfect amount of gore to make me wince.
RubberElectrons 4 points a year ago
Facts, it's why the thing is still my favorite horror movie.
taguebbe 2 points a year ago
Regarding "CGI is bad" - pls watch this Video series, it's not that simple. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ttG90raCNo&t=2
ArmchairAce1944 2 points a year ago
Same here. I occasionally look back at 80s stuff and even the limited animation stuff of the era still made me realize that a whole army of people had to draw all of these by hand. So even if some stuff was 'bad' due to time and budget constraints, the sheer effort they had to put in was incredible.
For me I use AI for one thing only: furry porn, and stupid furry porn at that. I did write stories and novels before the Trump gang fucked with my creativity in ways I dont want to talk about. Using AI for any serious creative purpose is insulting to me.
BuboScandiacus -2 points a year ago path: 0 19244393 19252419, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 1
otacon239 22 points a year ago
I just recently rewatched 101 Dalmatians and actually cried multiple times just from really soaking it in. Just the way so much of it comes to life. The imperfections genuinely make it feel so much more alive.
Modern Hollywood animation is incredibly sterile and perfected. A major studio now would never imagine releasing something with visible sketch lines.
otacon239 18 points a year ago
I don’t think so. I’ve been watching a lot of classics from my childhood lately and most of them weren’t hitting me that hard. Maybe it’s that the actual story and the horror of it sunk in properly for the first time as an adult. Hadn’t seen it since I was young. The voice acting from the pups is just incredible. That probably didn’t help.
finitebanjo 19 points a year ago
TBF it was also a time before the corporate entity realized maximum short term profit doesn't come from perfected products.
BuboScandiacus 15 points a year ago
A lot are still "painted by hand", the use of vector graphics isn't as prevalent in other cartoon producing countries as it is in the US
mojofrododojo 3 points a year ago
really?
I know of zero studios that are still doing any painting. they are all digital. sk, china, japan - no one uses paint filmed one cel at a time, or any of the old analog processes anymore. I'd be happy to be wrong, but I don't know of anyone that's still doing painted cels recorded on film.
Even Ghibli. https://www.dqindia.com/...
"Ghibli's selective integration of technology, primarily digital ink-and-paint techniques facilitated by software like OpenToonz, stands in stark contrast to the unbridled embrace of AI in the recent Ghibli-style art phenomenon."
BuboScandiacus 6 points a year ago
I didn't say that they were painting on paper
Digital painting by hand is still qualifies as "painted by hand"
mojofrododojo -9 points a year ago
I didn’t say that they were painting on paper
tell me you don't understand animation at all already... ffs, no one painted on paper. can't really shine light through it lol. it was all cels man.
Digital painting by hand is still qualifies as “painted by hand”
ROFLS okay bud. Perhaps you weren't born yet but there have been a few arguments about this.... well, more than a few. LOTS. Like, animator holy war levels of arguments. And it wasn't a one-and-done transition either, lots of productions went back and forth because of the requirements of the episode or availability.
https://animesuperhero.com/...
Take a look at the simpsons to see a show that eschewed digital ink and paint until they went all in. when they did, they changed the aspect ratio of the show, knowing it was going to look so different that few would even notice the swap to 16x9 from old crt 4x3.
BuboScandiacus 4 points a year ago
Somebody is really getting worked up.
jordanlund 11 points a year ago
Same with the OG Lilo and Stitch:
IIRC last film to use honest to god water colors. And it shows.
greedytacothief 10 points a year ago
I think animation, when the animators care, has improved. Yes treasure planet looks better fight me. But I think the problem is that there is more shit animation now, and we have forgotten the shit animation of the past.
miellaby 6 points a year ago
Yeah I feel old too.
That behind said, I don't think a modern drawing tool is inherently less capable than an older one to produce magic. Digital painting used to have limitations in comparison with traditional technics, but a good 2d illustrator can do gorgeous drawings with a tablet nowadays.
When I see magic in animated movies, its when people do things by love and passions, and not for seeking additional profit. Flow and Arcane are examples of animation with such ingredients.
But_my_mom_says_im_cool 5 points a year ago
Thankfully they’re learning this and we get movies that are starting to look less like plastic cgi and are using painted textures and drawn in motion blur like in k pop demon hunters which gives the movies more character and makes them look like a mix of the old and the new
cupcakezealot 4 points a year ago
the opening to beauty and the beast remains my favourite piece of animation ever <3
cupcakezealot 3 points a year ago
thanks! i'm not an expert so i wasn't sure (i know they did switch sometime in the 90s but i thought 91 would have been too early for computer/cgi)
ZoopZeZoop 1 point a year ago
Wasn't the first use of CG in a major Disney animated film the carpet in Aladdin? No necessarily the whole movie, but certain scenes at least.
Gammelfisch 2 points a year ago
The original Mobile Suit Gundam 0079. The US cartoons from the 1960's and 70's were the best with plenty of lessons from Wile E. Coyote.
OopsOverbombing 3 points a year ago
When's the last time you watched the original MSG? I too love the old Gundam series... I've actually been rewatching the og recently but there's been more than a few instances where I've seen some very dodgy and poorly drawn frames pop on screen. I say this with love and respect but it's not a great example for good animation. There are beautifully drawn examples to draw from. 0083 Stardust Memory comes to mind. Absolutely gorgeously drawn and animated. 08th MS Team is another great looking one.
Gammelfisch 1 point a year ago
Saw the first one in Nagano, Japan and then recently on Netflix. My favorite is the MSM-04 ACGuy and I built the model kit from Bandai.
MissJinx 1 point a year ago
I would love cartoons that don't traumatize children, that would be awesome. I watched bambi when I was young and got so traumatized I can't wach animal movies anymore, than I went to see Elio with my niece and she was crying so hard I had to apologize to her parents.
Life is horrible enough lets make cartoons nice
MissJinx 0 points a year ago
I don't think we lack nice cartoons. My siblings children watch Bluey and Daniel Tiger's Neighbourhood and they are both great. they also watch the unavoidable paw patrol bu I like this too. My older niece lover frozen but she FF the part where the parents die lol
humorlessrepost 6 points a year ago
You should try The Fox and the Hound. It’s uplifting.
cupcakezealot 2 points a year ago
or brave little toaster T_T
blargh513 3 points a year ago
There are like five popular Disney movies where a parent or both parents dont get murdered in order to drive the story forward. Of those left a handful has the parents dead before the story even starts.
Disney really seems to love killing parents. Someone ought to talk to them, seems like an unhealthy obsession.
ChexMax 2 points a year ago
Coco and Encanto, Moana and Brave, it seems like in the newer movies they're not as addicted to killing the parents, so maybe someone did? I haven't seen wish or raya so idk. The parents are also alive in Tangled I think but she's kidnapped so I don't think we can really count it as no parental trauma (or we could count it as 3 parents?)
jacksilver 2 points a year ago
Yeah, that came out of no where. I thought it was great, but also figured it would likely traumatize a number of kids.
I was sad the movie didn't do better in the box office. It wasn't the best, but it was a fun original story.
MissJinx 1 point a year ago
Also this, but she was watching with me, her aunt, and her parents were not there so she kept asking me if her parents were going to die too. At the end she was crying and saying "i don't want to live with you I want to live with mom and dad" lol. Didn't take offense. I also want her to live with her parents hahaha
ArmoredThirteen 11 points a year ago
So a couple things, do you have a link where I can read up on the history of betweener labor because now I'm curious? But secondly what are you talking about? What this post or the comments implies anything to do with race? I don't understand where you're getting that from
LifeInMultipleChoice 1 point a year ago
My spouse likes to watch the different Dexter shows and anytime I see any of it I just keep thinking it's whitewashing a murderous psychopath. Like the shows seem to be pro murder and corrupt police departments and a lot of people must like it because they keep making more.
I only murder people who I think deserve it and don't feel bad about it because I have a "code."
sunbeam60 -13 points a year ago
I’m sorry to say that a AI could recreate that look in a flash. And within 5 years you could have a completely consistent, feature length film done in that look.
Let’s not minimize the threat. If we want to avoid being replaced by computers, it’s now the fight has to be had.
Zwrt 3 points a year ago
Fatal mistake.
There is a venn diagram of anti ai including both people who believe ai is incapable of producing value and people who believe it will take their jobs,
But they do not mix nor understand how the other exists.
sunbeam60 1 point a year ago
I’m not really sure if your comment is a reaction against my statement, in support of my statement ir adding further nuance to my statement.
I certainly believe AI is capable of producing value. I certainly believe AI will take people’s jobs. Exactly because it is able to produce value.
I’ve seen both things first thing, many times, already.
My statement was meant to highlight that it is exactly because it is producing value and taking people’s jobs that we ought to have a debate about whether it should and who it will benefit (and who will lose out) from that great replacement.
Right now, all I see is a further concentration of wealth built on the backs of thousands of years of human creativity. It’s the ultimate rent seeking.
Zwrt 1 point a year ago
Its part nuance part friendly warning because your attempt to rally people is easy to be misunderstood.
In the first part you try to convince that ai will be capable of producing quality.
In the second part you try to rally against the threat of ai taking jobs but the people you just adressed don’t believe this is going to be a problem.
plyth -15 points a year ago
A computer will most likely not only recreate but create better, * one day.
Life can be much better with AI, if we don't starve to death. The problem is not AI but other humans who don't share their resources.
Ashelyn 7 points a year ago
When I see something impressive generated by a computer, I may go "wow", but when I see something, displayed on a computer or not, that I know a person went and handcrafted so many details on, I am inspired by that dedication to the craft. The human elements within art are a big part of what makes it meaningful.
If someone wants to use AI for the parts of a work they don't care about (or as placeholders) so they can pour their heart into a different aspect of the work, fine. If they want the computer to do all the work for them, they have created slop. This is independent of whether we live in a society that values gross resource accumulation or one that shares equally.
I will say that the push towards slop primarily stems from our societal zeitgeist. The mentality is "I need to make as much money with as little effort as possible", and sometimes people really do need that money to pay bills. I think that's a big reason why it's such a problem. There is little monetary value in actual expression for the effort required when compared with mass produced "content" for dollars.
plyth -2 points a year ago
Unless humans are magic, AI will be able to feel. I would assume that AI will be able to feel much deeper and much stronger. So one day, AI will use art to tell us about things that are beyond our horizon.
choochooMF 2 points a year ago path: 0 19243502 19245846 19252235 19257124, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 10
plyth 1 point a year ago
We assumed the same about animals and babies. AI could use hybrid systems that use animal or human cells, or it could simulate emotions to the point that ai art becomes interesting.
mechoman444 -31 points a year ago
Just for the sake of comparison. This was made by chatgpt.
Of course art is very subjective but boy did it come close.
Edit: guys. I know you don't like AI. But if you're not willing to be objective about the fact that is just a COMPARISON keep your bile to yourself.
Emma_Gold_Man 45 points a year ago
I would say exactly the opposite - it proves the point. The sameness of the two dogs and the lack of the corresponding marriage ceremony in the background rob the image of most of its significance, and the background is a copy that wouldn't exist if the original hadn't existed.
mechoman444 -3 points a year ago
This was more of a technical demo than anything else. The real issue I had was that the movie is still under copyright and I had a find a prompt that would allow it to make that much. But I wanted it be as identical to the original as possible to see if it could replicate the soul of the original.
It's not there I would agree, there is a certain... Flavor missing but it's very close.
More so I would agree that llms will not be able to ever replicate individual human nuance especially in art.
ChexMax 5 points a year ago
I really disagree. The lines and content are similar but the soul is completely lacking. This looks like it's been simplified so much so it could be a coloring book or something. The soul from the plants is totally gone , the coloring of the windows, I look at the generated version and understand completely what I'm looking at, but I feel nothing. P
mechoman444 -1 points a year ago
Yes. Like I said art is extremely subjective, your personal a bias is playing a role. And it is lacking soul absolutely there's almost a metallic quality to it.
Once again I generated the picture for the sake of comparison. Technically it's very close to the original. More importantly because it's an llm it's missing nuance.
Blue_Morpho -11 points a year ago
I don't use it but isn't that just additional prompts?
"Add a marriage ceremony shadowed in the background."
"Change the dog on the right."
I would think the entire style could be built up with enough prompts. It's no different than digital artists using photoshop and picking a brush that does "watercolor" and then applying a hand paint texture. I have made Photoshops that mimic Van Gogh with a few clicks.
I'm in the camp of if you aren't actually painting, you have no reason to complain about AI art.
Voroxpete 16 points a year ago
Look closer. It's not just the big details. Look at the window. Look at how the AI just completely flattened out the lighting outside to this vague orange tone that robs the scene of so much of its character.
AI can't think. It can't make the kind of intentional choices that a good artist can. And you can't solve that with prompting, because one, good luck describing that exact pattern of lighting in a prompt, and two, the person prompting isn't a good enough artist to come up with that exact pattern of lighting, because it would take years of experience to be able to.
The reason you think your photoshops have mimic'd Van Gogh is because you're not Van Gogh, and no offense intended, but you're clearly not a good enough artist to understand the difference. I guarantee that anyone who knows what they're looking for would instantly know the difference between your work and his. Art isn't just style, it's a myriad of choices that you can't recreate with a photoshop filter.
Blue_Morpho -5 points a year ago
AI can’t think.
No one claimed it does. It requires prompting from a human.
And you can’t solve that with prompting,
There is absolutely no difference between written commands and pointing a clicking from a menu on the screen. I see it like writing a program. If the code doesn't do exactly what you want, you need more code. No one today claims that a word processor can't do the same thing as a typewriter because a typewriter was assembled by hand as compared to a word processor that needed hundreds of thousands of lines of instructions to simulate the same effect.
I guarantee that anyone who knows what they’re looking for would instantly know the difference between your work and his.
I absolutely didn't mean to imply that it was. I was claiming that using Photoshop with all its artificial filters and brushes to simulate styles is the same as prompting an AI to simulate those same styles.
Art isn’t just style, it’s a myriad of choices that you can’t recreate with a photoshop filter.
And those choices can be written as text or picked from a menu.
ZombiFrancis 11 points a year ago
How many rough drafts of 101 Dalmations would you watch before arriving at what is now the final product?
It isn't just the watercolor. It also is the decision by the artist to use watercolor.
The AI and its user did not know to add those 'additional prompts', and for that the result suffered. The result is then discarded for the next iteration which defines it as: slop.
mechoman444 3 points a year ago
Agreed.
Blue_Morpho -5 points a year ago
How many rough drafts of 101 Dalmations would you watch before arriving at what is now the final product?
If effort is art than again digital artists aren't real artists because they aren't using oil on canvas.
mechoman444 -2 points a year ago
Comment removed due to it not being relevant to the comment above.
mechoman444 2 points a year ago
I might very well be. I repair appliances for a living and my AC went out in the car so I've been roasting driving from work order to work order my brain is like a roast duck right now.
Wolf314159 5 points a year ago
This is garbage. What are you on about? It is art as an affection. Style as an algorithm. It's got no sense of balance or intent. It looks like what it is, a copy that doesn't actually understand what made the original great.
mechoman444 -4 points a year ago
Again art is very subjective. Your own personal bias place role to how much you like or dislike that particular picture however from an absolutely technical standpoint it's very close to the original not quite there but close.
choochooMF 0 points a year ago path: 0 19239421 19243595 19245280 19257211, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 2
mechoman444 1 point a year ago
I mean if you're not able to put aside your own personal bias and look at the comparison from a purely objective standpoint that's not my problem.
aww
@lemmy.world
29948
2583
2218
A place with minimal rules for stuff that makes you go awww! Feel free to post pics, gifs, or videos of cats, dogs, babies, or anything cute and remember to be kind to others.
AI posts must be labeled [AI] in the title and are limited to one per week.
While posting and commenting in this community, you must abide by instance-wide rules: https://mastodon.world/about
- No racism or bigotry.
- Be civil: disagreements happen, but thatdoes not provide the right to personally insult others.
- No SPAM posting.
- No trolling of others.
go to feed...
aww
@lemmy.world
29948
2583
2218
A place with minimal rules for stuff that makes you go awww! Feel free to post pics, gifs, or videos of cats, dogs, babies, or anything cute and remember to be kind to others.
AI posts must be labeled [AI] in the title and are limited to one per week.
While posting and commenting in this community, you must abide by instance-wide rules: https://mastodon.world/about
- No racism or bigotry.
- Be civil: disagreements happen, but thatdoes not provide the right to personally insult others.
- No SPAM posting.
- No trolling of others.
go to feed...
They are still being being painted by hand. On a graphics tablet, for example.
save