The Corridor Crew situation is a disaster
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 05. 2024
- This might be their worst video
Editing help from: @connormcdowell2
Insta: / itsaustingreen
Twitter: / itsaustingreen
TikTok: / itsaustingreen
Chapters
00:00 - Intro
01:41 - Who is Corridor Crew?
03:12 - Where it all started
04:07 - A 2nd NFT video has hit the channel
04:53 - The deepfake zoom video
05:46 - Is This The Death of VFX?
06:25 - The Tom Holland Spider-verse video
07:23 - How to spot a deepfake
08:06 - The Anime Rock, Paper, Scissors saga
09:08 - Anime Rock, Paper, Scissors 1
11:24 - Animators React to Anime RPS 1
13:20 - Is this AI Art, or is This Something New?
17:58 - Anime Rock, Paper, Scissor 2
23:10 - The AI generated thumbnail
23:27 - We Fixed Faces in Video Games
32:28 - The community response
35:18 - Outro - Komedie
They've turned into that one friend who just found out about AI and keeps sending you his Midjourney generations.
And then calls it "art"
really happy i dont have a friend like that
@@fhweuenh not since they've dumped their production quality down the drain no
@@joppeminhow did they do that??
@@elongatedmanforever1252 using Ai as a crutch which turned out to by a fragile rotten stick. The quality literally degenerates the skill they already had
its funny how they complain about game characters being too "mannequin-like" then proceed to use an AI that makes all the characters look like Barbie dolls lmaoo
At least they arent ugly as sin anymore
Ehh better that then the latter
@@Cloudaddy220 man, i dont understand people like you, do you also only watch movies with attractive people in it?
@@ChnChn-in5kf why, why is the attractiveness of the characters matter at all, my favorites games of all times is portal 2 and i find the main character not at all attractive, and one of my favorites movies of all times is bladerunner and i find harrison ford to be unattractive but that never take away from my enjoyment, so why is it matters to you?
@@asadasss263 first of all I don't even remember the last movie I've watched or when that was, second yeah prolly because ugly people don't usually get cast in movies. Very weird follow up question from you, even ugly people don't like to look at other ugly people. I don't know why you're pretending like this is a new thing but you sound silly
To me, all their video game AI faces look like their incredibly front-lit, like they're standing in studio lights. Its crazy that they perceive "realistic" as what is essentially instagram models.
God forbid we use fantasy as escapism.
Dude, they tried to improve Luke Skywalker's Mandalorian CG character and it turned out worse.
@@tiobetio9501they also did a vfx breakdown on a shot that was done on camera lol
@@DMHR100 No wonder the west's gotten so compromised when there's so many soft people like you who need safe spaces.
Womp womp fucking hate liberalism 🤦♂️. Complain and complain
Both those professional animators (the Bancroft Brothers) were my professors. Their reactions really got me, because it’s quite funny. They literally made a documentary recently about why AI art is detrimental and harmful.
I'm sure it isn't a broad and overarching all AI art is bad documentary. AI is just another tool, and any tool that speeds up a creation workflow with sufficient quality will be used. It's only a matter of time before AI is widely used for tasks like generating in-betweens in 2D animation. Some anime have already tried this to mixed results, but it will get better to the point you can't see any jank.
@@gamechannel1271that's not the problem though. People want to see creations of actual people and not have their art scoured and scraped for the profit of others.
What is the documentary?
@@gamechannel1271no, it’s always wrong, no exceptions.
@@reginaldforthright805it’s not always wrong. If you’d ever studied how AI works (which I’m sure you don’t understand) you’d know that it can be used to great effect in vfx and other fields. It just can’t do good ‘original’ art. Using AI for particle effects or filters actually makes a lot of sense in some scenarios, it just shouldn’t be used to replace animation or character design as it always has to learn from a source so it will always copy.
Dude the Lara Croft one in particular makes me laugh so much (obviously the ones like cloud are funny but in a different way) because they literally just removed the dirt… she’s fighting for her life in a jungle when the fuck did she have time to shower and touch up her makeup?! XD
she looked like an instamodel after
They made her look like a woman not a man.
The way they clap for themselves like chimpanzees when they look at their own shit.
The same amount of time Dante had to bleach his hair and Cloud had to spike it. It's a fucking video game, no one with a brain gives a shit about "muh realism"
We play games for escapism, not watching a normal "realistic" woman get caked in dirt "realistically" and fall down a cliff "realistically" and get beat up by animals "realistically".
I wanna see fucking Lara Croft doing backflips and wall running with two pistols while headshotting a pair of Tigers, not whatever the fuck the Tomb Raider dogwater remakes are.
You gotta girlboss somehow 💅💅
Corridor has been hyping AI like they own a bunch of Nvidia stock.
I was thinking the same. Someone needs to look into that
They probably do!
Bingo.
They know that the AI tech will change the industry, they work in it afterall.
Ai at least gives people what they want unlike hollywoke.
I refuse to let tech bros tell me what aesthetically looks good or better
Yes, because your opinions matter more because you're an "artist".
@@bendover7841 yeah, exactly, it's an artist's job to make things look good, not a tech bro's
@@bendover7841 do you even hear yourself???????
@@pjdigi that's some delusional superiority complex you've got there. This is why you guys always end up as broke bums or psychopathic dictators.
@zzeroara9511 Yes. Your opinions do not matter more. You're a nobody. Come back down to earth. The audience decides what looks good. And most of them don't care about the pretentious sh1t.
Out of all of this, the most unhinged part of it is how they have the audacity to say that their "fixed" version of Alloy's face is "more realistic." It truly is not. It's too smooth. There's no shine to it (human faces are oily sometimes and therefore reflect light). There are no blemishes of any kind. Her wind-burnt cheeks and nose are softened into a rosy blush. Indeed, it looks like she just got painted with a heavy layer of makeup to erase any actual facial features. If by "more realistic," they meant "more average and less human" then...sure. I mean, her face looks closer to something you might see in a makeup ad, but not something you'd see in real life.
Alloy looked good in the first game, then they chose to make her look worse (mesh and the textures).
Simply put they spent time and money on making her look worse... when they didn't have to.
@@Ragmon1No, they changed her design a bit, added more details and stuff intended to look more human, she looked less like a model with makeup, sure, you might even prefer the model with makeup, but I am fairly certain Aloy wasn't created with the objective of being conventionally attractive and looking like a model, but rather seeming like a real character, wich one you like more is subjective but the second redesign is objectively better specially when you take into account the character and designer's intent, but that's similar to how I wouldn't want a random magazine model acting in a film looking pretty all the time, that's why we add sweat, blemishes, coarse lips and such in movies instead of just making people more handsome. Personally I think the redesign was an improvement by making her look less like a model, but I don't want to argue so either agree or disagree
i would imagine most people want their fantasy protagonist to look visually appealing, not like an over-ripe tomato@@Solstice261
reminds me of guys who say they prefer women without makeup without realizing the "natural" look they expect is actually quite a bit of makeup
like, i don't think these guys know what a makeup-less woman actually looks like.......
@@Ragmon1 I really don't get the complaints about her. She looks more rugged, which fits the game's world more, and she has some more goofy expressions, but that just makes her more lovable and gives her more character imo. The added character makes her more attractive to me because she actually seems like a person.
26:17 gotta love the "photorealism" of taking a completely fine, pretty character with a little bit of dirt on her face because she's the tomb raider, and the AI giving her like 10 layers of foundation and perfect glossy lips and perfectly kept eyelashes. I feel like CorridorDigital being nothing but dudes (as far as I'm aware) really limits their perspective. That's not photorealistic that shit looks like an instagram model had makeup artists work on her for 2 hours
that video is just 7 white men in a room going "wow that looks so much better" at video of their terrible AI putting supermodel makeup on a bunch of women and some dudes
I see it too, a lot of these guys tend to really want filtered, shiny, airbrushed models even if the game setting they're in are outside.
Also, the original face is showing expression and the facemorph has her completely lacking it in a (what looks like) serious scene. So not only does she look super done up, she lacks emotion as well.
Corridor Crew _had_ women working there once upon a time.
@@enbydeadly what's wrong with them being white men?
The Commander Shepard line is so fucking stupid. "Imagine that character with a real human's face" Default Commander Shepard does have a real human face, It's Mark Vanderloo, a Dutch model that Bioware modeled the character on.
I dare Corridor to go up to Mark and tell him "We made your face look like a real human's face"
HONESTLY! Like that pissed me off so much because a lot of Mass Effect characters are based off of real people. Kaidan Alenko's face is based off of model Luciano Costa who actually cosplays as Kaidan. Miranda Lawson was strictly based off of her VA, Yvonne Strrahovski and The Illusive Man is very similar to his VA, Martin Sheen. Like... it just, oh man it actually pisses me off how they said that. AND NOT ONLY THAT, but that instead of using Vanderloo's face, they have the AI do something else and he just looks like a thicker Paul Walker. Like... I just, fake gamers.
There you go. I didn’t even know about this but as someone who has played all the games three times or more, the change to Shepard’s face was absolutely terrible. It wasn’t him anymore. It didn’t look like him, and it didn’t look that good anyway. I don’t know how to describe it.
@@mxmissy I usually don't condone calling people "fake gamers" but this is warranted lol
@@sophitiaofhyrulesame 😅
@@mxmissy Not just Mass Effect, many games now use face models based on real people nowadays (whether they're based on the voice/mo-cap actors or a professional model hired to be a template) So a lot of these characters ARE already based on real human faces to some degree or another.
The funny thing is, if they just used the original footage without ai it would look so much better. They actually act decently with expressive facial expressions, but the AI just deletes all that, removing all emotion and work of the actor.
COPE SEETH
You mean the original footage of the actor without animation? Or like the original animation?
@@marqparksfootage
You must not have played star field if you think those faces are expressive😂
“Did we just change animation forever?”
No.
COPE SEETH
☠️
I think they did... But people are to scared and lack foresight to understand why.
Is their channel still peddling this garbage?
@@FelipeKana1 garbage?
I can't believe that a group of professionals are so impressed by slightly improved Instagram filters.
Either the technology is so good it could replace artists so it's evil what Corridor is using, or it looks so bad and it's funny that they think it looks good. Nobody seems to be able to decide.
@@space_1073It's called, "salty losers who never had any artistic talent to begin with."
@@space_1073 Both can be true? Most of the results look quite worse than the original so their attitude and reactions are odd, but you should also know for a fact that if AI "art" is even slightly worse, corporations will ditch artists, animators, etc. in favor of AI experts to "borrow" existing art styles and churn out artistically bankrupt content. Simply cause it'll be way quicker and cheaper.
@@ashb7 Yeah but people won't watch it or support it enough for artists to stop existing, there will always be traditional animators for example, even if AI art is being pumped out by studios in the future, the two will coexist. With how the animation industry is right now the fact that there are still traditional cartoon shows despite it being very expensive and time consuming shows that people just want the real thing. The Majority of movies right now are remakes and Marvel garbage, but that doesn't mean more artful or indie cinema doesn't also exist.
@@space_1073 You raise a good point. People can't be objective apparently. As someone who's drawn concept art for years, it's easy to see that people's assessments are driven by spite and derision rather than an honest assessment of the work itself. I mean, sure, some of the expressions are off, but it's clear that there are vast improvements in the overall look of the model. And yes, these are surface level touch ups and not structural skeletal/musculature re-workings of the character, but that's not the point. It will get better. People are so in their feelings about this stuff.
They don't even make characters look real, they just make them look like some model that's been photoshoped to oblivion.
Why would they want the characters too look reap they are fictional??
@@elongatedmanforever1252 Ever heard of this neat style called photorealism? I get not personally enjoying certain styles but, like, just because you don't personally enjoy the way it looks doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. If we didn't create things just because a few people didn't personally like them then we would never make anything ever because making something that is universally loved or even just somewhat enjoyed by all straight up isn't possible.
@@Disastranaut
The issue is making everything
The same way for "realism"
Yes people can enjoy
Certain characters attractive
& ugly but wouldnt you
Think its wrong to make
Someone only play as
Ugly characters & purposely
Make all of them that way
I mean mj is best example.
@@elongatedmanforever1252local man doesn't sze the problem with replacing women with perfeft dolls.
nah, they actually make them look way more real
the thing is most of the videogame characters they "fixed" are scans of real people and hours and hours of motion capture
Except that pictures of the original models are out there. You can see them at any time. So everybody who cares to look knows when productions intentionally uglify female characters.
@@CTyler84 or they make them look like actual woman and you're fucking brainpoisoned by hentai.
@@CTyler84 ''intentionally uglify'' yeah ok bro, hope you get to see a real woman someday instead of the hentais on your screen
no, theyre ugly versions of the models and downright dont even look alike in the final version of the games
"Uglify" lol
Internet commentary sure makes it easy to be a metro platform placard crank.
Videos like this make me appreciate people like Joel Haver more. Since he also popularized/tutorialized an AI rotoscoping technique, but uses his own art, and with a far more humble attitude.
Joel Haver to my knowledge uses AI ethically and as a piece of his process. But it’s his attitude is humble and honest about it. Then we have ppl like Shadiversity who let his ego go loose
@@2265Hello Shad did something with AI?
@@hyperx72 oh boy you don’t know basically he did an “AI love letter” and a bunch of other videos and rants claiming a bunch of things and how his art and skill with the tech improved when really it was just more do the same he did before. Bunch of artists and non artists laughed at him and he doubled down. It’s less shown on you tube. Should also say that Shad denies or dismisses vehemently any ethical or potential ethical issues with AI. And no he doesn’t have a humble attitude about it when you actually analyze what he says .
@@2265Hello Oh damn, then again from what I've seen he's not really a good guy to go for for ethics anyway.
@@hyperx72 Shad isn't a good guy to go to for anything. theres countless people that have debunked the bullshit he puts out about "history".
Correction on the "Is this the death of VFX" video's controversial-ness, they used the name of an artist (Greg Rutkowski) who did not take kindly to his name being used so that the AI would copy his art style ESPECIALLY because the video also inspired many others to use his name in prompts as well
Holy fuck they did that? I'm so fuckjng sorry for him holy shit 😭
sauce?
@@vash47 Title is in the comment, my guy. Learn to pay attention when reading.
It’s the fact that they did mostly girls and all the ai did was make them hyper feminine and peak beauty standard, taking away the natural characteristics that most girls actually have. It’s giving intel’s being mad that the main girl is not blonde with blue eyes and big boobs
Absolutely this
It's giving that one chud who was mad because Aloy (the one with red hair) had peach fuzz and he explained in 25-words or less that he's never been close to a woman.
@@mxmissy I’m starting to think that post was just one of their alt accounts and now they’re on a “Snapchat filter” tirade because they got laughed at lol
Maybe because dev have been making women in game ugly?
@@jcaiquerealistic ≠ ugly
Aloy is already so realistic that the only thing the AI did was remove the expression and imperfections on her face. The guys in Corridor Crew are delusional.
Calling someone delusional for having fun and using their vfx to fix something is delusional
People don't like the face of the character, everybody agrees they would look better if they didnt retouch the actor/reference face instead of making it ugly to make it "realistic"
Except in the first game the character actually looked exactly like the person they based he character on, Hannah Hoekstra. But with red hair.
In the second game they made her look completely different. So how is that "realistic"? It's literally going from realism to fiction.
It's more realistic that they made a giant robot dinosaur hunter character be suddenly much fatter in the face? What?
I think it's a tell when someone feels the need to "fix" Aloy's face.
It's all in the world "fix" for me.
If the goal is to make a character more attractive I get it but calling that "fixing" them shows how little they understand about character design
Go look at the original game and the model they based her off, the developers trashed her face to hell and back.
The only tell is people that think the developers actually did a good job.
There is so much wrong with what you just said.
First, basing a character on a real person doesn't mean that you have to make them look exactly alike, you are allowed to modify the character to meet your artistic vision.
Second, they do look very fucking similar, except for a few magazine photos (which are always photoshoped anyway) they did a great job especially for a console game.
Third looking at the "corrected" Aloy models they never look closer to Hannak Hoekstra than the original, they just look closer to every female character created by guys in mmorpg.
@@vraolet The whole point of basing them on an actual person is that they look the same. And no, they don't look "fucking similar" at all. If you think that, you really need your eyes checked. 🤣
Sure you can use the "artistic license" argument, but that's readily countered buy staying the obvious: your art looks like shite.
It being a console game is not an argument in this day and age, console games are now the ones that lead the market in terms of visuals, since they are the most popular platform, and there are no real limitations anymore in terms of rendering people's faces faithfully.
And I never said what they did here made them look closer to the models, nice strawman.
Not ironic at all that someone appears out of nowhere to say "nuh-uh, you are" in way too many words.
20:36 you know who also doesn’t have to film with animals or children? Traditional animators
@@meowmeowmeowmeowcatoncomputerthe amount of random videos I have of myself doing silly things like jumping, slashing, or rolling only to pause and use a frame (or just random photos of me and my roommate or partner) for pose references is pretty funny when you scroll through my camera roll. I’m an illustrator, not an animator (although procreate dreams has had me re-bitten by the 2D animation bug), but in the art world in general it’s always drilled in to you to REFERENCE, REFERENCE, REFERENCE! The AI -apologists- _cough_ uhhhh-I mean _enthusiasts_ are acting like AI having a data base and _actual human artists_ using reference photos or videos are the same thing when one is essentially a collage of the relevant data in the data base and the other is a unique piece of art that has soul and value for not only its creator(s), but also its audience.
@@meowmeowmeowmeowcatoncomputer(sorry if this feels weird tagging you, I just wanted to add on to what you were saying from another PoV!)
At this point it would probably be easier for them to just use basic filmmaking techniques to make themselves look small while filming themselves in child roles without AI. Honestly, it'd probably be way more endearing, too, being something people actively look past the flaws of because of their restrictions. Unlike, say, AI art, where people are going to focus in on the problems because of how much it's built up.
Just use some makeup to hide wrinkles, hold some oversized props, use some VFX to give them fake legs as they ride the horse... it's all super doable stuff they've specifically shown how to do before.
You are so wrong dude
@@MrSoso1050 you didn't even have he decency to explain why just stated it like fact 😂 what a piss poor counterpoint
The "photorealistic" characters not only look shitty... there is no actual application for such a filter since they're applying it to clips of the game and not to the actual game engine. So there are zero things to brag about what they did lol.
I remember showing some people screenshots of quake 2 back in highschool, trying to explain to them how great this new tech was, we could interpolate vertex positions, we had coloured lighting, Texture filtering! And they laughed and said the graphics still didn't look realistic so it was a dumb waste of time and nothing impressive.
That's you, You're the modern day version of that person.
@@Cha4k am I reading this correctly? Are you trying to defend the Corridor guys shitting all over the hard work of the people involved in those games... using some AI?
@@MorwenWhyteit seems like that person was not comenting on the moral implications of lazily overwirting someone else's work, but providing a contrasting opinion about the potential use of AI technology in videogame engines. So no, that person was not defending the Corridor guys.
Not only that, but they also applied it to something that already had work put into it.
Are we looking at the same video? the photorealistic characters looked so much better. As for adding it to the actual game engine, that's definitely a good point. Not sure if they could render that in real time in a game engine. But I'm sure you could use ML/AI to upscale the models.
I love their videos that look at how films (especially older ones) used interesting techniques that turned out to be really impressive. That recent one about Introvision was fantastic. THAT'S the kind of stuff I want them to not only show, but teach and try to reproduce.
The thing that really pisses me off about the whole Facemorph thing is that not only does it crash head-first into the uncanny valley in many cases, it's not even applicable in the context of video games! They're applying an AI filter to VIDEO of scenes rendered in-engine. Even if the filter improved things, there's no way to apply it to the 3D models, animation, and shaders that are being used to render the scene in real-time. So, not only did they make a lot of things worse, it's not even remotely viable.
i really liked the "we fixed the cgi" series when they would, ya know, actually go in on movie scenes and did their own work without ai filters. wild i know. it's disappointing to see them lean so heavily into ai and continually making mistakes like shelling so hard for their nfts. there are members of their team who are way too talented for this nonsense (peter)
it would've made sense if they deep fake using photos of the character actors instead of some random AI filter that obviously has biases. It's not even "fixing", it's degrading the face models.
for real, they've done some really really cool stuff just using off the shelf CG and compositing tools (plus really good cameras), and it's SO disappointing that they seem to have turned their back on all that in favor of pushing this AI bullshit. I think part of it is purely just how many views they get off the controversy but it's very short sighted.
Peter, Clint, Fenner WERE great team members who moved on. Can't blame them, I would do the same if my boss thought my work is less valuable than an AI trick that you can milk limited number of times.
@@z-beeblebrox I remember when the off the shelf CG you're talking about was threatening all the hard work of actual special effects artists and set designers. Everything changes, and everything stays the same.
@@convictedxmage4546 When?? Blender was a joke until only about four years ago, and I've heard nothing but praise for it's ascendence. Hell plenty of stuff like DaVinci Resolve were dragged kicking and screaming into popularity *because* so many people were desperate for alternatives to the increasingly unattainable "industry standard" programs run by greedy corporations. It was NOTHING like AI. Artists might be suspicious of new tools, but they're never afraid of them. Hell, when I was in college in 2005, one of my professors was part of the Disney layoff wave, teaching Animation history - but the REAL reason she was there was to learn CG. Because even though that's what she lost her job to, she knew it was the future and there was still a place there for her. Ain't NO goddamn artist in the fuckin world learning AI prompting, and they never will.
Im actually a character artist at a game studio- yeah i dont really think those guys actually know what photorealistic means? perfect skin and emotionless eyes is definitely not what most people consider photorealistic. They really just come across as being full of shit when they act all excited about how good things look when they just dont? it feels really disingenuous
I think we're starting to see why they don't work in the proper industry anymore
I remember seeing the Final Fantasy movie, and while it was just OK, there was an article by the VFX artists explaining why people thought their characters looked so good. They pointed out that they had imperfections, blemishes, etc, which read more real to our eyes. This was how long ago lol
right so prefect skin is bad, and ugly is better i guess. its a video game it dosnt have to look realistically ugly, and they even at the end they didn't think it work so this argument is pointless.
i watched their video when it first released and im pretty sure they said the eye issues could be fixed, and the skin being smooth isnt the point, its the fact it doesnt look uncanny, which to me it didnt
@@Honed- perfect skin isn't bad, it's just unrealistic, nobody like NOBODY, even the supermodels, the skin care models, have perfect skin, also what you find ugly may be beautiful to other people, beauty is very subjective.
game dev here: I don't know how they think you could get these filters working in post-process or cutscenes. It would put such a huge burden on whatever processor it gets shunted to. If they're just assuming that all of those cutscenes are compressed and pre-rendered? Well--no. Horizon especially has branching dialogue and character customization.
My thoughts exactly. They don’t seem to realize it’s real time in game footage.
I don't know about that. Today? Maybe. In five years? The AI face tool will become more efficient, the hardware will be better optimized for AI, it could be super easy. Also, given that it can return super realistic faces even if the underlying 3D model is cartoony, so if this is the way things are actually rendered, then the game could use very simple, low poly, low texture quality images as the core, render those, then apply the filter before displaying it to the player, so the frame might actually render out faster than it does now.
@timogul lmao no, given that AI content generators don't run locally and thus have guaranteed latency.
@@QberryShortcake Many of the current ones aren't run locally, but some you can install them on your system to run locally. Also, these would not be as broad as the current options, since they would not need to "general any face imaginable," they would only need to generate the specific faces of the target characters. So basically, installing the game could include installing a pre-trained AI, which should take up relatively little space, and would be specifically designed to apply specific faces to the characters in the game.
@@timogulGame devs do this really cool thing where they program all of this stuff to look really good, so everything you see is intentional, not machine generated randomness.
a bad video isnt a disaster situation.
Fr, it ain’t that big of a deal
that huge skeleton shot would have been cooler if the skeleton itself wasn't stiffer than a board in regard to its movements and pose
If they played around with the lighting, they could have made it more dramatic to hide the fact that it’s stiff af (but I doubt that)_
Yup. The concept of the scene and the whole knighting thing are amazing on paper.
Yeah would be cooler. But there is a reason it isn't something small teams usually do. It's hard and expensive.
Imagine calling it photorealistic, or realistic in any sense, by erasing all the fine details and beautiful “imperfections” we people have. Getting rid of freckles, erasing expressions and the folds and wrinkles the human face makes while emoting like genuinely h o w is that more realistic??
Trick question it isn’t…
@@Villealtnobody asked
seriously. it just removes everything human like
Imperfections make characters so much more interesting
Technically it is "photorealistic", considering every picture has a dozen filters applied to it out of gate now.
@@freelancerthe2561 true :(
“photorealistic” is now so far removed from reality that the realistic part is more fiction than anything
It's honestly so sad to see corridor take such a hard left into the AI route. It was fun and novel at first, but now they seem keen on developing the type of AI programs that could literally put animators and artists out of a job. It's sad. I hope they get past this fad soon, because they should be the ones we route for, not against.
When you act like that, you just make us more motivated to replace them (and you).
Why does it matter if they’re replaced?
@@Tilb0 It doesn't.
@@Tilb0because currently AI does an extremely worse job and looks worse so if you invite companies to replace their workforce you end up with a worst product? You know aside from basic humanity and ethics and all that, but since you seem to lack that focus on the first bit
@@comebackguy8892 arent you an edgy 12 year old.
"They racked up 7 thousand dislikes!"
Glances down at the dislike count on this video...
What was it at?
@@wakkaseta8351 7.7k
How do you view the dislikes?
8.398 dislikes（41%）
Art doesn’t need to be photorealistic to be good.
Incorrect. The point of all art is to blandly replicate real life with no design or style to speak of, or to be broken down into "This looks good" or "This looks bad."
@@Hoju3942no, art doesn’t need to be realistic, otherwise Picasso is a fraud and moron for avoiding realism lol
Nobody said it did, neither did Corridor Crew. You're all all creating drama where there is none.
@RedFactionMaps "Fixing" people's art without being asked is incredibly offensive to the original artist(s). I'd say the drama surrounding this is more than justified.
@@sushiroll3795 nah, it will die out as the artists lose
I think the crew was so genuinely offended about people not liking their AI content that they decided to go all in just out of spite.
Sure seems that way
@@ShakeupMan Why does YT "need" to create drama content against Corridor? They created it themselves by diving into the A.I hype and fans don't like it. If the people over at Corridor were in any measure meaningfully connected to the types of people they're making videos for, they'd know that A.I content is bad. Because, here's the truth: A.I content is obsessed over by pretend tech-nerds, finance bros and people that are jealous of anybody with creative talent.
I have unsubscribed to a few creators and channels that were once respected or revered for the effort they put into their content but that now fill their releases with about 40-60% of A.I content.
@julianmcmillan2867 but corridor crew dose have talent Dose respect the vfx and has many connections with multiple artists and vfx artist alike( who still come on to the show so obviously they have not offended these artist) there just using the new technology that's available and yes That's Ai
It dosent mean there "Ai bros"
But there also smart enough to know that Ai is not going anywhere its here and weather anyone likes it or not its not going anywhere and at least they dont use it maliciously there are SOOOOO many more people who Actually use Ai for abusive purposes its crazy to me that just because they made like what 4 videos using Ai people have just decided they have "No artistic Talent"
@@ShirouBrando No, A.I isn't going anywhere, but industry participants certainly have the power to guide how it is used in their industry.
A.I makes subpar crap. It passes for generic creations, but it doesn't pass for art. Do you know how you can tell when something is made with A.I? It looks like everything else made by A.I. When it comes to art, that's very bad.
When it comes to malice, I don't know, presenting consumers with a subpar product by creating with A.I and then threatening jobs or pay-rates because A.I does it quicker but certainly not better is malicious, especially when you have consumers and workers telling you they don't like it, but you do it anyways because it ramps up production.
What is even worse than using A.I in these fields to increase production is creators indirectly doing marketing for A.I technology by doing these projects with A.I; if my favourite channel is doing A.I projects, maybe I should look more into it. Let me go fill all of my feeds with interest in A.I content. Now, some marketing agency sees an uptick in interest in A.I and their analysts interpret it as A.I being good for business, investing in A.I generated content, flooding the market with it, everyone talks about A.I and eventually A.I is training itself with generic A.I produced content. The end result is worse and worse content, art and products that increase profits due to increased productivity at lower cost, but that decreases consumer satisfaction and job security. But consumers can't really do anything about it because everyone is doing it and so competition can't even level out the playing field. So yeah, it is being used maliciously and in some instances, to be charitable, irresponsibly and ignorantly.
A.I should be used in medical and scientific research fields, not in commercial fields. A.I in the digital space, after the public release of GPT is going to bring us to the world we see in the film Idiocracy. A.I is going to become the corn syrup of the tech space; it's in everything, it makes things appear more appealing on the surface but actually has no flavour, is bad for your health and just acts as an overall net loss to society but a gain to the profit margins of companies that use it.
this 100%
This is why Tech Bros and AI lovers aren't considered artists or creatives. people like this cant comprehend that these AI faces look creepy and uncanny, they focus on hyper realism even if it looks bad or entirely out of place.
Pretty crazy to say the Corridor guys aren't creative.
@@DrAmazing because they aren't they are good on a technical level but thats not the same as being creative.
@@DrAmazingwhen they keep talking about how more photorealistic= better looking then yea they don't seem very creative
This is why Art Directors exist.
They're vfx artists, and in the same way they created original works.
The crew is just trying to get a headstart on Roco's basilisk by shilling for the robot takeover
What’s so funny is the face/skin filters that they think are revolutionary have been in Sims mods for years 😭
??? Tf are you talking about, a 3d model in a game is wildly different from putting a new face on a person.
@@farmer_joe_ They are just making a point that putting a new face on a person isn't a new thing, is actually at least a decade old, it's just easier right now.
@bluester7177 meaning... it's revolutionary technology?
@@farmer_joe_revolutionary is never before seen or redefining. Planes. The radio. Pennecilin. Filters are not revolutionary, we've had them since like... idk, 2012?
@cedaagent ah I see what you guys mean, you just don't understand the technology in any fashion. Try educating yourself before getting mad at your assumptions, cus its far from just a filter.
the funny thing is they did nothing to change animation, it's literally just an ai gen rotoscope akin to A Scanner Darkly
At this point they've just turned into tech bros.
0 ethics
All of that emotion expressed by the characters is just gone and it looks so robotic, just not human like
Another thing is that they aren’t looking at the context of the scenes, like you pointed out with removing the dirt and grime from Nathan Drake’s face (they did the same thing to Lara Croft). Like why would Aloy have perfect skin and makeup when 1. she literally spends her whole day hunting, and 2. Makeup and skin products don’t exist in her world.
Also, almost all there examples were in engine cutscenes, not pre rendered ones, so this isn’t even the best that these studios could do in terms of detail and animation.
Generally agree.
But makeup and face products definitely exist in Ally's world.
In our history they predate, let's say, bows, by at least millenia. She also wears face paint in the first game.
Not saying it justifies anything, just don't like inaccuracy even in the service of a good point. And the history of makeup is fascinating too.
@@LoisoPondohva sure but I don't think these societies of post apocalyptic cyber cave men have the tech to look like living instagram filters 24/7.
It’s only a game why does it bother you?
I’m sure you were fine with black vikings.
@@lesserspottedmugwump.363 what the fuck are you on about?
My main takeaway from this is that they should stop calling themselves animators, they're not. I also don't think them collaborating with animators will really do much, because they will just choose whoever echoes what they're thinking anyways.
Have you watched their content at all? They do shit-tons of animations by hand from scratch all the time.
@@Akiraspin They make animations but I don't remember them ever actually animating anything by hand be it 3D or 2D. They use motion capture, stock assets and the like. And if they did, then I'm sure it was because they just didn't find a way to get around it. Now I don't know the older corridor stuff really, but at least with the crew that is left that's how I feel. At the very least it's ludicrous that they would think that 2d and 3d animation techniques need to be replaced by the "better" ai crap they make.
And again if you wanna call all people in vfx animators that's alright, but the role of an animator exists alongside other specific expertise, which they are a lot more justified to talk about.
@@milddiffuseIs it that animators feel the fear of being "replaced" by AI? Or why is it that so many reacting this heavy?
If AI can make it better, then that is a good thing!
AI will not replace animators, it can be a new tool to assist in the making.
Using arguments that they aren't real animators because they use a lot of assets instead of making their own is similar to saying producers that use a lot of samples aren't real producers.
Thats discussable and I don't think I agree with that
@@milddiffuse they animate by hand all the time. stop spreading stupid lies.
Niko can't even handle a single criticism without being cocky lmao
They also don't think about how you can't just add a filter in the game, these are models inside the game in real time. It's not just an image on your device that you can mess with all you want.
Unfortunately they can? Dlss and stuff basically does the same thing, only for this case they just need a real time face detection algorithm.
Reshade exists, and tbh can do amazing things when you want to take screenshots, since it can access so much more 3D environment data, but obviously the thing it can't do is adjust the 3D modelling itself. Which I am perfectly ok with because characters like Aloy don't need a 'glow up'; she's brilliant because she looks like a regular average person without make up, and that's so inspiring.
What they consider more realistic actually is the opposite, its not fidelity here. The ai they used, removed the redness in real areas of Aloy's skin, it removed the slight different tones on the face and extended her cheekbones. The only thing it did was I guess ad more definition to the hair and the face muscles and gave her a chin dimple, but it doesn't make sense for her to have perfectly plucked eyebrows or eyeliner for the character or setting. Their Aloy looks like it was replaced with a celebrity. Smoother and completely even toned or completely clear skin isnt more realistic. Photorealism is one thing, but these guys conflate a lot of that with just airbrushing.
What gets me is that all the AI generated faces feel weirdly rubbery? Like there's this odd shine on them that doesn't really match, it just looks really weirdly rough.
@@dracocrusheryeah this is one of the top complaints about skin generated by AI. People have tried to find ways around it and there are some Loras that help but it's pretty difficult to get right.
Honestly I don't know enough about art to be good at figuring out why, I'm a programmer and not an artist, but I think it's very interesting. The hands are super obvious, but rubbery skin just seems weird, like, is it because most pictures of women are heavily photoshopped??? 🤔
@@littlered6340 It might just be AI not really understanding lighting, so it's trying to compile images in different lighting styles or levels of focus together into one weird soup that doesn't really look like anything specifically.
@@dracocrusher Or maybe the data set is just a lot of airbrushed photos, or at least the majority of it, I don't know, it just seems like that's the majority of the content you see, even real people on social media tend to be filtered, my phone camera has smoothing for skin on as default.
@@bluester7177 That could also make a lot of sense.
One really funny theory I heard is that when people put AI art out there, it'll go to places where other AIs group-steal art to use as a dataset. Meaning the more AI art is used, the more AI art systems will copy the mistakes of other works of AI art.
Because there's no screening process for what the AI learns and because it's hard to get a system to UN-learn things, this means there's a real possibility we'll gradually just hit this weird tipping point where AI art will get worse and worse by copying its own mess-ups until the mistakes and weird imperfections are so bad and plentiful that it makes AI art basically unusable. Because any attempts at making new AI Art will just spit out some weird mess trained on millions of other bad AI art pictures, which have also been trained on millions of other bad AI images, and so on and so on.
Poor Aloy. People need to leave her face alone XD
Still haven't forgetten that one guy that exposed he didn't know what peach fuzz was 💀
I know! People need to stop trying to fix my wife’s face.
They need to leave her face Aloyne
Corridor saying they are making it look more realistic and then doing the digital equivalent of surgery + botox + makeup is the funniest Corridor has been in a while.
It's so weird that people don't 'get' that Aloy is basically a caveman. Like if you live outdoors roughing it in a nomatic lifestyle, then you're not going to look pretty, but she still looks good and realistic. All the blemishes and stuff wasn't an accident, the artists chose to do that intentionally to sell the idea that this is a real person living a realistic live in this fantastical robo-dinosaur world.
God, the facemorphs of the female game characters straight up look like those realistic sex dolls, the skin is just so smooth and plasticy, and doesn't even wrinkle when they make facial expressions.
tbh Corridor and NODE were like, super important to me as a kid, and it kinda sucks seeing the weird turn in vibes and content they had over time, maybe they didnt change and their fanbase did, but still its kinda sad. even before 2021 they seemed a little strange? maybe thats just me tho
NODE changed alright, they kicked out D and Brandon with excuses of moving, ran the channel to the grround and then 'gifted' NODE to D. The channel never recovered.
24:27
Ah yes, creating a "real" version of Male commander shepard, the guy who totally wasn't entirely based off a real male model
Yeah, that was next level stupid. Bonus points for the AI reality check looking worse than the in-game renders and nothing like Mark Vanderloo, the male supermodel that the default male Shepard assets were built from.
In fairness, Bioware has used a lot of models for their characters...
And some still look like complete aliens and nothing like the person it is based on.
@@torylva - Sure, except a 2-minute search would find that information immediately. I couldn't remember the name of the actual person, offhand, and did a search for it myself with the aforementioned result at the top of the results.
You would think one of the crew would check that the most pivotal and human looking character in the game wasn't actually a real person before making themselves sound and look like utter dumbasses.
Even in self-preservation terms it would have been smart to check, because if you compare their results to the actual real-life model, it looks like ass. I mean it looks even more like ass, compared with reality.
@@cameronb851 Oh, I am not arguing against that. I am just saying that the in-game models are often terrible and can definitely be fixed to look more real.
Wtf are you saying? What they made was essentially 'photo realistic textures'. The Shepard model and his textures look unrealistic ingame due to engine limitations and whatnot, so overall there was quite an imporvement.
I was subscribed to their website for years but I distinctly remember scrolling through their recent releases and realising I hadn't seen any of the fun creative short films that made me fall in love with their work.
I feel second hand embarrassment hearing them be so hyped for the garbage ai generated faces.
all of their AI slop has genuinely felt like some kind of paid promotion with how hard they try to hype up the extremely middling results- so not surprising that the first domino was a bunch of NFT promotions
i literally don't even understand what they're talking about when they show aloy on the screen. are they seriously saying that she looks "more realistic" with less detail, no wrinkles, no freckles, and eyelash extensions?
The original look of Aloy is ugly bro, lets just be real here. She has an androgynous look to her which is weird to me. The AI fix up fixed that by making her look more like a female than a boy.
@@jessicaheller3076 what is wrong with you?
@@calmlymangled i should be asking you the same thing
@@jessicaheller3076Aloy’s face is based on a face scan of a real person and I see no issue with a characters face being ‘androgynous’. Also I don’t understand why people want photorealism it really doesn’t make games better.
@@J-Amadaeus yes i know and if you couldn't tell, the real persons face who was scanned looks ten times better than how they modeled her in game. Thats our point. There was an edit of Aloys face making her look more like the real life model she was scanned from and it made Aloy look way better.
Small thing to note: Even their regular Animators React is often rife with bad info, because technically they are not animators by nature.
Most of the commentary in those episode is given by the guest who is an animator though?
@@timavolkov Most, not all
Honestly these have always rubbed me the wrong way, bad or incorrect or even arrogant info that then gets repeated or even further warped by the people who’ve watched it trusting their experience.
But mostly it’s just wrong or over hyping a really simple thing
@@timavolkov I'm not talking about the guests who are actual trained animators. I'm talking about the Corridor crew who aren't.
@@schemeahow do you know they arent.
Corridor's repeated forays into AI really just highlight their own creativity bankruptcy
off topic-ish but also Corridor is sometimes just wrong in what they "review" as specifical effects. they reviewed CGI in the '98 Godzilla and gushed about how good he looked when Godzilla himself in that movie is a *practical effect* . They used CGI for other effects in the movie but largely used puppets and suits for the big guy & it seems like they did zero research into that so they could just praise the CGI
the facemorph faces look like the AI just pulls from movies and tv shows
all the facemorph faces look like random attractive celebrities that look similar to the original character model are put together to "create" a new face, even if it looks nothing like the original character
Exactly, they looked more fake and weird
Yeah, like the black space marine's face changes and I swear it's just using Dillon from Predator and kind-of meshing it onto his body. Like it doesn't even feel like the character, it feels like you got a render of Carl Weathers or something SPECIFICALLY and just shoved an uncanny young Carl Weathers face onto him.
@@dracocrusher Its funny you say that, the image at 29:48 slightly reminded me of the British actor, Idris Elba.
This honestly makes me wonder if they aren't getting sponsored by the AI developers. I can't imagine as creators themselves they aren't stuffing these feelings down themselves.
Bro they’re getting excited because this new tech that’s in its infancy is getting better and better.
Side note, aloy looked better in the first game.
@@daxlucero2437Yes, getting excited about finally having to put little effort into content because A.I can do it now.
A.I is getting better and better, but its use cases are producing more and more mediocre results, because people are lazy pieces of shit.
You can't tell me that the quality of content by creators increasingly using A.I has gotten better. I'd argue it has gotten markedly worse. We are living in the age of generica and when creators do shit like this, it's an indication of where their priorities are, and it is certainly not quality but quantity. That is the same strategy used by big tech companies and movie studios churning out subpar content.
@@julianmcmillan2867 lol ok. Artists who aren’t lazy will just use AI to make great stuff, and the order shall be maintained
@@daxlucero2437 Artists who aren't lazy don't need to use A.I to make great stuff, that's the point. Good artists also certainly see the generic and subpar performance of A.I when it comes to art, another reason why they wouldn't use it. But that doesn't matter, because A.I is going to be used by companies to create their generic graphics and art and they're going to think it's amazing even if consumers and artists look at it and think "what kind of bullshit is this?". Therein lies the disconnect; it's bad but who cares because it's quick. The only type of "artist" that will want to use this crap is some graphic design major who hates their life and has absolutely no passion for art.
@@julianmcmillan2867 welp, they’ll go the way of the quakers then. Whiny artists really made me lose sympathy for them writ large unfortunately
To be fair, I don't think they were trying to undermine the actual video game designers... it's obviously harder to design models in a game than for a video... that's kinda common knowledge...
There’s a lot i’d like to comment on, but i’ll keep my response about the game faces.
They might not necessarily “fixed” the faces, but you’re completely taking their video out of context. They’re simply exploring what ai could and most likely will do in the future. Even in triple A games, we will see some form of ai being implemented. They’re simply exploring the possibilities of the future.
Sure, most faces looked uncanny and kind of flat in motion. However, at stills of the renders, there was a lot of “new” detail to the faces we haven’t seen in games before.
One of my friends currently has an internship at ubisoft. He mentioned how ubisoft actually took notice of corridor’s video and started testing their own ai model to upscale their own renders and then using the ai upscaled version to work with. Then from there, they’re working on proper rigging and motion capture using that ai rendered version.
Moral of the story, sure corridor could have marketed their videos differently, and not claim they’re changing the way we’ll work from now on, but you got to understand this is youtube. Even with their use of ai, they’re doing what they enjoy and that’s what creating youtube videos should be all about. Even if you’re a multi million dollar vfx studio. CZcams is just their side-quest for fun.
it's ironic that the behind the scenes for the rock paper scissors anime without the filter and just them acting without the filter would probably have looked better in the short than what they actually did. The medium that they say takes away from anime, being live action, actually looks better than the technique they think is the future of vfx.
Yeah they did older videos of pure live action anime and I think they did look better than when they did the filter.
This is about their fascination with pushing this tech in its infancy, and for that I can commend them. This video is just fear mongering and hating people for making projects that they are interested in.
Idk, they definitely phrase it as something it’s not.
But acting like AI isn’t going to be used to enhance/fully rotoscope future pieces of actual art is just naïveté.
@@sakalaathleticsWe are in a period of innovation. Those who are cautious but realistic like yourself will reap the rewards.
Somethings that have been really interesting to me lately is analog computing for neural networks. We’re about to see a shift in hardware that hasnt been seen since the early 2000s
@@sakalaathletics It’s more than that. In order for it work, A.I. most likely needs to take from already pre-existing sources. Take for example, A.I. art. The artificial art that you see only looks competent because it gathers resources from other people’s art. Not to mention, the artists, who’s works are taken in order to make the art, are taken without their permission. A.I. used as a crutch/an aid for help is perfectly fine but, relying on A.I. is just lazy and takes away from those who actually put in the effort.
Sure, but that wasn't the point of the activity. This video tries to pretend they thought it would do away with animation completely, when it was very clear that wasn't the case.
It was just an exercise to see what the AI tools could produce. It's clear the final result has flaws and isn't a polished product, and noone is pretending otherwise.
Also I love that they only used characters from 3D realistic games that are often rendering in real time, these are not animations made in a studio, there are technology restraints. Saying at all video game characters have “stiff mannequin-like faces” is a wild over generalization. Video games and animation in general have such a wide range of art styles and so many people have put in a lot of work to make them, only to be devalued and disrespected by Corridor Crew and honestly, a lot of the general public. (If I have to see another post about how animation should never be an option for book adaption because fans don’t want to watch “cartoons” I’m going to scream)
Corridor crew FIXES unrealistic water ship down animal’s internal monologues with AI
Animation should never be an option for book adaptation because fans don't want to watch "cartoons."
@@DoremiFasolatido1979🥲
who cares. it looks better
The problem is, for some strange reason, western video game companies love making female characters look absolutely horrendous, to the point they begin to breach the walls and start hitting appearances that you can almost call male, even when the voice actor or the 'facial model' is infinitely more attractive than the finished product. Similarly, they seemingly believe that _everyone_ should be ugly, for whatever reason. Doesn't matter if average people are actually nice looking.
I really love your comment at 29:07. I think it frames the complacency brought about by outsourcing labor. "I didn't have to do it, so it's good enough." Your comment also points out the detail-oriented nature of many creatives who spend so much time working on and perfecting their creations.
Animator here... They're pretty much wrong about, them "changing animation forever". The technique they show in the rock paper scisscors series, is more like rotoscope than full fledged hand drawn animation. Rotoscope is a pretty old technique. (Old as in one hundred years old). Its a technique where someone traces over liveaction footage on paper. Lots of old Fleischer cartoons have rotoscoping. There have been many examples of rotoscoping throughout film history and some of them are waay more impressive and better looking than rock paper scissors anime, notable example is the film 'loving vincent'. They havent really invented anything new at all. They have merely showed that rotoscoping can be done much faster and look much worse and inconsistent. They're using technology they have not invented, applied to a technique that is older that their grandparents, all the while claiming that they are forever changing an artform. The truth is that the art of animation has been changing in the last years. But its not because some frat boys have discovered midjourny. The actual changes in the industry are because of a significant rise in indie animation from artist that have much more skill and respect for an artform that is dear to them. In my opinion all this talk about changing animation, its just buisness. They have a monetary insensitive to make these kinds of claims. Much like big tech companies have a insensitive to claim that their new tech will change everything. To me its just really disingenuous towards not only artists and animators bust also their audience. Thanks for reading my essay.
I'm so worn out on Corridor's AI stuff. I've been watching them for over a decade now, and even utilized tips from them in my own career over that time. The amount they lean into AI without addressing the stolen art they use to train that AI is so frustrating. They could use their industry knowledge and connections to use the tools correctly. Things like hiring artists with the sole purpose of them training the AI to utilize their style, working into contracts that it can't be used without their express consent and compensation, that could go a long ways in swapping the conversation in a way that is actually helpful to independent creatives keeping tight budgets and quick deadlines. What they do with the tech is just lazy and harmful.
when people dick ride ai art and the like with no regard for how it affects real people who aren’t them i become an ai fan aka hope they make one that ruins their livelihood instead as a fun little treat that tastes oddly like their own medicine
I want to ask you "one" thing because you complain about "training ai with stolen art" and you apparently work in the art creation space.
Do you watch other people's work? Does it influence your work?
Do you implement ideas and techniques from other people because you think those are good?
Does anything you saw in your life reflect in your art?
After thinking about all previous questions the true question - how does you experiencing reality is different from an algorithm doing so?
100% agree
AI models take a lot of data to train. Like a LOT. It’s completely infeasible to hire individual artists to produce enough art to train any AI model for anything. Even if you paid someone to solely churn out art of only, say, cats, and then trained an algorithm to detect cats in images using only that person’s work, you would never be able to get enough images from that person to train anything close to a usable algorithm.
None of this is commentary on the channel in question, their behaviour, or the use of AI in general. But I think a lot of people think generative AI is just a computer going into a database of images and copy-pasting stuff. In fact that isn’t at all how it works
@@bobross-hv6dyai lacks any form of creativity - that's the main difference
Something also worth pointing out is that many character models are scaled back because they’re focused on the game’s aesthetics AND performance.
This is exactly why “The Callisto Protocol” looks fairly photorealistic, but runs terribly.
Exactly. Literally taking old gen console era models and "updating them" on new PC hardware. Of course you can get a more detailed model, you have 10* the machine horsepower.
@@ericpeterson9110 Right, I was thinking the same thing. These are a bunch of old games rendered in realtime that they 'fixed' by applying a pre-rendered ai effect. A lot of the issues could have been addressed even at the time if they were able to prerender the cinematic but that's frequently not practical for a game the scale of Mass Effect.
@@dathedix3951 Exactly. Pre-rendered cutscenes work in some games like FFX but in many games dont allow for the characters to be dressed in the correct outfits/loadouts and in games with customisable characters they just arent possible in any sutscene including that character.
And that's ignoring that by pre-rendering cutscenes you then have a huge speedbump between the glossy pre-render and the in-engine stuff that feels awkward.
Plus for a lot of games the additional file size makes this option impractical for older disk based systems.
Still runs like shit, and Callisto has denovu
Ehhh.
Callisto Protocol ran badly because of shader caching problems with DX12.
I think their video was really good. The characters did look a lot more realistic through the filters, and it would be cool if the tech continued to improve and could run as realtime filters in a game. If so, it could save thousands of hours of dev time, since the core models could be much more simple.
There is a reason why those guys are working for youtube and not in movie production...
the "taking away jobs from kids" kids joke is so incredibly stupid when you think about it. if you were actually animating, there would be no need to film children. there'd be no need to film anyone, because that's not how animation works.
Animators do study real things, including films in order to animate. Real life study IS how animation works.
They're making a child labour joke
The filter just makes them more conventionally attractive. Their whole AI is built off unattainable beauty standards and they don’t even notice 💀
I thibk it was more about the eyes looking realistic, not the makeup aspect.
@@harithsami843yea it was about making them not look uncanny, which about 90% of the comment section doesnt seem to realize since they all sound like twitter geeks.
@@wocky2299 but they look uncanny to a lot of people, that's the point a lot of the "twitter geeks" are making, airbrushed faces are uncanny to a lot of people, humans have imperfections.
Literally who cares if the beauty standards are unattainable?
"unattainable"
Speak for yourself.
It's almost like AI is hot right now...
The most annoying part of any of this shit is people outside of particular industries telling us how great AI is going to be with zero knowledge for the industry to back themselves up. It's the Dunning-Krueger effect in new and irritating way, like when people try to talk to you about your job in the pub when you regrettably let that information slip.
Also on the lips point, they're right in that a persons lips pull apart from the center when they open. Though you're not thinking about that when you have something that works at run-time, you just want it to look as best as possible, and 7 years ago when that game came out, it did look incredible. We're only really getting to this level of character animation in games in this generation, but while so much of it is motion captured, the tech behind it will be in our hands with Metahuman in Unreal 5 to name but one. People are actively trying to do things to make in-game animation better, and it's not slapping an AI filter on something they think looks shitty that needs fixing.
They're adults in the entertainment space who have been hanging out with animation professionals for years. I hate the argument that they're just naive babies. Either they think about implications or they're idiots.
I followed them for years until they started doing vocal deep fakes. They started getting criticism way before two years ago because of that. They've just never given a shit.
they aren't thinking about anything aside from how to make more content with less work.
their bread and butter is acting as if they are authority figures who know the most cutting edge technology in the space. this is kind of far from the truth since in their 'fix it' videos, they wind up using methodologies that are pretty outdated and avoid using current gen tech like houdini because it takes too long to learn to the level of a professional and too long to make high quality output.
so they kind of have to lean into the AI thing because they don't really have the time to actually develop actual skills. at this point there are actual amateurs using blender whose skills blow them out of the water. they are content creators first and foremost which is why they don't have a deep respect for the immense amount of labour that goes into the art.
They have done a lot and it seems they always try to push for innovation even if it's not great. I can respect them for it and just go with the flow cause AI is kinda cool
Maybe they are actually curious about the technology. You might find AI in art problematic, but no one can contest it is an interesting technology with unknown a potentially far reaching applications.
@@adamdymke8004that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t use it responsibly. If you ever find yourself chanting for something to consent to a thing, like they did for Jake’s permission to use his voice, you need to think hard about your company’s code of ethics. Scripted or not the point is nobody seemed to understand how fucked up it was.
@@FlorklThat video was so disgusting.. I was shocked at the disrespect for consent and when I saw many commenters also seeking clarification on if it was a crappy joke or not with no reply from the company, that was my moment of realizing they never cared about actually having good character. Their "apologies" in the past had all been mere lip service. I haven't watched a single thing of theirs since. It never sat well with me how they made fun of him for his beliefs, even though I disagree with him on a number of things. And yeah he's a bit paranoid (like many with his beliefs are), but it's absolutely wrong to be making fun of him like they continuously do. To intentionally ignore him saying no to his voice being used that way... it's utterly despicable to treat another person that way, especially someone you call a friend. I never found out if they clarified anything regarding that video, but even if it was something they scripted and he was actually okay with it, they were so messed up for painting it as them violating his boundaries. Being predatory isn't funny. :/
Corridor has a problem with boundaries and ethics in general. Nothing they do surprises me anymore. :(
Their whole section about Aloy feels so weirdly negative, like they're trying to drag down the work of the original artists and animators when the original is clearly much more expressive
It also really hurts my soul because they specifically designed Aloy's face to be less ... model-like, it even has purposeful asymmetries. To see it "glowed up" like this and call it better is like missing the point so hard it makes the whole gang stop talking and stare at you.
@@pr0ntab Lol! "Less model like"?? They made her look like Jerry O'Connell in a wig.
I used to love Corridor's content, but ever since the AI stuff started, I've REALLY grown out of it. The Spiderverse video was interesting, but then Anime Rock Paper Scissors left a really bad taste in my mouth with how high and mighty they seemed with all of the "we've changed animation forever" stuff. Then it bled into their reacts, with PROFESSIONAL animators, and at that point it just felt like ego stroking and going "look at us, we're at the same level of talent as you." THEN they had the balls to go "yeah, we're doing it again," and that really dropped it for me.
With this whole AI stuff, it feels like Corridor, and more specifically Niko, is full of himself and using this to inflate his ego. Like, he puts in the absolute bare minimum amount of effort and goes "look how awesome we are! We changed this entire industry for the better, praise us!"
Then there was Anime RPS 2, and by that point I was just done with Corridor. It seems like Corridor, and again mostly Niko, is just becoming a big "AI Bro" channel at this point. It's like they just want to be able to pump out near mindless content to profit off of, which as with pretty much the entire AI space, is nothing surprising or new.
I remember when they'd do ACTUAL VFX, and even when it was janky, there was charm to it. Now though, it's just being filled with more and more soulless AI schlock.
Damnn great video, didnt know anything about corridor for a while because i started to see this issues too.
The fact that their "AI anime" is literally rotoscoping but looks worse 😂
but way faster and just good enough for normies to watch it.
Was I impressed by the actual final product of the corridor crew video? No. But nobody alive had never seen *anything* like this before ~10 months ago. If this was made by a small team in days or weeks, imagine what a studio will be able to do with this tech in less than two years time. This is as bad as it will ever be again.
@@ChristopherCopelandthat is the thing. These folks are dissing on the first iteration. They ain’t seeing the actual future.
It ain’t always gonna look like this. 5 years and folks will be doing Mappa level work.
Heck Mappa will be doing even more amazing stuff with no financial limits.
@@themightyflog yeah, it’s like, I don’t disagree that these things don’t look great, and also look sort of generic and lame, but it just feels like a complete waste of time to go “look at how bad this is!!” Because we’re already seeing that it’s improving at an exponential rate. Just wait a few months and it’ll be better. In ten years, AI will *unquestionably* be capable of making everything we can currently create by hand (from a quality perspective)- even if it’s still humans pulling the strings. And tbh I hope humans will still be pulling the strings. But I completely agree. Every studio will be using AI for most of their workflow, even if they’re basing the artistic things on human generated content.
@@themightyflog people out here saying "rotoscoping but worse" all have no idea about the level of work needed to hand paint each frame for actual rotoscoping. Yes, the AI stuff is basically rotoscoping...THAT'S THE POINT! They filmed a movie and had a computer finish rotoscoping to a specific style BY THE END OF THE WEEK. Yes it looks bad compared to the work of a team. That's not the point.
A lot of concept art is based on photo reference of people, as in real women with the features they are mocking. For some games the characters are even based on their voice actors. So it’s like they are saying that the real features of real people are worse than the artificially “perfected” ones. Gross.
I peace'd out on Corridor Crew once they got into the NFT garbage so missed all of this AI garbage. This was an interesting and unsurprising saga.
Weirdest thing to me is that starting out with criticizing live action anime and lacking the oompf from their animated counter part sounds to me like they'd then go on to either make an anime fight scene in live action with the extra oompf it deserves or make an anime fight scene in animation with all the impact of the live action counterparts, sad it had to go down this route instead.
The pro animators that praised the AI anime later talked about it in their podcast about how they didn't actually know how it was made and said they would have given more pushback if they fully understood the process. Edit: for some reason even mentioning the animators social handle on the website that starts with an I and ends with gram gets deleted. look up the digital corridor episode for links to the guys social account and you will find his podcast where he talks about this.
Do you have a link?
Doesn’t that invalidate their argument though?
It looks great!
Oh uh AI?
Then I wouldn’t have praised it as much.
That doesn’t take away from what they achieved using it. You might not approve of the methods.
But you can no longer argue the results
@@katamed5205 Well the pushback would had come from the unethical practice of taking other animators work without proper compensation.
You gotta provide a source when you say stuff like this man.
Yeah, what pro animators are you talking about?
I feel like Corridor might be shifting to more AI art videos in order to make more content and to market themselves as art innovators, ultimately to appeal to a more mainstream demographic and to be rewarded by the CZcams algorithm.
That is the equivalent of an antique dealer switching to cheap, factory made plastic replicas yet still having the guts to call them ”antiques.”
Or they just want to sell more courses online. Because guess what feeding AI with pictures is way easier than preparing a 100 hour course just to learn the basics of blender
I don't really agree with this take, feels very uncharitable. They've always been pretty interested in integrating new tech into the VFX workflow. Seems to me that they're doing just that, exploring how new tech can be used to create.
@@shabbbsyyeah these kinds of people get super defensive when it comes to anything ai related out of a fear for it taking jobs - imo it’s kinda inevitable though and people just need to adapt
@@shabbbsy
😊
crazy how freddie's and corridors paths differ after their split
To me the "honeymoon is over" phase with CorridorCrew was when the "X react to Good and BAD Y" series was focused in reacting to the GOOD, and very few BAD. Also, they started to react to the same movies over and over(shan-chi).
Anyone remember when Markiplier admitted to CC having a room filled with explosives and combustibles next to an electrical fuse box? "The Boom Boom Room"? And it was up to him the unpaid intern to fix it and clear out the room? He mentioned this in his "Stealing other people's content" livestream, and for some reason didn't seem too upset by it.
yeah that was pretty wild
what the fuck did I just read
Honestly, that doesn't sound like too big of a deal. It's dangerous, but actually carrying explosives isn't a huge hazard. It's not like dropping some fireworks or pyrotechnics is going to set it off or something, you still need a spark or, in some cases, a specific actual trigger like a blasting cap.
The bigger problem is leaving it near the fuse box, but I mean, that's why you send people in to move it after it starts piling up, right? Makes complete sense.
😰 Jesus Christ we could’ve lost markiplier
@@dracocrusherthe issue is that they were negligent enough to put the explosives by the fuse box in the first place, and couldn’t be bothered to pay the guy they had carrying ballistics out of big blast city
If anything the AI video game faces look LESS realistic because it removed all the details.
People are either upset that this could put artists out of work or making fun of it for looking bad. Which is it.
nahh it looks better objectively
I’d say most of them look pretty photorealistic, but some of them just don’t mesh well with the game’s settings. The Preston Garvey one looks really good for some reason
@@space_1073yeah I will say there is a bit of missing the point when it comes to people's (rightful) discomfort with ai. People are rankled by ai art making things that are visually good looking. But whether ai could ever make something beautiful doesn't actually matter. The fact that it's not made by a human is all it takes to invalidate it really. If I was judging between two pieces of work that were exactly the same down to every detail, except that one was made by a human and the other was generated by a robot, I would put more value in the former. That's it.
@@smurfette_blues7922 Totally agree. I'm mostly just upset that this natural discomfort with AI is being directed towards corridor.
I love how anytime they get low dislikes its that it simply "flew under the radar" lol
it makes me laugh that they wanted to make the facial expressions look more realistic when they cleaned up the dirt and grime from their faces, blurred out any details to the skin and also got rid of any life behind their eyes. None of the AI renditions kept the original facial movement or expressions. They all ended up w the same neutral expression and I really disliked how much they were patting themselves on the back over this. As a Corridor fan, I was disappointed to say the least.
The issue I think is the lighting. A lot of video game characters looks awful in certain lighting condition in engine. The assets look good when they get imported on rendering softwares. So this fixing is basically pointless.
That damned real time rendering.
The "ai" also makes a lot of their faces nearly expressionless for the sake of supposed attractiveness.
(alongside putting on makeup for characters that wouldn't exactly have time or access to face powder, a mirror and eyeliner lmao)
Imagine Nathan Drake cowering in a cave, pointing a flashlight to his face to clean it, pluck his eyebrows, applying layers of makeup and getting the perfect subtle eyeliner, then going out and doing everything else without all of that somehow not getting messed up, sounds absurd? Yea, because it is, even if the character is supposed to be a woman/afab, they ain't born with a layer of pressed powder and eyeliner on their faces that never smudges while rolling around in the dirt and fighting 😂
I think that the "we fixed" premise could have been interesting if, without using AI, they took some old games and updated the designs using tech that wasnt available back then. I think it's the only way this could've not been bad.
I felt like watching a baby complain about not wanting to eat vegtables! Bro you are like the personification of „whomp whomp“
Games also have the issue of performance, restricting them in how high definition their assets can be. I have no idea how this face filter would impact performance and either way i think the original versions look better, but if they want photorealism, they shouldnt be looking at games, which are designed to run smoothly on various machines, at least not right now. Technology is developing and improving quickly, but while I'm in no way an expert, I doubt that we're at the point where this can actually be put into a game without major performance concerns.
Sounds like biasm to me. The originals all look very uncanny and weird. All the AI did was fix the uncannyness whoch makes them look way better.
Plus, Unreal Engine 5 looks really good. That engine could work.
@@jessicaheller3076 Some of those games are old so of course they look weird. Starfield, a new game, characters looks crap because they didn't fix the character models in time before release (there's probably other reasons but it's mostly a tehcnical problem). And Aloy looks FINE. She does not need fixing. You just hate that she looks like a normal person and not like a super model.
Don't even give the escapism excuse. There are ugly characters that people are fine with.
@@Shythalia Aloy doesnt look like a normal person, she looks androgynous. Certain angles she almost looks like a young boy. She was fine in the original game but they definitely made her uglier in the sequel. That AI fix up of her made her look NORMAL to me, thats not a supermodel look, she looked how she was supposed to look, like an actual female instead 🙄🤣
@@jessicaheller3076 Nothing wrong with androgyny. You're just sexist. How about you go outside more and talk to people?
Ever since their channel really started blowing up they've really been riding on a high horse and criticism has been either ignored or lazily addressed. Their stuff is definitely unique and people can learn from it, but their approach in several cases is disappointing.
I honestly don't know what went through their mind when they tried to add AI filters over games that are known for its realism and also praised for its realism. The backlash was honestly well deserved. You can say what you want regarding gameplay of Uncharted, Horizon, Tomb Raider, etc.., but it's agreeable that those game does look stiff, it's like they never studied how the animation and mocap process put into those games.
Dude, I understand that their face changes are not great. But they don't look like a "completely different person" either, come on. They're being unreasonable but you're being unreasonable here as well. Using words like nonsense, garbage, full of s%&t? Real mature to critique someone. Leaning into borderline hate tbh
I was really put off by their “Did We Change Animation Forever?” video, where they act like an AI enhanced “anime” looks amazing when in fact it doesn’t and amounts to little more than a bad rotoscope. It’s disappointing to see this trend in their videos continuing.
I've always felt like they think they're top dog when it comes to VFX, Sam especially loves to gloat about himself and what they do, it was especially apparent when they redid the Luke skywalker CGI. I think we can all agree theirs looked way way worse.
They didn't get hired by ILM then, no? Strange.
They think they're such hot shit, but their absolute best work still looks amateurish. But they just keep pounding their chests about how much better they are than everyone else. That's what made me stop watching them before most of these controversies even happened.
@@ln5321 "But they just keep pounding their chests about how much better they are than everyone else"
Do they, though? I've never seen that type of behaviour from them. I think there's some valid criticism in this video and the comment section but a lot of it is very overblown.
1. They have an series almost entirely dedicated to how amazing people in the industry are. Even when they criticise 'poor' CGI, such as a lot of Bollywood CGI, they almost always have something good to say about it too.
2. The criticism about using vampire hunter art in the first rock paper scissors is completely valid but they addressed that and had an artist create a unique style for the second one. Most of the criticism from then on boil down to them using clickbaity titles. Perhaps these titles oversell what they are talking about but the actual content of each video is pretty fair on what the tech is capable of and what it can be used for.
3. Animators are incredibly overworked. AI is a tool that could be used to reduce their workload to a manageable, human level. They never pretend that AI will replaced artists.
I’m not gonna defend corridor too hard, but I just want to say that different videos have their own vfx artist who is the one “making” the videos (ex. the scale videos are from Wren while others are from Nico or other members) So while yes it is getting repetitive, some of the videos like the spider verse videos are from Dean and Fenner, who IIRC, we hadn’t really seen them dabble into AI vfx before.
If important npcs looked like generic ai people then you would forget their faces really fast.