• FiniteBanjo@feddit.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    I feel like they did a shit job tryinf to defend themselves if this is the best example of steps taken:

    RxvUGBFyGR7HDnN.png

    Like, For Real, this is worthless. Show the messy work files, the unfinished sketches, isolate the layers in the 2D mockup to show lineart and color independent of each other, a gif of the 3D wireframes rotating.

    This image they posted won’t convince anybody. It will vindicate critics.

    • Ricky Rigatoni@piefed.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 hour ago

      This is pathetic. They could have just ai generated fake sketches but they didn’t even have the brain power to think of that.

    • PonyOfWar@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      Yeah, I really don’t want to falsely accuse anyone but… the human 3d-artist forgot to model one of the horns? That redraw has a very, let’s say, familiar style as well.

    • NekoKoneko@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      The theory on The Other Site is what I also agree with: They took #1, fed it into an AI 3D modeler to get #4, fed that image into a 2D style AI model to get #2, and then went back to #4 and used AI in-painting and lazy Photoshop to remove some elements to get #3.

      • lime!@feddit.nu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 hours ago

        oh yeah that makes sense, the little bubble window is literally just painted over.

    • lime!@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      3 hours ago

      i… these are literally all ai. like why would the render be missing a horn?

      • FiniteBanjo@feddit.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        3 hours ago

        I’m gonna interject and say you generally model things one half at a time and then mirror for symmetrical objects.

        • PonyOfWar@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          24
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          Sure, but you wouldn’t just render one horn and add the other one in photoshop. That makes no sense at all. You would duplicate the horn before rendering it.

        • lime!@feddit.nu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 hours ago

          yeah but you generally also have a hierarchy of submodels so that mirroring a group mirrors everything in that group.

    • audaxdreik@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 hours ago

      How is this not AI?! The redraw absolutely smacks of that style, not to mention the cannon arm is obviously meant to imitate a milk can which the redraw mangles. The rockets are supposed to be udders but the two we can see most clearly don’t match in construction and the other two seems to sprout off of another one. These errors carry over to the full render. The udders are a pixelated mangle of perspective in the original, but this point is absolutely missed.

      Above the leg is also a weird split. You can see in the original this is a weird artifact of pixel shading, but it’s been rendered into an actual split in the material in the redraw and renders. This is a valid design choice I guess, but to me it’s an indication of how the AI misinterpreted intent and someone reviewing it didn’t catch or care about it.