Would you say your approach is less flexible and creative vs gen AI then? Because you are bounded by what the pipeline can rig/interpret vs open-ended generation from gen AI. I suppose it does preserve the original authorship better though.
Would you say your approach is less flexible and creative vs gen AI then? Because you are bounded by what the pipeline can rig/interpret vs open-ended generation from gen AI. I suppose it does preserve the original authorship better though.
That's a good question. I would say that the two approaches are quite different and bring different strengths to the table. The major strength of genAI is that it is open-ended.
But it comes with costs. GenAI video is expensive to generate, and most tools constrain your animation to a handful of seconds, not long enough to tell a real story. You can generate multiple clips and stitch them together, but then you'll run up again another limit of GenAI- subject consistency (especially with non-realistic subjects, like doodles).
It's also difficult to finely control genAI outputs, which I argue limits the creative expressivity of the human. And if you generate numerous clips to try to get things perfect, it can get expensive.
Our approach is limited by the motion/visual/audio assets we have access to. But, when we release DoodleMateStudio users will be able to upload their own visuals, record their own audio, capture their own motions, and specify their own high-level story scenes. This should be enough to let people tell expressive and personal stories. And if we get things right, it will also be a lot more fun than refining a prompt.