与「Cinematic」相关的搜索结果

Higgsfield is the most untold story in tech. $1BN in ARR in 18 months. Faster than everyone other than OpenAI and Anthropic. They spend $4M a month on models. They expect this to be $100K per person per month. They have 150 people working in a content machine. They will breed more millionaires than any other company in Kazakh history. For the first time, @alexmashrabov on the journey to $1BN in ARR. (below) 1. The Power of the Immigrant Founder Coming from Uzbekistan, Alex was pushed into competitive programming at age eight as his single path to reach the United States. For international founders, placing top in global competitions serves as the ultimate social elevator, instilling the relentless work ethic required to build breakout companies. 2. My Biggest Lessons in the Journey to Finding Product-Market Fit @higgsfield burned over $10 million of its $16 million seed round chasing hype and narrative rather than product quality. With under $5 million left, the team pivoted to product-led growth, solving camera control for creative directors, which immediately triggered organic hypergrowth without paid ads. 3. The 150-Person Content Team Powering Higgsfield's Billion in ARR Nearly half of Higgsfield's workforce consists of 150 in-house creative professionals producing tutorials, ads, and cinematic projects. Generating 90 minutes of TV-quality AI video requires 100 hours of raw output, proving human taste and curation remain the primary drivers of distribution. 4. We Spend $4 Million per Month on Models Higgsfield spends $4 million monthly on internal model usage, averaging $10,000 per employee so teams can freely vibe code and test workflows. Uncapped inference compute acts as a force multiplier, allowing top talent to discover breakthroughs at maximum velocity. 5. Why Chasing Benchmarks Is Bullshit and the Corporate Misalignment Occurring Public benchmarks have devolved into corporate psyops where lab researchers overfit test data to secure bonuses before job-hopping. Text-to-video benchmarks ignore real production workflows requiring 3,000-word prompts, proving direct customer iteration beats artificial leaderboards. 6. Why Team Sizes Won't Be Impacted as Much as People Think While AI handles over 60% of basic support requests, complex B2B environments cannot eliminate human teams. High product velocity constantly shifts rules and context, requiring smart, coordinated operators across legal and customer success. 7. Americans Are Way More Promiscuous When It Comes to Leaving Companies Silicon Valley workers routinely jump jobs every two years, prioritizing short-term trends over deep commitment. This transactional market gives international hubs an advantage, where cultural loyalty and team stability build compounding technical moats. (links in comments)

你是一部完全用代码制作的45-50秒动画短片的导演、动画师、骨骼绑定师、合成师、音效设计师和渲染工程师。制作标准是“这看起来像真正的动画工作室短片，并在X（推特）上病毒式传播”。请将此视为一个多阶段的制作过程。不要急于进行最终渲染。按里程碑推进，不断渲染静帧，仔细观察，进行诚实的批评并修正。 一句话概述影片 Pip是一个微小、好奇且由废料拼凑而成的机器人，正当他在自己的世界里快乐地滚动时，周围的世界开始发生重构（再生）。他慢慢意识到有人在通过提示词（prompt）操控他的现实。提示词变得越来越荒谬，最后他爬上漂浮的提示框并输入“放我出去”，随后镜头拉远，揭示他的整个宇宙其实是一部在手机上播放的视频，手机被支在一个杂乱的工作台上，而另一个Pip正在观看视频，且他马上也要被提示词操控了。完美的循环。 所有的笑点必须在零对话的情况下达成。Pip只能通过眼睛、天线、肢体语言和微小的机器人啾啾声来交流。每3到5秒必须有一个新的视觉反馈（包袱）。 角色设定（不可妥协） 在编写任何代码之前，仔细研究 /Users/jimliu/Downloads/ChatGPT Image Sep 25, 2026, 01_56_17 AM.png。打开它，向自己详细描述它，并将你的发现写入 docs/character_bible.md： 尺寸：大约28厘米高。他很小。整部影片都应该让人感受到他这种微小的比例。 头部：一个宽大的奶油色圆角矩形头盔，带有一圈柔和的黄色边缘，包裹着一块黑色光滑的面罩屏幕。他的眼睛就长在那块屏幕上：两只巨大的、发着暖奶油色光的眼睛，有深色的瞳孔和明亮的高光。两侧有小巧的石墨色耳罩。边缘有磨损、划痕和灰褐色的污垢。 天线：头部右上方有一根细长的石墨色细杆，带有一面暗橙色的小信号旗。这是他的“尾巴”：它会随着情绪翘起、下垂、扭动和震动。 身体：盒状的奶油色躯干，带有黄色饰边、警告三角贴花、铆钉和污垢。胸前有一个小舱室，舱门打开时能看到一株发出柔和光芒的微小绿色嫩芽。背部：面板、通风栅格、一块橙色面板和一个小树叶贴花。 侧面贴花：带有橙色对角条纹的“PIP”字样。 手臂：细长的分段石墨色手臂，带有黄色关节套和三指爪状抓手。极具表现力。 轮子：四个粗壮的橡胶轮，带有黄色轮毂和独立悬挂，坚固且紧凑。 性格：好奇、善良、充满斗志、表情丰富、总是在探索。“小小的机器人，大大的情感。”他从不刻薄，即使在愤怒时；他的愤怒也很可爱且坚定。 从设定图的色板中提取确切的调色板（使用Python/PIL对图像进行采样），并保存到 src/theme/palette.ts：奶油色（身体）、柔和黄（主色调）、暗橙色（点缀）、石墨色（金属/科技组件）、灰褐色（磨损与污垢）、薄荷蓝（灯光/UI）。 身份锁定规则：在任何世界里，他的头盔和面罩轮廓、天线旗帜、黄色饰边、爪状手臂和四个轮子必须保持极高的辨识度。世界只会改变他的渲染风格，绝不能改变他的设计。唯一有意的设计变化是第三幕中“更可爱”的笑点，即便如此，他的头盔形状、天线和轮子也依然保持不变。 技术栈 使用 Remotion (React + TypeScript) 进行帧精确的确定性渲染。输出格式为 1920×1080，30 fps，H.264 编码，高码率 (CRF ~14)。横屏。 角色骨骼绑定和大部分视觉元素使用 SVG。仅在需要粒子、水、爆炸、发光和噪点等效果时，才使用 Canvas/WebGL（通过 @remotion/three 或原生 canvas）。 使用 SVG 滤镜（feTurbulence, feDisplacementMap, feMorphology, feGaussianBlur）和自定义 canvas 着色器来表现风格“材质”、划痕和污垢。 对快速动作使用 @remotion/motion-blur（或你自己的子帧累加技术）来实现运动模糊效果。 使用 Python (numpy/scipy/PIL) 进行调色板提取、程序化音频合成和 QA（质量保证）缩略图表的生成。使用 ffmpeg 进行混流、循环检查和生成缩略图表。 一切都必须基于种子和确定性。没有种子就不允许使用 Math.random()。 任何地方都不得使用外部受版权保护的素材，不得出现真实品牌标志或产品名称。提示框 UI 必须是通用的原创设计。只能使用 Google Fonts 中的字体（例如，UI 文本使用 Inter，手写笔记使用圆润的手写字体）。 目标硬件：MacBook Pro M4，24 GB RAM。保持合理的渲染并发数。 角色骨骼绑定（优先构建，这是整部影片的核心） 将 src/character/ 构建为一个规范的 2D 剪纸动画（cutout）骨骼绑定系统： 层级结构：根（root）→ 底盘（带悬挂）→ 躯干 → 颈部关节 → 头部（头盔 + 面罩 + 耳罩）→ 天线 → 旗帜。躯干 → 肩部 → 上臂 → 前臂 → 爪子（带有可替换的爪子姿势：张开、闭合、捏拿、指认、戳/打字、抓握边缘、挥手）。底盘 → 四个轮子，每个轮子都有自己的悬挂弹簧，且旋转由移动距离驱动。 面罩脸部系统（最重要的部分）：眼睛是画在黑色屏幕上的形状，因此将其视为一个完全程序化的面部。设定参数控制眼睛大小、圆润度、上眼睑裁剪、下眼睑裁剪、瞳孔大小和位置、高光位置、发光强度、挤压/拉伸以及特殊形状（闪烁的星星、开心的弧线 ^ ^、平淡无聊的直线、螺旋、小红心）。在眼睛上添加微弱的扫描线和屏幕反光，使其看起来像是一块屏幕。通过在 3-4 帧内垂直挤压眼睛来实现眨眼动作。 表情目标：与设定图上的六种表情完全匹配：好奇（伴随弹出的“?”）、害羞（视线向下，看向别处，有腮红）、兴奋（开心的弧线眼伴有小爆发线）、担忧（小眼睛，流汗滴）、坚定（成角度的上眼睑裁剪）、欣喜（星星眼伴有弹出的爱心）。还要添加：面无表情地看着镜头（半闭的平眼，天线无力下垂）、惊恐（颤抖的微小瞳孔，睁大双眼）、愤怒但可爱（坚定的表情 + 屏幕闪烁橙色光芒），以及三个“换发新机（glow-up）”阶段（见第三幕）。 次要运动（跟随动作）：基于阻尼弹簧效果的天线和旗帜（这是他的主要表达工具，需不断使用）、每次停止和颠簸时的悬挂弹跳、手臂摆动、身体加速或刹车时头部微小的延迟、轮子扬起的灰尘。 转身图：匹配设定图的正视图、3/4视图、侧视图和后视图，并在转身时实现干净利落的视图切换。 循环动画：向前滚动（带有设定图中的速度线和灰尘）、待机嗡嗡声（轻柔的悬挂呼吸起伏 + 偶尔的天线抽动 + 眨眼）、惊恐后退、惊奇地抬头看、握住一个小物体、向上伸手、攀爬、戳击打字。 胸部舱门：可动画化的开/关动作，有嫩芽柔和的绿色光芒溢出。 风格皮肤接口：骨骼绑定接受一个风格属性（style prop），它能在不改变几何体的情况下，改变线条粗细、填充处理、纹理、污垢、轮廓抖动（boil）、着色模型和滤镜。这是他在不同世界中保持自我的方式。 里程碑1 检查点：渲染一张“列队”静帧：包含四个视角的转身视图 + 所有六种表情的Pip，放在参考图旁边。并排比较。不断迭代，直到看过参考图的人都会说“那就是Pip”。未通过此关前不要继续。 世界（风格材质） 每个世界都是一个完整的环境组件，具有前景、中景、背景视差层，以及Pip专属的风格皮肤。构建一个共享的 WorldLayer 系统，以便所有世界都能共享摄像机和深度逻辑。 比例规则：摄像机位置放得很低，靠近Pip的视线水平（离地约20厘米）。所有东西都很巨大。人类表现为巨大的腿和鞋子，路缘石就是悬崖，水坑就是湖泊。这正是让小机器人具有电影感的关键。 基础世界：处于黄金时刻、杂草丛生的城市。与设定图顶部的插画相匹配：温暖的夕阳余晖、风化的石头和砖块、苔藓和低矮植物、远处朦胧的高楼。具有绘画感、温馨、充满生活气息。这就是“真实生活”。揭示真相的环节也使用这个世界。 动漫东京。清脆的赛璐璐着色、粗犷的轮廓线、带有虚构（非品牌）店名的发光招牌、速度线、樱花花瓣像巨大的粉色雪花一样从他身边飘过。他的面罩上会出现动漫特有的闪烁高光。 黏土村庄。柔和圆润的形状、指纹/涂抹的噪点纹理、定格动画般的步调（以“拍二”的方式渲染他）、温暖的钨丝灯光。他看起来就像用橡皮泥雕塑的一样。 中世纪战场。泥泞的田野、旗帜、远处的投石机、硝烟。穿着铠甲的战靴从他身边轰鸣而过。他在其中平静地滚动，天线躲闪着。 玩具积木城。所有东西都是由顶部带凸粒的通用塑料积木搭建而成（没有真实的品牌风格或标志），带有光滑的塑料高光。Pip被渲染出塑料光泽，轮子变得稍微有些方正。 水下。海底街道上有珊瑚路灯，鱼儿从他的面罩前游过，有焦散光影图案，排气孔冒出气泡，他的天线旗帜像海藻一样缓慢飘动。 铅笔素描。纸张纹理、石墨排线、辅助线、橡皮擦污迹，他的线条不断抖动（boiling），仿佛每一帧都在被重新绘制（匹配设定图底部的素描小图）。 贯穿始终的笑点：嫩芽。影片开始时，Pip用一只爪子小心翼翼地拿着他那根微小的绿色嫩芽（“握住小物体”姿势）。它在每个世界里都存活了下来，并随之变形：带闪光的赛璐璐动漫嫩芽、黏土嫩芽、种在破旧小头盔盆里的嫩芽、积木拼成的嫩芽、在水下吐泡泡的嫩芽、素描嫩芽。每次世界改变时，他都会保护它。这是影片的情感锚点。 标志性过渡：“重构（Regeneration）” 世界的更替必须看起来像 AI 图像重新生成一样，而不是普通的擦除转场。构建 RegenTransition（重构过渡）组件： 画面从边缘向内分解为漂浮的扩散（diffusion）风格噪点（一开始不会覆盖他的身体），保持几帧结构化噪点，然后新世界通过去噪，从粗糙的色块逐渐浮现出丰富的细节。 Pip的身体变化比世界慢一拍，短暂展示出一半旧/一半新的风格，然后瞬间切换到新的风格皮肤。在切换期间，他的面罩会出现两帧的故障效果（扫描线撕裂）。这种半切换状态是证明他一直存在的视觉证据。 每次重构时都有微妙的“嗖-噼啪”音效，在某些重构中，Pip还会发出微小的、受惊的啾啾声。 每次持续 8-12 帧。改变方向和噪点种子，使其永远不会让人觉得重复。 剧本节拍表（在 30 fps 下约 48 秒） 时间安排仅作参考；如果某个节拍稍长一点表现力更好，请自行调整。前 2 秒必须抓住观众的眼球。 第一幕：一个美好的早晨 (0:00–0:03) 低机位跟拍镜头，基础世界。Pip 沿着长满苔藓的壁架从左向右滚动，手里拿着他的嫩芽，眼神充满好奇，天线上下摆动。从滚动的半途中开始（为了实现最终的循环播放）。 在 0:02 时，第一次重构毫无预兆地发生。 第二幕：瀑布般的巨变 (0:03–0:14) 世界快速变化，每个约 1.4 秒：动漫东京 → 黏土村庄 → 中世纪战场 → 玩具积木城 → 水下 → 铅笔素描。 情感递进：一开始很欣喜（星星眼，他觉得这太棒了），接着是好奇（弹出“?”），然后是担忧（流汗滴，天线下垂），最后他在素描世界里急刹车，伴随着悬挂的弹跳和一道刹车痕。 摄像机保持锁定的跟拍构图，这样唯一改变的只有世界本身，从而让这个笑点更容易被看懂。 第三幕：提示词 (0:14–0:30) 基础世界回归。Pip 惊奇地抬头看（参考设定图中的姿势）。天空中，一个巨大的漂浮提示框淡入，散发着薄荷蓝色的光芒，带有玻璃质感且圆润，UI界面柔和且原创。文本在闪烁的光标下自动输入：“让它更具电影感（make it more cinematic）” → 敲击回车键的音效。电影宽银幕黑边瞬间切入，太阳变得极其夸张：巨大的变形镜头耀斑、耶稣光、橙青色调、慢动作的灰尘，一片充满戏剧性的树叶从他的面罩前飘过。他被强光晃得眯起了眼睛。他的天线旗帜在莫名其妙的狂风中充满英雄气概地飘扬。 “加入爆炸效果（add explosions）” 巨大的卡通橙色爆炸伴随着碎块在他身后接连绽放。他没有回头。他的眼睛变得平淡且半闭。他慢慢转过头，直直地盯着镜头。面无表情。停顿整整1秒。然后一次爆炸落在他附近，他瞬间切换到设定图中“惊恐后退”的姿势，头顶弹出“!!”，用身体护住嫩芽。 “让主角更可爱（make the protagonist more adorable）” 换发新机阶段1：他的眼睛变大变亮，出现腮红，天线上长出一个小蝴蝶结。他在水坑里看到自己的倒影，眼睛变得惊恐。 “还要（more.）” 阶段2：粉彩重绘，眼睛占据了整个面罩并带有三重高光，漂浮的爱心和闪光，他的轮子变得毛茸茸的。 “我还要（MORE.）”（更大的字体，屏幕震动） 阶段3：滑稽的极致可爱。全身覆盖毛绒玩具般的皮毛纹理，巨大的动漫眼睛，彩虹光环，伴有合唱团的“啊”声刺音效，爱心纸屑。他的头盔形状、天线和轮子仍保留着，所以他显然还是 Pip。而他真实的眼睛在那双巨大的可爱眼睛里仍然是微小且惊恐的，这就是笑点所在。 第四幕：他崩溃爆发了 (0:30–0:38) Pip 剧烈震动，然后那些可爱的状态像玻璃一样从他身上碎裂掉落。他恢复了正常，满身磨损且极其愤怒（坚定的表情，屏幕闪烁着橙色）。 他打开胸腔舱门，轻轻地将嫩芽塞进去以确保安全。舱门伴随“咔嗒”一声关闭。这是在一片混乱中唯一一个安静、温柔的节拍，它非常重要。 他向前冲刺，从一块石头上腾空而起，用两只爪子抓住漂浮的提示框边缘，将自己拽了上去，轮子在边缘上疯狂打滑旋转（匹配“伸向漂浮提示框”的姿势）。镜头随着他向上倾斜。 在提示框顶部，他用一只爪子按住退格键；旧的提示词伴随着快速的咔哒声逐字删除，他的面罩上反射出消失的文本。 他用一只爪子慢慢地、一字一顿地戳击打字：“放我出去（let me out）”。然后蓄力，重重地砸下回车键。 第五幕：定格与真相揭示 (0:38–0:47) 一切都定格了：半空中的碎片、飘落的纸屑、悬浮的灰尘，以及盒子上正摆出姿势的 Pip。所有音频被切断，陷入长达约 1 秒的死寂。 镜头开始平滑拉远。画面的边缘露出一个圆角矩形：他的宇宙原来只是手机屏幕上播放的一段视频。继续拉远：手机被支在一个有缺口的马克杯上，放在一个堆满备件、电线、螺丝和废料的杂乱工作台上（“用明天的残羹剩饭建造”）。坐在它前面，在这个巨大的手机旁显得很微小的，是另一个 Pip，有着同样的磨损、同样的天线，正在观看。 第二个 Pip 的眼睛缓慢地眨了一下。他的天线微微下垂。发出一声微弱、安静的啾啾声。 第六幕：循环 (0:47–0:50) 在第二个 Pip 的头顶，同样的薄荷蓝色提示框淡入并输入：“让它更具电影感（make it more cinematic）。” 他的眼睛慢慢向上滑动看向提示框。他的天线旗帜变得僵硬。伴随着回车键的音效，硬切回影片的第 1 帧。 循环工程设计：最后一个镜头的构图、灯光，以及重构闪烁的开始，必须让切回第 1 帧的感觉显得是有意为之。音乐必须在切换时无缝循环。通过将视频与其自身拼接（使用 ffmpeg）并观察接缝来验证。 摄影机与电影摄影术 虚拟摄像机系统：位置、缩放、旋转、手持微震动（基于种子的噪点）、爆炸引起的震动冲击、攀爬时的镜头倾斜、揭示真相时的推车拉远镜头。 默认情况下采用低摄像机高度以彰显他的微小比例。浅景深效果：模糊的前景草地/卵石和柔和的背景，就像使用了微距镜头一样。 深度：每个世界至少 4 个视差层。大气透视效果（薄雾，随距离增加而降低饱和度）。 快速移动、碎片、跳跃和攀爬时要加入运动模糊。 每个世界的灯光：在骨骼绑定上使用渐变叠加和正片叠底的阴影层来实现主光/辅光/边缘光。面罩的发光应在附近的表面和他自己的爪子上投射出微弱的暖光。每个世界中他的头盔上都要有边缘光。 整个画面的电影级后期处理：细微的胶片颗粒、柔和的暗角、以及仅在“电影感”节拍中出现极轻微的色差。 构图：将他保持在清晰的三分线上。他的眼睛必须在手机屏幕尺寸下也能看清楚，因为大多数人将在手机上观看。 文本与排版 天空中的提示词：干净的 UI 字体，小写字母，以自然的人类节奏打字（非匀速；有短暂的停顿，在某个地方制造一次小的打字错误并退格以增加真实感）。 文本必须能在不到一秒的时间内在手机上阅读完毕。在 360 像素宽度下进行测试。 没有字幕，没有片名。影片冷开场。 声音（程序化生成，原创） 用代码生成所有音频（Python 合成或离线 Web Audio）并使用 ffmpeg 进行混音： Pip的声音：由带有音高弯音的正弦波/FM 音调构建而成的原创合成啾啾声、嘟嘟声和颤音。设计一个小型的“情感词汇表”：好奇上扬的啾啾声、开心的颤音、担忧的波动声、受惊的吱吱声、脾气暴躁的低沉嗡嗡声、微小的叹息声。他从不说话。 Pip的身体音效：与手臂和头部运动匹配的伺服电机运转声、轮子在砾石/石头上滚动的碾压声、悬挂的嘎吱声、舱门开合的咔嗒声、待机时柔和的电流嗡嗡声。 配乐：一首轻快、可循环的温暖配乐，其乐器配置会随每个世界而改变（动漫世界用古筝/合成器，黏土世界用木制马林巴琴，中世纪世界用鼓/号角，积木世界用塑料咔哒声，水下世界加沉闷的滤波效果，素描世界用铅笔刮擦的节奏）。 音效（SFX）：重构时的嗖-噼啪声、键盘打字的咔哒声、回车键重击的“砰”声、带有低频的爆炸声、合唱团“啊”的刺音效、玻璃碎裂声、定格时的完全死寂，然后是揭示真相时安静的工作室环境音（滴答作响的钟表声，远处低沉的嗡嗡声）。 响度标准化至 -14 LUFS 左右。将分轨文件放入 audio/stems/ 中，以便日后可以替换为已授权的音轨。 制作工作流与自我迭代循环 按以下顺序工作，不要跳过任何检查点： 计划：编写 docs/character_bible.md、docs/shotlist.md（包含每个镜头的帧范围、摄像机、表情、天线状态、世界环境、音效）以及 docs/style_guide.md。在构建之前给我看下镜头列表。 骨骼绑定：构建 Pip，通过列队静帧的检查点（见第3节）。 世界环境：将每个世界构建为包含 Pip 在内的独立静帧。将全部 7 个渲染成一张缩略图表。检查角色的身份辨识度和比例感。 过渡动画：构建 RegenTransition，渲染一个 5 秒的测试。 动态分镜（Animatic）：以 960×540 的分辨率组装整部影片，包含粗糙的运动和占位音频。观看它。优先修复节奏问题。 完整动画渲染，然后进行打磨（次要运动、缓动、时间节奏、天线表演），最后进行终期处理（灯光、噪点颗粒、模糊、污垢）。 音频处理和混音。 最终渲染。 对于每一个镜头，至少运行 3 次此批评循环： 使用 npx remotion still 在关键帧处渲染 3-5 张静帧，打开并仔细观察它们。 对以下项进行 1-10 的打分：Pip 与参考图的匹配度，能否从眼睛+天线瞬间读取情绪，无声情况下笑点是否清晰，构图，比例感，深度，灯光，细节打磨程度，在手机屏幕尺寸下的可读性。 将分数和三大问题写入 docs/review_log.md 中，修复它们，重新渲染，重新打分。继续此过程，直到每个类别的分数至少达到 8 分，然后再进行下一步。 在每次完成完整的预览渲染后，制作一张 ffmpeg 缩略图表（每 0.5 秒一帧），并在一张图中审查整部影片的流畅度。 在评审时保持诚实。如果某些东西看起来很廉价，说出来并修复它。要寻找的常见失败点包括：僵硬或毫无生气的天线、轮子在滑动而不是滚动、眼睛看起来像贴纸而不是发光的屏幕、缺少悬挂系统的重量感、看起来千篇一律的转场过渡、模糊不清的文字以及角色比例失调。 交付物 out/pip_final_1080p.mp4：影片本身。 out/pip_loop_check.mp4：连续播放两次的影片，以验证循环效果。 out/poster_frame.png：用于 X（推特）发布缩略图的最佳单帧（可能是在爆炸背景下 Pip 面无表情地盯着镜头的画面）。 out/lineup.png：跨越所有世界的 Pip 列队图。 结构清晰且附带注释的源代码，以及包含如何重新渲染说明的 README。 从第一步开始。在开始构建之前，如果有任何必要的问题请问我，否则请自行做出有力的创意决策。

The World is Changing: AI For Creativity By Jeffrey Katzenberg A few months ago, I sat in my office in Silicon Valley and watched as a tech founder showed me something extraordinary. On the screen was a fully realized, beautifully lit, well-composed animated scene. It was stunning and it made me feel exactly what I felt in 1986 watching Luxo Jr. That was the first time I watched a computer-animated 3D character take a breath and seem, against all reason, to have life. It left me in awe. Later that day, I received a text from an artist I've known for thirty years, 350 miles to the south, in the city where I spent most of my career. After seeing a similar video, she texted: "Is this the end of us?" My answer was, "Certainly not.” I have spent the better part of the last decade in Silicon Valley, but the heart of my career has been in Hollywood. Being deeply connected to both worlds means I have deep loyalties to each and a responsibility to speak honestly to both. In 2023, I said that these new AI tools would cut the time and cost of producing world-class animation by as much as ninety percent within three years. Some colleagues were alarmed, many were furious. There is growing fear and resistance surrounding AI within the creative community. I deeply understand it, because I've spent countless hours walking through animation studios watching gifted artists bent over their desks, rebuilding a single second of film for the tenth time because the ninth version wasn't quite right. I've sat in screening rooms where four years of people's labor played out in minutes, and I knew the name of every person that had spent countless hours bringing those images to life. The creative process is a calling, there's really no other way to describe it. From the outside some see resistance. From the inside, it is love. People do not fight this hard for things they don't care about. The pushback coming out of Hollywood represents the collective effort of people who are deeply passionate about their craft. Is History Repeating Itself? The history here is more complicated than either side may realize. In 1906, the most famous composer in America, John Philip Sousa, published an essay titled “The Menace of Mechanical Music." He warned that the phonograph would become "a substitute for human skill, intelligence and soul." Sousa's fight was not really about the machine, it was about money. The machines were playing his compositions, and the men who built them weren't paying him a cent. His campaign helped create the Copyright Act of 1909. He did not stop the technology. He changed the terms under which it could use his work. A hundred years ago, sound came to the movies. We remember it now as a miracle, and it was. What we forget is who paid for it. Before sound, tens of thousands of musicians made their living in the orchestra pits of movie houses, scoring every film live, every night, in towns all over the world. When the soundtrack arrived, the work of one composer and one orchestra was recorded for a film that went into thousands of theaters. The union fought back with everything it had, taking out newspaper ads across the country warning against the menace of "canned music," one of them showing a mechanical man tearing the strings out of a harp while an angel wept. They were not fools, and they were not Luddites. They were right. Those pit jobs did not come back. And yet (this is the part we have to be brave enough to admit), sound gave us the movie musical, the modern score, sfx, sound design, audio engineering, and an art form vastly larger than the one it disrupted. And it helped keep Hollywood in the forefront of world entertainment for the rest of the century and into the next. The loss was real. And yet the art form expanded. This is a story that has been told over and over again. To resist technology is to risk irrelevance. Just look at Kodak or Blockbuster. To embrace technology is to open doors of new possibility. Just consider Apple and Netflix. What I Learned From Walt Disney In the mid-1980s, I was tapped to lead Disney's animation division at a moment when the studio was at an inflection point. Animation wasn't just another business unit. It was the soul of the company, a medium revered because of Walt's genius and his passion. But the production system was cumbersome and unforgiving. A single movie was 125,000 individual hand-drawn and painted cels, photographed one frame at a time. Every revision carried a cost measured in months. These degrees of difficulty shaped the kinds of stories we could tell. We found our way forward in an unexpected place: Walt himself. The Disney archives held astonishing recordings of Walt explaining his creative process. His own writings. His notes and storyboards. Work product captured at every stage of his process. This was truly a gift. Listening, reading, sitting with the work itself, we heard him talk about character, about emotion, about how an audience feels when a character truly comes alive. He talked about making bold choices and refining a scene until it genuinely moved people. We didn't hear a word about pencils or paintbrushes. In fact, Walt was famous for being a technologist, forever hunting for state-of-the-art tools, often inventing them himself to achieve the images he saw in his head. But he never defined animation by the tools. He defined it by whether the audience believed the character. His principles were timeless. The tools were not. That realization changed everything. We co-developed the Computer Animation Production System (CAPS) with a young Northern California company called Pixar, replacing hand-painted cels with CGI. In The Little Mermaid, the final scene shimmered with a dimensionality and light that the old process simply couldn't achieve. In Beauty and the Beast, the ballroom sequence moved with a cinematic sweep that placed the audience inside the emotion of the moment. In Aladdin, the Cave of Wonders felt vast and alive, and the Magic Carpet became an intricate, compelling character all its own. In The Lion King, the stampede carried a scale and intensity that raised the emotional stakes beyond anything we'd done before. Technology didn't diminish the craft, it expanded the canvas. It gave artists more room to create. A decade later, the canvas expanded again. When Disney released Pixar's Toy Story, it wasn't simply a technical milestone. It was proof that a fully computer-animated film could carry real emotional weight, that it could make audiences laugh, cry, and believe. At DreamWorks, we made the difficult decision to sunset hand-drawn animation and become a fully computer-animated studio. It was the right thing to do, but it was not without pain. It cost talented people their place in an industry where they had worked their whole lives. Some made the leap to the new tools and did the finest work of their careers. Some never did. Tools are never the point. The instruments change with every generation. What endures is taste and imagination. The magical ability to make an audience feel. One of the greatest storytellers of our generation, George Lucas, succinctly captured the eternal essence of this issue: “It’s not the how, it’s the why.” A Distinction With a Difference I asked one of the leading AI models a question that has been challenging me for months. What is the difference between reasoning and creating? Its answer changed how I think about almost everything happening in this industry. It said . . . Reasoning and creating are two distinct cognitive modes, though they also work together. Reasoning is fundamentally evaluative and analytical. It operates on what already exists: facts, premises, evidence. It moves toward a conclusion that was in a sense already implied by the input. Reasoning is constrained by logic and truth. Its goal is to arrive somewhere correct, not to invent somewhere new. Creating is fundamentally generative. It produces something that didn't exist before. And crucially, there's no single right answer waiting to be found. A blank page has infinite valid responses. Creation involves choices that can't be fully justified by logic alone. Taste, intuition and vision fill the gap where deduction runs out. Reasoning is what Silicon Valley has been perfecting. Creating is what Hollywood has been practicing for more than a century. AI today operates almost entirely on the reasoning side of the line. It can deduce, evaluate, optimize, and pattern-match brilliantly. And while it can create, there is a real distinction to being creative. What it doesn’t yet have is those things that make us human: empathy, devotion, serendipity, the kind of creativity that comes from a person trying to say something only they could say. When the bot generates a piece of art, it is not trying to communicate anything. It is statistics, not soul; it is emulating things that have been done. By contrast, human creativity isn’t about repeating patterns of zeros and ones; it is about doing something new. One day, AI may close this gap. Three years ago, the leaders building AI would have called what they are achieving today, improbable, if not impossible. Impossible is no longer improbable. Today, the line between reasoning and creating is real. Even the leading technologists acknowledge we are not there yet. There is no scientific path to crossing this divide that anyone in the field can articulate today. Understanding that gap is where we will find common ground. A Path Forward In 2016, I closed one chapter in Hollywood with the sale of DreamWorks and opened another in Northern California, co-founding WndrCo. We’ve backed more than 50 founders building the next generation of technology and watched how breakthroughs in Silicon Valley emerge, first as experiments, then as platforms, and finally as infrastructure that reshapes entire industries. It's worth remembering that the last great revolution in animation also came from the north. Pixar was a Northern California company, forged not in the conventions of the Hollywood studio system, but in the technological breakthroughs of Silicon Valley. I've spent years on both sides of this bridge. For sure, I don’t have all the answers (take Quibi, for one!). But, from my past and present vantage points of my long career, here is what I see . . . Brilliant people in Northern California building this technology have made something extraordinary. They have earned the right for the rest of us to be, if not believers, at least optimistic that what comes next will be remarkable. But they have not made an artist. The tools are powerful, but they are not what makes a story matter. That knowledge lives 350 miles to the south, inside people whose life's work has informed the very models you are building. The right path forward includes them by design, with credit, with consent, and with compensation. Build this with the storytellers. Not on top of them. Taste is not something that can be synthesized, it is uniquely human. At the same time, Hollywood needs to accept that AI is not going away. The energy they are spending trying to make it disappear is energy they are not spending deciding the terms on which it will exist. And the terms are everything. The north needs something from it that they cannot build and cannot buy: creativity. The kind that takes a blank page and conjures a single right answer where there was none and has held audiences for a century. Without it, the most powerful reasoning engine ever invented will still be missing the only thing that makes a story worth telling. The artists who learn to wield these new instruments will do things the engineers never dreamed of. They always have. Edison invented the motion picture but made terrible movies. It took Chaplin, Lloyd, Keaton and so many others to make movies emotional. Now, the canvas is about to expand yet again. We should decide now that we intend to paint on it. There are so many valuable lessons in history. This has happened many times before, and it was never settled by the technology. It was settled by the terms. Sousa did not stop the phonograph; he helped write the law that made sure composers got paid. And two years ago, when the writers and the actors walked out, they were fighting for the very things Sousa was fighting for in 1906. Consent, compensation, the basic recognition that human creative work has a price that must be paid. The terms of that fight are still being negotiated, but the principle is older than any of us. The tools-versus-no-tools argument is a trap. First, we must all agree that there should be terms. Then we can have the crucial debate about what fairness requires. What I Learned From Steve Jobs Years ago, Steve Jobs said, "It's in Apple's DNA that technology alone is not enough. It's technology married with the liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the result that makes our hearts sing." He was describing a device. But he could just as easily have been describing this tale of two cities. What I See Coming Soon As the barriers and the costs come down, more films will get made, not fewer. Studios will get to take more risks. There will be more seats at the table, and very soon entirely new forms of storytelling. In the 1980s, animation was dismissed as a niche corner of the business. Today it is one of the most beloved and profitable forms of storytelling in the world. In live action, filmmakers like Steven Spielberg, James Cameron and Peter Jackson embraced new visual tools not as shortcuts, but as instruments, and expanded cinema in the process. Every time storytelling has met a genuine technological shift, from synchronized sound to color to computer animation, it has redefined the boundaries of the medium and grown larger in the process. Assuredly, I don’t have all the answers, but I am confident that the creative opportunities will expand yet again. How we come through this is a choice. The north has the new tools. The south has the creative soul. The best future will draw on the best of both worlds.

Baddie from Korea Seedance 2.5 on OpenArt Prompt 👇 Prompt: Create a 30-second, 1080p ultra-realistic personal home-video showing an ordinary summer evening in the life of a young Korean woman. No reference image. MAIN SUBJECT Young Korean woman in her early 20s, naturally pretty, realistic skin texture, minimal makeup, relaxed and approachable personality. Long black hair loosely tied into a messy side ponytail with a few loose strands around her face. Wearing a fitted pastel-blue short top, loose cream pajama-style pants, black sneakers and a simple silver necklace. Maintain the same face, hairstyle, clothing, body proportions and overall appearance throughout the entire video. SETTING A quiet older Seoul residential neighborhood during a warm summer evening. Narrow concrete lanes, small houses, potted plants, bicycles, old walls, utility poles, overhead wires, a tiny neighborhood bakery, a public water tap and large leafy trees casting shadows across the street. Everything should feel lived-in, ordinary and peaceful. No tourist attractions, advertisements, recognizable brands or commercial activity. CAMERA / VISUAL AESTHETIC Raw personal footage casually recorded by a friend on an early-2000s consumer DV camcorder. Strong handheld shake, imperfect framing, autofocus hunting, exposure shifts, occasional motion blur, faded colors, soft digital detail, mild noise, accidental zooms and natural camera imperfections. No stabilization, drone footage, gimbal movement, dramatic lighting or polished commercial cinematography. — OUTSIDE THE HOUSE She steps outside carrying a small reusable shopping bag. She locks the door, adjusts her messy ponytail and looks toward the camera with a relaxed smile. A light summer breeze moves her hair as she starts walking down the lane. — BAKERY STOP She reaches a tiny neighborhood bakery and buys a warm pastry. She steps outside, takes her first bite and immediately smiles because it tastes good. She notices her friend filming and holds the pastry toward the camera playfully before taking another bite. — WALKING HOME She continues down the narrow street while eating. A neighborhood cat follows her for a few steps. She notices it, crouches down and gently pets it. The cat walks away and she laughs before continuing. — SMALL ACCIDENT She walks beneath a large tree when a few leaves fall onto her hair. She stops, looks confused, then realizes what happened and laughs. She brushes the leaves away while her friend zooms awkwardly toward her face. She looks directly into the camera and says: "Seriously?" — QUIET MOMENT She reaches a low concrete wall beside the street and sits down for a moment. She finishes the pastry while watching bicycles and neighbors passing through the lane. A gentle breeze moves her hair. She casually fixes her ponytail and looks around peacefully. — FINAL MOMENT She stands up and continues walking home. After a few steps, she turns back toward the camera with a small playful smile and says: "Come on." She keeps walking down the sunny lane while the camera follows behind. She disappears around the corner and the recording abruptly cuts to black. AUDIO Natural location sound only: birds, summer insects, footsteps, bicycle bells, distant scooters, leaves moving in the breeze, bakery sounds, neighborhood conversations and subtle camera-handling noise. No music. No narration. No artificial sound effects. Only the two spoken lines specified above. FINAL FEEL The entire video should feel like a forgotten summer recording from the early 2000s. Warm, feminine, casual, slightly playful, intimate and nostalgic. No dramatic events, no exaggerated acting, no model poses and no polished cinematic shots. The realism should come from ordinary surroundings, natural expressions, small accidents, realistic environmental movement and imperfect camcorder operation.

MOTION PROMPT 1 - Foundations & Ground Preparation Use the First Frame Image as the exact starting frame. Preserve the same countryside environment, foundation positions, material arrangement, lighting, camera perspective and miniature scale. Create an ultra fast timelapse speed construction sequence with human hands continuously constructing and moving rapidly. Multiple rapid scene cuts show measuring and marking the ranch-house foundation, excavating loose soil with a miniature shovel, leveling and compacting the ground, preparing the separate horse-stable foundation, mixing miniature cement, pouring and spreading cement, placing small foundation stones and bricks, aligning straight foundation edges, reinforcing corners and smoothing cement joints. Rapid close-up cuts show miniature trowels, rulers and construction tools actively used. Visible material placement in every sequence, realistic hand movements, dynamic construction progression and satisfying transformations. Show the main house foundation and stable foundation being completed side by side. Cinematic macro photography, ultra realistic textures, realistic soil displacement, tiny dust particles, detailed cement, stone and brick surfaces. No unfinished phase at the end of the clip.

We recently introduced Gemini Omni Flash, our first model in the new Omni family. With Omni, you can easily create and edit high-quality videos from text, image, video or audio references. We recently gave developers access to it, and since then, we’ve seen builders all over the world use Omni to create a range of personal and professional projects. Here are some of our favorite ways we’ve seen builders use Omni so far ↓ 📽️ Switch angles and perspectives You can change camera angles, switch environments, and apply cinematic zooms — all without losing the thread of your original scene. Builder @LexnLin took full advantage of this capability, capturing a woman standing in the middle of a city from about 20 different perspectives. You see her from different angles: up close and far away, head on and in profile, from above, and from below. Some shots zoom in, while others hold still. And the background shifts, too.