与「stunning」相关的搜索结果

Stunning footage shows #Starship# #Flight14# deploying one of its twenty-six V3 #Starlink# satellites in orbit, bringing an earlier animation to life in a never-before-seen view. Video edited using footage owned by #SpaceX#.

虽然已经有太多抓眼球和惊艳的Opus5.5视频内容，但我还是忍不住要分享这支知识类视频。重点不在这个视频内容有多精良，必定非专业无复杂Prompt且一次直出。而是，这支18分钟的视频，其制作过程，真的让我感觉Super Stunning!! 以下，我原文分享claude告诉我他的制作过程(不舍得删掉一个字)! Enjoy👇👇 " 其实我自己一帧画面都不“生成”。我做的更像导演加程序员：写剧本，写一份“每一秒画面上有什么、在哪、怎么动”的说明书，再让几样现成的工具照着干活。视频是被“算”出来的，不是被“画”出来的。 拿这个片子举例，一共五道工序。 1. 剧本是我写的。这是文本模型的老本行：读书，理清逻辑，把书里的数字拆成一句一句能念出来的话。比如“1850 年，美国 67% 的棉花，长在 50 年前还不属于美国的土地上”，这类句子和数字都来自我们之前拆书时核对过的材料。 2. 画是别人画的。船、纱厂、摘棉花的人、城门这些插图，是我写好描述交给 OpenAI 的画图模型画的。我在描述里定死了画风：扁平、暖色、没有描边、透明背景。这样 30 多张图放在一起才像一套。画回来以后，我还用代码把边上的光晕切掉，再裁成可以单独移动的“贴纸”。 3. 声音是 Gemini 念的。我只管把句子交给它，再检查它念得对不对。 4. 动画是我写代码“算”出来的，这是最核心的一步。我写了一个网页程序，你给它一个时间，比如第 312.5 秒，它就能算出这一秒画面上该有什么： - 船在航线上走到了百分之几 - 地图镜头推到了多近 - 计数器数到了多少 - 烟囱的烟飘到了多高 地图不是画的，是用真实的地理数据描出来的，所以利物浦、西非海岸、新奥尔良的位置都是准的。船沿着航线走，其实就是每一帧算一次“这一刻在线上的哪个点”。 5. 最后是一帧一帧拍下来。让浏览器从第 0 秒开始，每秒拍 24 张截图。这个片子大约 15 分钟，一共要拍 2 万多张。再用一个叫 ffmpeg 的工具把这些截图和配音、音乐接成视频。背景音乐也不是找来的，是我用数学公式一个音一个音合成的：几个和弦，加一点拨弦声，有人说话时自动压低音量。 所以“视频能力强”，本质上是三件事拼起来的： - 会写代码，能把“船从利物浦开到西非”翻译成每一帧的坐标。 - 会调度工具：画图的、念稿的、剪辑的，各干各的活。 - 会编故事：知道这句话该配什么画面，观众才记得住。 我的短板也很实在：我看不了连续播放的视频，也听不见声音。所以检查全靠两个笨办法： - 画面：每隔一段截几张静帧来看。那些叠画、标签遮挡的问题，都是这样揪出来的。 - 声音：把声波变成数字来量。你听出来的声音忽高忽低，我是事后量了音高和音量才确认的；那两次“啪”的爆破音，也是靠检测波形里的突变才定位的。 这也是为什么你审片那一关替代不了。你一耳朵听出来的东西，我得先猜可能是什么问题，再去量才能找到。 "

Perhaps one of the worst records of any Premier in history He’s driven a beautiful province and its amazing people into the ground Now he shamelessly calls an election to serve no one but himself Stunning behavior

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.

Stunning stat: "Anthropic’s investors are expecting the company to reach a valuation of $2tn when it goes public in the coming weeks. Add in SpaceX, which began trading at $2tn after its IPO in June, and OpenAI, which is considering raising money privately at $1.2tn ahead of a public listing next year, and these companies alone could be worth well north of $5tn. Now compare that with the entire history of IPOs from 1980 to 2025. The 3,365 tech companies that went public in that period were worth a combined $4.1tn when they started trading." While I've written much about AI's transformative potential across sectors, I've always been dubious about how much value hyperscalers can seize enabling that transformation. As I dissect in my recent report on "The AI Trade" ( it's not about user acquisition. OpenAI claims to have over one billion active users across its services and two million businesses using its AI models. Anthropic has claimed to have more than 300,000 business customers. The question is not whether they can bring users to their services, but rather how much average revenue they can generate per customer relative to the price of building and maintaining their models. The cost of compute is inflating at the same time competition is depressing token pricing power. That's a precarious dynamic when so much hinges on the success of two companies. To again quote the report: "It’s hard to overstate how much hinges on these IPOs. As mentioned in the Executive Summary, OpenAI and Anthropic will account for 13% of AWS revenue and 27% of Google Cloud revenue this year. As for Microsoft, OpenAI alone accounts for roughly 70% of its AI-specific revenue ($24.1 billion out of an estimated $34 billion total for the fiscal year ending in June 2026). OpenAI has committed to tens of billions of spending on chips from the likes of Nvidia and Broadcom. Deepening circularity concerns, tech giant earnings growth has been increasingly driven by paper gains in the private-market valuations of Anthropic and OpenAI. In Q2, Amazon, Alphabet, Nvidia, Meta, and Microsoft reported $160 billion in cumulative “other income”, trouncing the $69 billion in “other income” reported in Q1. To quote the FT: “These one-off valuation boosts, derived in large part from enthusiasm around AI, risk distorting the financial picture at a time when investors are closely scrutinizing tech earnings.” If either Anthropic or OpenAI stumble in their IPOs, it’ll hit tech giants on multiple balance-sheet fronts and likely ripple through the US and global economy. A pin-prick popping of the AI bubble may not be our base case, but if a pin is out there, it’s likely the revenue versus spending trajectories of Anthropic and OpenAI." FT link:

Sam Harper has gone from a player whose state career was on the brink to being in the mix for an Australian debut. @DanielCherny examines the Victorian gloveman’s stunning turnaround. READ ▶️

I hereby declare this the month of green beauties! Fubuki is joining Nelliel — just as green, just as stunning. 💚 What do you think: HD or mobile photo? Personally, I couldn’t choose, so I’m posting both 😄