jeah they really shouldn't exist because their product may not be 110% perfect. have you even used it even?

That is not what the parent poster was inferring.

> All of the examples are extremely easy shots

Indeed there's no crowd going on on screen, it's mostly one or two characters maximum at once on very clear backgrounds.

Not a VFX artist, but know lot of amateur weekend movie makers, also in the circle where 'concept videos' gets made for some or other tech proposals.

This could be a disruptor for above two scenarios.

> also in the circle where 'concept videos' gets made for some or other tech proposals.

What do you mean by this?

It’s common to put together a pilot or proof of concept trailer with some cheap CGI shots to show to possible investors or production studios.

Think of it like an elevator pitch for a film project. It’s one way to get your show or movie green lit.

The videos which are made to show promise of a future due to investments in advanced R&D today.

These (concept) videos are made usually for client, exec presentations, or for trade shows etc. Ex. a healthcare company makes a video of 'Hospitals 2050' where they show sci-fi environment with nurse robots, transparent monitors etc. and how they still would be a leading player then because they are investing in some 'xyz advance med-tech' today.

AI facial animations is just a half step away from this.

Are you sure? Facial MoCap (motion capture) and human dialogue is pretty hard to get right in animation, much harder than body mocap. I agree with some of the other comments that say that this is somewhat of an advancement over existing body animation tools but it doesn't show how it can solve face mocap.

For current tech that Wonder Studio is competing with, you would want to compare against Rokoko AI MoCap [1] and something like Plask [2], but I don't see anything that solves face mocap this easily just yet.

[1] https://www.rokoko.com/products/video [2] https://plask.ai/

You're not seeing anything because the facial mocap solutions are extremely widespread. Back in the 90's I remember software like Softimage's Face Robot having wide use at animation studios and that procedural softbody style being used because it allowed easy transitions between mocap, animator, and procedural controls. About 15 years ago FaceShift was the inspiration for many VFX houses to start their own ML groups to produce facial capture pipelines. The human face has had the most attention, and due to that the in-house facial animation pipelines are very hard to duplicate as commercial products - they are quite sophisticated, with reasons that make less sophisticated methods look pale where it matters: in the facial performance.

Pretty sure it's just that nobody has gathered enough data and trained it yet.

Disclaimer: not in VFX, no idea what I'm talking about.

This guy seems pretty convinced though: https://youtu.be/Wv9tWxm5GcA?t=606

Judging any AI "this will disrupt X" claims based on what you're being shown right now is missing the point of the claim. Is there enough here to cause disruption with continued development? Yeah the faces are bad: have you seen how much the state of the art has improved over only two years? For how much longer do you think those faces are going to keep looking bad? Two major versions? One? Not even one?

When it comes to graphics AI, don't look at right now, look at the trajectory. Is this something final, or is this just the minimal viable release that's going to be the starting point for (radical) improvement?