mats@dual.UUCP (Mats Wichmann) (07/31/85)
First off, this is a copyright infringement, so if this sort
of stuff bothers you, forget you ever saw this posting.
I felt that some of the comment in this article are worth
dispersing beyond the range normally likely to be reached by
the media this appeared in.
This is: John Dvorak's column (`Periscope') from the San Fransisco
Examiner, Sunday, July 28. I happen to agree with most of what
he says, having wasted quite a bit of time at this show
(fortunately only the company's money). From here on the words are his:
<yes, I admit my involvement in the matter now at hand>
Mats Wichmann
Dual Systems
...{ucbvax,ihnp4,cbosgd,decwrl,fortune}!dual!mats
... ... ... ...
PRETENTIOUSNESS AT COMPUTER GRAPHICS SHOW.
This reporter has covered a lot of trade shows over the years
and none approaches last week's SIGGRAPH '85 for sheer gall and arrogance.
Held at Moscone Center last week, it was supposed to be the definitive
computer graphics show, showcasing the best in the industry.
SIGGRAPH '85, sponsored by the Association for Computing Machinery,
stands for "Special Interest Group for Graphics," a part of ACM.
While it is every regard a trade show, it costs an outrageous
$420 to attend. It's kind of like subscribing to a pay TV channel
that show only commercials.
Sure, for the $420 you got to attend "educational" sessions where
unpaid speakers promote their ideas and products, you didn't have
to pay an extra three bucks to see the art exhibit, and you didn't
have to spend $25 to the SIGGRAPH '85 film. What a deal. If you just
want to wander through the exhibits and nothing else, you can get
in for $15.
On the floor were hundreds of companies with expensive graphics
hardware, most of which can do little more than, for example,
draw an outline of the space shuttle and move it around on the
screen. While local companies - such as Cubicomp, Beck-Tech,
Island Graphics and Sun - had cost-effective advanced products,
most of the vendors showcased the same stuff they had a couple of
years ago. "We had 16 million colors and 1024 x 1024 pixel resolution
years ago. So what's new here?" asked Joe DeCaro, president of
Seattle Telecom.
"This industry needs a Woz and Jobs to dynamite those dunderheads
into the future," one show goer told me.
Computer graphics people don't see themselves as dunderheads. They
turn up their noses at computer designers, computer programmers,
systems guys and end users. They view themselves as the creme
de la creme of the computer industry. The computer graphics person
is an artiste. An they dress and act it, too.
"I've never run into so many rude and arrogant people," said
Becky O'Malley of Berkeley System Works.
After last Tuesday's show, the ACM gave itself a reception in an
art gallery established within the show. I don't know whether this
was the worst reception in history. I haven't been to every
reception ever given.
The gallery was supposed to showcase the best computer art in the
world. With the exception of a few three-dimensional works and some
laser art, most of the stuff stunk. "There's not much real artistic
innovation here," said Steve Beck of Beck-Tech.
"This is the same kind of so-called art the Leroy Neiman did on TV
for the 1980 Olympics," said DeCaro.
Leroy Neiman? None of his stuff was there, but it would have fit
right in. He too would have fit right in with this crowd. If you
asked someone a question about anything, the typical answer was
"You DON'T KNOW? Hmmmph!" This nose-in-the-air foolishness
pervaded both the reception and the show.
The biggest fiasco of the show was the showing of the 2 1/2-hour
SIGGRAPH '85 film. In a mad rush reminiscent of a feeding frenzy,
all the seats were sold out last Sunday during pre-registration-
much to the dismay of many of the 30,000 show-goers, some of whom
came from halfway around the world.
It didn't help that instead of running this always popular film
all day every day, the organizers showed it only twice. So what if
you came from Stuttgart just to see it.derek@uwvax.UUCP (Derek Zahn) (07/31/85)
Hmm. I really must protest.
First, let me say that I am sorry that the poster and the author of the
review didn't enjoy SIGGRAPH. I attended, and I did enjoy it.
I had never attended a conference before, but I had always been interested
in graphics, so I decided to take some vacation and attend, both to gawk
and to learn, as well as to meet some of the folks that do all of this stuff.
I am rather a complete novice at graphics, so naturally I had a great number
of questions for the speakers, artists, etc. And I asked them. Never once
did I receive a rude reply -- in general, folks were more than eager to
help a neophyte, and the only short answers I received were because somebody
had to be somewhere, but I was told -- "Find me later."
I came away from SIGGRAPH with a sense of wonder and a casual interest
turned into a real desire to do some graphics stuff. It was expensive, yes,
but as I say, I hadn't attended other conferences and I think it was worth
every penny.
As to lack of progress, you must be kidding. Look at the picture on the
front of the proceedings. It makes me feel good every time I glance at it.
In short, I met some people, saw some neat_stuff, had a good time, and learned
a hell of a lot. To others who feel this way or at least were not put off
too much, I'll see you in Dallas in '86! And if someday I happen to be
one of those with something to share, please don't hesitate to ask questions;
I will treat you the same way I was treated.
Sorry for the length of this.
derek
--
Derek Zahn @ wisconsin
...!{allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo,sfwin,ucbvax,uwm-evax}!uwvax!derek
derek@wisc-rsch.arpafreed@aum.UUCP (Erik Freed) (07/31/85)
I am replying to give the other side of this. I attended siggraph
and had a very good as well as imformative week. I went to the
courses and the technical sessions and I can't believe that
people involved in the graphics industry did not appreciate the
depth and uniquness of some of these presentations. The point being
that Siggraph is for the *graphics* industry and they are the ones who
get their money's worth. It is not an Art forum except as an aside and
I at least found the Film and Video show interesting and educational.
The exhibitions were the same as anywhere. You pay your money and you
let the salesman pitch his wares. Only a few of these were interesting
as is the case at all shows.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik James Freed
Aurora Systems
San Francisco, CA
{dual,ptsfa}!aum!freedskinner@saber.UUCP (Robert Skinner) (08/01/85)
> > This is: John Dvorak's column (`Periscope') from the San Fransisco > Examiner, Sunday, July 28. I happen to agree with most of what > he says, having wasted quite a bit of time at this show > (fortunately only the company's money). From here on the words are his: > > Mats Wichmann > Dual Systems > ...{ucbvax,ihnp4,cbosgd,decwrl,fortune}!dual!mats > > ... ... ... ... > > PRETENTIOUSNESS AT COMPUTER GRAPHICS SHOW. > > This reporter has covered a lot of trade shows over the years > and none approaches last week's SIGGRAPH '85 for sheer gall and arrogance. > I have to admit that things were alot more snotty than I have been used to. I participated in the trade show in '83 and '84 but attended it this year. Was it this bad in '83 and '84? > Held at Moscone Center last week, it was supposed to be the definitive > computer graphics show, showcasing the best in the industry. > It did. NCGA is usually better as a trade show, but it was lousy this year. > While it is every regard a trade show, it costs an outrageous > $420 to attend. It's kind of like subscribing to a pay TV channel > that show only commercials. > I admit that it's expensive, more expensive than other ACM functions, and I wish it wasn't. Does anyone know how much more expensive it is, and why? > Sure, for the $420 you got to attend "educational" sessions where > unpaid speakers promote their ideas and products, Oh come on now. I for one got a lot of education out of the sessions, and no one promoted their products. This makes it sound as though speakers say "HERE'S WHAT WE CAN DO, DON'T YOU WISH YOU COULD, I WON'T TELL YOU HOW WE DID IT, YOU'LL JUST HAVE TO BUY OUR PRODUCT". Everyone *shared* ideas and the ideas were judged on merit. In one course I learned alot about splining motion and rotation; clipping an arbitrary volume to another arbitrary volume; a ray-tracing algorithm that executes in constant time ( same time for 5 polygons as for 50,000 ) (so what if the program is available commercially, the speaker gave us enough information to duplicate that performance); and how to extend ray-tracing to eliminate aliasing, give motion blur, light penumbras, amoung other things. The other course I attended was a tutorial on PHIGS, no products were mentioned, just a day-long explanation for users and implementors. > you didn't have > to pay an extra three bucks to see the art exhibit, and you didn't > have to spend $25 to the SIGGRAPH '85 film. What a deal. Really stupid, I know. > If you just > want to wander through the exhibits and nothing else, you can get > in for $15. Supply and Demand. Lots of people want to see what's happening in the new computer glamour industry. > > On the floor were hundreds of companies with expensive graphics > hardware, most of which can do little more than, for example, > draw an outline of the space shuttle and move it around on the > screen. > Seattle Telecom. > BULLSHIT! I've written demo programs for NCGA and SIGGRAPH and there is simply not enough time to create something absolutely real-world, especially if your company is not established enough to have a lot of real applications running on your gear. And even if the applications run on your equipment, you have to grab people's attention quickly, or they aren't interested. So, you choose something convenient (like the shuttle) and you show performance, like how fast you can move it around the screen. > most of the vendors showcased the same stuff they had a couple of > years ago. "We had 16 million colors and 1024 x 1024 pixel resolution > years ago. So what's new here?" asked Joe DeCaro, president of How many devices could do shaded solids in anything approaching interactive time (seconds on a workstation, as opposed to minutes on a VAX) two years ago. LexiData Solidview? (that one hasn't exactly taken off) Any others? How about now: Silicon Graphics, Sun, Megatek, Tek, Raster Tech, et. al. Two years ago could you get into broadcast animation for under $30K? (Cubicomp). > "This industry needs a Woz and Jobs to dynamite those dunderheads > into the future," one show goer told me. > I see a great improvement in the quality of products and the number of true 3D systems, but I think Graphics is hitting a plateau. Monitor constraints limit real resolution (for color) to about 1280x1024 (.25mm pitch). Prototypes of .21mm pitch monitors are scarce, but that will get things into the 2M pixel range. Of course DAC's can't really operate at the 170-200MHz range needed for 2M pixels. And you can't really see much of a difference between 24 bits per pixel and 30, even if you can get DAC's that can operate that fast on 10 bits. We're trying, but please don't blame these kind of things on Graphics people. > Computer graphics people don't see themselves as dunderheads. They > turn up their noses at computer designers, computer programmers, > systems guys and end users. They view themselves as the creme > de la creme of the computer industry. The computer graphics person > is an artiste. An they dress and act it, too. > I don't think it's that bad, but if it is, why do so many people want to get into graphics? > The gallery was supposed to showcase the best computer art in the > world. With the exception of a few three-dimensional works and some > laser art, most of the stuff stunk. "There's not much real artistic > innovation here," said Steve Beck of Beck-Tech. > Alas, I didn't care much for the art show. What really hurt was the feeling that most of the things I've produced when "playing" were better than most of the art show. But then that's MY opinion and I wasn't on the art show selection committee. Of course I didn't submit anything, because I didn't think I had a chance. I won't be so timid next year. > The biggest fiasco of the show was the showing of the 2 1/2-hour > SIGGRAPH '85 film. In a mad rush reminiscent of a feeding frenzy, > all the seats were sold out last Sunday during pre-registration- > much to the dismay of many of the 30,000 show-goers, some of whom > came from halfway around the world. > > It didn't help that instead of running this always popular film > all day every day, the organizers showed it only twice. So what if > you came from Stuttgart just to see it. I do wish that more could have seen the film show, and I wish it had been two nights as it usually is. But since the auditorium was only half the size of those from previous years, I guess more people got to see the very best films. But seriously now, everyone knows the film(s) are a big attraction. I have a hard time believing that anyone would come to just a trade show all the way from Stuttgart without pre-registering. You just *have* to plan for some things. I guess it will be interesting to see who agrees or disagrees; why people believe SIGGRAPH is *so* expensive; whether this year's SIGGRAPH had the market on arrogance; and flame on, and flame on. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Name: Robert Skinner Mail: Saber Technology, 2381 Bering Drive, San Jose, California 95131 AT&T: (408) 945-0518, or 945-9600 (mesg. only) UUCP: ...{decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!saber!skinner ...{amd,ihnp4,ittvax}!saber!skinner
greg@mcc-db.UUCP (Greg) (08/01/85)
> Hmm. I really must protest. > > First, let me say that I am sorry that the poster and the author of the > review didn't enjoy SIGGRAPH. I attended, and I did enjoy it. ... > Derek Zahn @ wisconsin You're not just whistling Dixie. Apparently, Mr. Dvorak spent too much time with the exhibits and not enough time at the technical papers, courses, and the video screening room. I myself was not terribly impressed with the exhibits. My comment at the time was, "The exhibit floor is where to go if you want to see old aliasing problems all over again." Moreover, the show cost $85 for me, and not $420 (although the course was another $180). The best parts were the video show and the screening room (especially the 3D film). Although Mr. Dvorak talked about the lack of crowd contol for the video show, he said nothing about the eye-popping graphics in the show itself. Lastly, the exhibits were the \only/ source of commercialism; in the technical papers and courses, the speakers pushed only their ideas. They did not push their or anyone else's products. To whoever will be there in '86, see you in Dallas. -- gregregreg
mats@dual.UUCP (Mats Wichmann) (08/01/85)
> I am replying to give the other side of this. I attended siggraph > and had a very good as well as imformative week. I went to the > courses and the technical sessions and I can't believe that > people involved in the graphics industry did not appreciate the > depth and uniquness of some of these presentations. The point being > that Siggraph is for the *graphics* industry and they are the ones who > get their money's worth. It is not an Art forum except as an aside and > I at least found the Film and Video show interesting and educational. > The exhibitions were the same as anywhere. You pay your money and you > let the salesman pitch his wares. Only a few of these were interesting > as is the case at all shows. > Erik James Freed > Aurora Systems > San Francisco, CA > {dual,ptsfa}!aum!freed I have to agree with the gist of this, even though I posted the original negative article. The presentations were not that great, but I have seen much worse also. The art show was admittedly an aside. And with vendor exhibits, you normally should not expect too much more than a heavy sales pitch, since that is what the people are there for.... But I do still agree with the contention that the exhibits were disappointing, and the vendors (at least the so-called 'well-known' ones - many of the smaller companies, presumably `hungrier' were more affable) were much more obnoxious than is called for. It is nice if the show is primarily for graphics people, and it is lovely that various ideas got presented, but if you can't turn it into a product that you can sell, what good is it to anyone but acedemians? And THAT is what I think the vendor exhibit should be all about. Not pushing products that are little different from what has been around. But maybe I misunderstand trade shows. I won't argue that most of them, at whatever the show, miss this mark.
smithson@calma.uucp (Brian Smithson) (08/01/85)
> [ ... lots of text ... ]
My observation of SIGGRAPH this year is that it is suffering from
growth pains. The computer graphics industry has grown explosively
in the last few years, from a highly technical "you have to be a
computer scientist to understand it" industry to one in which its
products can be fully used by artists, designers, business people,
or others who may have little or no knowledge of computers. The
industry is selling into a different market than five years ago,
and this being a "trade show", one would expect a different sort
of attendance. I only attended the exhibits this year, and gave
up any hope of getting into the films, so I can't comment on those.
As far as arrogance, I did run into perhaps the most arrogant and
obnoxious exhibitor I've ever come across, at the Lucasfilm booth.
Only identified by a Lucasfilm badge (no name), he ranted on about
the CAD/CAM/CAE business as though he knew something, although
it was quite obvious that he did not. Not that it matters much,
though; the Pixar is an impressive machine, but it is pretty
worthless fluff to the CAD biz... (flame off -- sorry about that).
What I'd really like to suggest, and what would be more appropriate
for this newsgroup than my (and others') flames, is that we concentrate
on what we'd like to see at SIGGRAPH '86. Most of the comments I've
read about SIGGRAPH '85 have been about what the writers didn't like,
but I really don't have a clue what they *would* have liked. Perhaps
then, a digest of constructive comments could be forwarded to ACM?
--
-Brian Smithson
Calma Company
ucbvax!calma!smithson
calma!smithson@ucbvax.ARPA
"Two nuclear bombs can ruin your whole weekend"brad@gcc-bill.ARPA (Brad Parker) (08/02/85)
I've been reading InfoWorld long enought to take anything Good 'ol John writes with a shot of tequila. But this is really neat: In article <1723@saber.UUCP> skinner@saber.UUCP (Robert Skinner) writes: > >... a ray-tracing algorithm >that executes in constant time ( same time for 5 polygons as for 50,000 ) >(so what if the program is available commercially, the speaker gave us >enough information to duplicate that performance); I read about the commercial program. I didn't know it was to be discussed at SigGraph. I guess I'll buy the course notes now. Could someone give a brief description of the process? (octtrees?) "My God, those clouds look just like fractals!" -- J Bradford Parker uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-bill!brad "She said you know how to spell AUDACIOUSLY? I could tell I was in love... You want to go to heaven? or would you rather not be saved?" - Lloyd Coal
thomas@utah-gr.UUCP (Spencer W. Thomas) (08/02/85)
>> The biggest fiasco of the show was the showing of the 2 1/2-hour >> SIGGRAPH '85 film. In a mad rush reminiscent of a feeding frenzy, >> all the seats were sold out last Sunday during pre-registration- >> much to the dismay of many of the 30,000 show-goers, some of whom >> came from halfway around the world. >> >> It didn't help that instead of running this always popular film >> all day every day, the organizers showed it only twice. So what if >> you came from Stuttgart just to see it. > If there were so many other people who wanted to see it, why couldn't they sell enough tickets to support the Thursday show? (I think they only needed to sell 250 or 300 tickets, and they couldn't.) Seems to me there wasn't that much extra demand. -- =Spencer ({ihnp4,decvax}!utah-cs!thomas, thomas@utah-cs.ARPA) "You don't get to choose how you're going to die. Or when. You can only decide how you're going to live." Joan Baez
bobr@zeus.UUCP (Robert Reed) (08/05/85)
> I have to agree with the gist of this, even though I posted the > original negative article. The presentations were not that great, > but I have seen much worse also. The art show was admittedly > an aside. And with vendor exhibits, you normally should not > expect too much more than a heavy sales pitch, since that is what > the people are there for.... > > But I do still agree with the contention that the exhibits were > disappointing, and the vendors (at least the so-called 'well-known' ones - > many of the smaller companies, presumably `hungrier' were more > affable) were much more obnoxious than is called for. It is nice > if the show is primarily for graphics people, and it is lovely that > various ideas got presented, but if you can't turn it into a product > that you can sell, what good is it to anyone but acedemians? And THAT > is what I think the vendor exhibit should be all about. Not pushing > products that are little different from what has been around. > But maybe I misunderstand trade shows. I won't argue that most of > them, at whatever the show, miss this mark. Having attended SIGGRAPH for at least the last couple of years, I was neither terribly surprised nor disappointed at this year's showing. SIGGRAPH has been the premiere exhibition for advances in computer graphics, but as with any engineering field, it works in cycles. This has been a polishing year, making refinements on work previously published. Many people knew about PIXAR and Amiga last year--this year they were on the floor. The same can be said of many of the technical sessions, from the Cornell radiosity work to Geof Gardner's amazing clouds and the new applications of Ken Perlin's texture mapping work. These were all based on closely related work seen in Minneapolis. This year did have its breakthroughs, though, as anyone familiar with previous computer graphic film work would admit on seeing "Tony de Peltrie," the last film of the evening show. It was a technical amazement, but more than that, it transcended the technique to make an emotional and artistic statement unexcelled by anything I've seen in computer graphics. Expect next year more groundbreaking, as the refinements and polishing give way to new ideas and the typical 2-3 year product design cycles blossom into newer, cheaper, faster displays and systems. -- Robert Reed, CAE Systems Division, tektronix!teklds!bobr
skinner@saber.UUCP (Robert Skinner) (08/05/85)
> > [ ... lots of text ... ] > > What I'd really like to suggest, and what would be more appropriate > for this newsgroup than my (and others') flames, is that we concentrate > on what we'd like to see at SIGGRAPH '86. Most of the comments I've > read about SIGGRAPH '85 have been about what the writers didn't like, > but I really don't have a clue what they *would* have liked. Perhaps > then, a digest of constructive comments could be forwarded to ACM? > -- > > -Brian Smithson > Calma Company > ucbvax!calma!smithson > calma!smithson@ucbvax.ARPA > I agree, and (sort of) apologize for my long flame. I've met extremely arrogant people in every sort of trade show I've attended, even the consumer oriented PC Faires (What? You don't own a PC-AT with at least 20Mb hard disc and a 80287? You must not be serious if you don't own GOD's gift to computing.) Anyway, someone sent me mail to the effect that SIGGRAPH '85 cost $4,000,000 to produce. Is this number accurate? Anyone out there know how much it cost, or why? Maybe we should think about the cost also, as I for one may have to pay my own way next year. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Name: Robert Skinner Mail: Saber Technology, 2381 Bering Drive, San Jose, California 95131 AT&T: (408) 945-0518, or 945-9600 (mesg. only) UUCP: ...{decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!saber!skinner ...{amd,ihnp4,ittvax}!saber!skinner
skinner@saber.UUCP (Robert Skinner) (08/06/85)
> I've been reading InfoWorld long enought to take anything Good 'ol John > writes with a shot of tequila. > Like movie reviewers, right? > But this is really neat: > > >... a ray-tracing algorithm > >that executes in constant time ( same time for 5 polygons as for 50,000 ) > > I read about the commercial program. I didn't know it was to be > discussed at SigGraph. I guess I'll buy the course notes now. > > Could someone give a brief description of the process? (octtrees?) > You are on the right track. The process involves preprocessing the image data by subdividing the image space in an octree fashion, until there are a small (1-5) number of primitive objects in each node. This preprocessing takes on the order of a few minutes for 50,000 objects. Rays are then cast through this octree space. If the ray passes into an empty node, it is simply passed to the next intersecting node. If the node is not empty, the ray is tested for intersection with the objects in that node. The calculations for the ray intersection with an octree node is very simple because of the binary nature of the octree. Empirical data indicates that 7 octree intersections can be calculated for each normal ray-object intersection. The net result of the octree organization is a spatial sorting along any ray for the image data. A ray is tested for intersection only with objects that are along its path. Objects that are far from the ray's path are not tested. An additional benefit is that the nearest intersection is found first (or at least the sort is fast). Any secondary rays generated from reflection can be treated similarly. As a result, each ray is tested for intersection a small number of times. This number is fairly constant for a given octree resolution. As Bill Reeves (Lucasfilm) said after the presentation: "Now I'll never be able to qualify for Kajiya's Tera-FLOP club!" (Too bad) It seems fairly straightforward to me, even though I've never written a ray-tracer and my experience with octrees is limited. I just wish I had a copy of the program running on my workstation. Maybe the workstation could handle reasonable images. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Name: Robert Skinner Mail: Saber Technology, 2381 Bering Drive, San Jose, California 95131 AT&T: (408) 945-0518, or 945-9600 (mesg. only) UUCP: ...{decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!saber!skinner ...{amd,ihnp4,ittvax}!saber!skinner
greg@vecpyr.UUCP (Greg Millar) (08/08/85)
> > But this is really neat: > > > > >... a ray-tracing algorithm > > >that executes in constant time ( same time for 5 polygons as for 50,000 ) > > > > I read about the commercial program. I didn't know it was to be > > discussed at SigGraph. I guess I'll buy the course notes now. > > > > I just wish > I had a copy of the program running on my workstation. Maybe the > workstation could handle reasonable images. > If you really want it why don't you get in touch with Visual Engineering. We are located several blocks from you here in San Jose. It really is a neat package, and if it were ported to your workstation (a assume a Saber) it would probably run fine.
rick@seismo.UUCP (Rick Adams) (08/15/85)
The real reason the film show was $25 is union bullshit. SIGGRAPH wanted to charge $3 or $4 and heavily promote the film shows to the general public (obviously showing it on more nights.) However, the unions, in their infinite wisdom said that if you charge $3 admission, that was entertainment. If you charge $25 it is a professional exhibition. I think you can imagine how different their rate scale is between technical conferences and entertainment. Anyway, SIGGRAPH said what the hell, we can make up the loss out of the rest of the budget. Surprise! The unions wanted to change the rates for the ENTIRE conference, not just the filmshow. Suddenly, there was no question of selling $3 tickets and the price stayed at $25. As to the technical conference pricing, it really isn't THAT unreasonable. I only paid $225 ($75 more than the Usenix conference), of course I preregistered. Many organizations tack on a large premium for registering on site to encourage you to preregister so they can attempt to figure out how many are coming. The prices for the courses were a bit high, but allegedly much of that price had to do with the astronomical cost of renting hotel ballrooms in downtown San Francisco. I really don't understand the acusations of arrogance and eliteism. Consider the course in image rendering tricks. Jim Blinn (He does the Jupiter/Saturn simulations for JPL and NASA) stood up in front for 1000 people and started his talk by saying "You've heard the others talk about hacks and tricks; now we're going to talk about real sleeze". He then went on to describe some of the things he did to get to the final product, including taking a pair of scissors and cutting an offending frame out of the final film because he couldn't get an algorithm quite right for all cases. That didn't strike me as particularly arrogant... (I don't think I would have had the nerve to admit to that.) The attendees were dressed and acted about the same as every other computer conference I've attended: basically 3-piece suits or jeans&teeshirts (Or, as I like to think of it, those who are judged on their appearance and those who are judged by their ability...). I did hear MANY more comments that usual along the lines of "That's what So-and-so looks like? How can whatever-large-organization tolerate someone who looks like that." I was amused at the Cal Tech professor with the waist length ponytail and suit. It struck me as a bit incongruous. Not, bad or good, just a little unusual. ---rick
skinner@saber.UUCP (Robert Skinner) (08/21/85)
> The real reason the film show was $25 is union bullshit. > > SIGGRAPH wanted to charge $3 or $4 and heavily promote the film shows > to the general public (obviously showing it on more nights.) > > However, the unions, in their infinite wisdom said that if you > charge $3 admission, that was entertainment. If you charge $25 it > is a professional exhibition. I think you can imagine how different > their rate scale is between technical conferences and entertainment. > > Anyway, SIGGRAPH said what the hell, we can make up the loss out > of the rest of the budget. Surprise! The unions wanted to change the > rates for the ENTIRE conference, not just the filmshow. Suddenly, > there was no question of selling $3 tickets and the price stayed at $25. > Thank God Siggraph will be in an open work state next year (Dallas, Texas). I just wish it wasn't in August. I'm from Texas and I KNOW its *HOT* everywhere in Texas in August, much more so in an urban area. I just wish that Siggraph '81 hadn't given so many people a bad impression of Dallas. I personally know several people that wouldn't even consider going to NCGA in May because of that. Please, graphics people, give Dallas a chance. It's really a nice place. And please, Siggraph planners, if it's going to be in Dallas, how about late August or late September when it's cooler? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ .. man then went on to prove that black was white, and was promptly killed at the next zebra crossing. Name: Robert Skinner Snail: Saber Technology, 2381 Bering Drive, San Jose, California 95131 AT&T: (408) 945-0518, or 945-9600 (mesg. only) UUCP: ...{decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!saber!skinner ...{amd,ihnp4,ittvax}!saber!skinner
haddock@waltz (08/26/85)
>Please, graphics people, give Dallas a chance. It's really a nice >place. And please, Siggraph planners, if it's going to be in >Dallas, how about late August or late September when it's cooler? Try late December.... :-) Late September would be best as this August has had numerous days at or above 100 degrees. Admittedly, this has been an UNUSUALLY warm summer (at least according to the weather people around here). ================================================================ _____ -Rusty- |\/ o \ o Texas Instruments | ( -< O o Where's the fish? Dallas, TX |/\__V__/ ARPA: Haddock%TI-CSL.csnet@CSNet-Relay.arpa or Rusty@Maryland CSNet: Haddock@TI-CSL USENET: {ut-sally, convex!smu, texsun, rice} ! waltz ! haddock