cbd@norad.UUCP (Christian Dreyer) (12/26/88)
Is there anybody out there knowing whether at all and how computer aided animation was used in the movie 'Who framed Roger Rabbit'? I had the impression that particularly the 'kitchen'-take at the beginning was a bit too perfectly 'ray-traced' ... Thanks for your help!! chris
hans@iesd.uucp (Hans Huttel) (01/07/89)
As far as I know - having only seen the `official' TV documentary
about the making of 'Who framed Roger Rabbit ?' - there is NO computer
animation involved in the actual animation process. On the other
hand, the documentary does not say whether Industrial Light & Magic
used computers when they `touched up' the film (by adding shades etc.).
Hans "Monads ate my Buick"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hans H\"{u}ttel - hans@lfcs.ed.ac.uk
LFCS
James Clerk Maxwell Building
University of Edinburgh
The King's Buildings
Edinburgh EH9 3JZ
SCOTLAND
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hans H\"{u}ttel - hans@lfcs.ed.ac.uk
LFCS
James Clerk Maxwell Building
University of Edinburgh
The King's Buildings
Edinburgh EH9 3JZ
SCOTLAND
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------shani@TAURUS.BITNET (01/08/89)
As far as I know, no computer graphics (i.e ray tracing, etc.) was used!! I guees they did use computerized editing boards and the usual overprinting methods... O.S.
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (01/09/89)
In article <938@taurus.BITNET> <shani%TAURUS.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes: > >As far as I know, no computer graphics (i.e ray tracing, etc.) >was used!! > >I guees they did use computerized editing boards and the usual overprinting >methods... I heard the ray tracing was used to develop all the shadows. Look at the shadows under the characters and try to figure a better way to get that sort of realism. You couldn't paint it in, and you couldn't use a gobo on the backlight because you'd have to have the animation before the scene was shot, and then you'd have to sync it, and it's much, much easier to sync the animation to the live action. Then again, shadows on cartoons look stupid. Look at the Goofy ad for Diet Coke sometime. Pathetic. --Blair "Betcha didn't know I live at five frames per second...damned Japanese animators!"
maukh@warwick.ac.uk (Sunstorm the Intestinal) (01/09/89)
In article 3533 Christian says: > Is there anybody out there knowing whether at all and how computer aided > animation was used in the movie 'Who framed Roger Rabbit'? I had the > impression that particularly the 'kitchen'-take at the beginning was a > bit too perfectly 'ray-traced' ... In a recent documentary (on British television, though it was obviously an American production) about the making of 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit' it was stated that no computer animation was used in the film. My contention is that computers *were* used in the production of the purely animated sketch at the beginning of the film. The rotations, perspective shifts, tracking of motion of the characters as well as motion of the viewpoint were all very complex to say the least. I'd be very impressed with the animators if they could produce all that without the use of computer generated wire-frame graphics as a starting point for the choreography and background. It's a commonly employed technique: generate a wire-frame sequence, then paint over it to produce realistic animation. Anyway, I too would be interested to hear a more informed view on the subject. ~ Sunny. ################################################################# # "Wake up! It's time to die." # email: maukh@uk.ac.warwick.cu # # ~ Leon (`Bladerunner'). # uucp : um..er..dunno # #################################################################
mcwill@inmos.co.uk (Iain McWilliams) (01/10/89)
In article <344@norad.UUCP> cbd@norad.UUCP (Christian Dreyer) writes: >Is there anybody out there knowing whether at all and how computer aided >animation was used in the movie 'Who framed Roger Rabbit'? I had the >impression that particularly the 'kitchen'-take at the beginning was a >bit too perfectly 'ray-traced' ... > >Thanks for your help!! chris There have been a few programs on the making of WFRR on television recently and as far as I remember, there was NO CAA used at all on the original drawings/acetates. However these were then shipped to a seperate company which added highlights/shadowing etc. So there was probably some computer time involved there. ( I believe this was the same company which was responsible for the FX on all the Star Trek movies plus some Star Wars as well ) -- Iain McWilliams Inmos Ltd, 1000 Aztec West, Almondsbury, Bristol, BS12 4SQ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The opinions above are my personal views and do | not refelect Inmos policy. | mcwill@inmos.co.uk
soley@ontenv.UUCP (Norman S. Soley) (01/11/89)
In article <70@poppy.warwick.ac.uk>, maukh@warwick.ac.uk (Sunstorm the Intestinal) writes: > > In a recent documentary (on British television, though it was > obviously an American production) about the making of 'Who Framed > Roger Rabbit' it was stated that no computer animation was used in > the film. I saw somewhere that the shading/sparkles on Jessica's gown, that gave a feeling of 3D (i.e. she did not look flat next to the live actors) was added by computer after the hand amination was complete. -- Norman Soley - Data Communications Analyst - Ontario Ministry of the Environment UUCP: uunet!attcan!lsuc!ncrcan!ontenv!soley VOICE: +1 416 323 2623 OR: soley@ontenv.UUCP " Stay smart, go cool, be happy, it's the only way to get what you want"
sfisher@abingdon.SGI.COM (Scott Fisher) (01/14/89)
In article <70@poppy.warwick.ac.uk>, maukh@warwick.ac.uk (Sunstorm the Intestinal) writes: > > In article 3533 Christian says: > > Is there anybody out there knowing whether at all and how computer aided > > animation was used in the movie 'Who framed Roger Rabbit'? I had the > > impression that particularly the 'kitchen'-take at the beginning was a > > bit too perfectly 'ray-traced' ... > > > In a recent documentary (on British television, though it was > obviously an American production) about the making of 'Who Framed > Roger Rabbit' it was stated that no computer animation was used in > the film. > > My contention is that computers *were* used in the production of the > purely animated sketch at the beginning of the film. The rotations, > perspective shifts, tracking of motion of the characters as well as > motion of the viewpoint were all very complex to say the least. I'd > be very impressed with the animators if they could produce all that > without the use of computer generated wire-frame graphics as a > starting point for the choreography and background. I feel the same way whenever I see the opening of Pinocchio: "Damn, Thomas & Johnston really had a hell of an algortihm to control the viewing volume as Jiminy hops toward Gepetto's shop! Wonder what kinda CPU they used in 1939?" If you want to see the best ray- tracing I've ever seen, watch the scene where Figaro the cat goes up to close the window for Gepetto, or where Peter Pan and Wendy fly over the clouds above London. > It's a commonly > employed technique: generate a wire-frame sequence, then paint over > it to produce realistic animation. In the Old Days, they used to make storyboards and pencil-tests. Disney animators used to (and might still) make flip books that they could roll back and forth to get a feel for the action in a sequence. I don't know how to continue without sounding like a condemnation or a commercial. It's been my good fortune (after years of working toward it, funny how some good fortune happens that way) to have worked beside some of the best people in the computer animation industry. Yes, the (fill-in-the-blank) box is a wonderful tool for doing animation, much faster and with much more accuracy than the average illustrator could manage. But behind every product, whether that product is a box with animation software or a couple reels of celluloid with hand-painted images manually drawn to look lifelike at 24 frames per second, there stands a long line of talented human beings. The bear is dancing better and better all the time, but he ain't Fred Astaire yet. > Anyway, I too would be interested to hear a more informed view on > the subject. Craig? Oh, Craig? You out there? (Either one of you...)
dave@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Dave Goldblatt) (01/14/89)
From article <24996@sgi.SGI.COM>, by sfisher@abingdon.SGI.COM (Scott Fisher): > In article <6590@pogo.GPID.TEK.COM>, curtc@pogo.GPID.TEK.COM (Curtis Charles) writes: >> As curvacious as Jessica was drawn, how could she ever look "flat"? > > She'a not curvaceous. She's just drawn that way. I thought she wasn't bad; she's just drawn that way. :-) -dg-