tim@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Timothy L. Kay) (01/01/70)
In article <495@rocky.STANFORD.EDU> ali@rocky.UUCP (Ali Ozer) writes: >And, who knows, with the $699 Mimetics frame buffer (which can do smoothing, >thanks to it's, what, 2 million colors at once?), a single frame VCR, >a decent ray tracer (Sculpt 3D?), VideoScape 3D, an Amiga, and lots of >patience (a months worth?), maybe Pixar's demo could be duplicated fully. >After all, was their demo running off a computer or was it on videotape? >Of course, making the demo and not being able to show it would be a bummer... Let me state again that the quality we are talking about when we refer to Red's Dream has *** nothing *** to do with the hardware they are using. Many of the graphics companies (Pacific Data Images, Alias, etc.) have hardware that is just as high quality as Pixar's (though perhaps not as fast in some ways, and faster in others). Pixar has spent the last (I think) six years developing software algorithms that *** nobody *** else has. They have published vague descriptions of how their algorithms work, but, as far as I know, nobody else in the whole world does it that way. Some people have (very, very slow) ray tracers that generate those effects, but you wouldn't be able to generate Red's Dream in several years using those ray tracers. It is more than just antialiasing, which everybody can do. It is more than just simple shadows, which everybody with a ray tracer can do. They can do motion blur, depth of field, diffuse shadows, etc., etc. How about the rain? Now, this isn't a criticism of the Amiga. There is always the question of PERCEIVED quality. How important are all the effects that Pixar uses compared to the time they spend calculating them. I believe that, given a good story and a good sound track, the average Joe wouldn't care less about (or even notice) the better rendering quality. But, this is a different issue. Beyond rendering, there is the modeling involved in Red's Dream. Now, this is something a person with an Amiga could possibly reproduce. But try it; I challenge you. It is much, much more work than it looks.
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (08/04/87)
Just heard that Leo's been told by Pixar not to distribute his animation
public domain as it would be copyright infringement (something I would
say is pretty questionable). I'd say this just shows you what kind of
humorless prima-donna's inhabit Pixar. If the bozos at Pixar
had any brains, they'd realize that Leo's animation going public domain
is as good for them as it is for the Amiga. And I figured it would be
a good 'resume' item if Leo was to apply for a job at Pixar, figuring
they'd be impressed that this kid could come up with such a demo in
such a short time. Instead, these guys pretend they have a corner on
images of red unicycles. And I guess you all better stay away from
images of Luxo lamps as well, *BAH*!
Personally, I don't think they have a snowballs chance of stopping Leo
if he want's to distribute his animation public domain.
1) I'd say it's pretty doubtful they could win a suit. The most that
could happen is they could generate some kind of court order to
remove it from the thousands of BBS's it could be on before they
could get the order. In addition, I doubt such a 'derivative work'
is protected by the copyright on 'Red's Dream', Pixar is just trying
to strongarm Leo into witholding the animation because they take
themselves so darn seriously their sense of humor has flown the
coop. Well HA HA Pixar, that's pretty funny, you just made a
colossal fool out of yourselves on this one as far as I'm concerned.
2) It's not worth their while to bring a suit against Leo even if they
could win. They're not likely to get much in damages from Leo
(assuming they could prove damages) and the resultant publicity would
be more damaging to their image (already falling in my opinion)
then the distribution of the animation itself.
Keith Doyle
# {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
# cadovax!keithd@ucla-locus.arpa Contel Business Systems 213-323-8170
"A person reveals his character by nothing so clearly as the joke
he resents." -C.G. Lichtenbergnick@hp-sdd.HP.COM (Nick Flor) (08/05/87)
In article <1681@cadovax.UUCP> keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes: > >Just heard that Leo's been told by Pixar not to distribute his animation >public domain as it would be copyright infringement (something I would >say is pretty questionable). I'd say this just shows you what kind of >humorless prima-donna's inhabit Pixar. If the bozos at Pixar >had any brains, they'd realize that Leo's animation going public domain >is as good for them as it is for the Amiga. And I figured it would be >a good 'resume' item if Leo was to apply for a job at Pixar, figuring >they'd be impressed that this kid could come up with such a demo in >such a short time. Instead, these guys pretend they have a corner on Did Leo really *borrow* this unicycle idea from an animation flick by Pixar? Because (and for the rest of this article I am assuming he did based on the content of your posting) if he did, then I'm not so sure that what Pixar is doing is wrong. If you already have the tools to create a demo, then implementing it is easy. Kind of like structured design -- most of the work is spent up front. The implementation is easy once you have the design. What if you spent months coming up with a unique idea for a demo. What if someone *borrowed* your idea and proceeded to make a similar demo -- acting as if the idea was his own and getting a lot of fame in the process. And I think that's where Pixar is coming from. Rendering the images is no problem if you have the tools. (Seems like you could model everything in the demo with quadric surfaces, and everyone and his brother's ray tracers take quadric surfaces as input). The hard part is coming up with an idea for a demo. Let me summarize: A) The unicycle demo idea was a unique one. B) Leo borrowed the idea and made a demo. C) Leo had something to gain by making this demo. (fame, glory, apple pie and chevrolet). D) Leo gained plenty. (And let's face it. Many people came away from the Amiga booth thinking that Leo came up with this idea all by his lonesome) E) What did Pixar gain? I'm not saying that what Leo did was totally wrong. However, I am asking that you look at Pixar's side before you start joining Doyle with your ad hominem Pixar bashing postings. Uh oh. I feel flame postings on the horizon. (But of course no one will address paragraph 3 -- "If you already have the tools, then...") Nick -- + Disclaimer: The above opinions are my own, not necessarily my employers'. + + "What's going down in this world, | Nick V. Flor + + you got no idea. Believe me." | Hewlett Packard - San Diego Division + + "We came, we saw, we it's kicked *ss."| ..hplabs!hp-sdd!nick +
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (08/05/87)
In article <921@hp-sdd.HP.COM> nick@hp-sdd.UUCP (Nick Flor) writes: >Did Leo really *borrow* this unicycle idea from an animation flick by Pixar? No, he recreated it. But he did so from prior knowledge. (that is he had obviously seen Red's Dreams) >If you already have the tools to create a demo ... > ... The hard part is coming up with an idea for a demo. True, although no one would accuse Leo of not being creative :-). What really strikes me about this issue is the concept of re-implementing something and having the original creator get mad at you. Suppose you went down to the Mall and saw this really neat sculpture. The city paid $300,000 for it, but you have some modeling clay and natural ability so you make one out of clay. Some friends see it and so you make some for them. Does the Artist get pissed and throw you in jail? No, he or she says "Thats a very good likeness, I would appreciate it if you would put a note on it that tells where you got your inspiration." Being a reasonable person you do and everyone is happy. Suddenly we enter the computer realm, where 'art' is created with mathematical formulae and proprietary dithering algorithims. And once created duplication is simple. Is this a problem? If my friends and I recreate our favorite episode of Star Trek and video tape it to give to our friends is Universal Studios 'damaged?'. There are about 8 Dr. Peppers worth of questions here. Why can't Leo just say "This is a scene from the Pixar animated Film "Red's Dream" that I recreated using the Amiga." I do think that technically Pixar could probably get an injunction, but probably couldn't collect any damages (who is damaged? people who were going to buy Pixars aren't going to change because of this.) I guess what I am trying to say is that it is probably not very informative to get into a discussion about whether or not Pixar is 'right' and if Leo should give in to their arm twisting. But it could be very enlightening to talk about the use of the copyright laws to cover a bunch of mathematical formulae that you displayed on a screen graphically. --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
greg@gryphon.CTS.COM (Greg Laskin) (08/05/87)
[ Heavily edited for the net, omitting umbrage and addressing only issues of copyright. ] In article <921@hp-sdd.HP.COM> nick@hp-sdd.UUCP (Nick Flor) writes: >In article <1681@cadovax.UUCP> keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes: >> >>Just heard that Leo's been told by Pixar not to distribute his animation >>public domain as it would be copyright infringement (something I would >>say is pretty questionable). > >Did Leo really *borrow* this unicycle idea from an animation flick by Pixar? > >Let me summarize: > >A) The unicycle demo idea was a unique one. >B) Leo borrowed the idea and made a demo. Ideas can't be copyrighted. The expression of the idea can be copyrighted. >C) Leo had something to gain by making this demo. (fame, glory, apple > pie and chevrolet). >D) Leo gained plenty. (And let's face it. Many people came away from the > Amiga booth thinking that Leo came up with this idea all by > his lonesome) >E) What did Pixar gain? Gain is irrelevent in copyright law. Damage is relevent. The copyright questions are: 1) Was the expression of an idea copied? 2) Was there a legal assertion of copyright? 3) Was the copying "fair use"? There are "fair use" allowances for parody and satire. 4) What damage was done? By the way, I don't believe the correspondence underlying this matter ever appeared on the net. From what I've seen so far, there was no threat of legal action by Pixar, only a suggestion, made via e-mail, that, while Leo's private use of his program was OK, distribution in the public domain would be a "clear copyright infringement." All that aside, Leo has apparently decided that private negotiations are in order. The rest of us are just tilting at windmills. -- Greg Laskin "When everybody's talking and nobody's listening, how can we decide?" INTERNET: greg@gryphon.CTS.COM UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, ihnp4}!crash!gryphon!greg UUCP: {philabs, scgvaxd}!cadovax!gryphon!greg
fnf@mcdsun.UUCP (Fred Fish) (08/05/87)
In article <921@hp-sdd.HP.COM> nick@hp-sdd.UUCP (Nick Flor) writes: >What if you spent months coming up with a unique idea for a demo. >What if someone *borrowed* your idea and proceeded to make a >similar demo -- acting as if the idea was his own and getting >a lot of fame in the process. A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, C-A had this unique idea for a demo, a bouncing beach ball type thingie... -- = Drug tests; just say *NO*! = Fred Fish Motorola Computer Division, 3013 S 52nd St, Tempe, Az 85282 USA = seismo!noao!mcdsun!fnf (602) 438-3614
mark@teknek.UUCP (Mark Dyhr) (08/06/87)
This is interesting. Mr. Schwab apparently sees or hears of a slick
Pixar-produced animation piece, takes his < $2K "home computer" and
a $200 software package (VideoScape 3D) and whips up, in his normal
fashion, an eye-popping demo at Siggraph. Some geek at Pixar whines.
Mr. Schwab pilfering design concepts? It's clear to me the man has
merely gone out and kicked major ass.
Mark Dyhr {ucbvax,ptsfa}!dual!teknek!markkeithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (08/06/87)
In article <921@hp-sdd.HP.COM> nick@hp-sdd.UUCP (Nick Flor) writes: >Did Leo really *borrow* this unicycle idea from an animation flick by Pixar? > >Because (and for the rest of this article I am assuming he did based >on the content of your posting) if he did, then I'm not so sure that >what Pixar is doing is wrong. I'd say that Leo's animation would fit very well under the heading of a parody. MAD magazine would be in big trouble if it weren't for 'fair use' in copyright law with regards to parody and satire. >E) What did Pixar gain? Well, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I'd say they got some free exposure they may not have gotten otherwise. Someone who saw the Amiga version and was told that it was similar to what Pixar was doing might have spent some extra time to check out what was happening at the Pixar booth. They should be happy that other people think that what they are doing is worth satirizing. I just think that people who can't laugh at themselves when someone renders a not-unflattering caricature of them, whether on paper or on an Amiga needs some of the air let out of their egos. The lack of such instances of comic-relief could make this world a pretty gloomy place. Let's hope that Pixar isn't really the wet blanket they seemed there for a moment. And otherwise, let's then look for Leo's new animation of a BLUE and/or GREEN unicicle to come down the pipe. And maybe this time there'll be 4 balls. :-) Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd # cadovax!keithd@ucla-locus.arpa Contel Business Systems 213-323-8170
ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) (08/07/87)
In article <921@hp-sdd.HP.COM> nick@hp-sdd.UUCP (Nick Flor) writes: >If you already have the tools to create a demo, then implementing it >is easy. Kind of like structured design -- most of the work is spent >up front. The implementation is easy once you have the design. > Er, um.... As the designer of four major object files, including: spoked wheel with gumwall, axle, and pedals; fork with axle mounts, half-torus bend, stem designed to dovetail with the "tongs", seat post, seat clamp and tightening lever; hand-entered saddle with springs and reinforcement bar; and a floor with a five-pointed star surface detail, specially designed not to interfere with the drawing of the unicycle..... I think your use of the term "easy" is a relative one. :-) You should see this piece of graph paper I have here.... :-) >(Seems like you could model everything in the demo with quadric surfaces, and >everyone and his brother's ray tracers take quadric surfaces s input). > Quadratic surfaces? What are those? :-) Never heard of them. :-) VideoScape certainly never heard of them. :-) My version of the unicycle is all flat polygons, all 3,838 of them (although there are two in the saddle that are probably twisted). >Let me summarize: > >A) The unicycle demo idea was a unique one. True. >B) Leo borrowed the idea and made a demo. Also true. >C) Leo had something to gain by making this demo. (fame, glory, apple > pie and chevrolet). Offer me a Subaru XT and we'll talk... :-) >D) Leo gained plenty. (And let's face it. Many people came away from the > Amiga booth thinking that Leo came up with this idea all by > his lonesome) I beg to differ on this one. I believe that I made it clear to all passers-by that asked that my idea came from the Pixar demo reel that I had seen the week previous. If they had been to the film and video show, they probably would have recognized it immediately. Of course, I can't speak for Bill Volk's actions, since I wasn't at the booth all the time. I am pretty certain, however, that it was mentioned to all those who asked that it was inspired by the Pixar film. >E) What did Pixar gain? > Nothing. Except, perhaps (by wide PD distribution), a greater exposure of the essence of their latest work to people who otherwise might not know about it (I know, I'm reaching). -------- I dropped off a video tape of my... er... creation at Pixar to be reviewed by Ralph Guggenheim, director of animation. He has the power to say Yea or Nay to distribution of this thing. I'm eagerly awaiting his opinion. After dropping off the tape, I bumped into Loren Carpenter. I asked if he had any feel for the general opinion held by Pixarians concerning my foray. He said that, from what he could divine, people seemed to be slightly amused. I gathered from his tone that (*I'M SPECULATING HERE!*) the general feeling within Pixar is one of indifference. However, I also gathered that (*MORE SPECULATION!*) the majority of Pixarians have no knowledge of what I did, or only second- or third-hand knowledge (not all Pixarians attended SIGGRAPH). He personally has had no exposure to my spinoff. His personal opinion was that he thought it was rather flattering to be imitated. Note, however, that this is just one guy in Pixar.... BTW, in case anyone cares, using the existing object definition, I managed to cook up a 3D stereo pair of the unicycle. Took me about twenty minutes. _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Leo L. Schwab -- The Guy in The Cape ihnp4!ptsfa -\ \_ -_ Bike shrunk by popular demand, dual ---> !{well,unicom}!ewhac O----^o But it's still the only way to fly. hplabs / (pronounced "AE-wack") "Work FOR? I don't work FOR anybody! I'm just having fun." -- The Doctor
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (08/07/87)
In article <24931@sun.uucp> cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes: >I guess what I am trying to say is that it is probably not very informative >to get into a discussion about whether or not Pixar is 'right' and if Leo >should give in to their arm twisting. But it could be very enlightening to >talk about the use of the copyright laws to cover a bunch of mathematical >formulae that you displayed on a screen graphically. Perhaps Pixar could gig Leo by invoking the 'Look and Feel' precident set by the Pacman case. However, in order to do that, they would have to admit that a $1000 Amiga system presents a 'look and feel' similar to their $49000 system. :-) Keith
kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) (08/09/87)
I'm starting to get quite a chuckle out of this whole Cape Man versus the Punks of Pixar contremps. I love it when the heavies shoot themselves in the foot, and Pixar's just blown theirs off up to the kneecap! I mean, think about it for a moment. On the one hand, we have the hero of comp.sys.amiga, the man in the cape, the provider of robotroff, the best trick to play on your friends in Amiga history, and Viacom, the funniest jab at a public utility in ages, to name a couple of FREEBIES the kid has put out; showing off his favorite high tech toy by imitating a short segment of a big machine promo, on a little machine. On the other hand, we have the heavies, who spent, they claim, man-years to do what our hero tossed off in a weekend. Do they accept imitation as the sincerest form of flattery? Ah, no, they threaten the hero with a lawsuit! I mean, if I paint a picture of a unicycle, I haven't cornered the market on unicycle paintings, any more than my photograph for sale of the Statue of Liberty prevents you from setting up your camera the same spot I did, taking the same picture, and selling it too. You just can't paint a unicycle just like the one I did, put MY name on it, and try to sell it as MY work. That's called counterfeiting, and it is against the law pretty much everywhere. So Leo, when you distribute your little red bike show (couldn't you have done a recumbant bike juggling doves and olive branches? I mean, it's well known to be "the only way to fly"!) please DON'T put Pixar's name on it anywhere! So, the heavies lean on our hero, but they haven't watched enough late night TV (You do remember TV? Boring, pre-personal-computer user of video tubes? Sure you do! Anyway, moving right along...) to understand that you do that kind of stuff in back rooms and dark alleys, not in the glare of the lights of Main Street. So here we have Pixar, hoping to sell high tech graphics systems to the world computer graphics consumer community. Here, also, we have (last readership poll) about 12,000 of the most plugged in, dedicated computer graphics consumers in the world, the ones that went out and bought the premier home computer graphics computer on their own nickel, and who got that nickel, in lots of cases, working at places that BUY COMPUTER GRAPHICS EQUIPMENT. Guess who they're going to decide they NEVER want to get tied up with in a contract? Need a hint? T h e h e a v i e s . That's right! Pixar. I love it! Keep up the good work guys! Can you think of a way to get any worse publicity for yourselves? Sure you can! Doesn't that foot you're hopping on make a tempting target for your next shot? Let's see you take poor Leo to court! Better yet, let's hold the trial on the net. Where else you gonna get a jury of Leo's peers? (Good thing we don't have to gather a jury of Pixar's peers; we'd have to reach way down in the dregs of guys flaming on soc.women to find a dozen more such stuffed shirts! ;-) (So sue me; I'm so broke the hospitals don't even bother sending bills any more. ;-) Kent, the man from xanth.
hah@mipon3.intel.com (Hans Hansen) (08/09/87)
In article <354@sccc0.teknek.UUCP> mark@teknek.UUCP (Mark Dyhr) writes: > >This is interesting. Mr. Schwab apparently sees or hears of a slick >Pixar-produced animation piece, takes his < $2K "home computer" and >a $200 software package (VideoScape 3D) and whips up, in his normal >fashion, an eye-popping demo at Siggraph. Some geek at Pixar whines. >Mr. Schwab pilfering design concepts? It's clear to me the man has >merely gone out and kicked major ass. > I think that you have just hit the nail on the head, i.e. a $2K computer and a $200 program displaying a 3D animation that PIXAR created on their $20K-$200K graphics engine and are probably asking 10s of thousands of dollars for their 3D programming package. Not only that but Leo did it in less than a week!! Absolutly astounding!!! And with a 3D package that he wasn't familiar with to boot!!! Yes I think I can now see why PIXAR does not want Leo's work displayed. Hans
tenney@well.UUCP (Glenn S. Tenney) (08/09/87)
Ok, you might not want to hear my two cents (I didn't see Leo's piece,
and think it's GREAT from what I heard), but...
I'm not an attorney, but over the last few years I've been a member
of the IEEE's Intellectual Property Committee which has been looking
long and hard at software copyright issues (among other things, including
patents and employee inventor's rights).
1. A copyright (audio/visual) would have to be filed by Pixar. Has it?
2. There *is* existing case law of infringments where the infringer
NEVER saw a stitch of the source code. Rather, the general criteria
seemed to be: would a reasonable person at say 10 feet think the
two pieces to be substantially similar.
Now, since this was a demo by Pixar I doubt they've experienced a loss.
*However*, they might be ready to release it for sale on a video tape.
My reading cases on software and a/v (via video arcade companies)
copyright infringings had nothing to do with parody. I would
think, however, that parody would be intended to make you laugh. I
think that you would snicker ONLY if you had seen the Pixar demo and
understood. I think it was a "cute" idea and showed what you
can do with a neat machine (rather than to parody for humor).
All in all, I think there is room to see both sides and not say
it is easy to say which side is right. I think, if Pixar did not
(does not?) have an a/v copyright on file (did they have a copyright
notice on the screen?), then it is very strongly in Leo's favor. Other
wise, it is gray area.
I just wish Pixar would drop this so I can get a copy!!!!
-- Glenn Tenney
UUCP: {hplabs,glacier,lll-crg,ihnp4!ptsfa}!well!tenney
ARPA: well!tenney@LLL-CRG.ARPA Delphi and MCI Mail: TENNEY
As Alphonso Bodoya would say... (tnx boulton)
Disclaimers? DISCLAIMERS!? I don' gotta show you no stinking DISCLAIy( stpwtm@neoucom.UUCP (08/10/87)
I really doubt that Pixar can really do much to Leo for his unicyle animation that is similar to a scene from Pixar's "Red's Dreams". Visual copyright laws are, unfortunately, pretty flabby and difficult to enforce unless two artistic products are virtually identical. That is to say that a photo transparency of Leo's scene when place over a photo transparency of Red's Dreams placed one over the other and held up to the light wouldn't show any differences. Text book illustrators often get away by adding a few embelishments to a figure from a different text and get away with publishing without attributions. Its amusing that Pixar would acknowledge that something created on a lowly Amiga could challenge the output from their $$$ machines and bevy of employees. It seems that in effect, Pixar is admitting inferior design and performance. If I had $$$ pixar equipment, I'd be annoyed that Pixar is suggesting a $2K Amiga can do as much. Seems like a poorly thought out piece of Publicity on Pixar's part. If a suit were filed and Pixar won, it seems that Pixar would be open for [possibly legal] complaints from its customers for not providing appropriate bang for the $$$ buck. Its a pretty nice compliment for Amiga that the big guys can be upset by such a modest machine! Number one, I think that it would be pretty difficult for Pixar to claim damages becuase Red's Dreams is not for sale, and I doublt that they could substantively prove that sales of Pixar computers declined as potential users switched to Amigas 8 :-). The argument of Leo's demo being an inferior copy being mistaken for the "real thing" (R's D) and thus discrediting Pixar's reputation probably wouldn't wash. Number two, Leo could claim that his work is a parody. Grant Woods' "American Gothic" is copyrighted. That is the "Green Acres" painting of a man with a pitchfork and woman in front of a house. Note that Green Acres' opening shot is a parody of that. There are a lot of lampoonish paintings of Woods' painting around whose authours aren't worried. Pixar reads this net. I hope they have already applied the appropriate 40 lashes with the mandatory wet noodle to the spoil- sports in their carde. By the way, I'm not a lawyer. The usual disclaimers about opinion versus fact apply to the above ranting. Way to go. --Bill (wtm@noeuocm.UUCP)
keithe@tekgvs.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) (08/10/87)
What I want to know, Leo, is why in the bleep you animated a juggler on a *unicycle* instead of on a recumbant bicycle ( and wearing a cape, of course)! keith
adamsd@crash.CTS.COM (Adams Douglas) (08/10/87)
In article <941@omepd> hah@mipon3.UUCP (Hans Hansen) writes: >I think that you have just hit the nail on the head, i.e. a $2K computer >and a $200 program displaying a 3D animation that PIXAR created on their >$20K-$200K graphics engine and are probably asking 10s of thousands of >dollars for their 3D programming package. Not only that but Leo did it >in less than a week!! Absolutly astounding!!! And with a 3D package >that he wasn't familiar with to boot!!! > >Yes I think I can now see why PIXAR does not want Leo's work displayed. > Well, from _that_ standpoint, there is no question as to which animation had superior rendering. This is not denigrating Leo's effort, but frankly folks and Amy just ain't as good as a (whatever kind of imager Pixar used for RD). The Amy animation was aliased up the wazoo, and had much poorer color gradation the Pixar's hyperreal production. This has nothing to do with how good the Amy is or isn't. It's just that even 640x400 can't approach 1Kx1K (or whatever it was). There _is_ a difference between $2200 and $60,000 or so. It's just that sometimes the ingenuity of users can diminish that price/utility ratio substantially. -- ======================================================= Adams Douglas ARPA:crash!adamsd@nosc.mil AT&T:818-354-3076 <work> DSN/JPL/NASA UUCP:{cbosgd | hplabs!hp-sdd | sdcsvax | nosc}!crash!adamsd Internet: adamsd@crash.CTS.COM My opinions! Do you hear? MINE! Not JPL's. "Do not be angry with me if I tell you the truth." -- Socrates "Tell the Truth and run."--Yugoslav proverb
tim@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Timothy L. Kay) (08/11/87)
In article <941@omepd> hah@mipon3.UUCP (Hans Hansen) writes: > >I think that you have just hit the nail on the head, i.e. a $2K computer >and a $200 program displaying a 3D animation that PIXAR created on their >$20K-$200K graphics engine and are probably asking 10s of thousands of >dollars for their 3D programming package. Not only that but Leo did it >in less than a week!! Absolutly astounding!!! And with a 3D package >that he wasn't familiar with to boot!!! Let's get some perspective on the situation. While Leo's demo is very pretty and a superb effort, the quality of the presentation falls far short compared to the Pixar piece. I hope nobody out there is willing to claim that the rendering quality of the "$200 program" is in any way comparable to the quality of that produced by Pixar. Furthermore, the actual act of juggling was only a very small part of the Pixar flick. Let's see the Amiga just described create the opening scene with the rain. How about the spot lights and the diffuse shadows? I am not trying to detract from Leo's demo in any way. However, it is a completely different level of sophistication compared to what Pixar tried to do. What Leo did in three days is impressive. What Pixar did in six months is even more impressive.
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (08/11/87)
in article <3546@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, tim@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Timothy L. Kay) says: > > In article <941@omepd> hah@mipon3.UUCP (Hans Hansen) writes: >> >>I think that you have just hit the nail on the head, i.e. a $2K computer >>and a $200 program displaying a 3D animation that PIXAR created on their >>$20K-$200K graphics engine and are probably asking 10s of thousands of >>dollars for their 3D programming package. Not only that but Leo did it >>in less than a week!! Absolutly astounding!!! And with a 3D package >>that he wasn't familiar with to boot!!! > > Let's get some perspective on the situation. While Leo's demo is very > pretty and a superb effort, the quality of the presentation falls far > short compared to the Pixar piece. I hope nobody out there is willing > to claim that the rendering quality of the "$200 program" is in any way > comparable to the quality of that produced by Pixar. Furthermore, the > actual act of juggling was only a very small part of the Pixar flick. > Let's see the Amiga just described create the opening scene with the > rain. How about the spot lights and the diffuse shadows? I'm sure that both efforts were quite good. Obviously the six months the Pixar folks had, the higher resolutions they work with, and the extra horsepower they have for rendering is going to produce a better looking film. The Amiga's output can approach TV quality, but not movie quality, at least not yet. However, as far as claiming that the $200 program and Leo's three days of work is comparable to the Pixar piece, it seems that the Pixar people are the main ones making this claim so far. Its was because of their request not to distribute the demo that Leo is not yet releasing it, eh? Regardless of how close the two are, the public impression that's going to result from Pixar's position so far is very likely going to be that they're close enough to annoy Pixar. Which is certainly closer than anyone should be able to get on a $2000 computer with a $200 program and three days of work, right. Certainly if Pixar had responded with a "hey-that's-cute" sort of indifference, Leo's demo would have attracted so much attention already. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga Usenet: {ihnp4|caip|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh "The A2000 Guy" PLINK : D-DAVE H BIX : hazy "Catch a wave and you're sittin' on top of the world" -Beach Boys
ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) (08/11/87)
In article <2539@tekgvs.TEK.COM> keithe@tekgvs.UUCP (Keith Ericson) writes: >What I want to know, Leo, is why in the bleep you animated a juggler >on a *unicycle* instead of on a recumbant bicycle ( and wearing a cape, >of course)! > >keith No no no no no. It's just a unicycle. No rider, just a unicycle with a mind of its own. The unicycle moves back and forth (angular rotation of the wheel is 30 degrees, as I recall), hitting the balls off the moving pedal. The balls bounce up to the seat, which gently bops them upward, where they then fall to the other pedal, and get launched all the way over to the first pedal again. It's a 96 frame loop. Pedal-to-seat and seat-to-pedal times are 24 frames; pedal-to-pedal time is 48 frames. Balls are seperated by 32 frames. Gravity is 0.4 (arrived at empirically). Balls are solid green, solid blue, and "Boing". Ball radius is 6...... *OOOOHH!* Sorry to rant on you... I thought briefly of modelling a recumbent, but that would have taken a week. Someone also suggested, "Why don't you have a ball juggling three unicycles?" Personally, if you're going to infringe on a copyright, you might as well go for the whole nine yards. I'm thinking of having a unicycle with the Pixar(tm) logo for a wheel, juggling the Stained Glass Knight, a beach chair, and a Luxo lamp..... :-) _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Leo L. Schwab -- The Guy in The Cape ihnp4!ptsfa -\ \_ -_ Bike shrunk by popular demand, dual ---> !{well,unicom}!ewhac O----^o But it's still the only way to fly. hplabs / (pronounced "AE-wack") "Work FOR? I don't work FOR anybody! I'm just having fun." -- The Doctor
banzai@pixar.UUCP (Eric Herrmann) (08/11/87)
[Kill bob... or eat me] First of all, I'd like to state that I in no way carry the Official word, and that anything I say here is my own opinion, not Pixar's. I was not involved with the production of Red's Dream. I am not a copyright lawyer nor a diplomat. NOTE that I'm not talking about the actual legality of the work, which I can't judge, so don't even think of flaming me about it. In article <3694@well.UUCP> ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: >In article <921@hp-sdd.HP.COM> nick@hp-sdd.UUCP (Nick Flor) writes: >>E) What did Pixar gain? > Nothing. Except, perhaps (by wide PD distribution), a greater >exposure of the essence of their latest work to people who otherwise might >not know about it (I know, I'm reaching). Pixar certainly gained a lot of flames from amiga-netters. If you'll look back, you'll see quite a few nasty words from people who probably should know better considering how little they really know about the whole affair (and Pixar). Consider: Wouldn't the creators of RD be a lot happier to approve release of Leo's work if the Amiga community were more receptive? >-------- > After dropping off the tape, I bumped into Loren Carpenter. I asked >if he had any feel for the general opinion held by Pixarians concerning my >foray. He said that, from what he could divine, people seemed to be >slightly amused. I gathered from his tone that (*I'M SPECULATING HERE!*) >the general feeling within Pixar is one of indifference. I'm not indifferent... and I was amused. I think that it's a "good hack", but that you basically had two or three problems (other than not having any curved patches available): (1) Copyright. The loop didn't have the words (C) 1987 PIXAR in flaming, raised letters anywhere. (2) Timing. RD took a heck of a lot of work by some very talented people here, and to have someone plagiarize their work EVEN BEFORE the release of RD is a bit much. I mean, Leo, wasn't it a bit tacky to show your unicycle before the opening of RD at the film show? Perhaps you could have waited a few time units. Example: There apparently were several exhibitors who were showing pictures of Luxo Jr. with and without the copyright notice. But that's old hat, so it makes less difference. 'Nuff said. (3) Foresight. If you had known that Pixar might be pissed, would you still have done it? On second thought, don't answer that. That would be telling. You know, even if you can't distribute the source to your work, you could still distribute a "how-to" telling how you constructed your models, how you made the unicycle move, and the like. I doubt that anyone but you can copyright the actual models. Personally, I think the whole question of copyrightedness is silly. I do, however, suscribe to the hacker ethic of "Respect another's work". > >Leo L. Schwab -- The Guy in The Cape ihnp4!ptsfa -\ -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ... And a million vacations is what you had in mind ... Just say YES! Eric Herrmann ucbvax!pixar!banzai
grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) (08/12/87)
In article <986@pixar.UUCP> banzai@pixar.UUCP (Eric Herrmann) writes: > > >>E) What did Pixar gain? > > Nothing. Except, perhaps (by wide PD distribution), a greater > >exposure of the essence of their latest work to people who otherwise might > >not know about it (I know, I'm reaching). > Pixar certainly gained a lot of flames from amiga-netters. If you'll look > back, you'll see quite a few nasty words from people who probably should know > better considering how little they really know about the whole affair (and > Pixar). Consider: Wouldn't the creators of RD be a lot happier to approve > release of Leo's work if the Amiga community were more receptive? Uh, I think the Amiga community was quite receptive to Leo's demo and would be equally receptive to an opportunity to view the real Red Dreams video. Unfortunatly, after everyone heard rave reviews of both, Pixar made some kind of fuss, apparently intended to prevent us from seeing Leo's demo. Now it may well be that Leo was a bad boy and took unfair advantage of the preview he saw and thoughlessly blunted the impact of the Pixar demo for those persons who saw his thing first. If this is so, then perhaps Pixar should accept Leo's apolgies and be done with it. It wouldn't take him 10 minutes to add a note saying "Images derived from Red Dreams, courtesy of Pixar" somewhere in the display loop? Instead we are hearing noises about legal actions of varying severity. Leo has quite a bit of respect on the net and people are not likely to take kindly to this sort of thing. The stink you see rising from this groups is only a reaction to this. -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing arpa: cbmvax!grr@seismo.css.GOV Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)
ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) (08/12/87)
In article <986@pixar.UUCP> banzai@pixar.UUCP (Eric Herrmann) writes: >Pixar certainly gained a lot of flames from amiga-netters. If you'll look >back, you'll see quite a few nasty words from people who probably should know >better considering how little they really know about the whole affair (and >Pixar). And if you look even further back, you'll see that I wrote, in large flaming letters, "Do not flame Pixar about this." But that's a moot point by now. >Consider: Wouldn't the creators of RD be a lot happier to approve >release of Leo's work if the Amiga community were more receptive [to >Pixar's views]? > Now *there's* a good point.... >You know, even if you can't distribute the source to your work, you could >still distribute a "how-to" telling how you constructed your models, how >you made the unicycle move, and the like. I doubt that anyone but you can >copyright the actual models. > Well, I *could* do that. But that strikes me as an end-run around Pixar, which seems dishonorable. >Personally, I think the whole question of copyrightedness is silly. Me too. > I do, however, suscribe to the hacker ethic of "Respect another's work". Me too. That's why I've initiated a dialog with Pixar. I'll keep you all posted.... _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Leo L. Schwab - The Guy in Deep Trouble ihnp4!ptsfa -\ \_ -_ Unicycle held back at Pixar's demand, dual --->!{well,unicom}!ewhac O----^o But it's still rather impressive. hplabs /(pronounced "AE-wack") "Work FOR? I don't work FOR anybody! I'm being sued to hell!" -- Me
jdow@gryphon.CTS.COM (Joanne Dow) (08/13/87)
[] In article <2539@tekgvs.TEK.COM> keithe@tekgvs.UUCP (Keith Ericson) writes: >What I want to know, Leo, is why in the bleep you animated a juggler >on a *unicycle* instead of on a recumbant bicycle ( and wearing a cape, >of course)! > >keith Keith, he did not animate a juggler on a unicycle. He animated a juggling unicycle. <@_@>
gary@eddie.MIT.EDU (Gary Samad) (08/14/87)
In article <941@omepd> hah@mipon3.UUCP (Hans Hansen) writes: } }I think that you have just hit the nail on the head, i.e. a $2K computer }and a $200 program displaying a 3D animation that PIXAR created on their }$20K-$200K graphics engine and are probably asking 10s of thousands of }dollars for their 3D programming package. Not only that but Leo did it }in less than a week!! Absolutly astounding!!! And with a 3D package }that he wasn't familiar with to boot!!! } }Yes I think I can now see why PIXAR does not want Leo's work displayed. } }Hans Ok, come on guys, the Amiga only rivalled the PIXAR demo from the aspect that the Amiga could do 3d graphics rendering. It would have been impossible to create the ACTUAL PIXAR demo on an Amiga; it used umpteen zillion colors in ultra-rez mode with many, many more objects than Leo's. Also, the PIXAR demo was several minutes long, only a few dozen seconds of which were the juggling scene. Gary Leo's demo WAS a real eye catcher. When I saw it for the first time I took a double-take and only after several puzzling minutes did I realize that this was a takeoff of the PIXAR demo.
kim@amdahl.amdahl.com (Kim DeVaughn) (08/14/87)
In article <3546@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, tim@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Timothy L. Kay) writes: > > Let's get some perspective on the situation. While Leo's demo is very > pretty and a superb effort, the quality of the presentation falls far > short compared to the Pixar piece. I hope nobody out there is willing > to claim that the rendering quality of the "$200 program" is in any way > comparable to the quality of that produced by Pixar. Furthermore, the > actual act of juggling was only a very small part of the Pixar flick. > Let's see the Amiga just described create the opening scene with the > rain. How about the spot lights and the diffuse shadows? > > I am not trying to detract from Leo's demo in any way. However, it is > a completely different level of sophistication compared to what Pixar > tried to do. What Leo did in three days is impressive. What Pixar did > in six months is even more impressive. Yes, this is exactly the point! I doubt if anyone here on the net actually *believes* that the quality (resolution, complexity, smoothness, etc) of "Leo's Dream" can match that of Pixar's "Red's Dream". And as you point out, the one scene Leo imitated is only a small part of Pixar's production. BUT, Pixar's position certainly leaves one with the *impression* that the $2K Amiga can do the same job as their $$$$K machine, else why would they be unhappy about it? That's what makes this whole incident so ludicrous! The concept of having a uni-cycle continue to juggle was (perhaps) unique, and I can understand some chagrin at having the concept so quickly imitated. But (so far as I know, not being a lawyer) *concepts* cannot be Copyrighted or Patented, and a publicly displayed sequence of images certainly cannot be considered to be a Trade Secret (though the algorithms and techniques used in their generation could be, if they are appropriately protected). Now, if Leo had *digitized* the sequence of images used to create the scene in question, I (and most of us) would, I think, agree that *that* would be a clear case of infringement, and a "rip-off". But that is not what he did. He came up with a different implementation of a concept, and has himself created an "original work". He should of course give credit to whomever provided his inspiration since *that* was not original, and this he has done. I would bet that the inspiration for some of the scene's in "Red's Dream" and in other Pixar spectaculars did not originate with Pixarians, for that matter. So "what's the beef", Pixar? Or maybe you really *are* afraid of a little ol' Amiga ... :-)? Sigh: o "Pixar" is probably a Trademark (registered or un) of Pixar. o "Red's Dream" is likewise probably a Trademark or Copyright of Pixar. o "Amiga" is a (registered?) Trademark of Commodore Business Machines, Inc. o "What's the beef?" is a knock-off of a Wendy's commercial which was probably Trademarked or Copyrighted by them. o I am not a lawyer. Nothing in this posting should be construed as offering or giving legal advice. o "amdahl" is a registered Trademark of Amdahl Corp. o "Leo" may be a Trademark or Copyright of Leo Schwab, or his parents. He does ride a bicycle and wear a cape, the combination of which may also be a Trademark or be Copyrighted by Leo Schwab. o "Leo's Dream" is his own business. o I have pictures of jugglers and uni-cycles at home. Do I need a license to combine them with Deluxe Paint? o "Deluxe Paint" is probably a Trademark or Copyright of Electronic Arts. This posting is: (c) Copyright 1987 Kim E. DeVaughn, Sunnyvale, CA. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby explicitly granted to reproduce, copy, or distribute it in any form whatsoever, provided that: this notice is retained intact, and that the right to reproduce, copy, or redistribute any such reproductions, copies, or distributions is not abridged, altered, or otherwise restricted in any manner in any such reproduced, copied, or redistributed works. [ Any thoughts or opinions which may or may not have been expressed ] [ herein are my own. They are not necessarily those of my employer. ] There! Have I CYA'd myself sufficiently ... sheesh?! /kim -- UUCP: kim@amdahl.amdahl.com or: {sun,decwrl,hplabs,pyramid,ihnp4,seismo,oliveb,cbosgd}!amdahl!kim DDD: 408-746-8462 USPS: Amdahl Corp. M/S 249, 1250 E. Arques Av, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 CIS: 76535,25
czei@osupyr.UUCP (Michael S Czeiszperger) (08/16/87)
In article <12093@amdahl.amdahl.com> kim@amdahl.amdahl.com (Kim DeVaughn) writes: >In article <3546@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, tim@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Timothy L. Kay) writes: >> >BUT, Pixar's position certainly leaves one with the *impression* that the >$2K Amiga can do the same job as their $$$$K machine, else why would they >be unhappy about it? That's what makes this whole incident so ludicrous! > Discaimer: I do not represent Pixar, but in my opinion..... Pixar simply does not want their promotional material copied by others and shown at international conventions to thousands of their competitors. If Leo had kept his copy at home and showed it to friends there wouldn't have been a problem. The truth is, it was shown at the largest computer grapics convention in the world, and used to promote something other than Pixar. This is CLEARLY a copywrite infringement, and Pixar has shown remarkable restraint for not hauling those responsible into court. What Leo did is tantamount to: 1. Burger King getting some clown with the legal name Ronald McDonald to hawk their hamburgers. 2. CBS using a peacock as a logo. 3. Disney using the road runner to promote Disney World. 4. and so on .... >This posting is: > >(c) Copyright 1987 Kim E. DeVaughn, Sunnyvale, CA. All rights reserved. >Permission is hereby explicitly granted to reproduce, copy, or distribute >it in any form whatsoever, provided that: this notice is retained intact, >and that the right to reproduce, copy, or redistribute any such reproductions, >copies, or distributions is not abridged, altered, or otherwise restricted >in any manner in any such reproduced, copied, or redistributed works. > Michael S. Czeiszperger | Disclaimer: "Sorry, I'm all out of pith" Sound Synthesis Studios | Snail: Room 406 Baker Phone: (614) College of the Arts Computer Lab | 1971 Neil Avenue 292- The Ohio State University | Columbus, OH 43210 0895 UUCP : {decvax,ucbvax}!cbosgd!osupyr!czei
ali@rocky.STANFORD.EDU (Ali Ozer) (08/16/87)
In article kim@amdahl.amdahl.com (Kim DeVaughn) writes: >Yes, this is exactly the point! I doubt if anyone here on the net actually >*believes* that the quality (resolution, complexity, smoothness, etc) of >"Leo's Dream" can match that of Pixar's "Red's Dream". And as you point out, >the one scene Leo imitated is only a small part of Pixar's production. >BUT, Pixar's position certainly leaves one with the *impression* that the >$2K Amiga can do the same job as their $$$$K machine, else why would they >be unhappy about it? That's what makes this whole incident so ludicrous! > Well, maybe they are afraid there will always be people who show the Amiga demo off at dealers, to friends, etc, just saying "it's the same as the Pixar demo" and not "it imitates a portion of the Pixar demo, and does a good job, but of course, the edges aren't as smooth and the resolution isn't as great..." And, who knows, with the $699 Mimetics frame buffer (which can do smoothing, thanks to it's, what, 2 million colors at once?), a single frame VCR, a decent ray tracer (Sculpt 3D?), VideoScape 3D, an Amiga, and lots of patience (a months worth?), maybe Pixar's demo could be duplicated fully. After all, was their demo running off a computer or was it on videotape? Of course, making the demo and not being able to show it would be a bummer... Ali Ozer, ali@rocky.stanford.edu
scotty@l5comp.UUCP (Scott Turner) (08/17/87)
In article <3546@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> tim@cit-vax.UUCP (Timothy L. Kay) writes: >I am not trying to detract from Leo's demo in any way. However, it is >a completely different level of sophistication compared to what Pixar >tried to do. What Leo did in three days is impressive. What Pixar did >in six months is even more impressive. Not to detract from Pixar's demo but what good is it if very few people ever see it? I'd rate Leo's effort as more impressive because it could (if but for Pixar) impress more people. Sure Pixar may be doing impressive stuff, but like the old question of "If a tree falls with no around to hear it, does it make a sound?" If something is impressive but almost no one ever sees it to be impressed, is it impressive? Anyone seeing Leo's demo can sit back afterwards and wonder "Gee I wonder what that looked like on a Pixar?" Now people sit around thinking "Pixar is keeping me from seeing something" to an AMERICAN that's like waving a RED flag in front of a bull. People then start wondering "Why doesn't Pixar want me seeing it?" Now here's an idea for Leo: The "Fair use" loop hole in the copyright law seems to allow pieces of copyrighted works to be used in reviews... Leo, why don't you write up a review of Red's Dream (or however that goes) and then toss your demo in and say "And here's a brief crude example of a scene that I whipped up for you." Then of course toss in Pixar's mail address and pricing info on how to get our own copies of Red's Dreams (or however that goes). You could do the review as 3D text doing something visually interesting, like scrolling in FROM the vanishing point and whipping past below our viewpoint. That way no one could run the demo without the review. So it would truely be a review piece. Sound like a winner? Leo gets to distribute his demo and Pixar gets it's piece of the fame. And Pixar really should think of selling a video tape, from the interest level in this topic I'm sure they'd sell a few copies. I know I'd slap plastic if Leo's review told me how to get one. (Unless of course they wanted BIG bux for it, I'm not paying $79 for a 15 minute tape) And if my idea really does work and Pixar makes a pile of money off Leo's review then they may even feel cuddly towards having Leo do it again. As it stands now I'm sure Leo isn't going to any sneak previews from Pixar next year. :) Scott Turner -- UUCP-stick: stride!l5comp!scotty | If you want to injure my goldfish just make UUCP-auto: scotty@l5comp.UUCP | sure I don't run up a vet bill. GEnie: JST | "The bombs drop in 5 minutes" R. Reagan "Pirated software? Just say *NO*!" S. Turner
tim@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Timothy L. Kay) (08/17/87)
In article <324@l5comp.UUCP> scotty@l5comp.UUCP (Scott Turner) writes: >Not to detract from Pixar's demo but what good is it if very few people >ever see it? I'd rate Leo's effort as more impressive because it could (if >but for Pixar) impress more people. Sure Pixar may be doing impressive >stuff, but like the old question of "If a tree falls with no around to hear >it, does it make a sound?" If something is impressive but almost no one >ever sees it to be impressed, is it impressive? Last year Pixar contributed "Luxo, Jr." to the SIGGRAPH '86 Film and Video show. After its debut there, the film ran as a short before the feature length films at some (one?) movie theatre in the L.A. area. It was then nominated for an Academy Award in the short film category. > ... a description of Leo marketing "Red's Dream" for Pixar ... > >And if my idea really does work and Pixar makes a pile of money off Leo's >review then they may even feel cuddly towards having Leo do it again. As it >stands now I'm sure Leo isn't going to any sneak previews from Pixar next >year. :) Pixar isn't in the business of selling video tapes. Any money they would make off of the video would be peanuts. They did "Red's Dream" primarily to use as a demo for their Image Computer. It has been demonstrated many times in the past that the demos sells the hardware. For example, in 1980, Raster Technologies had a frame buffer that was much the same in capability as Lexidata, Ramtek, etc. However, they had certain ray traced images (robot arm, bar stool, etc.) that were higher quality than anything the competitors had. This is what set them apart. One of the strengths of the Amiga is its high quality demos.