kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) (08/07/87)
In article <922@hp-sdd.HP.COM> nick@hp-sdd.UUCP (Nick Flor) writes: [in response to other letters about Leo's demo:] >See what I mean??? Yet another poster who thinks that Leo came up with >the idea all by his lonesome. (And Doyle wonders why PIXAR is pissed). > > >The idea of the unicycle came from PIXAR. Leo get's an "A" for implementation >energy. Creativity energy credit goes to PIXAR. > > >It is far easier to implement than it is to conceive. >This is especially true in the case of art. Two comments on this: (Warning!!!!! Sexism ahead!!!!!) First, ask any wife,eight months pregnent in sweltering August, seen glaring at her beer swilling hubby, whether it is easier to conceive or to implement! Second, remember Thomas Edison's aphorism: "Invention is one percent inspiration and ninety nine percent perspiration." To put it another way, "Ideas, I got a million of 'em. The guts to carry any of them out, not a bit." All credit to Leo for applying the skull sweat and the time to make this thing work. Leo didn't have $100,000 of hardware and a team of programmers to do his demo, and that is the whole point - "I can do it for you wholesale!" If he hadn't chosen to (pretty much) duplicate an existing demo, it wouldn't have been nearly so blowing-away-powerful a statement of the Amiga's capabilities. Yea, Leo! Hit 'em again! (And please post; I'm dying to see it!) Now my apology, to Commodore and the net, for going off half cocked about the bundled software deal. I didn't understand that it was just for user groups of existing Commodore computers. As a way to lure in the C64, C128 and etc. crowd, it is an excellent idea. I was wrong, and I'm sorry. Kent, the man from xanth.
dleigh@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM (Darren Leigh) (08/08/87)
All of this flaming about PIXAR and Leo's demo is really starting
to bother me. Have most of you flamers even seen both demos?
I was at Siggraph and I saw both of them, and I think the whole
debate is ludicrous. "Red's Dream" was incredible, and Leo's demo,
while it is a VERY nice piece of Amiga animation, doesn't touch it.
The two are not very much alike. The only similarities you could
possibly draw between the two are that:
1. Each had a unicycle
2. The unicycles were red
3. The unicycles were juggling (albeit differently)
4. The juggling happened in a circus ring
If people think that PIXAR's creativity lies solely in the fact that
they had a unicycle juggling, then I feel really sorry for them.
PIXAR's production was several minutes long, had a story line,
employed MANY other scenes and another character (a clown), had some
really great dynamic effects (the juggling was much more complex, the
speeds were more pleasing, the unicycle and clown moved very well . . .)
and was rendered beautifully.
Leo's demo, on the other hand, was a short (a number of seconds),
repeating piece of animation with no story line. All it had was a
unicycle juggling some balls and the juggling was not nearly as
realistic as PIXAR's. The unicycles were not identical, even though
they were both red. The rendering, while good for the Amiga, was not
up to PIXAR's quality (did I see some aliasing? PIXAR people would
get fired for that!).
Calling it copyright infringement, or even saying that Leo stole
PIXAR's creativity is stupid. The two are not *nearly* enough alike.
Oh, and while I'm on the topic, I saw a lot of Star Trek stuff at
Siggraph. At the trade show I saw animated models of the Enterprise
zooming around three dimensionally, and one of the speakers even used
slides and music from the show to juice up his presentation.
(Horrors!) What about all of these pictures of Spock and the
Enterprise I have seen floating around (you know, the ones you print
up on a line printer). Do you think Paramount is going to sue? They
stand on much better legal ground than PIXAR!
Copyright infringement, bah!
Darren Leigh
dleigh@hplabs.hp.com
And since I have been flaming:
DISCLAIMER: The preceding opinions are mine and may or may not be
shared by my employers.jdow@gryphon.CTS.COM (Joanne Dow) (08/12/87)
Well, I guess I feel I have to enter my $2e-2 worth on this issue. First a disclaimer. I ain't a lawyer type either. I have, however, seen both Leo's demo and the Pixar film. IMHO it is clear that one inspired the other much like an Ansel Adams picture may inspire any other nature photographer. Leo's demo is 96 frames of an event that is hinted at in the Pixar film (at least that I caught and I was looking for it.) I would think that Pixar would not win a copyright suit in court. Where they might win it is in draining Leo's ability to defend against such a suit. In the process Pixar might end up painted as an industry ogre. This is something I strongly suspect they do not wish to have happen. I certainly would not like to see this happen to people with the creative energy of the Pixar folks nor to Leo. Both are very capable people. Just as a music composer might compose a fantasy on a theme by ... Leo has clearly done just that in the visual field. Leo's Dream (which it should probably be called) is a fantasy on a theme by Pixar. As such the folks at Pixar should take it as a complement rather than a threat. Heck, they might do well to consult with Leo in case he has some good ideas they can use. That would be beneficial to both parties. IMHO this is a much better approach than either side being a collection of ogres. Um, anotehr place Leo might lose in distributing this is in the eyes of the the folks at Pixar. I think that the one thing you don't want to do is alienate the pioneers and leaders in a field you find interesting. There's no better way to be shut out. At any rate I certiainly hope both the Pixar folks and Leo can come to some accomodation regarding distributing this demo. It is a fine piece of work. It is not up to the visual standards of the Pixar film, all 1:56 of it. It is, however, a major show piece for the Amiga and a very significant accomplishment. Hopefully Greg and the rest of the Pixar crew can acknowledge this flattery and allow the world to continue on it's course. <@_@> (Don't forget that my IMHO disclaimer means In My Humble Opinion which further means that you can usually use my humble opinions plus $25e-2 to buy a cup of coffee most anywhere.)