rick@hanauma (Richard Ottolini) (08/22/89)
Is the entertainment computer graphics business increasing, decreasing, or reshuffling? Someone stated that Digital Pictures, one of the first Cray-X customers, gave up the ghost some time ago. Also, I haven't seen many long computer generated sequences in films such as TRON or The Last Starfighter recently. Technique is continually improving as evidenced in this year's SIGGRAGH clips, so that can't be the problem. The new RenderMan Companion book describes how ILM did Abyss special effects. Some were so real that I thought they were model-based rather than computer generated. At least the special effects people got top billing in the credits.
jh34607@suntc.UUCP (john howell) (08/22/89)
In article <4690@portia.Stanford.EDU>, rick@hanauma (Richard Ottolini) writes: > > Is the entertainment computer graphics business increasing, decreasing, or > reshuffling? Someone stated that Digital Pictures, one of the first Cray-X > customers, gave up the ghost some time ago. Also, I haven't seen many long > computer generated sequences in films such as TRON or The Last Starfighter > recently. Technique is continually improving as evidenced in this year's > SIGGRAGH clips, so that can't be the problem. The new RenderMan Companion > book describes how ILM did Abyss special effects. Some were so real that I > thought they were model-based rather than computer generated. At least the > special effects people got top billing in the credits. I'd say that there is very little interest these days in making complete motion pictures using computer graphics techniques like "TRON" and "The Last Starfighter". It just doesn't seem to be economical yet. On the other hand the use of some Computer Graphics effects as a small part of the movie is probably becoming more common. Examples: "The Abyss", "Willow", "Roger Rabbit", "Witches of EastWick", etc. Add to that the computer generated imagery for almost all TV Sports shows, most TV station logos, and many commercials, and I'd say the market is expanding. Some of the problems facing people in the business is the cost of doing business. If you got in early, the cost was _very_ high. You had to buy some _very_ expensive computer gear and develop all your own software to render these effects. Now, you can get into business with some reasonably priced workstations and commercial software. What this means is if you got in early, bought a Cray for $15 million and spent many man years on software development, it became very difficult to compete with the "Johnny come Latelies". ======================================================================== John Howell uucp: uunet!suntc!jrh Deere & Company MCImail: 360-4047 Technical Center CompuServe: [76666,2505] 3300 River Drive FAX: (309)765-3807 Moline, IL 61265 Voice: (309)765-3784 ========================================================================
flip@pixar.uucp (Flip Phillips) (08/28/89)
In article <115@suntc.UUCP> jh34607@suntc.UUCP (john howell) writes: >In article <4690@portia.Stanford.EDU>, rick@hanauma (Richard Ottolini) writes: >> [...] >Some of the problems facing people in the business is the cost of doing >business. If you got in early, the cost was _very_ high. You had to >buy some _very_ expensive computer gear and develop all your own >software to render these effects. Now, you can get into business with >some reasonably priced workstations and commercial software. The unfortunate result of "some reasonably priced workstations and commercial software" is the "computers have no talent" effect. People buy these systems thinking that they will be able to do work as good as the "big boys" [C/CP, PDI, DP, R&H, etc] do [did]. Unfortunately, very few can. Having a copy of Adobe Illustrator on you Macintosh does not make you an illustrator. Having a computer animation system does not make you an animator. When you pay big bucks for a 30 second computer animation spot you are paying for the creative talent also, not just the "_very_ expensive computer gear", etc. Some groups -have- done well with off the shelf hardware & software, these groups also have very talented creative people at their disposal. [R&H, ILM, etc...] but the bad stuff is out there too... Flip Phillips {sun | ucbvax}!pixar!flip Pixar - Marin County, California
ewong@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Eddy Wong) (08/29/89)
In article <6492@pixar.UUCP> flip@pixar.uucp (Flip Phillips) writes: >In article <115@suntc.UUCP> jh34607@suntc.UUCP (john howell) writes: >When you pay big bucks for a 30 second computer animation spot you are >paying for the creative talent also, not just the "_very_ expensive >computer gear", etc. >Flip Phillips {sun | ucbvax}!pixar!flip >Pixar - Marin County, California I am interested in knowing how much computer animation houses charge for producing computer animation spots. I would be pleased if someone could give me some idea. Thanks in advance. Eddy Wong ewong@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca
dhelrod@cup.portal.com (David Hunter Elrod) (08/30/89)
> Is the entertainment computer graphics business increasing, decreasing, or > reshuffling? Someone stated that Digital Pictures, one of the first Cray-X > customers, gave up the ghost some time ago. Also, I haven't seen many long > computer generated sequences in films such as TRON or The Last Starfighter > recently. Technique is continually improving as evidenced in this year's > SIGGRAGH clips, so that can't be the problem. The new RenderMan Companion > book describes how ILM did Abyss special effects. Some were so real that I > thought they were model-based rather than computer generated. At least the > special effects people got top billing in the credits. I've heard at least two producers comment that two of the biggest concerns when making a movie are: 1) What wizzy techno tricks will catch the public eye. 2) The cost/time tradeoff. When the image the computer generates looks "just like reality" where reality might include models, or traditional tricks, the company falls directly into #2 and picks the cheapest and/or fastest technique. Thus, usually only "impossible any other way" types of scenes get done on the computer. Although the cost of generating computer images is dropping, and companies are moving facilities in-house, there is still a huge time investment. Modeling and rendering are still a long way "time-wise" from being cheap production tools. David H. Elrod Rivendell 415/968-3754 dhelrod@cup.portal.com
charlie@celia.UUCP (Charlie Gibson) (08/30/89)
In article <6492@pixar.UUCP> flip@pixar.uucp (Flip Phillips) writes: >In article <115@suntc.UUCP> jh34607@suntc.UUCP (john howell) writes: >>In article <4690@portia.Stanford.EDU>, rick@hanauma (Richard Ottolini) writes: >>> >[...] >>software to render these effects. Now, you can get into business with >>some reasonably priced workstations and commercial software. > >The unfortunate result of "some reasonably priced workstations and >commercial software" is the "computers have no talent" effect. Very True -- and in fact, potentially very damaging. There is not very much high-end commercial animation being produced today. However, there are a *LOT* of commercial CGI animation houses. Since there are many Ad Agencies (our commercial clients) that haven't yet used CGI, it is very important that their first experience be a good one. Otherwise, the medium (and not the company that screwed up) is blamed. The CGI animation industry crumbled once; it could happen again if too many companies fail to deliver. As of this writing, there are companies that are dangerously close to alienating some of the larger studios. "Tron" and "The Last Starfighter" didn't help, either, but people are finally forgetting...(whew!) >Some groups -have- done well with off the shelf hardware & software, >these groups also have very talented creative people at their disposal. >[R&H, ILM, etc...] but the bad stuff is out there too... Yes, the off-the-shelf software enabled us to get into business quickly. Yes, art direction is EXTREMELY important -- Art Direction and Animation are the true services that we offer, but I firmly believe that a production company without a significant in-house R&D effort is destined to die. All of our best work could not have been pulled off with ANY existing off-the-shelf software packages. We have been writing animation software, renderers, modelling software and image processing software since the day we opened our doors. This will never stop. ..... [Eddy Wong asks the following:] > I am interested in knowing how much computer animation houses charge > for producing computer animation spots. I would be pleased if someone could > give me some idea. > Thanks in advance. > Eddy Wong > ewong@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca It varies greatly. Happily, labor has replaced the technology as the major expense in CGI. (This is the way that it SHOULD be.) So, things that require less human intervention per second of animation are cheaper. For example, a broadcast (flying logo) animation that is 10 seconds long will be a lot costlier per second than two minutes of material that re-uses animation and geometry over and over again. Animation that requires a lot of human labor per second of film (like character animation) gets expensive. I would say that the range is $3000-$10000/second for typical TV work. As I said before, a lot of similar looking footage (like effects for a feature) might cost a lot less. Every job is different. -- Charlie Gibson -- Rhythm & Hues, Inc. INTERNET: celia!charlie@usc.edu Consequences, shmonsequences, celia!charlie@tis.llnl.gov as long as I'm rich.... UUCP: ...{ames,hplabs}!lll-tis!celia!charlie
eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) (08/30/89)
This isn't a flame, but something to stimulate some discussion.
I think much of the state of the business can be seen in the recent
controversy on the cover of TV Guide. It's not just a matter of
animation, but how we preceive realism. This being born out in the media.
Gee I wonder what composition system was used to put the Oprah/Margeret
cover togther? I wonder (seriously) who discovered this and how?
It probably fooled the public. But is also shows the much of the orientation
of the business (for good and bad).
Another gross generalization from
--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
"You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
"If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
{ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene
Live free or die.rick@hanauma (Richard Ottolini) (08/30/89)
When I posted the initial question I was wondering why, when the quality of realism was increasing, fewer were being used in movies. For example, I was startled to learn the seawater creature in Abyss was computer-synthetic (described in RenderMan Companion) rather than model-based. Also, the synthetic human beings in some of this year's SIGGRAPH clips look almost real and so does the city beneath the balloon. This is in contrast to the space scenes in The Last Starfighter, although they required megabucks of Cray time, they appeared artificial.
buchanan@iris613.gsfc.nasa.gov (Willard B. Buchanan (Buck)) (08/31/89)
In article <4929@eos.UUCP> eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) writes:
->Gee I wonder what composition system was used to put the Oprah/Margeret
->cover togther? I wonder (seriously) who discovered this and how?
->It probably fooled the public. But is also shows the much of the orientation
->of the business (for good and bad).
My roommate said she thought something was not right when she saw it.
Loren "Buck" Buchanan | internet: buck@drax.gsfc.nasa.gov | standard disclaimer
CSC, 1100 West St. | uucp: ...!ames!dftsrv!drax!buck | "By the horns of a
Laurel, MD 20707 | phonenet: (301) 497-2531 or 9898 | sky demon..."charlie@celia.UUCP (Charlie Gibson) (08/31/89)
In article <4947@portia.Stanford.EDU> rick@hanauma (Richard Ottolini) writes: > >When I posted the initial question I was wondering why, when the quality >of realism was increasing, fewer were being used in movies. >to the space scenes in The Last Starfighter, although they required >megabucks of Cray time, they appeared artificial. Just having a Cray doesn't cut it. Having the right software makes things look good. Back during Starfighter, DP was using a renderer that was fairly close to off-the-shelf MOVIE.BYU -- with texture mapping added, but no reflection mapping, motion blur, or any of the cool stuff that is showing up these days in high-end computer animation. Reflections (and refraction if appropriate) add a lot of "realism" to computer generated imagery. And, computer animation IS starting to be used more and more in features. Several CGI animation houses (R/Greenberg, ILM, MetroLight to name a few) are producing (or have already finished) effects sequences for many big-budget mainstream features that have already been released, or will be released in the next year or two. It is definitely catching on. In fact, I'm sure that you have already seen effects in films that you didn't know were computer generated. The fact that they didn't stick out and look phoney proves that the medium is a viable filmmaking tool. Why is it, thought, that people are hung up on the "realism" aspect of computer animation? We have a tool available that can create imagery that is totally SURreal -- there just aren't any scripts being written out there that consider the potential of the medium. (yet). -- Charlie Gibson -- Rhythm & Hues, Inc. INTERNET: celia!charlie@usc.edu Consequences, shmonsequences, celia!charlie@tis.llnl.gov as long as I'm rich.... UUCP: ...{ames,hplabs}!lll-tis!celia!charlie
flip@pixar.uucp (Flip Phillips) (09/01/89)
In article <540@celia.UUCP> celia!charlie@tis.llnl.gov (Charlie Gibson) writes: >In article <6492@pixar.UUCP> flip@pixar.uucp (Flip Phillips) writes: >>In article <115@suntc.UUCP> jh34607@suntc.UUCP (john howell) writes: [...] > but I firmly believe that a production >company without a significant in-house R&D effort is destined to die. Yes, this was a major failing of Cranston / Csuri Productions, and a major gripe of some of the people who worked there. (There were other circumstances also behind their demise...) >Animation that requires a lot of human labor per second of film (like >character animation) gets expensive. Way expensive. Flip Phillips {sun | ucbvax}!pixar!flip Pixar - Marin County, California
cccfrog@castor.ucdavis.edu (0058;0000056104;300;9999;93;) (09/01/89)
In article <541@celia.UUCP> celia!charlie@tis.llnl.gov (Charlie Gibson) writes: >Why is it, thought, that people are hung up on the "realism" aspect >of computer animation? We have a tool available that can create >imagery that is totally SURreal -- there just aren't any scripts >being written out there that consider the potential of the medium. (yet). >-- >Charlie Gibson -- Rhythm & Hues, Inc. I heartily agree! Not so much for the use of abstract surrealistic computer graphics in movies, but as an artistic form of expression in itself. My personal interest runs more to computer music than graphics, but I am currently trying to perfect my own raytracer and (when I get time) a scan-line rendering program. I plan to use my own graphics to enhance various computer music I've already written...and my music tends to get VERY surreal, so *realistic* imagery would be a let-down. Since my mind is very far from being organized and mathematical, and I'm doing all my work on a single Sun workstation (monochrome--I have to send the image files to a MacII to see them in 8-bit color. sigh, you just can't convince the Music dept. purse-strings that you need an Iris), I don't expect anything like animation until around Christmas (so here comes the kicker...) If anyone is already producing **abstract** artsy computer animation (or even stills) and would like to have their creations put to original music, I'd love to get in touch!! I'd like to meet lots more people interested in the artistic applications of computers. BLOBBY PEOPLE! Wayne (frog) Jackson INTERNET: cccfrog@castor.ucdavis.edu BITNET : SWJACKSON@UCDAVIS UUCP : UCDAVIS!CASOR!CCCFROG (or if you wanna jump in and send a video short...) USNAIL : 1338 Colgate Davis, CA 95616
paj@hrc63.uucp (Mr P Johnson "Baddow") (09/05/89)
In article <4947@portia.Stanford.EDU>, rick@hanauma (Richard Ottolini) writes: .... > almost real and so does the city beneath the balloon. This is in contrast > to the space scenes in The Last Starfighter, although they required > megabucks of Cray time, they appeared artificial. I read somewhere when TLS came out that the samples produced by the computer animation people looked photographic. The director asked them to cut down the quality because he wanted it to look like computer graphics.... -- Paul Johnson, | `The moving finger writes, And having writ, moves on,' GEC-Marconi Research | Omar Kyham when contemplating `vi'. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The company has put a radio inside my head: it controls everything I say!