rick@hanauma (Richard Ottolini) (08/05/89)
Please post your opinions for those who couldn't be there.
alan.kennedy@canremote.uucp (ALAN KENNEDY) (08/08/89)
Best of SIGGRAPH? First and foremost was the new PIXAR/John Lasseter film, Knick Knack. It was great! As for hardware, the AT&T Pixel machine finally looks ready! And fast! RenderMan looks like it will be great... whenever its ready that is. AL --- * Via ProDoor 3.01R
spl@mcnc.org (Steve Lamont) (08/09/89)
In article <89080823183434@masnet.uucp> alan.kennedy@canremote.uucp (ALAN KENNEDY) writes: >Best of SIGGRAPH? > >First and foremost was the new PIXAR/John Lasseter film, Knick Knack. >It was great! As a technological tour-de-force, yes. However, several people commented to me that they felt it was extremely sexist. I'm not certain that I completely agree with that point of view, but I did find the piece at least a *little* disturbing. This leads me to another conversation that I had regarding the film show: This year's show was just about the best one so far (I liked `83 and `84 better) -- not so many (if any at all) flying logos and the commercials were gone as well. However, other than "Don't Touch Me" (Kleizer-Walczak Construction Company), there didn't seem to be much in the way of content, beyond the pretty pictures -- and "Don't Touch Me" was fairly obvious in its content, as well (By that I mean that there wasn't too much thought provoking content; "Gias's dying, can't you see? While you are wasting time on me." Moderately sophomoric IMHO). I felt the same way about the concluding piece, "Imagination" by Dentsu, Inc. and Links Corp. It was very nice and spacy, but the only feeling I came away with, other than "gee whiz," was "I have seen the future... and it is written in Japanese." (Some nice xenophobia there, I suppose.) By the way, my own personal choice for best of the show (from a technical point of view, not as far as content -- which was practically nil), was Eurhythmy by Susan Amkraut and Michael Girard from Ohio State ACCAD. The synthetic camera work was absolutely fabulous. These folks have obviously done *real* cinematography or have studied the subject very intently. Though the dancing figures had the usual computer graphics marionette quality to them, the choreography was still marvelous, as well. Well done!!!! An additional BTW... if this isn't the appropriate forum for this discussion, I will allow wiser heads to redirect it to one more apropos. -- spl Steve Lamont, sciViGuy EMail: spl@ncsc.org North Carolina Supercomputing Center Phone: (919) 248-1120 Box 12732/RTP, NC 27709
sarrel@shawnee.cis.ohio-state.edu (Marc Sarrel) (08/10/89)
In article <5056@alvin.mcnc.org> spl@mcnc.org (Steve Lamont) writes:
By the way, my own personal choice for best of the show (from a technical
point of view, not as far as content -- which was practically nil), was
Eurhythmy by Susan Amkraut and Michael Girard from Ohio State ACCAD. The
synthetic camera work was absolutely fabulous. These folks have obviously
done *real* cinematography or have studied the subject very intently. Though
the dancing figures had the usual computer graphics marionette quality to
them, the choreography was still marvelous, as well. Well done!!!!
Well, I've heard Michael Girard give a presentation on the motion
control software he used to control the figures. He spoke at an
animation seminar course I took here at OSU. He wrote his entire
dissertation on the subject. It was _not_ a simple keyframe style
animation. The animator specifies where, in general, he wants a
figure to go, as well as information about the creature's gate and the
system figures out footfalls and joint angles to satisfy the
animator's desires. This system can, as shown in the film, handle two
and four legged creatrues. I've also seen demos of creatures with
many legs (about 14 or 16). Michael's system also handles changes in
gate in an appropriate way (ie: going from walking to running or
trotting to galloping). SIGGRAPH was the first time that I had seen
the film in rendered form. It's been around, in various incarnations,
as a wire frame for quite a while.
--marc
-=-
"Master, why is the letter 'i' the symbol for current?" "Because there is
no letter 'i' in the word 'current'." "Master, why do we use the letter
'j' for sqrt(-1)?" "Because we use the letter 'i' for current." Whereupon
the Master struck the Disciple, and the Disciple became enlightened.jh34607@suntc.UUCP (john howell) (08/10/89)
Just a couple of things I saw at SIGGRAPH that stood out to me. Pixar's Renderman offering and Interface Specification is very impressive. I hope that the community embraces the sepcification with or without Pixar's Renderer, although the Pixar Renderer (Photorealistic Renderman) can't be beat in final image quality. There are a number of processors (boards) for PC's/Mac's that are gaining popularity for doing things like rendering. Levco's Transputer Board for the Mac Pixar's Transputer Board for PC's Intel's i860 Development Board for AT Bus 386's running Xenix or OS/2 and others Everyone (workstation and terminal vendors) had 3D viewing using liquid crystal shutter and polarized sunglasses ala Tektronix. It seems like all the Workstations had a Torque Ball input device for 3D viewing manipulation. I had my hand on one for a minute, but not long enough to fall in love ... it may just take some getting used to and I _love_ the idea. Several Booths had a 'data glove' demonstration where your hand could become part of the graphics environment. Very impressive, but not quite practical ... yet. The color copy people were out in force ... several 300 dpi thermal transfer, Howtek's ThermoJet (which I like to call melted crayon technology), but the most impressive in terms of qualtity was the Kodak offering which was essentially photographic quality. It seems like compositing Computer Graphic Images into live action is finally practical and being done by several. PDI did a Computer Generated Train in live scenery for Japan railroad and Industrial Light and Magic's Sea Water Creature looked right at home on the live Abyss set. ======================================================================== 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 ========================================================================
spl@mcnc.org (Steve Lamont) (08/10/89)
In article <SARREL.89Aug9184614@shawnee.cis.ohio-state.edu> sarrel@shawnee.cis.ohio-state.edu (Marc Sarrel) writes: >In article <5056@alvin.mcnc.org> spl@mcnc.org (Steve Lamont) writes: > [... other comments about Eurhythmy...] > done *real* cinematography or have studied the subject very intently. Though > the dancing figures had the usual computer graphics marionette quality to > them, the choreography was still marvelous, as well. Well done!!!! > > >Well, I've heard Michael Girard give a presentation on the motion >control software he used to control the figures. He spoke at an >animation seminar course I took here at OSU. He wrote his entire >dissertation on the subject. It was _not_ a simple keyframe style >animation. The animator specifies where, in general, he wants a >figure to go, as well as information about the creature's gate and the >system figures out footfalls and joint angles to satisfy the >animator's desires. ... Very true. I should have been more specific in my "criticism" (in, I hope the constructive sense of the word) of the creature's motion. The motion was certainly the most realistic that one might hope for give current technology. Quite convincing kinesthetics, in fact. What I was referring to was the feeling that however accurate the movement was, it just didn't seem as if the creature's feet were *actually* touching the ground. That's what I mean my marionette quality. Watch a real foot when it touches the ground. It bends and deforms slightly as weight is put on it. Maybe that's what bothers me about most computer animation: the characters rarely seem to have any weight to them. (Perhaps that's because we spend so much time and effort generating flying logos and glass balls in space??? :-) ) Again, please don't think I was criticising Girard or his collaborator, Susan Amkraut. Their work was excellent. I just think that we have a lot farther to go before computer animation catches up with Warner Brothers and Walt Disney cartoons of the 1940s. Maybe we can get Al Barr and Michael Girard together to do some *real* dynamic constraints animation :-). -- spl Steve Lamont, sciViGuy EMail: spl@ncsc.org North Carolina Supercomputing Center Phone: (919) 248-1120 Box 12732/RTP, NC 27709 -- spl Steve Lamont, sciViGuy EMail: spl@ncsc.org North Carolina Supercomputing Center Phone: (919) 248-1120 Box 12732/RTP, NC 27709
rwg@Solbourne.COM (Rick Gillespie) (08/11/89)
In article <5067@alvin.mcnc.org> spl@mcnc.org.UUCP (Steve Lamont) writes: >What I was referring to was the feeling that however accurate the movement >was, it just didn't seem as if the creature's feet were *actually* touching >the ground. That's what I mean my marionette quality. Watch a real foot when >it touches the ground. It bends and deforms slightly as weight is put on it. >Maybe that's what bothers me about most computer animation: the characters >rarely seem to have any weight to them. (Perhaps that's because we spend so >much time and effort generating flying logos and glass balls in space??? :-) ) Maybe you missed the Animation papers session then. There were two papers on human motion ("Goal Directed, Dynamic Animation of Human Walking" and "Layered Construction for Deformable Animated Characters"). The picture on the front of the proceedings was done by the latter. We aren't quite there yet, but the problems you mention are being addressed, and they are working on muscle flexing and contraction. Pretty elaborate if you ask me. Rick Gillespie | Solbourne Computer, Inc. UUCP: ...!boulder!stan!rwg | 1900 Pike Rd. Internet: rwg@solbourne.com | Longmont, CO 80501 "If you want to BE the man, you've got | (303) 678-4723 to BEAT the man!" |
alan.kennedy@canremote.uucp (ALAN KENNEDY) (08/13/89)
>As a technological tour-de-force, yes. However, several people >commented to >me that they felt it was extremely sexist. This comment is regarding the Pixar film, Knick/Knack. Now that you mention it, yes I guess you might call it sexist. But I really hope that this isn't the first thing people notice about this amazing film. I'm sure Mr. Lasseter was just having fun. And after all, if we can't have fun with animation, why bother. Alan Kennedy The Image Group Toronto --- * Via ProDoor 3.0R
chuck@melmac.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) (08/14/89)
In article <89081310545534@masnet.uucp> alan.kennedy@canremote.uucp (ALAN KENNEDY) writes: >This comment is regarding the Pixar film, Knick/Knack. >Now that you mention it, yes I guess you might call it sexist. But I >really hope that this isn't the first thing people notice about this >amazing film. I'm sure Mr. Lasseter was just having fun. And after all, >if we can't have fun with animation, why bother. Now that you mention it, "Knickknack" was rather demeaning to men, painting them as being desperately driven by purely sexual desires. Geez! I don't see anyone commenting on the ENORMOUS breasts sported by Dozo in "Don't Touch Me", or that bizarre "Mom" (why not "Dad"?), or "Night Cafe" with various male condiments chasing a female condiment around. Lighten up and just enjoy the best computer generated images in the history of man! Back to the real subject: I thought "Locomotion" was excellent, especially the smeared/blurred dream sequence. The 3D "Imagination" just wore me out, with each climax followed by another, even huger, 3D sequence. I think it was a good idea to exclude the corporate demo reels this year. I loved the "Public Service Announcement". I thought "Knickknack" was excellent, and showed once again the enormous talent John Lasseter has in bringing things to life. I also thought Boston is just too small for SIGGRAPH, and hope it won't be going back before more adequate facilities can be obtained. Splitting the trade show onto three floors, and smearing the courses over Boston just didn't work out. Having to miss part of the art show just because there was no time to get to the Computer Museum and back was disappointing, too. And cramming the rest of the Art Show into a hallway wasn't fun either. I was particularly peeved by the little notice I got while registering, which said that they couldn't guarantee seating for all events, so get to things as early as possible. Fair enough, but after dropping a few $K to go, I'd like to be able to see everything without wasting a lot of time getting there early. All this aside, SIGGRAPH is still the best (and best run) conference I've ever attended. I wouldn't miss it for the world, and you shouldn't either! Chuck Musciano ARPA : chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com Harris Corporation Usenet: ...!uunet!x102a!trantor!chuck PO Box 37, MS 3A/1912 AT&T : (407) 727-6131 Melbourne, FL 32902 FAX : (407) 727-{5118,5227,4004} Oh yeah, laugh now! But when the millions start pouring in, I'll be the one at Burger King, sucking down Whoppers at my own private table! --Al Bundy
ccoprrm@pyr.gatech.EDU (ROBERT E. MINSK) (08/15/89)
In article <2519@trantor.harris-atd.com> chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) writes: > > I don't see anyone commenting on the ENORMOUS breasts sported by Dozo >in "Don't Touch Me", or that bizarre "Mom" (why not "Dad"?), or "Night Cafe" >with various male condiments chasing a female condiment around. Lighten up >and just enjoy the best computer generated images in the history of man! One thing about Dozo, she was designed, sculpted, and digitized by a FEMALE weight lifter. This is how SHE pictures a "perfect" body. Just wanted to add my $.02 worth. 8-) -- ROBERT E. MINSK Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!ccoprrm ARPA: ccoprrm@pyr.gatech.edu
ccoprrm@pyr.gatech.EDU (ROBERT E. MINSK) (08/15/89)
In article <2519@trantor.harris-atd.com> chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) writes: > > I don't see anyone commenting on the ENORMOUS breasts sported by Dozo >in "Don't Touch Me", or that bizarre "Mom" (why not "Dad"?), or "Night Cafe" >with various male condiments chasing a female condiment around. Lighten up >and just enjoy the best computer generated images in the history of man! > For your information, Dozo was designed, sculpted, and digitized by a FEMALE weight lifter. This is how she pictures a "perfect" body. My $.02 worth. 8-) -- ROBERT E. MINSK Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!ccoprrm ARPA: ccoprrm@pyr.gatech.edu