sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (05/27/89)
I know this is a bit away from the mainstream technical topics of this
newsgroup, but please indulge me :-)
I was wandering: How was Max Headroom animated? It looks an awful like computer
animation, but I heard somewhere that he was created using standard animation
techniques?
Does anyone here know for sure which? If he was computer graphics, how did they
do it? He had some incredible facial expressions, and very realistic shading.
If he was created using normal animation, how did they make it look so
computerized? Incredible shading. Is it possible using todays techniques to
create a digital puppet that would perform as Max does?
--
John Sparks | {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps
[not for RHF] | sparks@corpane.UUCP | 502/968-5401 thru -5406
God made an idiot for practice, and then He made a school board. - Mark Twainstroyan@hpfcdc.HP.COM (Mike Stroyan) (05/30/89)
> I know this is a bit away from the mainstream technical topics of this > newsgroup, but please indulge me :-) It's farther away than you think. > I was wondering: How was Max Headroom animated? It looks an awful like > computer animation, but I heard somewhere that he was created using > standard animation techniques? Max was Matt Frewer in blocky makeup and a plastic suit. They used a frame store to hold the image and produce the jerky updates and repeated sequences. > If he was created using normal animation, how did they make it look so > computerized? Incredible shading. Is it possible using todays > techniques to create a digital puppet that would perform as Max does? The shading was from makeup and lighting. It is possible to produce a similar computer generated effect. There was a real time "face puppet" demonstrated at the SIGGRAPH conference film and video show last August. Mike Stroyan, stroyan@hpfcla.hp.com
erict@flatline.UUCP (J. Eric Townsend) (05/30/89)
In article <688@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: >I was wandering: How was Max Headroom animated? It looks an awful like computer >animation, but I heard somewhere that he was created using standard animation >techniques? Basically, it's not "real" animation. Actor Matt Frewer (who also plays "Edison Carter") puts on makeup and prosthesis, is filmed, and they electronicly process his image. Whammo -- Max Headroom. -- Know Future J. Eric Townsend Inet: <temporarily disabled> 511 Parker #2 Houston,Tx,77007 EastEnders Mailing List: eastender@flatline.UUCP
odin@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Jon Granrose) (05/30/89)
In article <688@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: > >I was wandering: How was Max Headroom animated? It looks an awful like computer >animation, but I heard somewhere that he was created using standard animation >techniques? All I know for sure about the animation techniques used for Max is that they used a Commodore Amiga. I was reading an article about how the Amiga was being used and Max Headroom was one of them. It also stated that although they did use an Amiga they would not show the author the technique. I guess they were afraid of people stealing it or something. My best guess would be shooting some frames of a person with expressions, etc. and then "computerizing" them and have a tweening program make the frames in between. Since the Amiga can handle video so well, this would not be too difficult to do but this is all speculation. Jon _____________________________________________________________________________ |Jon Granrose | ARPA: odin@ucscb.UCSC.EDU |CIS: 74036,3241| // Only | |Cowell College, UCSC | UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucscc!ucscb!odin |\X/ Amiga!| |Santa Cruz, CA 95064 |Bitnet: odin%ucscb.ucsc.edu@cunyvm.bitnet ~~~~~~~~~~| |"A mind is a terrible thing"|"Remember, no matter where you go there you are"| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ncc@sys.uea.ac.uk (N.C. Cox CMP Staff) (05/30/89)
In article <688@corpane.UUCP>, sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: > I know this is a bit away from the mainstream technical topics of this > newsgroup, but please indulge me :-) > > I was wandering: How was Max Headroom animated? It looks an awful like > computer animation, but I heard somewhere that he was created using standard > animation techniques? > Max Headroom was not animated at all. He was the actor who played the actual TV repoter whom Max was a copy of. The CG 'look' was created by special make-up help with the famous 'scratch video' techniques. On an aside, the animation company that created the rotating vector background was the same that produced the "Accidents Will Happen" video for Elvis Costello. (What a mine of useless trivia I am :-) Neil Cox UEA Norwich U.K.
pfarrell@anselm.UUCP (Gladiator) (05/30/89)
In article <688@corpane.UUCP>, sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: > I was wandering: How was Max Headroom animated? It looks an awful like computer > animation, but I heard somewhere that he was created using standard animation > techniques? > If he was created using normal animation, how did they make it look so > computerized? Incredible shading. Is it possible using todays techniques to > create a digital puppet that would perform as Max does? Well, if I am not mistaken, and I probably am, isn't max headroom a real actor. He did the parts and expressions and then they I believe load his images into a computer and filter and touch up with all this computer overlaying. Or something like that. Someone I am sure can be more specific but I believe it is a combination of human and computer imaging. -- Patrick Farrell @ St. Anselm's college, Goffstown N.H. 1-603-472-2378 dartvax!anselm!pfarrell "Laugh and the world ignores you. Crying doesn't help either."
milo@ndmath.UUCP (Greg Corson) (05/30/89)
From article <688@corpane.UUCP>, by sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks): > I know this is a bit away from the mainstream technical topics of this > newsgroup, but please indulge me :-) > > I was wandering: How was Max Headroom animated? It looks an awful like computer > animation, but I heard somewhere that he was created using standard animation Max headroom isn't any kind of animation....it's a guy wearing a LOT of plastic makeup. They also do some tricks to the video like repeating frames or removing frames to make it appear more jerky. There isn't any real animation involved it all. Greg Corson 19141 Summers Drive South Bend, IN 46637 (219) 277-5306 {pur-ee,rutgers,uunet}!iuvax!ndmath!milo
bam@rudedog.sgi.com (Brian McClendon) (05/31/89)
In article <7724@saturn.ucsc.edu> odin@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Jon Granrose) writes: >In article <688@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: >> >>I was wandering: How was Max Headroom animated? It looks an awful like computer >>animation, but I heard somewhere that he was created using standard animation >>techniques? > >All I know for sure about the animation techniques used for Max is that they >used a Commodore Amiga. I was reading an article about how the Amiga was being >used and Max Headroom was one of them. It also stated that although they did [stuff deleted] I don't know much more, but I do know that the first season (and the pilot) used non-Amiga's (what were they??) and they decided to switch to Amiga's to save money. The second season's graphics were not quite as good but still reasonable. The network (23 :-) canceled it half way thru the second season. Ratings, they said... - brian -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian McClendon bam@rudedog.SGI.COM ...!uunet!sgi!rudedog!bam 415-335-1110 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
u-jmolse%sunset.utah.edu@wasatch.utah.edu (John M. Olsen) (05/31/89)
In article <7724@saturn.ucsc.edu> odin@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Jon Granrose) writes: >All I know for sure about the animation techniques used for Max is that they >used a Commodore Amiga. Close. An amiga was used to generate some of the video, but not Max. It was used to put the interior frame and text on the video (genlock) on pictures coming from Edison Carter's remote camera. An Amiga could have been used to generate the wild backgrounds *behind* Max, but I don't know for sure. + /| | /||| /\| | John M. Olsen, 1547 Jamestown Drive + | \|()|\|\_ |||.\/|/)@|\_ | Salt Lake City, UT 84121-2051 | | | u-jmolse%ug@cs.utah.edu or ...!utah-cs!utah-ug!u-jmolse | + (Net address changing July 10-15, 1989) +
markley@celece.ucsd.edu (Mike Markley) (05/31/89)
>In article <688@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: >> >>I was wandering: How was Max Headroom animated? It looks an awful like computer >>animation, but I heard somewhere that he was created using standard animation >>techniques? I believe that they actually used a finite element analysis program to generate Max Headroom. They digitized the image of the actor that played Edison Carter and then used a quantization routine to generate a geometric representation and then analyzed that information. Mike Markley University of California, San Diego markley@celece.ucsd.edu markley@kubrick.ucsd.edu
sfisher@abingdon.wpd.sgi.com (Scott Fisher) (05/31/89)
In article <5040009@hpfcdc.HP.COM>, stroyan@hpfcdc.HP.COM (Mike Stroyan) writes: > > I know this is a bit away from the mainstream technical topics of this > > newsgroup, but please indulge me :-) > > It's farther away than you think. > > > I was wondering: How was Max Headroom animated? It looks an awful like > > computer animation, but I heard somewhere that he was created using > > standard animation techniques? > > Max was Matt Frewer in blocky makeup and a plastic suit. They used a > frame store to hold the image and produce the jerky updates and repeated > sequences. The techniques used, BTW, are all standard video techniques (if skillfully done), primarily sample-and-hold on video frames. At the time the show was in production, I was working in Westwood, California for people other than those mentioned in the subject line. A contractor who worked at my site (I can't think of his last name, even if I didn't want to preserve his anonymity) who was our video engineer gave a little run-down of the Max Headroom techniques. It did use some digital video stuff, but no computer modelling or rendering. > > If he was created using normal animation, how did they make it look so > > computerized? Incredible shading. Is it possible using todays > > techniques to create a digital puppet that would perform as Max does? > > The shading was from makeup and lighting. > > It is possible to produce a similar computer generated effect. There > was a real time "face puppet" demonstrated at the SIGGRAPH conference > film and video show last August. That was very different. "Mike" (the animated head) was a wireframe model that was animated in real time, with motion that closely simulated human facial movements. At least one of the people involved with that was Michael Wahrman, now of DeGraf/Wahrman Inc.
thant@horus.sgi.com (Thant Tessman) (05/31/89)
In article <33944@sgi.SGI.COM>, sfisher@abingdon.wpd.sgi.com (Scott Fisher) writes: > In article <5040009@hpfcdc.HP.COM>, stroyan@hpfcdc.HP.COM (Mike Stroyan) writes: > > > > It is possible to produce a similar computer generated effect. There > > was a real time "face puppet" demonstrated at the SIGGRAPH conference > > film and video show last August. > > That was very different. "Mike" (the animated head) was a wireframe > model that was animated in real time, with motion that closely > simulated human facial movements. At least one of the people involved > with that was Michael Wahrman, now of DeGraf/Wahrman Inc. > Mike the Talking Head wasn't wireframe. It was lit polygons manipulated in realtime by a puppeteer (Tray Something (he was also head puppeteer for the remake of 'The Blob')) on a Silicon Graphics 4D/80GT. The face was built from data obtained by scanning Mike Gribble's head with Cyberware Laboratory's 4020/PS Rapid 3D Digitizer. (Mike Gribble was the filmshow announcer.) I think the 3D Digitizer was the same one they used to build those heads in Star Trek IV. Mike the Talking Head was created by DeGraf/Wahrman Inc. with a little help from Tim Heidmann. thant@sgi.com
erict@flatline.UUCP (J. Eric Townsend) (05/31/89)
In article <7724@saturn.ucsc.edu> odin@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Jon Granrose) writes: >All I know for sure about the animation techniques used for Max is that they >used a Commodore Amiga. I was reading an article about how the Amiga was being >used and Max Headroom was one of them. It also stated that although they did >use an Amiga they would not show the author the technique. I guess they were >afraid of people stealing it or something. The Max Headroom tv series used Amigas not for Max himself, but for the views shown with the "Security Cam", and some of the overlays used for the camera scenes... I'm not sure what sort of hardware is used to modify actor Matt Frewer's image. -- Know Future J. Eric Townsend Inet: <temporarily disabled> 511 Parker #2 Houston,Tx,77007 EastEnders Mailing List: eastender@flatline.UUCP
db2@pbinfo.UUCP (Vorl. Informationssysteme) (05/31/89)
In article <7724@saturn.ucsc.edu> odin@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Jon Granrose) writes: >[...] >All I know for sure about the animation techniques used for Max is that they >used a Commodore Amiga. I was reading an article about how the Amiga was being ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ >used and Max Headroom was one of them. It also stated that although they did >use an Amiga they would not show the author the technique. I guess they were ^^^^^ >afraid of people stealing it or something. >[...] > >Jon No no no NO! Max Headroom was animated using a ZX81 (you know, the Clive Sinclair thing with Z80 CPU), because of it's tremendous graphic capabilities! (something around 192x128??? monochrome). Seriously: You can't do things like Max Headroom with anything smaller than Pixar or Cray or such. But actually it wasn't done with computers... D. Aedal
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (06/01/89)
In article <666@flatline.UUCP> erict@flatline.UUCP (J. Eric Townsend) writes: "In article <688@corpane.UUCP" sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: ""I was wandering: How was Max Headroom animated? "Basically, it's not "real" animation. Actor Matt Frewer (who also "plays "Edison Carter") puts on makeup and prosthesis, is filmed, and "they electronicly process his image. Whammo -- Max Headroom. Yep, thanx for all the email that told me the same thing. Max was just Frewer with a rubber mask, that was filmed. But at least they used image processing on the film to make it look computerized. Personally, I think they did an excellent job of imitating computer graphics. It fooled me. But it looked to good for what I knew was the state of the art. That's why I decided to show my ignorance and ask the net. I was also told of a real digitized head|puppet, so I guess we are getting to the point where Max could be realistically done with just computer graphics. -- John Sparks | {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps [not for RHF] | sparks@corpane.UUCP | 502/968-5401 thru -5406 Never call a man a fool; borrow from him.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (06/01/89)
In article <540@corona.pb>, db2@pbinfo.UUCP (Vorl. Informationssysteme) writes: > Seriously: You can't do things like Max Headroom with anything smaller > than Pixar or Cray or such. But actually it wasn't done with computers... No, all you need is something with better resolution than NTSC or PAL transmissions (which are not so hot), and the Amiga fits the bill just fine. It just takes more time to render each frame, is all. Seriously: I would recommend something like a Pixar or Iris for doing Max-class animations, but there's nothing inherent in imaging that requires a super-fast processor. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (06/01/89)
in article <540@corona.pb>, db2@pbinfo.UUCP (Vorl. Informationssysteme) says: > Keywords: How was he done? > In article <7724@saturn.ucsc.edu> odin@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Jon Granrose) writes: >>All I know for sure about the animation techniques used for Max is that they >>used a Commodore Amiga. I was reading an article about how the Amiga was being >>Jon > No no no NO! ... > Seriously: You can't do things like Max Headroom with anything smaller > than Pixar or Cray or such. But actually it wasn't done with computers... I guess you've never run into the NewTek "Maxine Headroom" video, which was done on a Commodore-Amiga. Seriously, you don't need anything like a Pixar or a Cray if all you're going to do is display the thing on television. That's expecially true if you're not trying to artificially render entire scenes, but instead use video sampling and standard animation techniques. Several minutes worth of pure raytraced video is going to take awhile to produce on even a fast 68030 based Amiga, fer shure. Pixars, Crays, and machines of that ilk are certainly required for rendering anything of movie quality, but going from the roughly 320x400x8 pixel display that's fine for TV to something like 2000x2000x24, or whatever those Lucasfilm people use these days is quite a severe step in terms of the processing power required to artifically create a frame. > D. Aedal -- Dave Haynie "The 32 Bit Guy" Commodore-Amiga "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: D-DAVE H BIX: hazy Amiga -- It's not just a job, it's an obsession
ciemo@bananapc.wpd.sgi.com (Dave Ciemiewicz) (06/01/89)
In article <540@corona.pb>, db2@pbinfo.UUCP (Vorl. Informationssysteme) writes: > > Seriously: You can't do things like Max Headroom with anything smaller > than Pixar or Cray or such. But actually it wasn't done with computers... > > D. Aedal No, you don't need a Pixar or a Cray. See articles previously posted to this news group concerning Mike the Talking Head done at SIGGRAPH '88. Interactive Talking Heads for the meer price of a 4D/70GT (not including the cost of the digitizer and time required to write the software). Geez, people on comp.graphics seem to think you have to spend millions of dollars or reinvent graphics primitives to do interactive 3D graphics. It just ain't so. -- David M. Ciemiewicz Member of the Technical Staff WorkGroup Products Division Silicon Graphics, Inc.
jbm@eos.UUCP (Jeffrey Mulligan) (06/02/89)
From article <698@corpane.UUCP>, by sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks): > In article <666@flatline.UUCP> erict@flatline.UUCP (J. Eric Townsend) writes: > "Basically, it's not "real" animation. Actor Matt Frewer (who also > "plays "Edison Carter") puts on makeup and prosthesis, is filmed, and > "they electronicly process his image. Whammo -- Max Headroom. This seems to be settled, but in case there are any skeptics: A couple of nights ago I saw "Late Night with David Letterman" which happened to be a rerun. One of the skits featured computer personality Larry Bud Headroom [Melman], who fielded questions from the audience with his usual obnock-ock-oxious wit. I suspect it didn't take too much beyond the normal studio equipment to pull it off. -- Jeff Mulligan (jbm@aurora.arc.nasa.gov) NASA/Ames Research Ctr., Mail Stop 239-3, Moffet Field CA, 94035 (415) 694-6290
hg@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (henry.grebe) (06/02/89)
In article <688@corpane.UUCP>, sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: > I know this is a bit away from the mainstream technical topics of this > newsgroup, but please indulge me :-) > > I was wandering: How was Max Headroom animated? It looks an awful like computer > animation, but I heard somewhere that he was created using standard animation > techniques? > Max Headroom was actually a live actor, Louis Schure on steriods, with rapid, perhaps digitally-assisted audio and video editting to add to the pseudo-computer generated look. For more information go to SIGGRAPH and ask Fred Parke or Steve DiPaola. Hank "I'm looking for a first edition of Tubby the Tuba's memoirs!" - Zippy the Pinhead
D.Ruck@ucl-cs.UUCP (06/09/89)
From: DEEJ Technology PLC <D.Ruck@uk.ac.ucl.cs>
###############################################################################
###############################################################################
###############################################################################
*******O*******O******0******OO*****O*******0******O*******0*****0******O******
... ! !. ,: .,'"!!!!;":;:":'. ,: ! :, "' .
";lIIIll: ;. ';"!!l|!||!|;|IIl|;!:!;!;;;;:"!:"''"!, .;. '"
':l+0######*!;|I:"":;'''',,;lllll|!!!!!|||||;:;;:;;;;;;;;;;;::;;!|!:": :,
#########*l!;!|||||||!|l||I++++++++++++++++++++++++IlIIl||!;!!!!;;;;!|!:' ,:
######@+|!|||||||llIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIl|;;;;;;;;;;;;; .
####0I!|||llIIIIIIlIllIIIIIIIIIIIIII|||lIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIl;;;;;;;;!|:;;.':
##@I|III++++++++Il;lII||l++++++++III:!!!l+++++++++++++++++++++I!!!!!;!|;;!!;;'
#*lIIIIIIIIIIIIII;IIIIIIl!|IIIIIIll!|:|||IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII;;;;;;;!;;;;::;:
;|IIIIIIIII|lIIO*!IIIIl|!||||lIl|I|!|l||IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII;;;;;!!!!;;::;""
!|I++++++!|l++@;++l|IllIIllllll||I++I;lIIIIII+++++++++++++++|!;!;!;;;::;!!!"".
!|!||ll!|||!II;|IIl|:|ll||IllllllllIIIl|l|lIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII;;;;;;;:;;:;;!!:"
";'";|!|!||!ll;.'|l!. ....... .,'"!|IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!;;;;;:;!!;!;!!",'
O .'||;"!l. . .,':"''::" ,ll++++++++++++++++++++|;!"""":;!||!!,.' '
' ,'":;!;"" .'";||!!!!|!|;|| :|IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIl!;;;;:',.':!|: :,
., |ll|!!|||;l,!".' ,|IIl|;|lIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!:':;;:' ';:
.',,. .. .'":;!||!| ";|ll ,"!lIllll|||!ll!;;;, .'";:.'
,.,.,,: !,,..,.,. ':". ,. ,:'
..,.;' .! :, ;. ..,.. :, '"
. "" ; ", ;, ; ..,,,:,,,,,'" . ,. ." . .:, ,: .:.
****0*****OO*****O******O*****O******OO*****0*****0*****O*****OO*****0*****0***
_______________________________________________________________________________
________ _ __ __ _______________ ._ _.
---- | / \|_| | \|_ |_ | ---- |_\ /_|
--- | \_/| |_/|__|__\_| --- \_\\ //_/
-------------*------------- |_|\ | | /|_|
ON HERE AS THE BEST OF THE BEST __\_\/__O__\/_/__
\___E_L_I_T_E___/
druck@uk.ac.ucl.cs \_____^_____/
ruck@uk.ac.westfield \__/^\__/
DEEJ!@in.toodeep.everywhere \/^\/
O
This has been a DEEJ Technology production in association with A.M.C.
_______________________________________________________________________________