apollo@ecf.toronto.edu (Vince Pugliese) (02/08/88)
i had the opportunity this weekend of viewing a film entitled
the Computer Animation show which as is implied by the title had
as its theme computer animation. the film was a montage of some fairly
standard television advertisements as well as some shorts. work from such
firms as Pixar,Symbolics,Apollo,Abel,Pacific Data Images as well as a fair bit
of stuff from Ohio State's computer graphics group was featured. overall i highly
recommend catching this film if you get the chance-check your revue theatres this one
one will probably not be featured at your local cineplex.
apollo@ecf.toronto.edu
vince pugliesegeoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) (02/12/88)
In article <457@mv03.ecf.toronto.edu> apollo@ecf.toronto.edu (Vince Pugliese) writes: > i had the opportunity this weekend of viewing a film entitled > the Computer Animation show ... > overall i highly > recommend catching this film if you get the chance... What I found interesting about this show was the generally low quality from a "cinematic" standpoint. The graphics were technically interesting, but for the most part the plots and "direction" (as in movie directors) were atrocious. Even the well-known "Tony de la Petrie" is at best a B movie. There were a few standout exceptions, most of them from predictable sources such as Disney studios (the Disney entry was also saccharine and "Disneyish"). However, there was also one other really exceptional film involving stick-figure acrobats; I don't remember the title or the source, but it was produced on an Amiga in somebody's bedroom. To me, plot and humor are much more important than ray-tracing. I inferred from the show that most computer animation is being done by "techies" like myself, who have real cinematic background, and whose interests run more to the technical details of rendering than to plot and audience entertainment. Not to criticize too much; I have the artistic sensibilities of your average tennis shoe, and these people *were* trying. But I don't think anything outstanding will come until things are easy enough to use that "nontechnical" artistic types become interested in using computer animation as a TOOL, not an end. Still, I concur with Vince's recommendation. A most interesting evening. -- Geoff Kuenning geoff@ITcorp.com {uunet,trwrb}!desint!geoff
ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) (02/14/88)
In article <1676@desint.UUCP> geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) writes: >However, there was also one other really exceptional film involving >stick-figure acrobats; I don't remember the title or the source, but >it was produced on an Amiga in somebody's bedroom. _Dance of The Stumblers_, by Steve Segal. Rendered on an Amiga 1000 in his bedroom using Aegis Animator, a 'tweening-type animation package. Music by Rimski Korsakov. According to what I heard, he aimed a 16mm camera at the monitor and started shooting frames. I imagine his entire system cost well under $2000. >To me, plot and humor are much more important than ray-tracing. > Well said. I'm getting tired of seeing steel spheres and metallic Monday Night Football logos myself, too. _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Leo L. Schwab -- The Guy in The Cape ihnp4!ptsfa -\ \_ -_ Recumbent Bikes: dual ---> !{well,unicom}!ewhac O----^o The Only Way To Fly. hplabs / (pronounced "AE-wack") "Work FOR? I don't work FOR anybody! I'm just having fun." -- The Doctor
girard@ogg.cgrg.ohio-state.edu (michael girard) (02/15/88)
In article <1676@desint.UUCP>, geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) writes: > What I found interesting about this show was the generally low quality > from a "cinematic" standpoint.... (...) > To me, plot and humor > are much more important than ray-tracing. (...) > But I don't > think anything outstanding will come until things are easy enough to use > that "nontechnical" artistic types become interested in using computer > animation as a TOOL, not an end. The problem with computer animation production is NOT an emphasis on technical virtuosity. Although impressive accomplishments have been demonstrated in "photorealistic" image-synthesis, the "tools" for designing motion in computer animation are sadly lacking. With today's computer animation tools, the only type of motion which is not EXTREMELY TEDIOUS to produce is of the "objects flying through space" variety (e.g. spinning logos). I have never met anyone in the field who was satisfied with the technical sophistication of animation production tools. Most (including myself) agree that computers are currently too slow and motion-synthesis software is currently too primitive to make computer animation a rich cinematic medium. Of course, these problems could soon be solved. Computer speed will probably be more than adequate in the next decade, but "technical" research by strongly motivated persons is needed to break the motion control barriers which prevent the field from realizing its true potential!
thomson@utah-cs.UUCP (Richard A Thomson) (02/15/88)
In article <5242@well.UUCP> ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: >In article <1676@desint.UUCP> geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) writes: >>To me, plot and humor are much more important than ray-tracing. >> > Well said. I'm getting tired of seeing steel spheres and metallic >Monday Night Football logos myself, too. Here, here! This is exactly what I was saying to my friend as we left the theatre after seeing the Computer Animation Festival by Expanded Entertainment. (I think this is probably what you saw). In addition to Dance of the Stumblers there was a film on the old prince charming turned into frog fairy tale. This was obviously done on a low-resolution computer, with very primitive animation capabilities, but the use of the graphics was only PART of the film. The dialogue, voices and humor were what made the film great. A professor here seemed stunned when I told him that Dance of the Stumblers was shown in the animation collection at the Park City Film Festival and that it was down on an Amiga. His reaction was "On an Amiga?!?!?", as if you needed a cray ray-tracing 72 spheres with transparency to be able to express yourself. I'm getting the impression that computer graphics for film-making is just in its infancy, and we really haven't figured out how to use it yet. Remember it took them 20 years to figure out that with motion pictures, you could MOVE the camera. All the original movies just shot from 5th row, center. We need to figure out how to ``move the camera'' in computer graphics or people will soon tire of all the ray-traced spheres and chrome people. Rich Thomson
ksbooth@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Kelly Booth) (02/16/88)
In article <1676@desint.UUCP> geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) writes: > >What I found interesting about this show was the generally low quality >from a "cinematic" standpoint. Here are excerpts from a review of "The Computer Animation Show" from the New York Times (sorry, no date, all I have is a clipping). : Creatively, this film ... is the equivalent of pointing a camera at : Mr. Potato Head and making him move from side to side. : : ... There isn't much to intrigue the average moviegoer, who sees : computer animation all the time but probably doesn't recognize it. : : [Knowledge of the intricacies of computer graphics] can make a short : like "Deja Vu" dazzling, momentarily. Flowers dance smoothly around a : piano, dozens of balls bounce through the air, all in jewel-like colors : that look painted but are computermade. That "gee whiz" attitude wears : off before long, though, and we're left with 90 minutes of flying : furniture and Neo-Classical sculptures that advertise products. : : ... "The Computer Animation Show" has tinny electronic music behind : it, a careless effect that suits the movie's lopsided taste -- too : much technology, too little art. The review is signed by Caryn James. Last August, the LA Times had two reviews of the SIGGRAPH '87 film and video show. Similar opinions were expressed then concerning the lack of artistic merit in the animation. We have a long way to go to escape the flying logo syndrome.
kent@xanth.cs.odu.edu (Kent Paul Dolan) (02/16/88)
There are some efforts going on to make input of motion commands
easier, but from the comments it seems like they haven't propagated to
the end user community yet. I seem to remember some stuff from Norm
Badler about modeling human motion (dancers), and another article
about using Labanotation (sp) (a notation for capturing choreography)
to drive computer generated figures with some success.
As an Amiga user, my heart was gladdened by the posting naming the
Amiga generated portion of the show as one of the two well-scripted
short features. I saw the show a couple of weeks back, and I did
enjoy the Stumblers (or whatever), too. It occurred to me, from my
own Amiga experience, that that piece might have been generated by the
Amiga to play in real time (the Amiga can draw that fast, driven from
a compiled language, and allows double buffered screens if drawing at
the frame rate isn't practical), and, while it was noted to have been
captured with a 16 mm camera, could as easily have been captured
directly to videotape, since the Amiga outputs NTSC video directly
(taking, of course, the usual hit in spatial resolution of color
compared to RGB output, which may have driven the choice of camera
capture) and this is being widely used.
Anyway, if such devices as the Amiga can do such a display at real
time speeds, perhaps the improvemnts in scripting called for by the
earlier posting could be achieved by designing the script on the Amiga
with low detail figures like the stumblers, in sort of an animated
storyboard, until the action grabbed the emotions, and then going to
the faster machines to ray-trace a full figured version of the story.
Looks like there is room for a masters project here moving the
existing motion control software onto inexpensive and widely available
hardware such as the Amiga, and providing a really easy to use
interface.
No disclaimers; after I bought my Amiga, I bought stock in the company
based on the performance of my machine, so I have a financial interest
in the machine's success. Take all of the above with the requisite grain
of salt.
Kent Paul Dolan, LCDR, NOAA, Retired; ODU MSCS grad student // Yet
UUCP : kent@xanth.UUCP or ...{sun,harvard}!xanth!kent // Another
CSNET : kent@odu.csnet ARPA : kent@xanth.cs.odu.edu \\ // Happy
USPost: P.O. Box 1559, Norfolk, Virginia 23501-1559 \// Amigan!
Voice : (804) 587-7760 -=][> Last one to Ceres is a rotten egg! -=][>
ICBM : 36 53 7 N / 76 18 12 W "Space - the new economic frontier"cfchiesa@bsu-cs.UUCP (Sir Xetwnk) (02/17/88)
Okay, I'll bite. Everybody and his brother is raving about the Computer Ani-
mation Show. WHERE and HOW might I get to see this marvel? Is this a film
that was recently released to theatres just like "regular" movies? If so,
is it still showing anywhere? If not, when WAS it showing? Not only do I
live in the Midwest (can you say "farmers?"), but am a college student to
boot (can you say "media vacuum?"), and haven't much of any idea what's show-
ing, on TV or in the theatres. I'd really love to see the Computer Anima-
tion Show, but I have NO IDEA where to start searching, other than here. If
not a commercially-released film, just what classification IS this movie? Is
it something that can/must be "requested" from somewhere? Please let me
know where I can find it!!!!
Chris Chiesa
--
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Chris Chiesa <><><><><>
<> {ihpn4|seismo}!{iuvax|pur-ee}!bsu-cs!cfchiesa <>
<> cfchiesa@bsu-cs.UUCP <>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>mike@ames.arpa (Mike Smithwick) (02/17/88)
In article <1676@desint.UUCP> geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) writes: > >What I found interesting about this show was the generally low quality >from a "cinematic" standpoint. The graphics were technically interesting, but >for the most part the plots and "direction" (as in movie directors) were >atrocious. Even the well-known "Tony de la Petrie" is at best a B movie. >There were a few standout exceptions, most of them from predictable sources >such as Disney studios (the Disney entry was also saccharine and "Disneyish"). Hear! Hear! So many of the entries had good technical gimmicks and proof-of-concept stuff, but were rather spartan in the plot department. (Although many pretended to have one). Several started off well, and had nice moments (such as the Dog balloon) but someone just lost track of what was going on, or just got to damn lazy to write any sort of coherent ending. >However, there was also one other really exceptional film involving >stick-figure acrobats; I don't remember the title or the source, but >it was produced on an Amiga in somebody's bedroom. To me, plot and humor >are much more important than ray-tracing. That was "Dance of the Stumblers" and was my favorite (next to Red's Dream). It was creative, original, and shows that a person doesn't need 500 kilobucks of film-recorders, IRISs and staffing to turn out good material. I don't remember the name of the guy who did it, but I believe he is a professional choreographer which explains the fluid, believable motion of the figures. It was produced with Aegis Animator, a hundred buck package, and came in second place in an Aegis competition. Oh, by the way, the version of "Dance. . ." was the edited one. The full length version is about 15 minutes long. > >Still, I concur with Vince's recommendation. A most interesting evening. >-- > Geoff Kuenning geoff@ITcorp.com {uunet,trwrb}!desint!geoff -- *** mike (Cyberpunk in training) smithwick *** "live long and multi-task" [discalimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]
geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) (02/18/88)
I was sure amused by the person who alleged that computer animation won't
be really interesting until hardware/software advances take out the tedium.
(Sorry, I can't reference or quote, due to having expired the article).
This is precisely the attitude I was railing against. Have you considered
the amount of tedium involved in *hand*-drawing 24 frames per second of
Snow White? Tedium is not the problem, and technology is not the answer.
--
Geoff Kuenning geoff@ITcorp.com {uunet,trwrb}!desint!geoffrichard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (02/18/88)
In article <4831@ames.arpa> mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov.UUCP (Mike Smithwick) writes: > >That was "Dance of the Stumblers" and was my favorite (next to Red's Dream). ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^ These are related, right Leo ? Heh heh heh. -- "My life is changing in so many ways, I don't know who to trust any more" richard@gryphon.CTS.COM {ihnp4!scgvaxd!cadovax, rutgers!marque, codas!ddsw1} gryphon!richard
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (02/19/88)
In article <1685@desint.UUCP> geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) writes: >I was sure amused by the person who alleged that computer animation won't >be really interesting until hardware/software advances take out the tedium. >(Sorry, I can't reference or quote, due to having expired the article). >This is precisely the attitude I was railing against. Have you considered >the amount of tedium involved in *hand*-drawing 24 frames per second of >Snow White? Tedium is not the problem, and technology is not the answer. >-- Yeah, right Geoff. I kinda smiled at that too. *Kids* these days... -- "Each morning when I wake up to rise, I'm living in a dreamland" richard@gryphon.CTS.COM {ihnp4!scgvaxd!cadovax, rutgers!marque, codas!ddsw1} gryphon!richard
baer@percival.UUCP (Ken Baer) (02/19/88)
In article <5242@well.UUCP> ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: >In article <1676@desint.UUCP> geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) writes: >>However, there was also one other really exceptional film involving >>stick-figure acrobats; I don't remember the title or the source, but >>it was produced on an Amiga in somebody's bedroom. > > _Dance of The Stumblers_, by Steve Segal. Rendered on an Amiga 1000 > >>To me, plot and humor are much more important than ray-tracing. >> > Well said. I'm getting tired of seeing steel spheres and metallic >Monday Night Football logos myself, too. Keep your eyes open at SIGGRAPH this year, there is some stuff being done for the show that will knock your socks off (judging from the storyboards). Real artists and animators are really starting to use the animation packages for the Amiga, and most of them are bored with steel spheres too. With the new wave of easy to use 3D animation packages, I think we'll be seeing a lot more animation for animation's sake. The artists and animators can finally concentrate on the story they are trying to tell, and not how they will render it. I think we have a lot of great animation to look forward to. -- -Ken Baer. // Amiga: The PC that CAN walk and chew gum at the same time. \X/ USENET - ...tektronix!reed!percival!baer OR baer@percival.UUCP "The Few, The Proud, The Criminally Insane - Oberlin Computer Science" - me.
andrea@hp-sdd.HP.COM (Andrea K. Frankel) (02/19/88)
I do remember one piece that stuck in my mind as exceptional on an
artistic level. It's called "Act III" and was done to music by Phillip
Glass. That was at SIGGRAPH years ago (83 maybe?). It even made it to
a New Year's day performance art special on PBS, where they didn't make
a big point of it being computer animation - it was just a well done
film.
Andrea Frankel, Hewlett-Packard (San Diego Division) (619) 592-4664
"...like a song that's born to soar the sky"
______________________________________________________________________________
UUCP : ...hplabs!hp-sdd!andrea from
{ihnp4|cbosgd|allegra|decvax|gatech|sun|tektronix}
or ...hp-sdd!andrea from {hp-pcd|hpfcla|hpda|noscvax|gould9|sdcsvax}
Internet : andrea%hp-sdd@ {nosc.mil | sdcsvax.ucsd.edu | hplabs.HP.com}
CSNET : andrea%hp-sdd@hplabs.csnet
USnail : 16399 W. Bernardo Drive, San Diego CA 92127-1899 USAruiu@tic.UUCP (Dragos Ruiu) (02/19/88)
In article <2136@bsu-cs.UUCP>, cfchiesa@bsu-cs.UUCP (Sir Xetwnk) writes: > Okay, I'll bite. Everybody and his brother is raving about the Computer Ani- > mation Show. WHERE and HOW might I get to see this marvel? > Chris Chiesa > {ihpn4|seismo}!{iuvax|pur-ee}!bsu-cs!cfchiesa According to the press kit I received, this movie opened at various random theaters across N.A. It seems to have stuck to repertory theaters in larger cities. The distributor is "Expanded Entertainment" The address I have for them is 222 S. Barrington Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90064 The phone number they list is (213) 473-6701 Good luck. P.S. The Amiga piece wasn't the only one done mainly on a small computer, the credits for "Speeder" say that it was drawn and designed on AT's with only the final rendering done on a VAXcluster. -- Dragos Ruiu UUCP:<backbone>!alberta!edson!tic!dragos!work Hey, remember the one who pretended to be a super-villain to get beaten ? Whatever happened to him ? He pulled it on Rorshach and Rorshach dropped him down an elevator shaft.
jan@oscvax.UUCP (Jan Sven Trabandt) (02/19/88)
I agree that much of the Computer Animation Show left something to
be desired (regarding artistic quality, not just spinning logos etc)
as has been bandied around on the net lately.
However, no one has mentioned the three (3) Pixar creations:
- Red's Dream
- TinCan and OilSlick (sp?)
- Junior
All three segments featured very life-like 3D characters which shows
how impressive Pixar's stuff is. ALSO, the segments had a nice amusing
story line which didn't bore you or get-on-your-nerves-with-annoying-
techno-pop-blasting-in-the-background :-)
My favorite was "Junior", which has two table lamps which act extremely
life-like (as real characters). The crowd enjoyed that one best too,
judging by the applause the night I saw it (it was also the last segment
presumably as a "show-stopper").
Don't try to tell me these 3 Pixar segments had no artistic merit apart
from the actual animation, especially "Junior"!!
Disclaimer: I am in no way related to P.I.X.A.R.
--------------------------------------------------------
"Violence is the last resort of the incompetent"
- Hari Seldon, 'The Foundation Trilogy' (Isaac Asimov)
Mind like parachute - function only when open!
Jan (Jan, from Amsterdam) no-hyphen Sven Trabandt
...!{allegro,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!oscvax!janeao@anumb.UUCP (e.a.olson) (02/19/88)
In article <2136@bsu-cs.UUCP> cfchiesa@bsu-cs.UUCP (Sir Xetwnk) writes: >Okay, I'll bite. Everybody and his brother is raving about the Computer Ani- >mation Show. WHERE and HOW might I get to see this marvel? > >Chris Chiesa up around here (boston) it was shown on pbs several times. my tape of it is a treasured possesion.... yes, the art content is questionable, but the technical achievement is mind-boggling! andy hay +-----------------------------------------------+ AT&T-BL ward hill MA | Don't try to out-wierd ME, three-eyes! | ihnp4!mvuxq!adh +-----------------------------------------------+
erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) (02/20/88)
In article <2136@bsu-cs.UUCP>, cfchiesa@bsu-cs.UUCP (Sir Xetwnk) writes: > Okay, I'll bite. Everybody and his brother is raving about the Computer Ani- > mation Show. WHERE and HOW might I get to see this marvel? Is this a film > that was recently released to theatres just like "regular" movies? If so, > is it still showing anywhere? If not, when WAS it showing? Not only do I > live in the Midwest (can you say "farmers?"), but am a college student to > boot (can you say "media vacuum?"), and haven't much of any idea what's show- > ing, on TV or in the theatres. I'd really love to see the Computer Anima- > tion Show, but I have NO IDEA where to start searching, other than here. If > not a commercially-released film, just what classification IS this movie? Is > it something that can/must be "requested" from somewhere? Please let me > know where I can find it!!!! > Chris Chiesa > <> {ihpn4|seismo}!{iuvax|pur-ee}!bsu-cs!cfchiesa > <> cfchiesa@bsu-cs.UUCP Well, you're best bet is to check out the schedules of local 'art' theatres -- ones that show other than first run movies. (Some show 1 first run, and some other 'old' or 'special intrest' movies.) You know... The theatres that carry "My Life as a Dog", "Surf Nazis Must Die", "Polyester" and "Pink Flamingoes" (as a double feature). *Those* type of theatres. :-) In the Houston area, River Oaks Theatre carried it. In Indiana I'd guess you'd have to go to the capital, or wherever the art people hang out. (Shameless plug for participation in college orginizations follows..) I would also suggest that you go to a meeting of your university's "film board" or whatever group brings movies onto campus and suggest this film. "Film boards" are usually understaffed for people and ideas -- your offer of you and your friends to help work the movie might be all it takes to get their sponsorship... -- Just say NO to skate harassment. | Just another journalist with too much If I wish really hard, will IBM go away forever? | computing power.. Girls play with toys. Real women skate. -- Powell Peralta ad J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007
falk@sun.uucp (Ed Falk) (02/20/88)
In article <1185@hp-sdd.HP.COM>, andrea@hp-sdd.HP.COM (Andrea K. Frankel) writes: > > I do remember one piece that stuck in my mind as exceptional on an > artistic level. It's called "Act III" and was done to music by Phillip > Glass. That was at SIGGRAPH years ago (83 maybe?). It even made it to > a New Year's day performance art special on PBS, where they didn't make > a big point of it being computer animation - it was just a well done > film. > > This piece was done by John Sanborne (sp?) and Dean Winkler. It was commissioned by Phillip Glass. I went to school with Dean Winkler and so saw a lot of this video. If I'm not very much mistaken, it was done on a Quantel video effects machine and was not computer graphics per se (except in the fact that the Quantel probably has some microprocessors inside). I've played with a Quantel, and all those effects in Act III were probably done in real time. It was a great video anyway. -- -ed falk, sun microsystems sun!falk, falk@sun.com terrorist, cryptography, DES, drugs, cipher, secret, decode, NSA, CIA, NRO.
ksbooth@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Kelly Booth) (02/20/88)
In article <583@oscvax.UUCP> jan@oscvax.UUCP (Jan Sven Trabandt) writes: > >However, no one has mentioned the three (3) Pixar creations: > - TinCan and OilSlick (sp?) This one was done by Disney, though using systems provided by other animation companies (including Pixar).
thomson@utah-cs.UUCP (Richard A Thomson) (02/21/88)
In article <583@oscvax.UUCP> jan@oscvax.UUCP (Jan Sven Trabandt) writes: >However, no one has mentioned the three (3) Pixar creations: > - Red's Dream > - TinCan and OilSlick (sp?) > - [Luxo] Junior [sic] > These films were very well executed, and Pixar is certainly to be commended for their good hardware design and filmwork on Red's Dream and Luxo Junior. TinCan and OilSlick was done on Pixar hardware by a group at Disney. All these films contain the necessary elements of story that are needed to make an entertaining film. Rich Thomson
farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (02/21/88)
In article <176@anumb.UUCP> mvuxq!adh@anumb.UUCP (a.d.hay) writes: [On the Computer Animation Show] >up around here (boston) it was shown on pbs several times. >my tape of it is a treasured possesion.... Unless something VERY weird is going on, what you saw was not the Computer Animation show that's being discussed here. That one is the "Festival of Computer Animation", produced by the same folks who produce the annual Tournees of Animation, and I don't believe it is available for TV. I think the one you're thinking of is "Dream Machines - the Visual Computer", a one-hour show produced for PBS by, I believe, The Voyager Company. I've got this on laser disk, and it is pretty neat, although it suffers from some editing of the longer pieces. One distinct advantage of the laser disk is that it is in the CAV format, therefore allowing freeze-frame and slow motion. It's real interesting to see all of the iterations that result in some of the neat effects and, since it IS computer-generated, each frame is sharp and clear. -- Michael J. Farren | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just {ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}! | dogmatize it! Reflect on it and re-evaluate unisoft!gethen!farren | it. You may want to change your mind someday." gethen!farren@lll-winken.llnl.gov ----- Tom Reingold, from alt.flame
ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) (02/22/88)
In article <583@oscvax.UUCP> jan@oscvax.UUCP (Jan Sven Trabandt) writes: >I agree that much of the Computer Animation Show left something to >be desired (regarding artistic quality, not just spinning logos etc) >as has been bandied around on the net lately. > >However, no one has mentioned the three (3) Pixar creations: > - Red's Dream > - TinCan and OilSlick (sp?) > - Junior > >Disclaimer: I am in no way related to P.I.X.A.R. Obviously not. Pixar's works are _Red's Dream_ and _Luxo Jr._. _Red's Dream_ was their 1987 SIGGRAPH submission, and Luxo was for 1986. Both of them were created by John Lasseter (sp?), an ex-Disney animator. Someone at Pixar may wish to clarify or expand on this information. (You listening, Craig?) _Oilspot and Lipstick_ was a Disney submission for 1987. There's an interesting side-story to _Res'd Dream_, but I'll get into that only if you *really* want me to. :-) _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Leo L. Schwab -- The Guy in The Cape ihnp4!ptsfa -\ \_ -_ Recumbent Bikes: dual ---> !{well,unicom}!ewhac O----^o The Only Way To Fly. hplabs / (pronounced "AE-wack") "Work FOR? I don't work FOR anybody! I'm just having fun." -- The Doctor
darin@laic.UUCP (Darin Johnson) (02/22/88)
In article <583@oscvax.UUCP>, jan@oscvax.UUCP (Jan Sven Trabandt) writes: > However, no one has mentioned the three (3) Pixar creations: > - Red's Dream > - TinCan and OilSlick (sp?) > - Junior > An interesting side note on "Red's Dream" - At the latest SIGGRAPH (sorry Uncle Leo, if I get the exact facts wrong) "Red's Dream" was shown. That night, Leo Schwab, Amiga Hacker, started using his new copy of VideoScape 3D on his Amiga and "re-created" part of Red's Dream (albeit, lower resolution, un-raytraced, but NTSC compatible) overnight. The next day, it was shown at an Amiga booth. Some people from Pixar (presumably, those who had spent much more than one night of work) were quite distraught... Leo didn't purposely want to be-little Pixar or Red's Dream, just to show off the Amiga. Anyway, letter's exchanged between Pixar and Leo. The concept of a Red Unicycle juggling balls was "copywritable", so Leo was prohibited from showing his demo. However, the president of Pixar did agree that a "parody" could not fall under Copywrite laws. Leo proceeded to create just a parody.. The parody had a "boing" ball (very unofficial Amiga logo) juggling three unicycles!! No animosity towards Pixar is intended in this message, I am just relating an amusing story (as well as trying to explain an inside Amiga joke). -- Darin Johnson (...ucbvax!sun!sunncal!leadsv!laic!darin) (...lll-lcc.arpa!leadsv!laic!darin) All aboard the DOOMED express! -- Darin Johnson (...ucbvax!sun!sunncal!leadsv!laic!darin) (...lll-lcc.arpa!leadsv!laic!darin) All aboard the DOOMED express!
girard@ogg.cgrg.ohio-state.edu (michael girard) (02/23/88)
> In article <1685@desint.UUCP> geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) writes: > >I was sure amused by the person who alleged that computer animation won't > >be really interesting until hardware/software advances take out the tedium. > >(Sorry, I can't reference or quote, due to having expired the article). > >This is precisely the attitude I was railing against. Have you considered > >the amount of tedium involved in *hand*-drawing 24 frames per second of > >Snow White? Tedium is not the problem, and technology is not the answer. > >-- > Yeah, right Geoff. I kinda smiled at that too. > *Kids* these days... Right. Snow White was produced with little technology. It was made by just a FEW animators on a LOW budget and transferred to film from 3/4" VIDEO!! (-: *Adults* these days...
ph@degas.Berkeley.EDU (Paul Heckbert) (02/23/88)
In article <5275@well.UUCP> ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: > Pixar's works are _Red's Dream_ and _Luxo Jr._. _Red's Dream_ was >their 1987 SIGGRAPH submission, and Luxo was for 1986. Both of them were >created by John Lasseter (sp?), an ex-Disney animator. Someone at Pixar may >wish to clarify or expand on this information. (You listening, Craig?) Here's more info on Luxo Jr. and Red's Dream: Luxo Jr. was created primarily by: John Lasseter: concept, animation, modeling Bill Reeves: modeling, shadow software Eben Ostby: modeling, lamp animation software Sam Leffler: rendering, logistics four CCI computers Red's Dream was created primarily by: John Lasseter: dream sequence, animation, modeling Bill Reeves: rainy street scene modeling & software Eben Ostby: bike shop modeling, software H.B. Siegel: dream sequence modeling & rendering many Pixar Image Computers and three CCI computers ---- Paul Heckbert, CS grad student (also of Pixar) 508-7 Evans Hall, UC Berkeley UUCP: ucbvax!degas.berkeley.edu!ph Berkeley, CA 94720 ARPA: ph@degas.berkeley.edu
geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) (02/23/88)
In article <583@oscvax.UUCP> jan@oscvax.UUCP (Jan Sven Trabandt) writes: > However, no one has mentioned the three (3) Pixar creations: > - Red's Dream > - TinCan and OilSlick (sp?) > - Junior As the person who posted the first criticism, I feel obliged to reply to this. Thanks much to Jan for reminding me of them. Tin Can and Oil Slick - this is the Disney entry I mentioned (though I think Jan is right that the graphics were actually done by Pixar.) Very professional cinematically, but I found the storyline awfully Disneyish (read icky-sweet). Reminded me in some sections of the "Night on Bald Mountain" section of "Fantasia." Red's Dream - as a cyclist, this is near and dear to my heart. It could have been done with hand animation, though the visual realism would have been less. An excellent story, well "photographed" (in the sense of "camera" angles, lighting, etc.) and well told. Luxo Junior - truly *wonderful* from a creative standpoint. I think the "camera" angle was static, but the originality of the story made up for it. Probably the simplest graphics of the three. Also the one that would be the hardest to hand-animate, especially the waveforms that showed up in Junior's cord as he hopped about. > Don't try to tell me these 3 Pixar segments had no artistic merit apart > from the actual animation, especially "Junior"!! I wouldn't dream of it. I saw the show a while ago, and had forgotten the names and even the character of some of the better parts, including these three. (Though I do think I mentioned Pixar in my original posting). -- Geoff Kuenning geoff@ITcorp.com {uunet,trwrb}!desint!geoff
efo@pixar.UUCP (efo) (02/25/88)
In article <1686@desint.UUCP>, geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) writes: > > However, no one has mentioned the three (3) Pixar creations: > > - Red's Dream > > - TinCan and OilSlick (sp?) > > - Junior > > As the person who posted the first criticism, I feel obliged to reply > to this. Thanks much to Jan for reminding me of them. > > Tin Can and Oil Slick - this is the Disney entry I mentioned (though I > think Jan is right that the graphics were actually done by Pixar.) Very "Oilspot and Lipstick" was the distinguished entry by Disney's Late Night Movie group. The credits for this gem, as written up in the SIGGRAPH '87 film show catalog, are as follows: Oilspot and Lipstick Walt Disney Pictures Glendale, California Contact: Dave Inglish Format: 35mm Producer: Dave Inglish Director: Mike Cedeno Creative Consultant: Burny Mattinson Story Development: Mike Cedeno, Bruce Morris, Gary Trousdale Original Concept: Lem Davis Music: Jay Ferguson Animators: Rueben Aquino, Mike Cedeno, Tony DeRosa, Tina Price, M.J. Turner Effects Animator: Barry Cook Assistant Animators: Brian Clift, Jim Houston Layout Artist: Fred Cline Background Artist: Brian Sebern Production Graphics: John Emerson Sound Effects: Robby Weaver Video Editing: Bob Lambert Film Editing: Dave Wolf Production Manager: M.J. Turner Technical Directors (Production and Animation) Tad Gielow, M.J. Turner Technical Directors (Compositing and Effects) Lem Davis, David Coons, Jim Houston. Systems Management: Tad Gielow, Mark Kimball, Vahe Sarkissian, M.J. Turner Production Auditor: Jeff Bush Still Photographer: Jim Elliot Wavefront Consultant: John Grower Film Recorder Operator: Mike Keeler Special Thanks To: Wavefront Technologies, Inc - Loan of production software Edge Computer Corporation - Loan of hardware for production Pixar - Loan of hardware/software for animation tests I hope this clarifies any misconceptions that may have arisen. As an aside, the impressive credits list underscores the fact that good animation, like this piece, takes an awful lot of work whether you use cels, ink, and paint or an interactive animation system, frame buffer, and a bunch of computers. Eben Ostby
jim@mickey.UUCP (jim houston) (03/01/88)
In reference to <1686@desint.UUCP> from geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) and <1496@pixar.UUCP> from efo@pixar.UUCP (Eben Ostby): Thanks, Eben. I think it's a healthy sign this industry is generating film critiques -- after all, it wasn't so long ago we didn't even have storylines! And there's more to come! Bob Lambert
jim@mickey.UUCP (jim houston) (03/01/88)
In article <1496@pixar.UUCP>, efo@pixar.UUCP (efo) writes: > < LIST OF CREDITS> > I hope this clarifies any misconceptions that may have arisen. > Like many productions, the final screen credits were different from the first published credits. So for the record, here are the corrections for the credits: Character Design: Michael Cedeno, Gary Trousdale Additional Story Development: Randy Cartwright, Kevin Lima, Tina Price, Joe Ranft, Kirk Wise Animators: Ruben A. Aquino,Michael Cedeno, Brian Clift, Anthony DeRosa, Tina Price, M.J. Turner Sound Effects: Robby Weaver, Rusty Weaver, John Cevetello Video Editing: Bob Lambert, David Jones Film Editing: David Wolf, Jim Melton, Mark Hester A Special Thanks To: Roy Disney, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Peter Schneider, Ed Hansen Copyright MCMLXXXVIII The Walt Disney Company All Rights Reserved ----------- Jim Houston Walt Disney Pictures mickey!jim
dave@onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (03/06/88)
In article <1685@desint.UUCP> geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) writes: >Have you considered >the amount of tedium involved in *hand*-drawing 24 frames per second of >Snow White? Tedium is not the problem, and technology is not the answer. Have you considered the tedium in hand-drawing animation on a tablet with a stylus, compared with pencil on paper? Or trying to draw something with a mouse? How about building a 3D model of a house using a modelling system and tablet, compared to physically making one out of balsa wood or foamcore? And how about trying to animate a "human" figure by selecting the shoulder joint, selecting "Z-rotate", and moving a mouse, compared with just reaching out and moving a puppet's arm slightly? Tedium, poor input devices, and bad user interface *are* problems. If you want to get really good animators using computer systems, they have to be easier to use than the traditional alternatives. So far, they (mostly) are not.