Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!hellgate.utah.edu!wasatch!cs.utexas.edu!usc!celia!charlie
From: charlie@celia.UUCP (Charlie Gibson)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: state of the business
Message-ID: <540@celia.UUCP>
Date: 30 Aug 89 03:21:56 GMT
References: <4690@portia.Stanford.EDU> <115@suntc.UUCP> <6492@pixar.UUCP>
Reply-To: celia!charlie@tis.llnl.gov (Charlie Gibson)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood
Lines: 68
Keywords: CGI, commercial, animation
Summary: Alive and Kicking

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