Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!uunet!mcsun!ukc!slxsys!dircon!uad1077
From: uad1077@dircon.uucp
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: computer animated 'toons
Message-ID: <1990Aug25.161903.28600@dircon.uucp>
Date: 25 Aug 90 16:19:03 GMT
References: <1990Aug22.212806.10856@tc.fluke.COM> <1990Aug23.192633.9673@imax.com> <1299@cs.nps.navy.mil>
Organization: The Direct Connection, UK
Lines: 30



>In article <1990Aug22.212806.10856@tc.fluke.COM> mce@tc.fluke.COM (Brian 
McElhi
nney) writes:
>>                                                 ...  Who would want 
to be
>>associated with Desktop Cartooning?

I've always felt that Desktop Animation, or Desktop Cartooning if you
prefer, will turn out to be business presentations that are as finished
as, say, the weather, or a popular science program etc., are today.
That's the only way you'll get a) the quality software companies
interested in animation (ask a Wavefront sales manager and he'll
gleefully show you a graph of bugs vs. time - only the last time I saw
it it went the wrong way:-() and b) a sufficient volume to get
costs down.

THe danger in comparing desktop animation to desktop publishing is that
is it a lot easier to produce awful looking animation than awful
looking typesetting (adn look how easy *that* is).  Programs with
safeguards in to protect amateur animators from themselves will be
the *real* challenge.  No wonder Pixar is restricting themselves to
selling a renderer.

-- 
Ian D. Kemmish                    Tel. +44 767 601 361
18 Durham Close                   uad1077@dircon.UUCP
Biggleswade                       ukc!dircon!uad1077
Beds SG18 8HZ United Kingd    uad1077%dircon@ukc.ac.uk