Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 / ST 1.0; site saber.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!decwrl!sun!saber!skinner From: skinner@saber.UUCP (Robert Skinner) Newsgroups: net.graphics Subject: Re: Dvorak and SIGGRAPH (rather long) Message-ID: <1723@saber.UUCP> Date: Wed, 31-Jul-85 18:38:30 EDT Article-I.D.: saber.1723 Posted: Wed Jul 31 18:38:30 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 3-Aug-85 08:14:56 EDT References: <1063@dual.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: Saber Technology, San Jose, CA Lines: 156 > > This is: John Dvorak's column (`Periscope') from the San Fransisco > Examiner, Sunday, July 28. I happen to agree with most of what > he says, having wasted quite a bit of time at this show > (fortunately only the company's money). From here on the words are his: > > Mats Wichmann > Dual Systems > ...{ucbvax,ihnp4,cbosgd,decwrl,fortune}!dual!mats > > ... ... ... ... > > PRETENTIOUSNESS AT COMPUTER GRAPHICS SHOW. > > This reporter has covered a lot of trade shows over the years > and none approaches last week's SIGGRAPH '85 for sheer gall and arrogance. > I have to admit that things were alot more snotty than I have been used to. I participated in the trade show in '83 and '84 but attended it this year. Was it this bad in '83 and '84? > Held at Moscone Center last week, it was supposed to be the definitive > computer graphics show, showcasing the best in the industry. > It did. NCGA is usually better as a trade show, but it was lousy this year. > While it is every regard a trade show, it costs an outrageous > $420 to attend. It's kind of like subscribing to a pay TV channel > that show only commercials. > I admit that it's expensive, more expensive than other ACM functions, and I wish it wasn't. Does anyone know how much more expensive it is, and why? > Sure, for the $420 you got to attend "educational" sessions where > unpaid speakers promote their ideas and products, Oh come on now. I for one got a lot of education out of the sessions, and no one promoted their products. This makes it sound as though speakers say "HERE'S WHAT WE CAN DO, DON'T YOU WISH YOU COULD, I WON'T TELL YOU HOW WE DID IT, YOU'LL JUST HAVE TO BUY OUR PRODUCT". Everyone *shared* ideas and the ideas were judged on merit. In one course I learned alot about splining motion and rotation; clipping an arbitrary volume to another arbitrary volume; a ray-tracing algorithm that executes in constant time ( same time for 5 polygons as for 50,000 ) (so what if the program is available commercially, the speaker gave us enough information to duplicate that performance); and how to extend ray-tracing to eliminate aliasing, give motion blur, light penumbras, amoung other things. The other course I attended was a tutorial on PHIGS, no products were mentioned, just a day-long explanation for users and implementors. > you didn't have > to pay an extra three bucks to see the art exhibit, and you didn't > have to spend $25 to the SIGGRAPH '85 film. What a deal. Really stupid, I know. > If you just > want to wander through the exhibits and nothing else, you can get > in for $15. Supply and Demand. Lots of people want to see what's happening in the new computer glamour industry. > > On the floor were hundreds of companies with expensive graphics > hardware, most of which can do little more than, for example, > draw an outline of the space shuttle and move it around on the > screen. > Seattle Telecom. > BULLSHIT! I've written demo programs for NCGA and SIGGRAPH and there is simply not enough time to create something absolutely real-world, especially if your company is not established enough to have a lot of real applications running on your gear. And even if the applications run on your equipment, you have to grab people's attention quickly, or they aren't interested. So, you choose something convenient (like the shuttle) and you show performance, like how fast you can move it around the screen. > most of the vendors showcased the same stuff they had a couple of > years ago. "We had 16 million colors and 1024 x 1024 pixel resolution > years ago. So what's new here?" asked Joe DeCaro, president of How many devices could do shaded solids in anything approaching interactive time (seconds on a workstation, as opposed to minutes on a VAX) two years ago. LexiData Solidview? (that one hasn't exactly taken off) Any others? How about now: Silicon Graphics, Sun, Megatek, Tek, Raster Tech, et. al. Two years ago could you get into broadcast animation for under $30K? (Cubicomp). > "This industry needs a Woz and Jobs to dynamite those dunderheads > into the future," one show goer told me. > I see a great improvement in the quality of products and the number of true 3D systems, but I think Graphics is hitting a plateau. Monitor constraints limit real resolution (for color) to about 1280x1024 (.25mm pitch). Prototypes of .21mm pitch monitors are scarce, but that will get things into the 2M pixel range. Of course DAC's can't really operate at the 170-200MHz range needed for 2M pixels. And you can't really see much of a difference between 24 bits per pixel and 30, even if you can get DAC's that can operate that fast on 10 bits. We're trying, but please don't blame these kind of things on Graphics people. > Computer graphics people don't see themselves as dunderheads. They > turn up their noses at computer designers, computer programmers, > systems guys and end users. They view themselves as the creme > de la creme of the computer industry. The computer graphics person > is an artiste. An they dress and act it, too. > I don't think it's that bad, but if it is, why do so many people want to get into graphics? > The gallery was supposed to showcase the best computer art in the > world. With the exception of a few three-dimensional works and some > laser art, most of the stuff stunk. "There's not much real artistic > innovation here," said Steve Beck of Beck-Tech. > Alas, I didn't care much for the art show. What really hurt was the feeling that most of the things I've produced when "playing" were better than most of the art show. But then that's MY opinion and I wasn't on the art show selection committee. Of course I didn't submit anything, because I didn't think I had a chance. I won't be so timid next year. > The biggest fiasco of the show was the showing of the 2 1/2-hour > SIGGRAPH '85 film. In a mad rush reminiscent of a feeding frenzy, > all the seats were sold out last Sunday during pre-registration- > much to the dismay of many of the 30,000 show-goers, some of whom > came from halfway around the world. > > It didn't help that instead of running this always popular film > all day every day, the organizers showed it only twice. So what if > you came from Stuttgart just to see it. I do wish that more could have seen the film show, and I wish it had been two nights as it usually is. But since the auditorium was only half the size of those from previous years, I guess more people got to see the very best films. But seriously now, everyone knows the film(s) are a big attraction. I have a hard time believing that anyone would come to just a trade show all the way from Stuttgart without pre-registering. You just *have* to plan for some things. I guess it will be interesting to see who agrees or disagrees; why people believe SIGGRAPH is *so* expensive; whether this year's SIGGRAPH had the market on arrogance; and flame on, and flame on. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Name: Robert Skinner Mail: Saber Technology, 2381 Bering Drive, San Jose, California 95131 AT&T: (408) 945-0518, or 945-9600 (mesg. only) UUCP: ...{decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!saber!skinner ...{amd,ihnp4,ittvax}!saber!skinner