Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ucla-cs!trainor From: trainor@CS.UCLA.EDU Newsgroups: comp.graphics Subject: Re: Computer Animations Message-ID: <10974@shemp.UCLA.EDU> Date: 1 Feb 88 07:16:25 GMT References: <957@luth.luth.se> Sender: root@CS.UCLA.EDU Reply-To: trainor@CS.UCLA.EDU (Vulture of Light) Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Lines: 33 In article <957@luth.luth.se> Sven-Ove Westberg writes: >Some articles has stated that a lot of the old computer graphics >animation companys now is defunkt, Robert Able, MAGI, Digital Effects, >Information Internationals and Cranston Csuri. One article also >mentioned that it has been layoffs at Pixar. What about Digital >Productions? You forgot to mention Omnibus. In the past, the WEB between production companies has been very twisted. Someone should write a book -- there is so much stuff. I am not very familiar with the companies back east, and so I won't write the big article here. I will say, though, that from my experience graphics companies do not do enough LONG RANGE PLANNING. Short term gains can be very high, and they fuel poor decisions, especially with respect to growth. ``Hello, I'm from THE NETWORK. Want the contract for our fall season? We will give you a lot of MONEY.'' There is insane competition between companies for major jobs, and there are a lot of EGOS. Much of the business is done at the personal level and there is plenty of speculation and hype flying around. Small companies seem to do much better. If you take it easy, invest modestly in equipment, don't get greedy, and don't try to build an empire, you'll do just fine. The sad thing is that a lot of nice people have to find new jobs when companies go under -- the graphics shuffle. douglas j. trainor [][] trainor@cs.ucla.edu [][] ...!{ihnp4,randvax,sch-loki,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!trainor