Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!hao!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!cbosgd!osu-cis!ogg!girard
From: girard@ogg.cgrg.ohio-state.edu (michael girard)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: the Computer Animation show
Message-ID: <1087@ogg.cgrg.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 14 Feb 88 20:46:03 GMT
References: <457@mv03.ecf.toronto.edu> <1676@desint.UUCP>
Organization: Computer Graphics Research Group, Columbus OH
Lines: 29

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!