Xref: utzoo comp.misc:4703 misc.misc:4410
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!sgi!sfisher@abingdon.SGI.COM
From: sfisher@abingdon.SGI.COM (Scott Fisher)
Newsgroups: comp.misc,misc.misc
Subject: Re: CAA in 'Who framed Roger Rabbit'?
Keywords: Movies, Animation, Don't-believe-a-word-of-it
Message-ID: <24994@sgi.SGI.COM>
Date: 14 Jan 89 03:24:49 GMT
References: <344@norad.UUCP> <70@poppy.warwick.ac.uk>
Sender: daemon@sgi.SGI.COM
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 56

In article <70@poppy.warwick.ac.uk>, maukh@warwick.ac.uk (Sunstorm the Intestinal) writes:
> 
> In article 3533 Christian says:
> > Is there anybody out there knowing whether at all and how computer aided
> > animation was used in the movie 'Who framed Roger Rabbit'? I had the
> > impression that particularly the 'kitchen'-take at the beginning was a
> > bit too perfectly 'ray-traced' ...
> 
> 
> In a recent documentary (on British television, though it was
> obviously an American production) about the making of 'Who Framed
> Roger Rabbit' it was stated that no computer animation was used in
> the film.  
> 
> My contention is that computers *were* used in the production of the
> purely animated sketch at the beginning of the film.  The rotations,
> perspective shifts, tracking of motion of the characters as well as
> motion of the viewpoint were all very complex to say the least.  I'd
> be very impressed with the animators if they could produce all that
> without the use of computer generated wire-frame graphics as a
> starting point for the choreography and background.  

I feel the same way whenever I see the opening of Pinocchio: "Damn,
Thomas & Johnston really had a hell of an algortihm to control the
viewing volume as Jiminy hops toward Gepetto's shop!  Wonder what
kinda CPU they used in 1939?"  If you want to see the best ray-
tracing I've ever seen, watch the scene where Figaro the cat goes
up to close the window for Gepetto, or where Peter Pan and Wendy
fly over the clouds above London.

>      It's a commonly
> employed technique: generate a wire-frame sequence, then paint over
> it to produce realistic animation.

In the Old Days, they used to make storyboards and pencil-tests.
Disney animators used to (and might still) make flip books that
they could roll back and forth to get a feel for the action in
a sequence.  

I don't know how to continue without sounding like a condemnation
or a commercial.  It's been my good fortune (after years of working 
toward it, funny how some good fortune happens that way) to have
worked beside some of the best people in the computer animation
industry.  Yes, the (fill-in-the-blank) box is a wonderful tool
for doing animation, much faster and with much more accuracy than
the average illustrator could manage.  But behind every product,
whether that product is a box with animation software or a couple
reels of celluloid with hand-painted images manually drawn to
look lifelike at 24 frames per second, there stands a long line
of talented human beings.  The bear is dancing better and better
all the time, but he ain't Fred Astaire yet.

> Anyway, I too would be interested to hear a more informed view on
> the subject.

Craig?  Oh, Craig?  You out there?  (Either one of you...)