Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!purdue!decwrl!sgi!sfisher@abingdon.SGI.COM
From: sfisher@abingdon.SGI.COM (Scott Fisher)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Where _are_ my shades, anyway? [was: Re: Computer generated Porn?]
Message-ID: <33234@sgi.SGI.COM>
Date: 19 May 89 18:10:01 GMT
References: <2272@pur-phy>
Sender: daemon@sgi.SGI.COM
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 74

In article <2272@pur-phy>, piner@pur-phy (Richard Piner) writes:
> To change the topic a little....
> This is not to discuss the merits/demerits of porn. That belongs to
> one of the soc... groups. But this topic got me to thinking. How
> many folks remember "Fritz the Cat"? It was an animated X-rated
> movie. Every year computer animation improves. How long will it
> be before it is possible to make a blue movie without cameras or actors?
> After all, the acting in most blue movies is so wooden, I'm sure
> a computer could do it as well. Imagine a video box that said
> "No actors" 

Take a look at "The Art of Computer Animation," at a video store
near you (well, I found one near me).  In the first segment, the
behaviorally animated flock of birds and school of fish were
described as "the first computer-generated extras" by the producer
of the segment, Michael Wahrman.  He has gone on to produce the
first real-time animated talking head, demonstrated last year.

> instead of "No actors under age 18."  Does anyone
> want to hazard a guess on how many years it will be before
> technology reaches this point. (I'd guess 25 years, myself.)

You haven't seen a collection of SIGGRAPH demos recently, have you?

The issue is not technology.  Right now, there are three basic
problems with this level of computer animation:

1.  The biggest problem is that it's very hard to realistically
    simulate human motion, simply because it's something that
    we all intuitively recognize when we see it.  There have been
    some successful attempts: check Philippe Bergeron's "Tony
    de Peltrie" (the piano player) sometime.  But animation of
    human beings--with weight, natural movements, and all the
    subtleties of realism--is still very hard to do.  Note that 
    it isn't really a technological issue either--it's an
    artistic one, primarily.  This is why lamps, fish and birds,
    chrome dinosaurs etc. are such successful subjects for
    CGI animation: I've never seen a desk lamp jump on a ball
    and pop it, so when I see Lasseter's animation of that,
    it's got enough realism to satisfy me.  (On the other hand, I have
    seen flocks of birds flying in formation, which is one reason why
    Craig Reynolds' behavioral animation is so impressive.)

    Oh, and by the way: realistic animation of human motion 
    isn't limited to computer animation.  It's common to all
    animation (cel, model, clay--Mr. Bill just isn't quite 
    as graceful as Baryshnikov.)  Doing it right isn't necessarily
    impossible, just very very hard.

2.  Time, money, machines.  Making a computer-animated film is 
    time-consuming, even with the fastest boxes available (ahem).
    Having been involved (albeit a couple of years ago, and not
    with the people up in the organization line above) with the
    production of a short SIGGRAPH film, I can assure you that 
    there is an awful lot of work for very talented people to
    do just to make it happen.  Doing it right is barely possible
    today, but it would take a huge effort of very talented and
    expensive people, not to mention some not exactly cheap
    equipment.

3.  The people who could do it--and I've mentioned 3 or 4 people
    out of the many who have the technical skill to do a realistic
    animated film--all have better things to do than make X-rated
    CGI film.  

> One thing I'm sure of, unless the human race changes a whole bunch,
> there will come a day when computer generated picuters of sex
> look like the real thing and they will be on the market.
>   Of course there are other applications for such advanced graphics,
> med student training comes to mind right off the bat. Boy, the
> future is going to be real interesting.

The present isn't so bad either.  Try to make it to Boston this
August, you might see a few things that surprise you.