From: jdunning@chagall.Princeton.EDU (John Alan Dunning)
Subject: Re: Disney's "New Look": How?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 05:42:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.141031.8669@mksol.dseg.ti.com> rdutt@mksol.dseg.ti.com (richard f. dutt) writes:
>In article <C192FC.3up@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jle37069@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Nevoieur the Hunted) writes:
>> I must agree.  I was lucky enough toattend a seminar where the recruiter of Disney animation spoke about the art of Disney animation.  He emphasized that
>> computers are great but will never take the place of a human animator.  For example, when animating Belle as she sits in her dress, a computer may eventually be able to animate her dress.  It takes a person with skill in drawing to
>> understand how Belle's BODY changes...how the muscles contract and expand..
>> how a movement causes a reaction and change elsewhere in the figure.
>> A computer is 'good at animating inanimate objects' , especially those that move is very specific ways.  Look at the Rug--while its movement were highly complex, they were also relatively easy to map by computer.  The mass/size of the Rug doesn't actually change that much, just the shape.  A computer can easily track
>> this type of change.  Figures are a little harder.
>>
>> Just my  $0.02
>>
>> Julius
>
>In one sense I must disagree.  The whole debate over whether computer-
>generated actors and animation will replace the actor and animator is
>silly at this point.  You are talking about technology which is only
>40 years olds old.  Cavemen were painting and drawing on cave walls
>thousands of years ago.  It's not fair to judge the ability of computer
>animation while it's only in it's infancy.  I would "propose" that
>computers will be able to animated like human artists, but it may be
>a couple hundred years down the road.  What I'm talking about here is
>an idea along the lines of computers containing a model of human
>musculature, skin, hair, etc.  If programmed properly, it would be
>able to imitate and human motion.  Notice the big vague areas in the
>terms "if programmed properly" and "imitate".  But, I don't believe
>that computers will ever replace actors or animators entirely.  I think
>it would just bring animation closer to live action film (big crowd
>scences: no need to animate each person separately, etc.).  IMHO, this
>is one of those "we just don't know yet" debates that frequently
>populate rec.arts.startrek.  I really don't think it's fair to say that
>computer will never be able to do what animators or actors do today.
>Let's give it some time.
>
>Just my $0.02 worth.
>
>-Rich
>
>P.S. - human animation on a computer has come a long way in the last
>       decade alone.  Checkout some SIGGRAPH tapes. 

In one sense I must agree.  Saying computers will never replace human
animators is pretty risky, since "never" is a mightly long time,
especially for computers.  I've seen a prototype animation system at
MIT's Media Lab that does some pretty amazing stuff.  It can take 7
frames of a simple animated figure walking (the sort of figure made of
ovals you see in beginning animation books) and animate the figure
walking or running at any speed.  As you turn up the speed, the
figure hunches over, takes longer strides, moves his arms more, etc.
So after you've drawn only 7 frames you can use any of 70,000 or so.
Of course it's a big step from a figure made of a bunch of ovals to
Belle, but it's mostly a question of scale rather than being a huge
conceptual difference.  And obviously the recruiter of Disney
animation is not going to say copmuters will replace humans any time soon.

So I would "propose" that it would be less than a couple of 
decades before a computer can animate as well as a human,
rather than a couple of centuries.  By "animate" I mean a director
could sit there and say "I want this character to walk across the room
and then slam the door behind her," and the computer would then
animate the scene.  (I don't think the director will actually use
spoken English sentences to control the computer, but will use some
sort of input device to convey his/her intentions.)  The system might
not evern know what a door is, but it could have a rubbery, (hey, it's
a cartoon) sort of rectangular object hinged on one side.  To get the
character to slam the door, the director could control the force the
character's arm applies to it.  The computer would then figure out that the
door would bulge somewhat as it hits the frame.  

The more interesting question is whether a computer could ever replace
a human director or storyteller.  Will you ever be able to sit in
front of a computer and say "Entertain me!" and have it produce an
original animation?  Or even ask it to animate the story of Beauty
and the Beast?  Now that's *really* hard.  A time frame of a couple of
centuries would be more appropriate to something like this.

But I would disagree that it's unfair to judge computer animation
because it's only in its infancy.  To say that it will never amount to
anything is unfair, and patently absurd.  But you can certainly ask
whether it works artistically to combine, for instance, a
computer-generated ballroom and hand-animated characters.

Just *MY* $0.02.

John