HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: scarnie@esk.compserv.utas.edu.au (Stuart George Carnie)
Subject: Re: Computer of choice? (Indigo!)
Organization: University of Tasmania at Launceston
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 05:39:11 GMT

Well, stick with the 486-50, I certainly have a biased opinion towards IBM's, asI own one. With the message about the "Toaster", obviously you haven't heard of the Video Blaster, which allows 24Bit colour, and direct, recording to and from a video. It allows you to play the video within a Window (running Windows), or even play it in text mode behind DOS, and it only costs $699 AUS.

PS, IBM's have far superior computing power to Amigas, for the cost.
eg, Someone I know just bought a 486DX-33, 8Meg RAM, 130Meg HD, 1-Meg SVGA, 
NON-Interlaced Monitor, for $3200 AUS.

I'll let you dwell on that.

-- 
scarnie@esk.compserv.utas.edu.au

"On a distant planet, a creature strums his guitar..." {:-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: sant_m@cho006.cho.ge.com
Newsgroups: comp.graphics.animation
Subject: Re: Step-frame capture (was Re: Video Blaster)
Date: 14 Oct 92 14:34:47 GMT
Organization: GE Fanuc Automation, North America

In article <1992Oct9.165324.11342@waikato.ac.nz>, ldo@waikato.ac.nz (Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Waikato University)
> All this talk of home-grown solutions for doing step-frame capture is
> interesting enough, but aren't there some easier, off-the-shelf solutions
> available?
> 
> For example, a lot of Sony consumer decks have "Control-S" or "Control-L"
> connections (my F555E camcorder has a Control-L interface, and my 757NC VCR has
> both). I'm not quite clear what the difference is between these, except that
> "Control-L" (also known as "LANC") seems to be the newer, preferred option.
> 

The trouble with control-L is that it is only accurate to one second.
You can interpolate a bit while reading the data the camcorder/vcr pumps out
and get +/- 2 or 3 frames, but it's hard to get it repeatable unless you
rewind to the beginning of the tape every time.  Control-S is worse because
it's only one-way; you can tell the VCR what to do, but have no idea if
it's doing it or what.

I have been trying to do single frame recording on my Sony SLV 696 VHS VCR.
I can do it if I tweak the shuttle dial by hand, and it is very repeatable.
However, if you do just 20 frames per second, a 10 second second animation
would be 200 frames- that's ALOT of button pushing and dial tweaking.

I have a simple circuit that does Control-L and Control-S from my PC, but
it doesn't do any good since I don't know where the VCR is frame-wise.  It's
great for doing automatic assemble edits from my camcorder to the 696, but
doesn't cut it for animations.

What I am looking for is a simple circuit that would plug in the video out
of the VCR and give me a one bit input to my PC.  When the output goes from
video black to something else, the bit would go from zero to one. If I had
this, I could probably automate some kind of single frame assembly....


Anybody know of such a circuit ?

Martan
Newsgroups: comp.graphics.animation
From: jet@boxer.nas.nasa.gov (J. Eric Townsend)
Subject: pricing out an amiga for animation (was Re: Computer of choice?
	<1992Oct4.023622.22566@bert.eecs.uic.edu>
	<1anmanINNd34@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> <2031@celia.UUCP>
	<justin.718330333@mik.uky.edu> <2032@celia.UUCP>
	<1atb5eINNs4u@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation, NASA Ames
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:03:44

"philb" == Philip Brown <philb@cats.ucsc.edu> writes:
philb> Twould be nice to have a breakdown of actual costs, by item,
philb> comparing an amiga 3000 with the works, to an SGI with the same

Here's some pricing for an Amiga system that I speced, bought, and
used for both recording single frame animation and doing a bit of
(manually controlled) editing.  Notice the date (late nov 91).  I
don't know how prices have gone up/down since then.

--------begin included file --------
To: xxxxxx
Subject: Amiga-based Animation system pricing
From: Eric Townsend
Date: 25 Nov 1991

I have spent some time investigating the neccessary hardware and
software to allow us to make our own animations. The goal is to have a
semi-automated system where a user can plop a video- tape in a video
tape recorder, click some buttons on a menu, and make an animation
tape. (Well, that's a bit oversimplified, but that's the goal.)

Here is a description of the equipment needed, with a description of
what each item will be used for:

Computer:
Item			Description			Cost
Amiga A2000		Basic CPU			999.00
A1084S 			Monitor				282.00
GVP AG30-33		CPU upgrade + 4MB ram + hard drive
							1325.00
 			Additional 4MB for above	395.00
A2064			Ethernet Lan Board		325.00
AS225			TCP/IP Networking Software	159.00
							----------
			Total				3485.00

Video Equipment for Computer:
Video Toaster	Frame buffer, Character Generator,
		Video Switcher, Rendering Software,
		etc (see videotape for demo)		2495.00
Personal TBC II	Time Base Corrector for incoming video	995.00
A1084D		Preview monitor for Toaster		350.00
							----------
			Total				3840.00

Video Tape Recorders
Panasonic AG-7750
		S-VHS Hi-Fi Editing Recorder/Player	5353.00
                AG-F700	Time code generator/reader for above
							741.00
Panasonic AG-7650
		S-VHS Hi-Fi Source Player		3706.00
                AG-F700	Time code generator/reader for above
							741.00
							----------
			Total				10541.00
Miscellaneous:
Cables: 250.00  (always need these)
ADPro: 192.00   (generic image processing package)
Personal SFC: 425  (basic single frame controller for the amiga)
--
             J. Eric Townsend --  jet@nas.nasa.gov -- 415.604.4311
                              '92 R100R, DoD# 0378
"I love the iPSC/860.
The iPSC/860 is my friend." (repeat until your code runs...)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics.animation
From: stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini)
Subject: speculation on synthetic actors
Organization: Unocal Corporation
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:41:34 GMT


I wonder if the current Diet Coke commercial is a sign of things to come.
The creators of this commercial do a pretty good job of mixing old movie
footage (e.g. Groucho Marx) with new film.  I speculate we will see more
of this in the future with dead actors doing new scenes.

One possible approach would be to recycle pieces of old images.  A film
company would make a "clip art" collection of many different images of an
actor.  Then these images, or pieces thereof, would be morphed into new
combinations.  Perhaps it might require shooting scenes of human models to
to get realist movements, then morph the images onto these.  This has been
done in Bashki's Lord of the Ring cartoons and the Terminator II (better).
This is not all that much removed from using stand-ins now for stunts and
skin closeups.

Another approach is a completely synthetic human- along CAD lines.  I've
seen Japanese attempts to make synthetic Marylin Monroes.  They leave much
to be desired in terms of realism, but are getting better.

Imagine: new Clark Gable movies.  New I Love Lucy epsisodes! Boggles the mind.

I think it is only a matter of time.  Perhaps this decade.  There is a lot
of money in entertainment and people will try.
From: eyethink@cse.ucsc.edu (Carl A. Wescott)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics.animation
Subject: Re: .gl files ??? What are they
Date: 10 Oct 92 00:07:03 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (CE/CIS Boards)
NNTP-Posting-Host: arapaho.ucsc.edu

In article <c15o.718658818@alf> c15o@alf.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Thilo Wunderlich) writes:
>How do I display *.gl files ? 

*.GL files are Graphics Library files for GRASP, 4GL animation software written
by John Bridges and distributed by Paul Mace Software in Oregon.
You can view them under DOS by using the GRASPRT.EXE runtime executable
that comes with GRASP.  GRASP 4.0 (current version) costs ~$400.

Someone at Sun (I believe it was Patrick Naughton) hacked up an
X-Windows version of the run-time executable.  It's maintained
by Patrick and other people on the xgrasp mailing list, though
this list has had ZERO traffic for many many months.  I don't
remember where you can ftp it*, though I imagine you can find it
wherever you got your .GL files.  (In the DOS world, usually 
GLEXE is used to append the GL to the GRASPRT executable, creating
one large .EXE that can't be tampered with or opened). 

Carl

* above - try the MIT X-windows ftp sites.
From: jeg@Apple.COM (Julian Gomez)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics.animation
Subject: Re: Pixar goes to the Movies
Date: 15 Oct 92 01:51:15 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Oct1.094537@trc.amoco.com> zdxh0a@trc.amoco.com (Douglas Horn) writes:
" Didn't a company in Columbus, OH do some of the work on the Star Trek stuff?
" Cranstin(sp) and Serry(sp)?

Cranston/Csuri Productions, Inc.

No, they didn't do anything on the Star Trek movies.

Dr. Julian Gomez
(former) Director of Research and Development
Cranston/Csuri Productions, Inc.
From: neil@celia.UUCP (Neil Richmond)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics.animation
Subject: Re: Computer of choice?
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:59:27 GMT
Reply-To: celia!neil@usc.edu (Neil Richmond)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <justin.718330333@mik.uky.edu> justin@mik.uky.edu (justin sullivan) writes:

>Well, he's right.. Even if the software on other (lesser) platoforms comes
>up to the level of SGI stuff, it will still carry an equivelent price tag.
                                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I see no reason for this to be. There are a number of packages that do a lot
of what Wavefront does at a fraction of the cost of Wavefront. If these 
packages were relatively priced they would be 10-15 thousand dollars.

>Honestly, I think that for $50K worth of software, you get (with Wavefront at
>least) $50K worth of features and refinement. 
>I would recommend that, if you're nota professional, a Mac, Amiga or PC with
>some typical ~$300 software package that you can buy mail-order will make
>you a very happy camper..

I do not understand this thinking. If this kind of thinking prevailed in the
past we would not have Macs, Amigas or any kind of personal computer. When
my father was starting in computers, a computer with several kbytes of memory
and much slower than your PC took up an entire room and cost more money than
10 of your PCS. By these standards, your PC should cost hundreds of thousands
of dollars. And you think it is wrong for me to ask for more? What about
morphing programs? This is a state of the art technique and there are three
or four morph programs for the Amiga.

The problem is that I am a professional. I know what is possible with a little
thought and planning. There is no reason why these features in the SGI platform
software cannot be put in personal computer platforms. A lot of it is there,
already. There are people who work professional on small platforms like the
Mac, Amiga, etc. 

neil
-- 
Only 2640 shopping days left till the next millenium! 
Neil F. Richmond         INTERNET: celia!neil@usc.edu
Rhythm & Hues Inc.       UUCP: ...{ames,hplabs}!lll-tis!celia!neil)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics.animation
From: mlewis@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Matthew Lewis)
Subject: Re: ILM
Organization: OSU Advanced Computing Center for the Arts and Design
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 13:11:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.202115.24250@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60c-3gp@web-3c.berkeley.edu (Francois Chew) writes:
>ILM has also developed some of their own software to produce the
>animation for "Terminator 2". An example was the "body sock" program, which
>smooths over the body joints of the terminator

How might one go about implementing such a "body sock" program?  

Yeah, I know: "Well I find that using an amiga solves all *my*
hierarchical body joint gapping problems..."  :-)

Seriously, references anyone?  
(other than Chadwick's or Thalmans' joint transform
 dependent polygonal mesh deformations).

-Matt
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Matthew Lewis                      | "Research is what I'm doing            |
| lewis-m@cis.ohio-state.edu         |  when I don't know what I'm doing."    |
| mlewis@cgrg.ohio-state.edu         | 	  -Wernher von Braun                  |
Newsgroups: comp.graphics.animation
From: wool8657@mach1.wlu.ca (john woolsey 9209 U)
Subject: Re: Computer of choice?
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 14:04:14 GMT

>careers.. Anyway, you forgot to point out that a lot of professionals turn
>out some of the most mundane trash and try and pass it off as 'work.'
>Have you seen that spiffy new Listerine commercial with the bottles flying
>through the forest? Pixar.. I.e. NOT CHEAP. And you can bet some piddly little
>PC, Mac or Amiga couldn't find enough time in the rest of the decade to render
>it and bring it in on schedule..


It is this kind of arrogance that often stops something real from happening
for a lot of people. It is my understanding that the old 486 based models
were about 1/4 the speed of most RiSC boxes, and the primary reason that
they were slower was code optimization. Let's assume the number is closer to
1/8th. That would mean it would simply take 8 times as long. That isn't
really that bad. Especially for the hobbiest who wants to play around with
the images, and be creative, and not produce production quality products.
Also keep in mind that IBM recently handed the 386 and 486 processors to the
RiSC division, and they have moved up about 50% on the speed scale for
basically the same thing. They are also working on cranking the speed up to
100Mhz, and have the SLC2 chip already available.

but that is not really my point. Everyone knows that good computer graphics
take a lot of computations, but you can get the idea with doing less defined
graphics, and take a lot less time. If the files that go through both an SGI
work station, and an equivalent PC program are identical then if someone
creates something great it is a simple enough exercise to then pump it
through an SGI workstation. In fact I could probably do it fairly quickly
myself, but it is difficult to get to the SGI terminal for me. I hope people
get my point.... - bfn - JAW

PS Don't flame me I can't read.
Newsgroups: comp.graphics.animation
From: jim@baroque.Stanford.EDU (James Helman)
Subject: Re: Where to get Red-Blue stereo glasses
Organization: Stanford University
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:55:24

hunter@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Hunter Scales) writes:

  does anyone have a mail order source for Red-Blue stereo glasses.

Reel 3-D has R/B glasses and lots of other goodies.

    Reel 3-D Enterprises, Inc
    PO Box 2368 
    Culver City, CA 90231
    (213) 837-2368

Jim Helman					SGI:  (415) 390-1151
jimh@surreal.asd.sgi.com			FAX:  (415) 591-8165
jim@KAOS.stanford.edu

"The power of the computer is locked behind a door with no knob."
							-B. Laurel
From: alves@calvin.usc.edu (William Alves)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics.animation
Subject: Re: speculation on synthetic actors
Date: 11 Oct 1992 19:54:11 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: calvin.usc.edu

In article <BvyLHH.MCr@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> broehl@sunee.uwaterloo.ca (Bernie Roehl) writes:

>Absolutely.  I suspect we're only a few years away from the use of computer-
>generated backgrounds (including extras seen from a distance).

In fact, Pacific Data Images created stands full of period-costume crowds
for _The Babe_, not with computer *generated* images, however. Instead,
they filmed small blocks of seats with the extras and used a computer to
replicate those blocks so that it looked like the stadium was filled.
The blocks were offset somewhat in space and time to avoid obvious
regularities, but if you look closely you can see it. To borrow a metaphor
from electronic music, it's easier (hence cheaper) to replicate reality
with sampling rather than synthesis.

Bill
From: mmcohen@cats.ucsc.edu (Michael M Cohen)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics.animation
Subject: Re: speculation on synthetic actors
Date: 16 Oct 1992 13:05:26 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <1992Oct12.150105.11549@cgrg.ohio-state.edu> leslie@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Leslie Bishko) writes:
>	Yes, eventually we will see computer synthesized beings walking down
>	the street...
>
>-- 
>Leslie Bishko
>leslie@cgrg.ohio-state.edu
>
>


True enough, If you are walking down a virtual street...

-- 

======================================================================
=   Dr. Michael M. Cohen                   mmcohen@dewi.ucsc.edu     = 
=   Program in Experimental Psychology     mmcohen@fuzzy.ucsc.edu    =
=   433 Clark Kerr Hall                    408-459-2655 LAB          = 
=   University of California - Santa Cruz  408-459-2700 MSGS         = 
=   Santa Cruz, CA 95064                   408-459-3519 FAX          = 
======================================================================
From: hb@wavefront.wti.com (H.B. Siegel)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics.animation
Subject: mis-information? (Pixar, ILM, etc.)
Date: 13 Oct 92 06:10:03 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Wavefront Technologies Inc, Santa Barbara, CA

For those of you that are keeping count, each and every message
posted to this newsgroup by a current or former member of Pixar
has contained exactly one piece of misinformation.

	H.B. Siegel :-)
From: wool8657@mach1.wlu.ca (john woolsey 9209 U)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics.animation
Subject: Re: Computer of choice?
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:11:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: mach1.Bw0t7H.DDy
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University

In article <1992Oct10.191052.7800@bert.eecs.uic.edu> spiff@bert.eecs.uic.edu (Jason Leigh) writes:
>In article <BvwsF2.MIo@mach1.wlu.ca> wool8657@mach1.wlu.ca (john woolsey 9209 U) writes:
>>they were slower was code optimization. Let's assume the number is closer to
>>1/8th. That would mean it would simply take 8 times as long. That isn't
>>really that bad. Especially for the hobbiest who wants to play around with
>>the images, and be creative, and not produce production quality products.
>
>So a raytrace on an SGI takes an hour and on a PC it takes 8 hours.
>That's not so bad, is it!  Nevermind an hour, let's cut it down to fifteen
>minutes on an SGI, that's 2 hours on a PC.  That's not so bad right?
>You're a whole lot more patient than I am that's for sure.
>
When I am at work I have no time. I would buy an SGI if my business was
based around graphics processing. It isn't. So I won't buy an SGI for work.
When I am at home I have multiple computers sitting around. Many of them are
fast enough for what I do, and a few of them are very fast. The very fast
ones are more then capable of sitting there computing for days/weeks/months.
So theoretically I could do an SGI calculation on these machines since I
have a long time to play around, and other more important things to keep me
busy.
>>Also keep in mind that IBM recently handed the 386 and 486 processors to the
>>RiSC division
>
>So what is handing the 486 to the RiSC division going to do for the
>chip?  They'll produce a RISC version of the 486 chip? By the
>definition of RISC, that would mean the 486 will no longer be a 486
>and will no longer be PC compatible unless you're willing to run an
>emulator.  In that case why doesn't IBM just use the RISC chips it
>already uses in its RS6000s?
Well so far the chip getting handed over has sped it up 30% with no software
incompatibility. They will never get it as fast as a real RiSC chip, and I
don't expect them to, but they are making it better then it used to be. This
is closing off the gap a bit.
>
>>if someone creates something great it is a simple enough exercise to
>>then pump it through an SGI workstation. In fact I could probably do
>>it fairly quickly myself, but it is difficult to get to the SGI
>
>So in the end you still need an SGI.
Or a lot of time.

My point is that if there were a standard interchange format between the two
computers for graphical design it would great benefit the home creator, and
general understanding of graphics in general. My point is that lousy
graphical representations are possible with a mid-range computer. You can
then upgrade those by investing time, or if it was available moving the
graphics to a faster machine. This kind of cross portability would be nice
for everyone, because it would open these kinds of professional graphics up
to a much more diverse field.
Newsgroups: comp.graphics.animation
From: c60c-3gp@web-3b.berkeley.edu (Francois Chew)
Subject: Cutting up old movies
Originator: c60c-3gp@web-3b.berkeley.edu
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:48:50 GMT


In aritcle <1992Oct9.164134.29758@unocal.com> (Richard Ottolini) writes:

>I wonder if the current Diet Coke commercial is a sign of things to come.
>The creators of this commercial do a pretty good job of mixing old movie
>footage (e.g. Groucho Marx) with new film.  I speculate we will see more
>of this in the future with dead actors doing new scenes.

> [ stuff deleted on how great it woudl be ]

>Imagine: new Clark Gable movies.  New I Love Lucy epsisodes! Boggles the mind.

>I think it is only a matter of time.  Perhaps this decade.  There is a lot
>of money in entertainment and people will try.

	The only problem is that even when we do have the
technology, stuff like that will be impossible for legal reasons. There
will be those nostalgic people who will want to keep their Lucy and Clark
Gable the way they were and not muck around with them.
	I don't know if you heard how much of a hassle it was for Diet
Coke to use those scenes. They had to buy the rights to use all the movies,
as well as get by all those people who are against colorizing and butchering
the classics.
	I'm personally not against it-- I was just warning you that if 
you decide to make a nice little CG animation, and you decide to put Marilyn
Monroe in there next to your flunky little blobby teapot, beware of the
copyright infringemt laws if you decide to make it public.
						Francois Chew.
 
Newsgroups: comp.graphics.animation
From: portuesi@tweezers.esd.sgi.com (Michael Portuesi)
Subject: Re: Computer of choice? (Indigo!)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 21:16:58 GMT


In article <BvpD7u.9uB@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, ct54143@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
> philb@cats.ucsc.edu (Philip Brown) writes:
> >I thought Indigos came WITH 3d modelling software now?!!!
> 
> HELL NO. If you're thinking of IRIS Inventor, that's a program that allows
> you to make 3-D widgets for Motif.


IRIS Inventor is much, much more than "a program that allows you
to make 3-D widgets for Motif."  First of all, Inventor's event
handling model makes it possible to use it with toolkits other than
Motif.

Second, Inventor was designed to do more than provide 3D widgets.
It was meant to solve several problems encountered by people who
develop 3D graphics applications.  It provides a way to represent
and group 3D scenes.  It provides several 3D user interface
"interactors" to provide the programmer and the user with a
standard way of manipulating objects in three dimensions.  It
provides encapsulation for rendering of 3D objects, so that you
can design your application in terms of 3D objects and the
relationships between them, not in in terms of low-level
rendering.  It provides a standardized file format for exchange
of 3D data, and cut/copy/paste of data between applications.

Perhaps the original poster was confused by some of the demo
programs which are packaged with Inventor, such as the SceneViewer,
Textomatic, or the 3D Morph demo.  They all manipulate 3D objects,
though none of them are 3D modelers.  They exist only to show
Inventor's potential.

> You can use it for doing models that are
> not for widgets. But let's face it - why would SGI try to make any kind of
> software package that may compete against WaveFront, Alias, SoftImage or
> TDI when those companies are part of the reason people buy SGIs?

We aren't in the business of competing with those companies, though
you could develop a pretty snappy 3D modeling system using
Inventor.

--
Michael Portuesi   Silicon Graphics, Inc.   portuesi@sgi.com

Newsgroups: comp.graphics.animation