J. Lasseter, W. Reeves, L. Carpenter, E. Ostby, Michael Wahrman, J. Blinn, Craig W. Reynolds, Chris Wedge, G. Walters, B. Kroyer
LASSETER : Were going to start about 24 seconds early. We've got really a full program here. We'd like to make one announcement first-that there's absolutely no videotapin g allowed in this session. If anybody sees someone videotaping next to him, they have the co-chair's permission to beat th e living daylights out of them. By the way, it won't matter. We have two gian t electromagnets just inside the door. When you leave we're going to turn them on. REEVES : John and I got this idea at last year's SIGGRAPH. You come to SIGGRAPH every year and go to the film show , and everything is so slick. It's just great most of the time. Bu t behind the scenes there's a lot of effort, a lot of horror storie s and a lot of bloopers. We thought we'd have a session abou t that. LASSETER : Over the past few years at Pixar, Bill, Eben and I have started saving some of our more ridiculous mistakes, such as when the rendering just doesn't go quite right and the head i s about the size of a pin. We started saving those thinking tha t some clay we'd like to show them and so we're able to sho w them here. We told AV this is about bloopers, so if they screw up , then it's all part of the show. We left the form of this sessio n open so that if Bill and I heard of some more silly thing s occurring in films that were made this year, we would add them. Since the panel was formed we've added two more speakers and I think you'll really enjoy their stories. . We'd like to start with our first speaker. Put your hands together for a big SIGGRAPH welcome for Mr. Loren Carpenter of Pixar. I've been given the dubious honor of speaking first. I don't know what that means in this situation, but the first thin g we're going to do is show you a film, Vol Libre, I did about nine years ago. There is sound on this, but I don't want it very lou d because I'm going to talk over it. There are a couple of stories with this film. It was done o n evenings and weekends at Boeing on CAD equipment that we had, and it had absolutely nothing to …
{"title":"Bloopers, outtakes, and horror stories of SIGGRAPH films","authors":"J. Lasseter, W. Reeves, L. Carpenter, E. Ostby, Michael Wahrman, J. Blinn, Craig W. Reynolds, Chris Wedge, G. Walters, B. Kroyer","doi":"10.1145/77276.77289","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/77276.77289","url":null,"abstract":"LASSETER : Were going to start about 24 seconds early. We've got really a full program here. We'd like to make one announcement first-that there's absolutely no videotapin g allowed in this session. If anybody sees someone videotaping next to him, they have the co-chair's permission to beat th e living daylights out of them. By the way, it won't matter. We have two gian t electromagnets just inside the door. When you leave we're going to turn them on. REEVES : John and I got this idea at last year's SIGGRAPH. You come to SIGGRAPH every year and go to the film show , and everything is so slick. It's just great most of the time. Bu t behind the scenes there's a lot of effort, a lot of horror storie s and a lot of bloopers. We thought we'd have a session abou t that. LASSETER : Over the past few years at Pixar, Bill, Eben and I have started saving some of our more ridiculous mistakes, such as when the rendering just doesn't go quite right and the head i s about the size of a pin. We started saving those thinking tha t some clay we'd like to show them and so we're able to sho w them here. We told AV this is about bloopers, so if they screw up , then it's all part of the show. We left the form of this sessio n open so that if Bill and I heard of some more silly thing s occurring in films that were made this year, we would add them. Since the panel was formed we've added two more speakers and I think you'll really enjoy their stories. . We'd like to start with our first speaker. Put your hands together for a big SIGGRAPH welcome for Mr. Loren Carpenter of Pixar. I've been given the dubious honor of speaking first. I don't know what that means in this situation, but the first thin g we're going to do is show you a film, Vol Libre, I did about nine years ago. There is sound on this, but I don't want it very lou d because I'm going to talk over it. There are a couple of stories with this film. It was done o n evenings and weekends at Boeing on CAD equipment that we had, and it had absolutely nothing to …","PeriodicalId":405574,"journal":{"name":"ACM SIGGRAPH 89 Panel Proceedings","volume":"171 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1989-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132466425","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Demetri Terzopoulos, John C. Platt, A. Barr, D. Zeltzer, A. Witkin, J. Blinn
My name is Demetri Terzopoulos and my co-chair, John Platt, and I would like to welcome you to the panel on Physically-Based Modeling -- Past, Present and Future. I'll start by introducing the panelists; the affiliations you see listed on the screen are somewhat out of date. I'm Program Leader of modeling and simulation at the Schlumberger Laboratory for Computer Science in Austin, Texas, and I was formerly at Schlumberger Palo Alto Research. I'll speak on the subject of deformable models. John Platt, formerly of Cal Tech, is now Principal Scientist at Synaptics in San Jose, California. He will be concentrating on constraints and control. Alan Barr is Assistant Professor of computer science at Cal Tech. Last year he received the computer graphics achievement award. He'll speak about teleological modeling. David Zeltzer is Associate Professor of computer graphics at the MIT Media Laboratory. He will be speaking on interactive micro worlds. Andrew Witkin, formerly of Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, is now Associate Professor of computer science at Carnegie Mellon University. He will speak about interactive dynamics. Last but not least, we have with us James Blinn, who of course needs no introduction. Formerly of JPL, he is now Associate Director of the Mathematics Project at Cal Tech. He says he'll have several random comments to make against physically-based modeling. I was also asked by the SIGGRAPH organizers to remind the audience that audio and video tape recording of this panel is not permitted. Many of you are already familiar with physically-based modeling, so I will attempt only a very simple introduction to this, in my opinion, very exciting paradigm. Physically-based techniques facilitate the creation of models capable of automatically synthesizing complex shapes and realistic motions that were, until recently, attainable only by skilled animators, if at all. Physically-based modeling adds new levels of representation to graphics objects. In addition to geometry -- forces, torques, velocities, accelerations, kinetic and potential energies, heat, and other physical quantities are used to control the creation and evolution of models. Simulated physical laws govern model behavior, and animators can guide their models using physically-based control systems. Physically-based models are responsive to one another and to the simulated physical worlds that they inhabit. We will review some past accomplishments in physically-based modeling, look at what we are doing at present, and speculate about what may happen in the near future. The best way to get a feel for physically-based modeling is through animation, so we will be showing you lots of animation as we go along. I would like to talk about deformable models, which are physically-based models of nonrigid objects. I have worked on deformable models for graphics applications primarily with Kurt Fleischer and also with John Platt and Andy Witkin. Deformable models are based on the continuum mec
可变形模型显然在计算机图形学中很有用，但它们在做逆图形时也很有用;也就是说，计算机视觉。例如，这里我们看到一个普通南瓜的图像。使用可变形管模型，我们可以从其图像重建一个南瓜的三维模型，如图所示。一旦我们从图像中重建了模型，我们就可以旋转模型以从各个方向查看它。你可以看到，我们从这张单目图像中获得了一个完整的三维模型。这是计算机视觉的一个基本目标。Kurt Fleischer, Andy Witkin, Michael Kass和我用这种基于视觉的可变形模型技术制作了一个动画，叫做《与Kurt一起烹饪》。我们想在这个制作中混合现场视频和基于物理的动画。你看到库尔特拿着三种蔬菜走进厨房。我们从一个视频帧中捕捉到可变形的壁球模型，这些真正的壁球放在桌子上——就是这个特别的场景。现在，重建的模型正在使用基于物理的技术进行动画制作。这些模型的行为就像非常原始的行动者;它们有简单的控制机制，使它们跳跃，保持平衡，并遵循精心设计的路径。你看到的碰撞和其他相互作用是通过物理定律自动计算出来的，它们看起来很真实。即使你是一个熟练的动画师，也很难手工完成这种事情。第二盘磁带将向你们展示我们目前在斯伦贝谢计算机科学实验室进行的一些基于物理的建模。基斯·沃特斯和我正在研究互动变形模型。我们现在能够在Silicon Graphics Iris 240 GTX计算机上实时计算和渲染可变形模型。例如，这是一个非线性膜的模拟，在四个角处受到约束，并在引力场中释放。看着它弹跳和摆动。这里你看到的是一个基于肉体的模型。它是一个由质量和弹簧组成的三维晶格，肌肉贯穿其中。同样，这是实时计算和显示的。你可以看到下面的肌肉显示为红线。它们一端固定在空间中，另一端连接到晶格模型的某些节点上。通过收缩肌肉，我们可以使这块厚板变形——如果你愿意，可以叫它鲸脂。我们将这个模拟作为使用可变形模型作为面部组织模型来制作面部动画的第一步。当然，肌肉模型也能塑造出良好的面部肌肉。下一个剪辑将演示实时，基于物理的面部动画在我们的SGI计算机上。这里我们可以看到脸的晶格结构。我们不把所有的内部节点都展示出来这样我们可以更清楚地看到晶格的表皮。在那里。现在我们收缩连接到嘴角一侧的颧肌——现在两个颧肌都在收缩，做出一个微笑。面部模型内部的肌肉产生力量，使肌肉变形，从而产生面部表情。现在表皮多边形显示为平面阴影。接下来我们收缩眉毛肌肉。这里表皮被平滑地遮蔽。最后，我们放松肌肉，面部恢复正常。将基于物理的建模方法应用于面部动画的一个重要原因是现实主义。例如，面部组织模型自动产生物理上真实的现象，如嘴角周围的笑纹和你在这里看到的脸颊凸起。基思上周才用我们的机器录下这段动画。我们的下一步将是开发控制过程来协调肌肉，这样面部模型就可以根据简单的命令创造出各种各样的表情。基思之前在面部动画方面的工作发表在SIGGRAPH 87上，展示了如何使用肌肉模型过程来实现这一目标。除了肌肉控制过程，我们还对声码器模型感兴趣——也就是说，基于物理的语音编码和生成模型，这样这张脸就可以和你说话了。这盘磁带马上就要结束了，所以我把讲台交给约翰·普拉特博士，他将讨论约束方法和控制。谢谢你！
{"title":"Physically-based modeling: past, present, and future","authors":"Demetri Terzopoulos, John C. Platt, A. Barr, D. Zeltzer, A. Witkin, J. Blinn","doi":"10.1145/77276.77287","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/77276.77287","url":null,"abstract":"My name is Demetri Terzopoulos and my co-chair, John Platt, and I would like to welcome you to the panel on Physically-Based Modeling -- Past, Present and Future. I'll start by introducing the panelists; the affiliations you see listed on the screen are somewhat out of date. I'm Program Leader of modeling and simulation at the Schlumberger Laboratory for Computer Science in Austin, Texas, and I was formerly at Schlumberger Palo Alto Research. I'll speak on the subject of deformable models. John Platt, formerly of Cal Tech, is now Principal Scientist at Synaptics in San Jose, California. He will be concentrating on constraints and control. Alan Barr is Assistant Professor of computer science at Cal Tech. Last year he received the computer graphics achievement award. He'll speak about teleological modeling. David Zeltzer is Associate Professor of computer graphics at the MIT Media Laboratory. He will be speaking on interactive micro worlds. Andrew Witkin, formerly of Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, is now Associate Professor of computer science at Carnegie Mellon University. He will speak about interactive dynamics. Last but not least, we have with us James Blinn, who of course needs no introduction. Formerly of JPL, he is now Associate Director of the Mathematics Project at Cal Tech. He says he'll have several random comments to make against physically-based modeling. I was also asked by the SIGGRAPH organizers to remind the audience that audio and video tape recording of this panel is not permitted. Many of you are already familiar with physically-based modeling, so I will attempt only a very simple introduction to this, in my opinion, very exciting paradigm. Physically-based techniques facilitate the creation of models capable of automatically synthesizing complex shapes and realistic motions that were, until recently, attainable only by skilled animators, if at all. Physically-based modeling adds new levels of representation to graphics objects. In addition to geometry -- forces, torques, velocities, accelerations, kinetic and potential energies, heat, and other physical quantities are used to control the creation and evolution of models. Simulated physical laws govern model behavior, and animators can guide their models using physically-based control systems. Physically-based models are responsive to one another and to the simulated physical worlds that they inhabit. We will review some past accomplishments in physically-based modeling, look at what we are doing at present, and speculate about what may happen in the near future. The best way to get a feel for physically-based modeling is through animation, so we will be showing you lots of animation as we go along. I would like to talk about deformable models, which are physically-based models of nonrigid objects. I have worked on deformable models for graphics applications primarily with Kurt Fleischer and also with John Platt and Andy Witkin. Deformable models are based on the continuum mec","PeriodicalId":405574,"journal":{"name":"ACM SIGGRAPH 89 Panel Proceedings","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1989-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116091319","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
B. Arons, C. Schmandt, Michael Hawley, Lester Ludwig, P. Zellweger
Good afternoon. Boy, I can't see anything out there. I assume you all can see me -- thats why these lights are here. My name is Chris Schmandt from the Media Lab at MIT. I'm co-chairing this panel with Barry Arons, who is sitting over here. It's actually quite a pleasure to co-chair this panel with Barry. We've been working together off and on for more years than I care to remember. This panel has a long ridiculous name. Basically it's about audio and window systems and workstations. I'm wearing two hats here. I'm going to spend a minute or two introducing the panel and then I'm going to spend some time talking about my own segment of the panel. We're going to try to be a panel as opposed to a series of five mini-papers that never get published. In other words, we're going to try to keep our presentations relatively short, then segue into a series of prepared questions that the panelists are going to answer amongst themselves. Then we'll open the floor up for questions. In some ways this is a very incestuous crew. We've all known each other for quite a while. We have different slants and we're actually going to try to focus on those slants a little bit. So if we disagree with each other, that doesn't necessarily mean we really hate each other. We're all friends. Where this panel is coming from is a surge of interest in audio, and multimedia, in general, in computer workstations. The Macintosh has had audio for quite a while -- you may or may not choose to call that a workstation. The NeXT computer sort of surprised people by having fairly powerful DSP and audio in and out. You'll get a demo of that later if you haven't seen it. The Sun SPARCStation has come out with some primitive digital record and playback capabilities. On the other hand, there's been interest in voice in computer workstations for years and years, and what we've seen so far is that voice really hasn't had very much success. There have been a number of products that have come and gone. What has become popular has been centralized service -- specifically voice mail. Voice mail is tied in more to a PBX -- and the interface is more like a telephone than it is a mouse and window system, in the computer workstation interface. Obviously, window systems are here to stay. We're not suggesting that audio is going to replace the graphical paradigm, but rather have to interact with it. On the other hand, everybody has a telephone. People had telephones on their desks before they had workstations, and we talk all the time at work. Voice really is a fundamental component of the way we talk, the way we interact with each other. What we're seeing in terms of the technologies showing up in these workstations is higher bit rate coding. Gone are the days of unintelligible low bit rate linear predictive coding or something like that -- except for specialized applications. Speech recognition is here, but it's in its infancy. Text-to-speech -- it's around, it's difficult to understand. You can learn
{"title":"Speech and audio in window systems: when will they happen?","authors":"B. Arons, C. Schmandt, Michael Hawley, Lester Ludwig, P. Zellweger","doi":"10.1145/77276.77285","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/77276.77285","url":null,"abstract":"Good afternoon. Boy, I can't see anything out there. I assume you all can see me -- thats why these lights are here. My name is Chris Schmandt from the Media Lab at MIT. I'm co-chairing this panel with Barry Arons, who is sitting over here. It's actually quite a pleasure to co-chair this panel with Barry. We've been working together off and on for more years than I care to remember. This panel has a long ridiculous name. Basically it's about audio and window systems and workstations. I'm wearing two hats here. I'm going to spend a minute or two introducing the panel and then I'm going to spend some time talking about my own segment of the panel. We're going to try to be a panel as opposed to a series of five mini-papers that never get published. In other words, we're going to try to keep our presentations relatively short, then segue into a series of prepared questions that the panelists are going to answer amongst themselves. Then we'll open the floor up for questions. In some ways this is a very incestuous crew. We've all known each other for quite a while. We have different slants and we're actually going to try to focus on those slants a little bit. So if we disagree with each other, that doesn't necessarily mean we really hate each other. We're all friends. Where this panel is coming from is a surge of interest in audio, and multimedia, in general, in computer workstations. The Macintosh has had audio for quite a while -- you may or may not choose to call that a workstation. The NeXT computer sort of surprised people by having fairly powerful DSP and audio in and out. You'll get a demo of that later if you haven't seen it. The Sun SPARCStation has come out with some primitive digital record and playback capabilities. On the other hand, there's been interest in voice in computer workstations for years and years, and what we've seen so far is that voice really hasn't had very much success. There have been a number of products that have come and gone. What has become popular has been centralized service -- specifically voice mail. Voice mail is tied in more to a PBX -- and the interface is more like a telephone than it is a mouse and window system, in the computer workstation interface. Obviously, window systems are here to stay. We're not suggesting that audio is going to replace the graphical paradigm, but rather have to interact with it. On the other hand, everybody has a telephone. People had telephones on their desks before they had workstations, and we talk all the time at work. Voice really is a fundamental component of the way we talk, the way we interact with each other. What we're seeing in terms of the technologies showing up in these workstations is higher bit rate coding. Gone are the days of unintelligible low bit rate linear predictive coding or something like that -- except for specialized applications. Speech recognition is here, but it's in its infancy. Text-to-speech -- it's around, it's difficult to understand. You can learn","PeriodicalId":405574,"journal":{"name":"ACM SIGGRAPH 89 Panel Proceedings","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1989-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123495302","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
D. Spencer, H. Rand, K. Huffman, P. Pearlstein, B. Riley, Will Stapp, Vivian Rainer
Hello. My name is Dorothy Spencer, and this is a special session entitled Computer Art - An Oxymoron? Views from the Mainstream.Before I introduce the panel members I want to tell you two things briefly about the session. First I'm going to tell you what the session does not focus on, and to do that I'm going to read from the SIGGRAPH 89 Show daily that came out this morning. So, for any of you that read it and came here expecting to hear museum curators, gallery owners and artists discuss the evolution of computer art as a means for artistic expression, you can go away now; we're not going to do it.What we are going to do is talk about the fact that computer generated imagery --- although it's been around for several decades, the mainstream art world has been slow to acknowledge it as a viable medium for the creation of fine art. There have been few computer art exhibitions and even fewer reviews. Like photography, is computer art going to take three-quarters of a century before it's accepted into the mainstream?Is it partially the fault of the artist? Are artists too wrapped up in the technological processes to be concerned with the aesthetic results?Does the majority of the artists using the computer not participate in regular juried shows because they feel their work is not understood?Does the technology need to be understood before the work can be judge aesthetically?These are just a few of the questions that we hope to discuss this morning and hopefully we'll have answers for. After each panelist has made his or her presentation, we'll let the panelists respond to each other's remarks before we let you people loose with questions and answers.My first panelist is Harry Rand. He's curator of painting and sculpture at the Museum of American Art in Washington, D.C. He'll be followed by Kathy Huffman, She's the director of the Institute of Contemporary Art, Boston. Followed by Philip Pearlstein, internationally-known artist and former professor of painting at Brooklyn College; Bob Riley, curator of media art, San Francisco Museum of Modern Art; Will Stapp, curator of photography of the National Portrait Gallery; and Vivian Rainer, art critic for the New York Times. We hope you enjoy the session. Thank you.
你好。我是多萝西·斯宾塞，这是一个名为“计算机艺术-矛盾修辞?”主流观点。在我介绍小组成员之前，我想简单地告诉你们关于这次会议的两件事。首先，我要告诉你会议没有关注的是什么，为了做到这一点，我将阅读今天早上发布的SIGGRAPH 89 Show daily。所以，如果你们读了这篇文章，并来到这里希望听到博物馆馆长、画廊老板和艺术家们讨论计算机艺术作为一种艺术表达方式的演变，你们现在可以走开了;我们不会这么做的。我们要做的是谈论计算机生成图像的事实——尽管它已经存在了几十年，但主流艺术界一直很慢地承认它是一种创作美术的可行媒介。很少有计算机艺术展览，评论更少。就像摄影一样，电脑艺术要经过四分之三个世纪才能被主流所接受吗?这部分是艺术家的错吗?艺术家是否过于沉迷于技术过程而忽略了美学结果?大多数使用电脑的艺术家不参加定期的评委会展览，是因为他们觉得自己的作品没有被理解吗?在对作品进行美学评判之前，是否需要先了解技术?这些只是我们希望今天上午讨论的一些问题，希望我们能找到答案。在每个小组成员做了他或她的演讲后，我们将让小组成员相互回应，然后我们让大家自由提问和回答。我的第一位小组成员是哈里·兰德。他是华盛顿美国艺术博物馆的绘画和雕塑策展人。他之后将是凯西·霍夫曼，她是波士顿当代艺术研究所的主任。紧随其后的是国际知名艺术家、前布鲁克林学院绘画教授Philip Pearlstein;鲍勃·莱利，旧金山现代艺术博物馆媒体艺术策展人;国家肖像画廊摄影策展人威尔·斯塔普(Will Stapp);以及《纽约时报》艺术评论家维维安·雷纳。我们希望你喜欢这次会议。谢谢你！
{"title":"Computer art - an oxymoron? Views from the mainstream","authors":"D. Spencer, H. Rand, K. Huffman, P. Pearlstein, B. Riley, Will Stapp, Vivian Rainer","doi":"10.1145/77276.77288","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/77276.77288","url":null,"abstract":"Hello. My name is Dorothy Spencer, and this is a special session entitled Computer Art - An Oxymoron? Views from the Mainstream.Before I introduce the panel members I want to tell you two things briefly about the session. First I'm going to tell you what the session does not focus on, and to do that I'm going to read from the SIGGRAPH 89 Show daily that came out this morning. So, for any of you that read it and came here expecting to hear museum curators, gallery owners and artists discuss the evolution of computer art as a means for artistic expression, you can go away now; we're not going to do it.What we are going to do is talk about the fact that computer generated imagery --- although it's been around for several decades, the mainstream art world has been slow to acknowledge it as a viable medium for the creation of fine art. There have been few computer art exhibitions and even fewer reviews. Like photography, is computer art going to take three-quarters of a century before it's accepted into the mainstream?Is it partially the fault of the artist? Are artists too wrapped up in the technological processes to be concerned with the aesthetic results?Does the majority of the artists using the computer not participate in regular juried shows because they feel their work is not understood?Does the technology need to be understood before the work can be judge aesthetically?These are just a few of the questions that we hope to discuss this morning and hopefully we'll have answers for. After each panelist has made his or her presentation, we'll let the panelists respond to each other's remarks before we let you people loose with questions and answers.My first panelist is Harry Rand. He's curator of painting and sculpture at the Museum of American Art in Washington, D.C. He'll be followed by Kathy Huffman, She's the director of the Institute of Contemporary Art, Boston. Followed by Philip Pearlstein, internationally-known artist and former professor of painting at Brooklyn College; Bob Riley, curator of media art, San Francisco Museum of Modern Art; Will Stapp, curator of photography of the National Portrait Gallery; and Vivian Rainer, art critic for the New York Times. We hope you enjoy the session. Thank you.","PeriodicalId":405574,"journal":{"name":"ACM SIGGRAPH 89 Panel Proceedings","volume":"70 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1989-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127726109","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
C. Conn, J. Lanier, M. Minsky, S. Fisher, A. Druin
I really apologize. I promised everyone I would come out wearing the data suit, but it just slipped my mind and I never got around to it. Actually Marvin Minsky was saying that the thing to do would be to come out with nothing on because that would be the perfect interface to the computer. So I kind of shunned the whole thing off at that point.We just heard Nicholas Negroponte ask us -- "how do we communicate with computers?" Well, that's why this panel is here today. We'll be discussing virtual environments and interactivity with some of the people who have been doing a lot of work in this field. I was interviewing a lot of people last night at the parties about virtual environments and I realized that everyone has their own idea of what their virtual environment will be. Some want to interact more, others less. Some want little people running around on the screen bringing them all sorts of messages or images. We'll be hearing about a lot of different types of interactivity on our panel today.I'd like to point out that Margaret's slide should also include the MIT Media Lab as well as UNC.I'm going to show some tapes and do some talking later on so I'd like start of by introducing Jaron Lanier. He's the guy with the dreadlocks you've seen at the Silicon Graphics booth. He has an amazing collection of musical instruments from all over the world and when he plays them, he transports you to other times and other places. He's a designer of programming languages and he started VPL, the company that brought you the glove, Jaron.
{"title":"Virtual environments and interactivity: windows to the future","authors":"C. Conn, J. Lanier, M. Minsky, S. Fisher, A. Druin","doi":"10.1145/77276.77278","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/77276.77278","url":null,"abstract":"I really apologize. I promised everyone I would come out wearing the data suit, but it just slipped my mind and I never got around to it. Actually Marvin Minsky was saying that the thing to do would be to come out with nothing on because that would be the perfect interface to the computer. So I kind of shunned the whole thing off at that point.We just heard Nicholas Negroponte ask us -- \"how do we communicate with computers?\" Well, that's why this panel is here today. We'll be discussing virtual environments and interactivity with some of the people who have been doing a lot of work in this field. I was interviewing a lot of people last night at the parties about virtual environments and I realized that everyone has their own idea of what their virtual environment will be. Some want to interact more, others less. Some want little people running around on the screen bringing them all sorts of messages or images. We'll be hearing about a lot of different types of interactivity on our panel today.I'd like to point out that Margaret's slide should also include the MIT Media Lab as well as UNC.I'm going to show some tapes and do some talking later on so I'd like start of by introducing Jaron Lanier. He's the guy with the dreadlocks you've seen at the Silicon Graphics booth. He has an amazing collection of musical instruments from all over the world and when he plays them, he transports you to other times and other places. He's a designer of programming languages and he started VPL, the company that brought you the glove, Jaron.","PeriodicalId":405574,"journal":{"name":"ACM SIGGRAPH 89 Panel Proceedings","volume":"107 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1989-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131428497","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Good morning. My name is Tim Heidmann and I'd like to welcome you all to this panel, which is entitled Future Directions in Desktop Video, and I'd especially like to thank all you people who stayed up a little late on Thursday night to come to this panel. It's really good to see you all out there. I've gotten word that this panel is being transcribed. They're putting together a booklet, so they're taking the slides and the stills from the videos and all the things that we're saying. So I'd just like to take this opportunity to say hi to the person who's transcribing this and sorry you couldn't be here today, and I wanted to let you know that the word of the day is Neopraseodymium, and I hope you've got your scientific dictionary close by. When we first started putting this panel together, I talked to my friends who were involved in a number of different areas in video, and the question that came to the forefront very quickly is what exactly desktop video is. There's been a lot of talk about it, a lot of magazine articles. It's a good buzz word. But we all felt it incorporated a whole bunch of different areas that weren't easily put into one category. We did agree that the name of desktop video came from the field of desktop publishing. In desktop publishing, which has been a rapidly growing field in the past few years, the whole point is that we've got a computer bringing together elements from the outside world, creating elements inside the computer, putting them all together and coming up with a final product. The point is it's all done inside the computer. Again, it does the things that computers do really well -- like text editing and graphics design and layout. And it was made possible by the fact that these high quality printers -- laser printers -- had come out that you could produce a very high quality output from it. Well, on the video side, there is a similar development. That is, it's possible now to make video animation completely within the computer. There are software packages for modeling objects, for creating animation, for rendering very high quality images and outputting them directly to tape. And I guess you could call that desktop video. You're doing the same thing as you're doing in desktop publishing, but now you're producing videotape and animation. But really what's happening in video is a lot bigger than that. I've kind of come up with this map. If you look at the entire video process, you can split it into four parts. The first being creating the elements, which I've called Source here. Now that would include such applications as computer graphics, generated completely inside the computer, but also things like pointing a camera at someone or something, things like medical imaging. Basically the creation of the images. The second step would be assembling those images and probably some audio into a master video production. Just about everything you do in video involves some sort editing to it, even if it's just putting a t
{"title":"Future directions in desktop video","authors":"Tim Heidmann, M. MacKay, G. MacNicol, F. Wray","doi":"10.1145/77276.77290","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/77276.77290","url":null,"abstract":"Good morning. My name is Tim Heidmann and I'd like to welcome you all to this panel, which is entitled Future Directions in Desktop Video, and I'd especially like to thank all you people who stayed up a little late on Thursday night to come to this panel. It's really good to see you all out there. I've gotten word that this panel is being transcribed. They're putting together a booklet, so they're taking the slides and the stills from the videos and all the things that we're saying. So I'd just like to take this opportunity to say hi to the person who's transcribing this and sorry you couldn't be here today, and I wanted to let you know that the word of the day is Neopraseodymium, and I hope you've got your scientific dictionary close by. When we first started putting this panel together, I talked to my friends who were involved in a number of different areas in video, and the question that came to the forefront very quickly is what exactly desktop video is. There's been a lot of talk about it, a lot of magazine articles. It's a good buzz word. But we all felt it incorporated a whole bunch of different areas that weren't easily put into one category. We did agree that the name of desktop video came from the field of desktop publishing. In desktop publishing, which has been a rapidly growing field in the past few years, the whole point is that we've got a computer bringing together elements from the outside world, creating elements inside the computer, putting them all together and coming up with a final product. The point is it's all done inside the computer. Again, it does the things that computers do really well -- like text editing and graphics design and layout. And it was made possible by the fact that these high quality printers -- laser printers -- had come out that you could produce a very high quality output from it. Well, on the video side, there is a similar development. That is, it's possible now to make video animation completely within the computer. There are software packages for modeling objects, for creating animation, for rendering very high quality images and outputting them directly to tape. And I guess you could call that desktop video. You're doing the same thing as you're doing in desktop publishing, but now you're producing videotape and animation. But really what's happening in video is a lot bigger than that. I've kind of come up with this map. If you look at the entire video process, you can split it into four parts. The first being creating the elements, which I've called Source here. Now that would include such applications as computer graphics, generated completely inside the computer, but also things like pointing a camera at someone or something, things like medical imaging. Basically the creation of the images. The second step would be assembling those images and probably some audio into a master video production. Just about everything you do in video involves some sort editing to it, even if it's just putting a t","PeriodicalId":405574,"journal":{"name":"ACM SIGGRAPH 89 Panel Proceedings","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1989-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127800211","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
M. Palazzi, Wayne Carlson, R. Lucas, M. Schweppe, M. Yanilmaz
Welcome to Preparing for the Future, a panel on educational issues in computer graphics. The field of computer graphics education, as no other, combines the disciplines of science and art, and in this sense presents computer graphics instructors in both art and science with some unique problems not faced by their counterparts in other fields.As computer graphics courses become a standard addition in art and science curricula, the way in which we prepare students for this evolutionary field is changing.This panel explores the methods of establishing computer graphics curriculum and maintaining these programs. Panel members will share curricula developments and goals, its integration with existing courses, plan growth, raising monetary resources, hardware and software selection, and various educational issues.This session's panelists come from varied backgrounds -- private and public institutions with limited and unlimited resources to share their experiences with you.The first panelist will be Wayne Carlson, an assistant professor in the department of computer and information science at the Ohio State University.
{"title":"Preparing for the future","authors":"M. Palazzi, Wayne Carlson, R. Lucas, M. Schweppe, M. Yanilmaz","doi":"10.1145/77276.77293","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/77276.77293","url":null,"abstract":"Welcome to Preparing for the Future, a panel on educational issues in computer graphics. The field of computer graphics education, as no other, combines the disciplines of science and art, and in this sense presents computer graphics instructors in both art and science with some unique problems not faced by their counterparts in other fields.As computer graphics courses become a standard addition in art and science curricula, the way in which we prepare students for this evolutionary field is changing.This panel explores the methods of establishing computer graphics curriculum and maintaining these programs. Panel members will share curricula developments and goals, its integration with existing courses, plan growth, raising monetary resources, hardware and software selection, and various educational issues.This session's panelists come from varied backgrounds -- private and public institutions with limited and unlimited resources to share their experiences with you.The first panelist will be Wayne Carlson, an assistant professor in the department of computer and information science at the Ohio State University.","PeriodicalId":405574,"journal":{"name":"ACM SIGGRAPH 89 Panel Proceedings","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1989-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125262332","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：