Thank you so much! I caught this one Saturday afternoon during the 80s as a kid and was spellbound to see how the graphics for TWOK were created but I didn't think to tape it and completely forget the title of the documentary in the decades since.
Thanks for posting this, really takes me back. It's interesting to see just how far we've come since this 'cutting edge' tech in the late 80's. Superb.
Wow! Just wow! Thank you for sharing this video. It's great to see how the types of effects we take for granted today were created by these artists in those days. A lot of this I knew about, but there's a lot more I just found out with this video. This also reinforces an opinion I had after I saw this movie years ago on TV. This movie technically developed and made use of the Morphing technique before Willow in 1988. The only difference here is that the subjects being transformed are fully computer generated in Star Trek IV versus the live-action film elements that were used in Willow. Still very cool though.
@xalener You could probably make one! it's just a magnetic field. The wand likely contains two poles; the orientation of which determines the 'normal' direction at that point. One pole indicates the position in 3D space. Software would detect the change in charge in the field and plots the point and normal in 3D space.
@Danny77uk A sound concept, and it obviously works... But the actual construction is probably beyond me. Well, the specifics are. I'm sure I could get the materials together. Getting them together and having them work is a whole different thing.
"In fact this is the early days of computer graphics, we're still turning the crank on the Model T,. Uh... we hope to change that, by the way." I mean, it's mundane really, but there's still something kinda magical about hearing this said by the Vice President of Pixar over thirty years ago. (I guess 20 years ago when this video was uploaded) Similarly I found myself kinda blown away by them using the pen as a camera for the digitiser. Should I be? I dunno, but I still was. Seeing that sort of naturalistic handheld motion in CG (wireframe though it may be) from the 80s feels anachronistic. Why did it take so long before we saw anything similar to that in digital cinematography? Why did it take until motion capture was a thing (in the form we know it) for that to really happen?
@sadalite It WAS in its infancy considering what could be achieved using CGI in those days and what's possible now. It doesn't matter if CGI was already there in the 1960s, between the 60s and the 80s not much happened, CGI was scarcely used in the movies or elsewhere and they were still producing these unsophisticated animations. Of course I'm not saying there was no progress or it wasn't an important time, but look how fast things progressed in the 90s and where we are now.
Eh??? I just meant 'going behind it..' whats up with that?? Looks like i sadly will have t explain- had hoped that it was boldly obvious looking at it. (unless we assume the ship is ten times the size of Jupiter and it can fly at near the speed of light..)
Well a star is hundreds of thousands of miles in diameter. The arc the spaceship describes as it wheels around it, make it about as big as the O2 dome!
@Danny77uk No, I mean like with a pen on an object. It seems like a cheaper form of 3d scanning than the laser stuff that's in the industry. I've seen something like it used in some big projects. I wonder if a homebuild of a tool like that is possible.
Thank you so much! I caught this one Saturday afternoon during the 80s as a kid and was spellbound to see how the graphics for TWOK were created but I didn't think to tape it and completely forget the title of the documentary in the decades since.
It's amazing how much technology has advanced in only 20+ years.
this is 1985, now we are in 2019 so 35 years
"Let's see what the computer did!" Like when you see someone painting a picture and you say "Let's see what the brush did!"
Thanks for posting this, really takes me back. It's interesting to see just how far we've come since this 'cutting edge' tech in the late 80's. Superb.
What took months in 1987 for sculpting and animation can now be done in minutes using Zbrush and Maya. Wow! How far we have come.
Wow! Just wow! Thank you for sharing this video. It's great to see how the types of effects we take for granted today were created by these artists in those days. A lot of this I knew about, but there's a lot more I just found out with this video. This also reinforces an opinion I had after I saw this movie years ago on TV. This movie technically developed and made use of the Morphing technique before Willow in 1988. The only difference here is that the subjects being transformed are fully computer generated in Star Trek IV versus the live-action film elements that were used in Willow. Still very cool though.
"Let's see what the computer did!"
Good to see the notion of the "Make Art" button has been around for a while.
I can open up Maya 2020 and yet that 1980s "digitizer" somehow seems more futuristic.
Is that the real Pixar desk lamp I see in the background?
Who programmed this is certainly one of the greatest geniuses ever humanity.
Does anyone know the name?
Incredible! Maximum respect!
@xalener You could probably make one! it's just a magnetic field. The wand likely contains two poles; the orientation of which determines the 'normal' direction at that point. One pole indicates the position in 3D space. Software would detect the change in charge in the field and plots the point and normal in 3D space.
9.00 what is this KEY-FRAME-ANIMATION they speak of?! SORCERY I TELL YOU!!!!
@Danny77uk
A sound concept, and it obviously works... But the actual construction is probably beyond me. Well, the specifics are. I'm sure I could get the materials together. Getting them together and having them work is a whole different thing.
"In fact this is the early days of computer graphics, we're still turning the crank on the Model T,. Uh... we hope to change that, by the way."
I mean, it's mundane really, but there's still something kinda magical about hearing this said by the Vice President of Pixar over thirty years ago. (I guess 20 years ago when this video was uploaded)
Similarly I found myself kinda blown away by them using the pen as a camera for the digitiser. Should I be? I dunno, but I still was. Seeing that sort of naturalistic handheld motion in CG (wireframe though it may be) from the 80s feels anachronistic. Why did it take so long before we saw anything similar to that in digital cinematography? Why did it take until motion capture was a thing (in the form we know it) for that to really happen?
Processing speed.
fascinating !
@xalener Yep! Most 3D programs have patch tools. Try out the free program sPatch.
@sadalite It WAS in its infancy considering what could be achieved using CGI in those days and what's possible now. It doesn't matter if CGI was already there in the 1960s, between the 60s and the 80s not much happened, CGI was scarcely used in the movies or elsewhere and they were still producing these unsophisticated animations. Of course I'm not saying there was no progress or it wasn't an important time, but look how fast things progressed in the 90s and where we are now.
That's actually a really damn cool way to model. Do they sell anything like that nowadays?
Eh??? I just meant 'going behind it..' whats up with that?? Looks like i sadly will have t explain- had hoped that it was boldly obvious looking at it. (unless we assume the ship is ten times the size of Jupiter and it can fly at near the speed of light..)
Yes, you do.
The 3D Digitiser! THE FUTURE
That company "Pixar" had such an unrealistic goal so I'm not surprised if they don't exist today.
That was a dream sequence? I thought that was supposed to show what it would look like to go back in time.
The spaceship going round the back of the Sun is WRONG for soooo mnay reasons. Do I need to explain??
whats the name of this documentary ?
what is his 'computer' you speak of???
Well a star is hundreds of thousands of miles in diameter. The arc the spaceship describes as it wheels around it, make it about as big as the O2 dome!
B'rel class Bird of Prey length 110m
Millennium Dome canopy diameter 365m
I think he's saying Pixar animates in low resolution because Mac OS can barely handle it. Personally, I have my doubts on that one.
and now they can digitize hand or face in seconds
@Danny77uk
No, I mean like with a pen on an object. It seems like a cheaper form of 3d scanning than the laser stuff that's in the industry. I've seen something like it used in some big projects. I wonder if a homebuild of a tool like that is possible.
it a way of drawing image in a computer.
this is why Pixar join paramount before disney
Better facial animations than Mass Effect Andromeda!
GTA V in 1987 for me...
But it would be nice if they GOT IT RIGHT! The effect implies the star is about half a mile wide, or, the starship is the size of 2 Jupiters!
Probably not as wrong as your description of the Sun (or any other stellar or planetary body) having "a back". side. Christ.
blender version 0 lol
2:18 bull crap pixar still animates in relly low poygons becouse mac s berlly handles it