A:M way ahead of its time.

[robcat2075]

VFX animator Webster Colcord is interviewed in CGW...

Spotlight on Webster Colcord

 

 

I note it for this interesting portion...

 

...Yours is an impressive resume. Was the transition from clay to digital animation difficult, or did it seem like more of a natural progression for you?

 

It was difficult! I did have some prior experience getting slightly familiar with digital animation. My buddies at Hash Animation in Vancouver, Washington, had given me a copy of their software (Animation Master) to learn on, and I had fooled around a little. At the time I made the transition in 1997, I had my own small animation studio in Portland, Oregon, and I was producing and directing commercials and interstitials. I had worked on a couple of feature projects, but it was quite a shock to suddenly be neck-deep in a big initial CG feature within a large-ish studio. That was Antz, at PDI (newly a part of DreamWorks at the time) and there were all manner of difficulties.

 

 

What I discovered was that Hash Animation Master was sort of advanced! At the time, most of our animation at PDI had to be done using a spreadsheet. There wasn’t really a graphical manipulator, or poser, until later on...

 

 

[Rodney]

It's nice to see some of the many folks who cut their teeth with Animation:Master give credit where due to the creators of A:M.

 

'Antz' was one of the first CG films that proved that =other companies- besides Pixar could rise to the challenge of digital animation. It was certainly one of the first that convinced me that high quality animation wasn't out of the reach of mere mortals. And it should be no surprise that the artists behind these earlier films helped drive better software and workflow through their desire to have a better solution... one more like the approach they had in Animation:Master. There are some recent demos from Pixar that show some newer capabilities that suggest in many ways they are only now catching up to some of A:M's 'self evident' and intuitive workflows. In other words, in many ways A:M is still ahead of its time.

[detbear]

It's really very nice for artists like Colcord to mention A:M. Unfortunately its now much

easier for other softwares to surpass A:M than it is for A:M to catch up with other softwares.

 

Although we all wish that was not true. I like A:M's workflow.

[Rodney]

A:M isn't trying to catch up... it's waiting for the world to catch up.

With proper technology in place spline/patch technology can then enter into the next phase of advancement.

 

I liken this to Ed Catmull's telling of how they charted the course to create the first digitally animated feature film and laid out their plan to get there. He/They saw that with advancements in computing following Moore's Law it would be a specific amount of time before they would be able to succeed in their endeavor but that it would (without any doubt) inevitably happen... if they were there to see it occur. So his effort then focused more fully on survival... of keeping his team together during the long haul it would take to get from where they were then into the future. Of course this does't mean they were idle... they set out to more accurately define what their place would be in that future.

 

Why is it that folks like A:M's workflow so much? (often wishing they had A:M's workflows and ease of use in their daily work-a-day solutions)

Could it have anything to do with the technology (and the vision) behind the tools?

 

It's not surprising that folks use other software.

What is a bit disappointing is that when folks (inevitably?) do they stop supporting A:M.

 

Would I be any different?

If I were happily churning out animation at PIXAR, Dreamworks, or any number of animation studios would I still financially support development of A:M?

While reality often suggests otherwise, I'd like to think that I would.

 

Note: I make a distinction between general/moral support (that of what is demonstrated by Webster Colcord) and financial support (of which there is no indication that he ever contributed) although I'm sure all support is appreciated. General support is a great thing but its good to remember that it takes money to support the people behind the effort to develop software at the pace we would prefer. Lacking that support what other options are available.

[nemyax]

Why is it that folks like A:M's workflow so much? (often wishing they had A:M's workflows and ease of use in their daily work-a-day solutions)

Could it have anything to do with the technology (and the vision) behind the tools?

They like it because it's got the PWS =)

There isn't much "technology" to the PWS, but the concept, or vision, is very neat.

[Rodney]

Agreed.

 

Over the years I've noticed a lot of software with similar approaches to drilling down to more complex information but few (none?) as refined and intuitive as that of A:M.

 

I do reserve some serious affection for the technology (and vision) underneath the hood that makes the PWS in A:M integrate so well across the board.

As Martin once said, he built everything with animation first and foremost in mind... all other things of necessity follow.

This has been a perennial problem in software where animation is a byproduct.

In recent years most software is being written from the ground up with a more animation-centric view in mind.

But this will always translate to workflow relative to the underlying technology.

 

Are you familar with the story of Moses and Aaron who went before Pharoah?

Aaron cast down his rod which became a snake and the magicians of the court did likewise with their enchantments.

In the end only one snake was left; having consumed the others.

Someone had superior technology (thought craft).

[robcat2075]

Yes, there must be something about A:M that causes us to use it in our projects even though we are all aware there are other softwares out there.

 

I'm sure it's not just sentimentallity, what with all the screaming and hair-pulling that's gone on around here over the years.

 

 

For Webster Colcord fans... someone has dug up some seasonal clay-mation he did in his off-time (!) back in the early 90s...

 

Mad doctors of Borneo

[Rodney]

Webster is a busy guy!

[detbear]

:) Yes....I'm definately familiar with The Exodus Narrative. I

Love that story.

 

I doubt the industry is going to "come to it's senses and stop sinning" though Hee Hee

 

They're having too much fun parting the red sea with there tools. Making Blockbuster Feature films like Star Wars and AAA Next Gen

games like Black Ops.

 

That doesn't mean I don't like A:M though. I'm still getting my yearly subscription

[Rodney]

It's important that we don't go from one ditch to the other when considering technology.

And as you point out, we chase after anything that appears new and spectacular.

 

I don't know the whole (origin) story of Webster Calcord and his adventures with A:M but from appearances it looks to me that he needed to learn CG animation and did just that with the tools and experience he had at hand. He was fortunate in that he knew the folks at Hash Inc, had access to their software and used that as a springboard to a career in digital animation. As stated in his interview (link in first post), he also transferred the skills he had previously learned through stop motion animation and his epiphany of animating pose to pose in CG animation... just as he did in stop motion.... is an epiphany every animator should and very likely will have. And I'd say, one that can/should be taught.

 

My memory is a bit foggy but I may have very briefly met Webster at SIGGRAPH. If I recall correctly I was headed to get some lunch with (master of enchantments) Greg Rostami and they recognized each other.

.

[John Bigboote]

When I think of how much modern 3D software has 'borrowed' from A:M, it boggles the mind... tops on the list... SUB DIVISION SURFACES (basically, a way to turn your polygons into Hash Patches...!) Yes, and here is the KICKER... the current version of A:M today is still, way- way ahead of it's time.

[nemyax]

tops on the list... SUB DIVISION SURFACES (basically, a way to turn your polygons into Hash Patches...!)

They are not much like Hash patches, and they were developed in the 80's. But hey, Hash Inc. invented computer graphics, didn't it.