RE: Definition requested

Ralph Huntzinger (ralphunt@kcls.org)
Wed, 7 May 1997 16:42:07 +0000

No source, no defination; just thoughts. -- no immediate help.

I've been sitting here reviewing several old film catalogs that I
designed which used computer animation as a descriptive term and
trying to phrase "I wouldn't use computer animation as an attribute,
anymore" in a positive manner.

I was comfortable using it in the 70's and early 80's when describing
"photographic film" films (not those created directly onto/into
video). As we were building our animation study film collection,
there were few films created with computers and 100s using
iconographic, clay, cel, etc. techniques. However, using it to
describe Pixar's "Luxo Jr." or any of their later filmed examples of
what their rendering and shape covering software could do plus the
visual portfolios of the ad agencies in the "Minds Eye" series (let
alone adding excerpts from recent feature films -- Jurassic Park --
or commercials) seems to be lumping too many different and emerging
techniques into a broad description. The use of computer technology
is so integral in modern image creation, using generic terms may not
be adequate. Every time I walk into a video editing/production
studio, I wonder where the computer ends and the video begins (just
joking -- I know it is all computer).

Looking to the future use of a "classification or descriptive
system" is what our profession is about. Perhaps, using "computer
animation" to describe early experiments is helpful; but more
descriptive classifications within that technique need to be used
after some watershed period. When or what created that watershed is
beyond me, I finally used the term, "animated, mixed techinque" which
lumped too many things into a generic descripter -- then gave up
describing that aspect altogether.

just thoughts -----

Ralph Huntzinger (206) 684-6673
Collection Management Services
King County Library System
Seattle, Wa
ralphunt@kcls.org