This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Timeline of computer animation in film and television: Look this ! http://imdb.com/title/tt0136748/
|
Jan 21 1006: I added a link for the movie Immortel, which I think should belong in the list of mentionable CGI movies. But if someone can fix the table, as I can't find my way around the wiki table format.
"First film to make a live action moving vehicle to turn into a CGI robot while in motion" This seems like a too specific 'milestone'. Could we take it out? 77.183.60.113 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I think some of the entries on this page require clarification or, possibly, outright removal. I want to foster some discussion here... here are my thoughts on the ones I think are somewhat questionable: neckro 06:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Vertigo is not on the list because its title sequence was not computer animation. PBP 16:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I distinctly remember being extremely bored and actually listening to the commentary track on the DVD where someone, likely the SFX head, explained how they had to design a special 35mm camera rig so they could shoot the 2D drawings and layer them to create a computer-look. They developed a special video system where they manipulated the chroma and luma to give the chart it's colours, so no computer FX where used AFAIK. I'll go and watch the scene again sometimes to confirm. Saringer 08:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I swear I read in some "Making of" book that the Superman titles, though intentionally made to look CGI, were nonetheless done with traditional animation techniques. I cannot find a confirmation on the web. Do I need to up my medication?
The description is rather vague. Digital compositing in 1976? I was under the impression that it wasn't even remotely feasible until 1989, when ILM did it for Indiana Jones. This may very well be a landmark, but I think more information is needed. neckro 06:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Now I haven't seen this film since I was a child, but was there something particular about the titles that made it a landmark? Superman seems to have had CG titles first, a year earlier. neckro 06:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What is notable about this particular shot? Many films had far more extensive CGI by this point. And a monolith is, really, just a stretched cube. neckro 06:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What is notable about 2010 is that it is the first example of combining physical simulation with CGI in a feature film (to my knowledge). The monolith was not created using CGI (and I agree that would be entirely too trivial to be notable). The planet Jupiter, with its complex, flowing atmosphere is what was created using CGI. Hence the credit to Digital Productions for "Digital Jupiter" in the end credits. A computational fluid dynamics model was used to push around 5 to 10 million colored particles, derived from a highly detailed image of Jupiter (made by combining a composite photograph from the Voyager spacecraft with airbrushed artwork atop it). After using the fluid dynamics to update the particle positions each frame, the particles were rendered back into a texture map. That texture map was wrapped around a sphere. Thus producing the appearance of a three dimensional flowing atmosphere. These techniques were then combined with a simple dimpled sphere and depth-based shading to produce the imploding Jupiter (while the atmosphere continued to flow). There is a SIGGRAPH Proceedings paper documenting the technical details of the work (by Yaeger, Upson, and Myers; Volume 20, Number 4, 1986, pp. 85-93), and there is an extremely well written Cinefex issue on the work and the people involved (issue #20). There is also a mini-documentary on video, but it is from a Japanese company and a bit difficult to find. Many subsequent papers on combining physical and visual simulation reference the SIGGRAPH paper describing the work on 2010, which is considered a seminal paper in the area. [Full disclosure: I have not yet created an account, but this update was written by Larry Yaeger, one of the authors of that SIGGRAPH paper.]
I'm unsure what "computer-mediated" is supposed to mean. As far as I know, the Max Headroom character was animated by simply editing together video segments of his "head" and compositing it over a simple computer-generated background [1] -- not really a landmark in CG (although a memorable effect). neckro 06:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If, as User:Paranoid asserts, the skeleton figures weren't successfully motion-captured, and what appears in the film is conventional animation, then does this belong on the list? If the film is notable for anything in effects history, it would be for being the last gasp of conventional optical effects in large-budget films. neckro 06:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There's no description under this entry. What is the landmark, its depiction of virtual reality? I'm not sure if I agree with its significance if that's the case. neckro 06:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
First use of ray tracing in a feature film?
That would have been Last Starfighter 195.70.93.16 21:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I forgot to include this one in my initial barrage of comments. Sky Captain was actually a bit late to the all-CG-sets game; the Japanese film Casshern was released earlier in 2004, and as far as I know was actually the first film to be released that did this. Should this perhaps replace Sky Captain? neckro 22:10, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What about Casshern? LordofHavoc 22:58 9.06.2005 (UTC)
Sky Captain was based off of a short film by the same director titled, "World of Tomorrow" using the same technique over 4 years prior to the release of Immortel.
It seems that the use of 3D wireframe animations for navigation monitors is just a small improvement over the trench run briefing in Star Wars. It should probably be removed. Paranoid 09:12, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This may well have been the first film to feature "bullet time" but was CGI involved?
This needs to be removed, there was nothing computer generated in ANH, the briefing is an animation done optically. Later they enhaced many of the film's scenes with computer generated images, but Apogee (later ILM) didn't even have a computer then as far as I know.
I don't see this as a particularly notable film. It's listed for being "realistic", and I don't believe it is (although I suppose realism is subjective). - LeonWhite 01:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Final Fantasy is the first feature-length digital film to be made based on live action principles. Live action is meant as opposed to animation or special and creature FX. It's made as if it were just a normal film, with normal actors, but it's digital. Whether the realism is believable or not is not the point, it's the attempt.
Did it air on broadcast television? If not, either it or VeggieTales should be dropped. -- 70.24.207.57 16:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Isn't this just the same as what Knightmare had been doing since the late 80s? If so, it should be removed. Billy H 01:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The film improves on previous attempts at CGI, but does not contain any notable firsts. Live action and photo-realistic CGI/characters have already been covered. 60% CGI does not represent a first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.82.234 ( talk) 01:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree, as will most other CG professionals. Putting in Avatar just because you think it was a good film does not constitute a place on this list. Someone needs to find a "First use of..." for Avatar, which I have been unable to find.
This 1998 PDI effort employed number effects for ants, and in this respect perhaps eclipses The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, depending on what you consider "AI". Oh, and the first Rings movie, The Fellowship of the Ring, used Massive, so the entry needs to be updated in any case. - CKL
I beleive that FFAC is/was a notable achievement. http://www.square-enix-usa.com/dvd/ff7ac/ Entirely 3d as far as I know.
I support this, and to merit an entry the movie has fast-paced logic-defying movements performed by the characters. Now before anyone tries to shut me down, watch a few clips on Youtube or something. The characters' movements are so smooth when they're just walking around, and in battle their movements are jaw-dropping and "believable" (I mean this in the sense that their movements, while impossible, remain fluid and smooth, and not awkward.)
For further merit, maybe the motorcycle fight/chase scenes or sword battles warrant something.
I support an entry for FF7:AC JiangWei23 01:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll support that too —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.227.161.153 ( talk • contribs).
User:69.241.237.212 added the following:
error, I don't have the sources handy, but Batman Returns used AI for the penguins in the last scene
-- Phil | Talk 11:03, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Shrek 2 should be included in the timeline as I believe it is the first CG film to feature near-photo realistic renderings of an actual person (Joan Rivers). The made-for-DVD spinoff, Far Far Away Idol includes a similar (and somewhat more realistic) depiction of Simon Cowell. I can't think of any other CG film (other than experimental pieces such as a demo involving Marlene Dietrich I saw once) in which a real person is simulated. 23skidoo 08:12, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Should this perhaps be included? As far as I know, it was the first movie to apply photogrammetry techniques. neckro 19:07, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Surely the http://www.buf.com/WORK/popup.php?kind=picture&id=527&picture=31 face deform was before the silly matrix one?
Godzilla, which was released in 1998 (as apposed to FC's 1999) used photogrammetry according to this: http://www.debevec.org/Items/VFXPro-20001120/vfxpro-debevec-photogrammetry-20001120a.pdf
As far as I know (my usual caveat), this was the first animated film to use all-CG backgrounds. I could be entirely wrong, however. neckro 19:07, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I haven't seen this film in a long time, but IIRC it used 2D computer graphics for its opening credits. If so, it predates Westworld by a couple of years in this regard. 23skidoo 02:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if this belongs here or not, but MWtGG was one of, if not the, first films to use computers to plan out a major element of the film - namely the famous car flip stunt. No CGI in the traditional sense, of course. 23skidoo 02:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
first digital- rotoscope-animated feature? (Blah movie IMO) Joestynes 08:07, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I believe so, and I vote for inclusion.
colors were altered digitally throughout the film
Another cute trick used in this movie, though I don't know whether it was innovative, was to duplicate a single real-world prop a bunch of times digitally to save on the construction expenses; the prop I'm talking about are the spaceships in the hangar: [2]. -- ToastieIL 19:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I recall an article from Atari ST user about this shot, and how it rated as 'the most complicated scene ever rendered, with over 1.5 million polygons'. I'm fairly sure the ships there were CG, as opposed to real world props. Djarcas 21:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain the scene in which the Viking ship is sailing through a storm is CGI. -- ElfWord 15:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The first film to be shot exclusively in digital high definition, as opposed to conventional film. Worth a mention, because the reason it was shot like that was to allow the easy inclusion of CGI later? Batmanand | Talk 09:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Could we mention the fact that this was the first movie to fool reviewers into thinking that an effect done with CGI was created through physical means (e.g. prosthetics)? I think it's worth a mention, if it's worded better. Nerd 101 11:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty certain the CGI polar bear in the pilot was the first attempt at a photorealistic CGI creature on television. Lifterus ( talk) 15:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
The following text was removed by User:68.103.154.165:
The Matrix Revolutions | 2003 | First realistic CGI punch in the face. |
I think this is a notable achievement, even though it may have been phrased poorly. This was (AFAIK) the first time a human face was modelled in such detail (including the underlying structure of the head). What do others think? Paranoid 09:58, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
BUF had a good practice with fight club http://www.buf.com/WORK/popup.php?kind=picture&id=527&picture=31 before they did the matrix.
Both the Young Sherlock Holmes entry and the Jurrasic Park entry claim to be the first film to utilise a "photo realistic CG character". Simlilarly, it is stated that Star Wars Episode I was the first "CGI character to interact realistically with live actors"...one might argue that Jurassic Park was the first film to have CGI characters interact with live actors. Would perhaps be better if changed to "first CGI character to interact in dialogue" or similar. Finally (sorry if this sounds a bit picky), I'm pretty sure Fellowship of the Ring also uses the Massive engine, at the prologue and in Mordor (at least, it's what is said on the DVD commentaries). TTT and ROTK use it to far greater effect, but the technology is still used in the first film. Probably also needs correcting. Nick04 21:53, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Just trying to see if there's anything for the 1995-2001 gap. Basically I'm just looking at what was released and pulling out some of the movies with CG (I'm not really making any assertions that these should be on the list).
1980s:
Bridge the gap between tv and video games. Not good explaining this. some one else may explain it better. Auctual video game was used as part of the Battletech cartoons. Even though the game use never went to market. I had at one time the raw game used in the cartoon. But lost now. Over the years. Game was never completed. Cgi use inspire others to make a battletech game. Call MechWarrior. in 1995 I believe that why the cartoon died the promise of the game used in the cartoon. I was surprise it was not on the list as it was the inspiration of so many games today.
BattleTech is an animated television series based on the BattleTech fictional universe, produced for syndication by Saban Entertainment in 1994 1996: Someone else may research further. To confirm. I too may put this in wrong spot also. feel free to edit and move it.(cherokeeblade author of this edit or suggestion)
1997:
1998:
1999:
2000:
2001:
Feel free to edit/add/delete/comment/whatever you want to the list. Just fishing for possibly over-looked movies. Cburnett 04:04, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
I think that Pan's Labyrinth would be good to include. All of the gun fights had to have the gun fire and blood digitally added because they couldn't use blanks where they filmed, due to fire danger. Just a thought, I'm sure that most of you don't agree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.242.236 ( talk) 19:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Wasn't Fellowship of the Ring the first film to use the Massive AI for the battle scenes in the Prologue? -- 202.12.233.21 05:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Which movie was the first to make use of that blue screen background (sometimes its also a green screen)? We should add it.
I don't think that's Computer Generated. But I'd like to know that too. -- Richy 20:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't this page be moved to Timeline of CGI in film and television or something similar? -- the wub (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I can't believe that this is the first movie shot completly in a blue box! Wing Commander III did this already years before (and Realms Of The Haunting) . Ok WCIII is a computer game, but is there realy a need to give Sky Captain this promoting title? - Maverick (_maverick_ at web dot de)
There are several Movies that claim to be the first complete background-CGI movies. As there were Casshern, Vidoq and Immortel. LordofHavoc
I'm not sure if this should be added, but Star Trek: Generations was the first Star Trek incarnation to use CGI spaceships. Also, there was a scene in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope that was cut, but featured the Death Star commanders viewing 3D vector graphics.- JustPhil 01:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I read somewhere that the movie The Andromeda Strain (from 1971) used CGI too. If this is the case, it happened two years before Westworld.
Recently, an editor has added many extra entries to this article, many of them unsourced, incorrect, and unncessary... I've gone back in and tried to correct a lot of this, and my reasons are below:
This article needs to be a timeline of breakthroughs in CGI, pioneering major events as stated at the top of the article, not a listing of every time someone used the process in a film, which is what all these additions seem to be. TheRealFennShysa 16:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you think maybe Appleseed should be on this list for first fully CG cel-shaded movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhennPhawcks ( talk • contribs)
I don't understand the entry regarding Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: "first all-digital composite". What is this supposed to be? -- Abdull 12:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Knightmare wasn't the "First game show with interaction between humans and computer generated surroundings." That was preceeded by quite a few years by "The Adventure Game" on BBC2 in the UK.
They used a BBC Model B computer for the end game graphics in which the celebraties moved around the game board avoiding the "Vortex". I seem to remember that it also used the BBC B for the end credits too.
Here's a couple of links: BBC TV which includes a video showing the Vortex. UK Game Shows which has images showing the computer graphics.
Hope this helps.
PK
They used CGI lol
Wasn't there a somewhat 3-d vector graphic navigation display on the shuttle to the space station?
Also HAL shows David Bowman and Frank Poole a 3-d vector graphic of the Discovery and the allegedly about-to-fail AE35 unit.
-- Edusilva 15:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that I saw a behind-the-scenes thing mentioning the AI they were using for a bunch of penguins in one scene. I'm not sure if it was CGI or not. But it would predate LotR by quite some time. Needs further research. -- 65.29.62.203 17:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Instead of emphasizing movies, I would emphasize the type of CGI effect, the time it was introduced and the first movies that used that technology. As someone who works in the CGI field on modern effects, there are often a number of movies that come out at roughly the same time that use a new type of effect -- usually because it is pioneered by an effect shop or researcher who works on multiple movies at the same time. If nothing else, I would also like to see the researchers and the effect shops mentioned -- the common pioneer in many of first digital effects was Industrial Light and Magic, since it was part of George Lucas' overall vision for the industry. A good reference to cite for many of these claims would be the CineFex, it usually has good thorough and balanced coverage of behind the scenes techniques. -- Ben Houston 18:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The "text commentary" track on the Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan Director's Edition DVD explicitly stated that Pixar (makers of Toy Story et al.) created the "Genesis Effect" sequence. Therefore the bit saying that ILM made it is incorrect. 66.57.26.43 21:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that Star Wars: A New Hope needs to be mentioned again in 1997 (20th anniversary) when George Lucas re-edited it to include CGI. Officially this is considered a director's cut, but it was only done because computer graphics had advanced enough for George to realise his original plan more completely. Thus it was the first movie to ever be re-edited to include CGI after its original release. Enigmatical 23:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
This page labels Titanic as the "first historical drama to use CGI." The point has been made that it was the first non-fiction film to do so. Well, if anyone' seen the movie, then they know the story is fictional, but the backstory is real. The point could then be made for Forrest Gump in 1994, which used CGI. The backstories were all historical, but the story was fictional. The same with Braveheart in 1995, which also used CGI.
So, the question remains--should we really consider Titanic the first historical drama to use CGI? PBP 12:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Would anyone object to its removal? PBP 21:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Forrest Gump did, in fact, used CGI to put Gump in with famous figures. It also used CGI to manipulate the movements and mouths of the famous figures, to create Forrest's house, to create a napalm blast, to create a ping pong ball, and to eliminate actor Gary Sinise's legs. So you see, Forrest Gump used CGI in many places (it even won an Oscar for its effects). I'm not saying we include it, I'm saying we shouldn't count Titanic as the first historical drama to use CGI if Forrest Gump did so three years before. PBP 23:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't quite agree with your reasoning on that. What about Apollo 13? That re-created a historical event/artifact with realism using CGI. And they could always have filmed Titanic using other methods beside computers. But I won't remove the Titanic entry so as to allow future debate. PBP 00:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
CGI was used for the rocket launching and for the scenes of the spacecraft in space. You can find references for this in documentaries on the making of the movie, or in the book Encyclopedia of Movie Special Effects. PBP 03:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to bring to peoples attention the top comment in the article:
Pioneering uses of computer-generated imagery in film and television
It may be worth discussing exactly what this means. I personally feel that the point of pioneering something is that you are not only the first to use this specific feature or effect, but that you may also be using it in such a way that was not previously possible or which paved the way for future things to come. Thus while something like a simple vector graphic display may seem silly, it was in fact the beginnings of using any kind of image on the screen for this purpose. Prior to that most similar movies/scenes used still images or models (ie the battle map rooms in WW2 movies). Thus it was indeed a pioneer and eventually lead to the complex visualisations we see today.
Something like photo-realistic hair being generated for the first time pioneered the way for things which were not previously possible or which looked too "cartoon-like" before. Monsters Inc could not have been created if it was not for Stuart Little pioneering this effect for the first time.
Something as simple as a recreation of a boat like the Titanic, which in itself did not use any ground breaking CGI that had not already been used in other movies before, was in fact the first movie to ever attempt to visually bring to life (this has nothing to do with plot or plot accuracy) something which was a part of history. All movies prior to this had to use models and paintings to attempt to re-create the scale of the ship, and all had failed (it is easy to spot a toy boat model). If it was not for this movie pioneering the "use" of CGI technology, then a film like Pearl Harbour could not have been made with that level of photo-realism.
I believe these are just examples of the philosophy that this timeline is meant to incorporate. It is not simply a list of "firsts" where we find some abstraction that seperates it from other movies, but is instead a list of milestones which have allowed the use of CGI to improve, advance and evolve over time. If we all keep this in mind when viewing and adding to the list I think we will end up with something which will be of value for people to read. Enigmatical 23:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
TheRealFennShysa Please! Do not keep reverting things without actually providing alternatives. You reverted Titanic saying Apollo 13 predated it yet you haven't put Apollo 13 in, and you have reverted Stuart Little stating that both Flintstones and Jumanji predated it but again you have put neither of them in!! Its not the first time you have been a bit quite to just rip something out that you didn't like from other people without anything to back it up. Also removing Gollum who won an award, I just mistakenly said it was an Academy award. Be a bit more considerate of others please... there is a difference between being bold in your edits and just being downright rude. Enigmatical 01:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Candidates for discussion and potential re-entry:
Image | Film | Year |
---|---|---|
Notes | ||
Titanic | 1997 | |
Happy to accept new name here for pioneering use of CGI | ||
Stuart Little | 1999 | |
First movie to feature photo-realistic CGI hair | ||
right|180px | Gollum | 2003 |
First Digital actor to win a BFCA award, category created for Best Digital Acting Performance |
Apparently simply disagreeing with you is rude - how silly of me not to understand that. In the case of The Flintstones, it's already in the article - Jumanji was used as another example of a prior use, but since it wasn't the groundbreaker, it doesn't need a place in the article. As for inserting Apollo 13, I don't feel that simply recreating a historical situation with CGI is notable, and there was nothing of a breakthrough in the film, other than fooling Buzz Aldrin and a few others into thinking they'd found some new NASA archive footage they've never seen. Titanic, while it also used a lot of CGI, was not a true pioneering use either - the boat was several practical models for the most part, and it used CGI stunt doubles and people to populate it in wide shots. However, even that was not pioneering, as the use of CGI doubles dates back to 1992 with Batman Returns, at least. As for your Gollum edit, it was incorrect at them time, and I was justified in removing it, as I knew for a fact the Academy Awards did not, and does not, have such an award. How could I possibly know that you really meant a completely different award from a completely different organization? TheRealFennShysa 15:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Thought people may be interested in this piece of information [3]
Quote:
"At the time, there were not many. In 1996, George Lucas Industrial Light and Magic (ILM) created fur for the animals portrayed in Jumanji. In the very same year they created some digital dogs for 101 Dalmations. Down the road in 1998 they created some amazing fur work in the remake of Mighty Joe Young. As with all CG topics, the fur got more and more realistic with each successive film, which made it easier on the studio involved and less costly to manage. Indicators of increased quality include such things as close ups on the fur and greater simulation of fur movement. In my opinion, ILM is one of, if not the, leader in computer graphics innovations; but much of the credit for successfully using fur in a feature film goes to Sony Pictures Imageworks with their 1999 film Stuart Little. The fur in that film was truly amazing and the ground that they broke rippled through the CG world with tremendous force. They had created an entirely CG character that not only looked and was animated great, but was also the title character!"
I think this would definately be considered pioneering... and an extremely good reason why this is a timeline and not just a series of firsts. Enigmatical 22:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
We list Immortel (Ad Vitam) as the first movie with all-CGI backgrounds and live actors, but the 2000 Rest In Peace [4] by Stolpskott Film predates it. It may be excluded because it's short (38 min) and an amateur movie. I dubt it was first, or even the first amateur movie to use all-CGI backgrounds and live actors. // Liftarn
Agree, but a first is easier to find than what is significant. I watched Rest In Peace and the CGI is not good and there is a lot of burning around the edges of the characters. Stolpskott Film also used CGI in the 2004 Vaktpost [5]. This time having a CGI object in a real enivorment. I would't call it photo realistic, but it did fool at least one person. // Liftarn
OK, what about "first real-time animated CGI character"? It has been used for some TV shows, but what was the first? Wikipedia lists Waldo C. Graphic. First movie was possibly Robocop 2. [6] // Liftarn
Something interesting that might could be included on the list?; "One project that was successfully completed at NYIT, was a half hour video (2" with a single frame recorder) called "Measure for Measure", which combined conventional cell animation with TWEEN imagery. And "Hunger (1974) by Peter Foldes: "First fully animated figurative film every made using computer techniques (also the first computer-animated movie to be nominated for an Academy Award as best short)." Peter Foldes also made "Metadata" (1971) and a less well known short called "Envisage" or "Visages". Like the later Hunger, Metadata (maybe the first 2D computer animated film combining digital and tradtional techniques) was an example of "early digital techniques which were used to optimise production, by automating the movements and geometric modifications of the characteristics from one drawing to the next".
This list has gone to the dogs.... first anime, first disney.... Ok guys, I see no point in trying to provide a decent timeline of CGI in film, noting things which pioneered its use when people are going to clutter it with crap. I suggest both a title change and change to the starting text... No more edits from me Enigmatical 22:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've seen the movie Backdraft and saw no CG at all in it, even the credits doesn't mention CGIs so I was wondering if someone could help me finding a scene where there would be CGI or simply wipe it out of the list (the first CGI fire is in The Lawnmower Man if not in Backdraft) // Gorkab Nitrix
So, what hasn't been done yet, that we could see in the future? Will CGI reach a point where we could do everything, and there would be nothing else left to add to this page in the future?-- Richy 15:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Heya,
Was looking on this page (which is great, by the way!) for some discussion of the history of texture mapping.
Modelling and shadows and reflections are all well and good, but the real tricky bit in CGI (as far as I'm concerned) is creating realistic textures for things.
Texture mapping started simple, with just colours and colour gradients of increasing complexity. Other important developments are semi-or partially-transparent textures so that you can create layered textures piled one on top of the other (best recent example I can think of is Gollum's skin). But a BIG development is the use of photographs as the basis for a texture map. Examples that spring to mind are Cube 2 and Fight Club. I don't know the history well enough to modify this article, but would love to know what people think, or to learn when these techniques were first used.
Oh, and semi-transparency is a good mile-stone in itself, I think. Best early example I can think of was in Bug's Life. The semi-transparency of some of the leaves took my breath away at the time. GDallimore 12:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The film used a computer-generated sequence (the docking matrix overlay) for the docking sequence at the beginning of the film.
I believe this predates even Westworld and is more significant than the raster wireframe of Alien. TFX 09:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
-- Edusilva 15:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
This article is starting to become a mess, with lots of entries where the validity is not a hundred percent certain. I believe we should institute a policy that at least one inline citation is required for each entry for it to be on the list. This is a policy that has signifigantly improved the quality of List of commercial failures in computer and video gaming, which came under multiple AFD's and even had Jimbo weighing in on the debate before the ref policy was put in place. Any one else agree or disagree? Green451 02:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
It was discussed regarding the movie Backdraft above. The Rock had a pretty realistic CG-fire shot as well, but that movie came out in 96 I think. Could anyone find any sources stating Backdraft was first in using CG fire?-- Threedots dead 22:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Was it real CGI in the intro?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woOLEEu8RLI
I've shearched the web but didn't find trustworthy references.
It would be the first TV series to show CGI, but I have my doubts.
-- Edusilva 21:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I replaced the current image ( this one) with the original one. Reason: to actually show the motion blur that is mentioned as one of the achievements. Paranoid 19:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:Futureworld CG Scene.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 11:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Moneyfornothing.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
How can Jurassic Park have photorealistic characters if scientists have no way of determining the color of Dinosaurs? Marioman12 17:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the colors could have been wrong, but the shape and texture were dead on. I am still amazed to this day of how well the dinosaurs were animated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.242.236 ( talk) 19:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
We really need to start referencing this page better to avoid conflicts over what deserves to go in. It's also full of OR - pretty much all of the "firsts" are unreferenced OR, for example. There's must be enough that's said about the special effects in films to be able to find a couple of reliable sources for any entry that goes up on this list. If we start at the beginning and work through and also say that as of now nothing more gets added unless it is referenced then I think we can gradually improve this article over time.
Unless someone strongly objects, I'm going to follow the Wikipedia:Verifiability to the latter by rejecting any unreferenced additions from here on in as part of a big drive to improve this article. GDallimore ( Talk) 08:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm with FennShya that the Simpsons probably doesn't deserve a mention. But if there's a reliable source that says there was something special about it, then let's include it! Please find one if you want to add it back in.
When it comes to Walking with Dinosaurs, I think there's a really good case for including it - the fact it was a TV series documentary might make it notable enough or "pioneering" enough as I've changed the intro to read. However, I'm not going to add it back in until such time as I can find a reliable source. www.bbc.co.uk might provide come good information if someone wants to do some searching. GDallimore ( Talk) 15:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Please discuss edits. Edit warring with just the words "undo" or meaningless phrases is not helpful. GDallimore ( Talk) 21:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
http://www.etudes.ru/ru/mov/kittie/EtudesRu_cat.avi
http://www.etudes.ru/ru/mov/kittie/index.php
It's CGI and it's 1968.
Reboot is not the first computer animated tv series, it's Insektors. Insektors was created in 1993 and Reboot in 1994. Insektors was awarded for the first time in 1993 (Imagina prize [7]). -- 86.203.35.9 ( talk) 15:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
TheRealFennShysa removed "A two gyro gravity gradient altitude control system" and "Koshechka" entries, motivating that they "weren't part of released films or TV shows", and that provided "citations are in Russian". He is not right because: 1. first link is in English. 2. This film (it was FILM in fact, made obviously with famous Stromberg Carlson SC 4020 microfilm plotter) is known between specialists. 3. Koshechka not only was released, but is online.
As for "Beauty and the Beast" (1991), I now see it should be replaced with Oliver & Company (1988). Have anybody any earlier accounts of CGI background in a cartoon? I don't see such an entry in the table. Alone Coder ( talk) 20:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no mention of The Golden Compass (2007). I don't know the details, but it mixes realistic animated characters with real actors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.251.224.122 ( talk) 19:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I commented out two entries that were missing references. Before doing so, I checked the articles on the films in case there was a reference there I could add here, but didn't find one. 64.136.198.246 ( talk) 18:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
2010+ isn't 2000's anymore. I believe we require a new header for new years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.33.33 ( talk) 03:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind's_Eye_(series) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.134.7 ( talk) 04:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
This is clearly not the first use of an animated 3D wire-frame graphic. An animated 3D wire-frame hand appeared in A Computer Animated Hand (1972), and in Futureworld (1976) -- 82.32.198.178 ( talk) 15:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Someone added this for Tron 2010: First feature-length film to use computer graphics to create photo-realistic human characters. Sarcastically, I would change this to "First feature-length film to show the uncanny valley effect", though Polar Express did that.
But seriously, what about Benjamin Button, 2008? Or the Superpunch in the third matrix? I don't see how Tron 2010 is a first. Comments? 98.225.89.104 ( talk) 08:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
This sfx.co.uk article argues that Soylent Green represented the first use of CGI in film due to the Computer Space scene. Anybody here agree? (In addition, several films appear on that list but not in this article. Perhaps they should be considered for inclusion.) -- Serpinium ( talk) 18:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
At about 16 minutes into Brainstorm, Grayam interactively creates a simple animated text on a console with two vector displays. That probably constitutes more than one first, though I have no source explicitly stating this. This blog entry on the film contains a publicity still showing the display with the text. Contemporary reviews are probably the best bet for sourcing. Regards, 85.178.200.197 ( talk) 02:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
first photorealistic morphing was in Golden Child (1986) , not Willow https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dLwvPYl69M 10:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC) Sergey Woropaew ( talk)
Les fables géométriques from 1989 - First broadcast series of animated CGI shorts, not Quarxs. Source 1) http://web.archive.org/web/20121119053201/http://www.awn.com/fantome/english/fr_geom.htm 2) http://histoire3d.siggraph.org/index.php?title=Les_fables_g%C3%A9om%C3%A9triques. Video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUu7fqvCImw Sergey Woropaew ( talk) 17:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
There is no virtual rooms in Radioland murders - all room has lightning and shadows like real world rooms(check it).i doubt that in 1994 they could create absolutely realistic rooms.First virtual set was in Nano-space tv program (1991) (watch pics in here http://ivizlab.sfu.ca/arya/Papers/IEEE/Multimedia/1998/Jan/Image%20Compositing.pdf) its just more advanced version of computer generated surrounding like in Knightmare.so i doubt that they could create realistic rooms in 1994. heres film, find some virtual rooms and tell me where it is http://yandex.ru/video/search?text=radioland+murders&redircnt=1465292400.1 Same is babylon 5 - latest "virtual set" in this is from 1994 -brief video of starship Docking bay with human walking in it (episode 13 from 1994) not from 1993 Sergey Woropaew ( talk) 09:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
it's Appleseed (2004) - shot in digital 3d http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0401233/technical
Not Chiken Little, also Polar express was shot in 3d in 2004 Sergey Woropaew ( talk) 15:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Is Final fantazy (2001), not Polar Express (i was actually written in timeline in Final fantazy section Sergey Woropaew ( talk) 14:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Flatland was not animated by one person. Watch end credits of the film. there is 5 people who works on cgi for this film — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergey Woropaew ( talk • contribs) 20:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
It would be interesting to have more numbers about each entry, stuff like how long it took to render each frame on average, the resolution and frame-rate, how much it cost, how much disk space was required etc -- TiagoTiago ( talk) 22:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Timeline of computer animation in film and television. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I couldn't help but notice that the list ends at 2009 with "Up". Has CG seriously not reached any more milestones in the past 10 years?
I know that CG can only go so far (just like the efficiency of the internal combustion engine) and I'm fully aware that technology advancement is currently focusing more on other non-film-related things like artificial intelligence and virtual/augmented reality, but surely there must have been at least a couple of CG milestones in the last 10 years, even if only minor ones. LeahG22 ( talk) 06:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)