Ted Newcomb (tcn) Mon 15 Jul 13 08:13
We are delighted to have Jon Peddie with us to discuss his new book The History of Visual Magic in Computers. Dr. Jon Peddie is one of the pioneers of the graphics industry, and formed Jon Peddie Research (JPR) to provide customer intimate consulting and market forecasting services. Peddie lectures at numerous conferences on topics pertaining to graphics technology and the emerging trends in digital media technology. Recently named one of the most influential analysts, he is frequently quoted in trade and business publications, and e is also the author of several books including Graphics User Interfaces and Graphics Standards, High Resolution Graphics Display Systems, Multimedia and Graphics Controllers, a contributor to Advances in Modeling, Animation, and Rendering, a contributing editor of The Handbook of Visual Display Technology, and a contributor to State of the Art in Computer Graphics, Visualization and Visual Analytics. His most recent book is, The History of Visual Magic in Computers.
Ted Newcomb (tcn) Tue 16 Jul 13 16:41
Our moderator, David Duberman, has been involved with creative computing and multimedia as a user, journalist, and writer since the early '80s. He hasedited various publications including Antic, Video Toaster User,and Morph's Outpost on the Digital Frontier. He currently works documenting 3D software for Autodesk.
Ted Newcomb (tcn) Tue 16 Jul 13 16:43
This should be great guys, thanks for doing this. Before you both get started I would like to ask the "dummy" question and get it out of the way, before you get technical. Jon, exactly how do 1's and 0's become colors?
jon peddie (jonpeddie) Tue 16 Jul 13 18:22
All digital computers (which include smartphones, PCs, tablets, and game consoles) use the binary system to calculate, communicate, read sensors (including camera sensors), and display the results. The value or weight of each bit (which is set at either a one or a zero) increases by the power of two, so a series of bits such as 111001 would represent the decimal value 39 (1+2+4+0+0+32). The screen (of your TV, phone, PC, or tablet) has three primary colors: red, blue, and green (RGB). Each one of those colors can be set at an intensity level or a brightness. So red 11111111 would be very bright, full on red, and 00000000 red would be totally off, or black. The three primary colors can be mixed, added together, at various levels of brightness and create all the colors in the rainbow. The screens in our devices are LCDs (which stands for liquid-crystal display) and they are like a valve, that can be wide open or shut and a zillion levels in between. The number of levels is their bit-size, and LCDs have 8-bit primary color capabilities. That means there are 2 to the 8 levels of brightness for each primary coloror 256 levels of brightness. And heres where it gets interesting. When you combine those 256 levels, you can generate 16 million combinations of colors and brightness. So you have 8-bits, per primary, and three primaries. And if you set each primary at max (all 8-bits on 11111111) you generate white, and all off would be black, and if the red and green were off and blue on, the screen would be blue, and you could vary the blue to get 256 shades of it. The next thing to know about are the pixels. An HD TV has about 2 million (1920 x 1080) of them. Each pixel, so small you cant easily see an individual one, has a RGB value24-bits, 8 for red, 8 for green, and 8 for blue. So each pixel can be set to 16 million different colors and intensities. That means there are 2 million times 16 million possible color and intensity levels on your HDTV screenthats a staggering 34.7 trillion possible combinations. Not all unique, but some combinations of 16 million. So the three dimensions of your screen are the x-pixel, times the y-pixels, times the intensity or z-depth. But waitit gets even more mind shocking our displays are actually 4 dimensionsthey change with time, very short amounts of time. The TV screen changes (in the US) 60 times a second. So now you have 35 trillion pixel combinations 60 times a second. And all that astonishing activity is what makes the images that you and I look at on our PCs, tablets, and TVs every day, and just take for granted. I think it is amazing, simply amazingits magic.
Ted Newcomb (tcn) Wed 17 Jul 13 08:48
Wow, I don't remember which film director said it, but it was something to the effect of "now that we have CGI we can do anything". Easy to see why with your explanation above.
David Duberman (duberman) Wed 17 Jul 13 09:34
Hi Jon, Thanks for taking part in this conversation. I've been aware of your work and valuable contributions to the field for quite some time, and am quite impressed with your credentials. I'm going to start by asking a bunch of random questions; feel free to answer whichever tickle your fancy and ignore the rest. What is your favorite thing about CGI, and conversely, what's your least favorite aspect of the field? What do you feel most needs changing, if anything? Which are your favorite CGI applications, and why? What will it take to overcome the uncanny valley, in terms of software, hardware, and creative ability? What are the ethical ramifications of being able to simulate reality absolutely convincingly? What could go wrong? What could go right? What's your take on stereoscopy? It seems as though the push by TV manufacturers to popularize stereo TVs has failed miserably. Why did that happen, and what will it take to make it a major trend? Is it inevitable? It's in the interest of those of us who are excited about the creative potential of 3D to get the tools into more hands. What in your view might be some more-effective ways to get more of today's youth into producing with 3D? For young people who are already interested in working in the CGI field, what is your advice for getting started? Are you familiar with the Leap Motion Controller, and if so, how do you think something like that (highly accurate and responsive motion tracker) can affect the future of 3d content creation? Thanks!
jon peddie (jonpeddie) Wed 17 Jul 13 13:57
Hello David Thank you for the kind words, and the challenging questions. Ill answer them in-line and report the question for clarity. What is your favorite thing about CGI, and conversely, what's your least favorite aspect of the field? What do you feel most needs changing, if anything? JON my favorite thing about CG is what I like to call Peddies first law: In Computer Graphics too much is not enough. What that means is in CG we are trying to create a world that is enchanting and believable. Its a double-edged sword. One side we want to create an absolutely perfect image that cant be distinguished from a photograph, and weve done that using what is called physically accurate ray-tracing. Today 99% of the images you see of an automobile are done in the computer using ray-tracing, and they are, literally, perfect. For biological entities, like a human face, we use multiple cameras (and lights) and create a light-field map or image. These calculations even take into consideration the properties of light as it penetrates your skin, scatters in your subdural layers and re-emerges in a colored diffuse manner. Its too bad I cant insert a picture here, this is such a visual topic its a bit constraining to have to do it all in words. In any case the goal is get the viewer to suspend disbelief, to allow themselves be or get immersed in the scene and the story. The flip side of photorealism is animation. Here you dont want photorealism (think about the latest Pixar/Disney or Dreamworks movie youve seen). But, the imagery has to be pleasing. It cant be too disproportional or disturbing. In animation you not only have to create interesting characters, scenery, and story, you also have to create physical rulesdo things bounce, break, reflect, echo, etc. So the answer to the question (what is my favorite thing about CG) is that we are never done, there is no end in sight. A small anecdoteJim Blinn, one of the fathers of CG has Blinns Law which states that as technology advances, rendering time remains constant because rather than using improvements in hardware to save time, artists tend to employ it to render more complex graphics. So therefore, were never going to be done, well just get better and better images. Which are your favorite CGI applications, and why? JON Games, which are entertaining examples of a simulation. Simulations like flight simulators, animations and cartoons (when done correctly), and ray-traced images of houses and buildings, cars, boats, and bridges. I also admire what are known as paint programsprograms that allow an artist to create images just as if she or he were using a pencil or brush or touch-up device. Why? Because I think what attracts people to CG is the art, the pretty pictures, and that leads to a curiosity of how was it done, and then youre hooked. What will it take to overcome the uncanny valley, in terms of software, hardware, and creative ability? JON More processing power. But first we should explain what the uncanny valley is. As you make an image of a person more realistic you leave the area of total falsification (such as a cartoon) and approach photorealism there is a point in between where the character is neither cute and cartoonish, or believable. And when that point is reached the character looks creepy, scary, or disgusting. There was a dancing baby animation and the baby didnt move realistically and his face was too old for a babys bodyit was totally creepy. So the way to avoid it is to have a perfect model (the 3D wireframe construction under the skin that gives the object/person their form) and the best lighting (which includes shadows and secondary shadows) and physical proportions (we like eyes a certain distance apart, and above the nose). What are the ethical ramifications of being able to simulate reality absolutely convincingly? What could go wrong? What could go right? What's your take on stereoscopy? It seems as though the push by TV manufacturers to popularize stereo TVs has failed miserably. Why did that happen, and what will it take to make it a major trend? Is it inevitable? JON Thats a lot of question, Ill parse it. The down side of simulating reality is that you cant trust a photograph any more. When you see a photograph of say a two headed chicken, you cant be sure its real or a CG image (commonly called Photoshopped after Adobe's award winning Photoshop software). Stereo is a challenge and a technology I am really attracted toif only it worked. Here again its an issue of computer power. We know what the issues are in Stereo (which I like to abbreviate as S3D). The subject and technology has been studied for over a century. The problem is, to do it right is very expensive. The cost begin at the content creation side. Avatar the most successful S3D movie ever made, actually had very light S3D in it. Cameron used S3D as one of his tools, not the end result. The problem is too many, maybe most, content creators cant get the novelty idea out of their heads, and lack the creativity to use S3D to enhance, instead of shock. That is the biggest barrier we facelack of creativity in the use of S3D. The second part is the mechanics of manipulating the eyes so as to trick the brain into seeing AND FEELING depth. The mathematics of S3D is not a simple geometric solution. Just as lighting is very complex when trying to create a photorealistic image, depth is just as complex and has on top of it all the lighting issues. The clues we get subconsciously when viewing a scene are so subtle, and so insidious they are almost impossible to replicate. For example, how is it possible for a person with just one eye to perceive depth? And yet they do. I overly enthusiastically predicted that by 2015 all smartphones would be S3D capable. I may have to eat those words. I think S3D is the next thing after color with regard to viewing a screen. Thats probably true, but the path to that world is not clearly understood yet. It's in the interest of those of us who are excited about the creative potential of 3D to get the tools into more hands. What in your view might be some more-effective ways to get more of today's youth into producing with 3D? JON Ask them, or yourself, to explain how and why you see depth. Look at something(s) that is no more than three feet away. Understand its depth. Pretend youre describing it to a blind person. What makes the depth visible. The tool is you, not the computer, not the screen, they are just mechanical aids. You have to understand it before you can replicate it. For young people who are already interested in working in the CGI field, what is your advice for getting started? JON Computer graphics is multifaceted. You can enter the field via engineering and design computers, and/or software. You can build displays, simulators, and CAVEs. You can be an artist. All of those skills and talents are used in CG, and more. Theres a home for almost any creative person in CG, and there are opportunities for all. But you cant just do what everyone else has done or is doing. You have to (try and) bring something new, fresh, exciting to the field. Are you familiar with the Leap Motion Controller, and if so, how do you think something like that (highly accurate and responsive motion tracker) can affect the future of 3d content creation? JON Imagine you were modeling with clay. Now imagine a program that will create a trail of where your move your fingers and hands. Think of software as clay, and you can move your hands to mold the image, the shape you want, and easily erase or change it with no consequence other than your lost time. Leap is a tool to connect your imagination with your hands. (maybe I should try and sell that to them as a marketing slogan  ).
Ted Newcomb (tcn) Thu 18 Jul 13 08:58
Where are we evolving with all this technology - WRT augmented realities, virtual realites, and what is being termed fractal or hybrid realities?
Ted Newcomb (tcn) Thu 18 Jul 13 10:20
Short external link to this conversation is http://tinyurl.com/mvol365 If you're not a member of the WELL, but you'd like to participate, send comments or questions to email@example.com and we'll post them here.
David Duberman (duberman) Fri 19 Jul 13 10:46
Great answers, Jon; thanks! Couple more questions: Can you take us back to the early days of CG and tell us how it all got started? And at the other end of the time spectrum, coming up next week is SIGGRAPH, the annual biggest computer-graphics conference in the world. I understand you'll be attending: What sorts of things are you most looking forward to seeing at the show?
jon peddie (jonpeddie) Fri 19 Jul 13 11:07
The "realities" - one of the driving forces behind CG is to create different realities. We do it in the movies and take you away from the real world for two to three hours. We do it in games and you can spend hundreds of hours exploring strange and magical worlds. The environment we do it in has different names which are used to describe the hardware. In a virtual reality environment you are immersed and can only see, and hear, and sometimes feel the virtual world. Your vision is blocked and forced into either a headset (like the new Oculus) or a room like a CAVE. Virtual reality is interactive, you can move things, poke at them, get a reaction from them. A good flight simulator puts you in a cockpit mockup and you literally fly the airplaneand if you dont do it right you crash. The magic is if you have suspended disbelief (which is the definition of a good simulator) when you crash that airplane you will have a major emotional experience. Ive had those experiences and they are terrifying at the time and exhilarating afterwards. Going to the movies is a for of virtual reality, you are immersed, you suspend disbelief and get involved emotional with the story, but you do not have any interactivity, you are a voyeur. However, you may scream and root for the hero, or weep for the victim. In between passive the passive VR of the movies, and the totally immersive VR of a CAVE or encompassing glasses, you have augmented reality. This is where you wear a set of glasses which allow you to see, touch, feel, smell, and hear the real world, and there is a computer-generated image or text superimposed on the glassesan overlay. I like to say AR lets you see things that arent there. For example, wearing AR glasses you can look at a building and see the rooms inside it, where are the doors, and the equipment. You can look at an engine, see the parts inside, or at a person, and see the parts inside. You can also have real-time translations allowing you to look at sign in a foreign country and see on your glasses the sign translated into your native language. Computer graphics is all about altering your reality.
jon peddie (jonpeddie) Fri 19 Jul 13 11:37
Can you take us back to the early days of CG and tell us how it all got started? And at the other end of the time spectrum, coming up next week is SIGGRAPH, the annual biggest computer-graphics conference in the world. I understand you'll be attending: What sorts of things are you most looking forward to seeing at the show? ======================= JON Here again I wish I could use pictures. The book BTW is loaded with pictures, as a book on CG should be I trace the development of CG to the 1950s and early 1960s, and say that we got started in CG thanks to the Soviets scaring the hell out of the US government. War and the militarys need for advanced weapons and protection has been one of the major sources of new technological development throughout history, and the cold war was no exception. Had it not been for the cold war the development of computer graphics might not be where it is today. The US and its allies were wary of the Soviets since the end of the European war in 1945. Then when the Soviet Union detonated a nuclear bomb they called First Lightning in August 1949 it heightened the fear (some say panic) in the US and its allies. The Soviet Union launched its first intercontinental bomber, in 1949. The Tu-85 was a scaled up version of the Tu-4 and a copy of the US B-29 Superfortress used over Japan. Even though it was deemed to be inadequate against the new generation of American all-weather interceptors, it frightened the US military and administration. The Soviets would go on to build bigger longer range strategic bombers, such as the TU 95 and the US deployed the long range (and long lifed) B52. The thinking of the time was the Soviets would fly due north over the north pole and down across Canada to bomb the US that would have been the shortest most direct route requiring minimal inflight refueling and fighter escort. Therefore, the US military reasoned, if the US deployed an early warning system at the Arctic Circle they could detect the Soviet bombers in time to intercept them and shoot them down. Furthermore, although bombers flying at very low altitudes could escape normal RADAR detection they could not escape RADAR at the Arctic Circle that was looking at the edge of the earth. A few years before the outbreak of the cold war, MIT had developed the Whirlwind computer, and it was the first digital computer capable of displaying real time text and graphics on a video terminal, which at this time was a 5-inch oscilloscope screen. A military-grade version of the MIT Whirlwind computer was commissioned called the AN/FSQ-7 and developed for the US Air Force SAGE project. To manage that project MITs Lincoln Laboratories created the spin out MITRE Corporation in 1958. The AN/FSQ-7 was a huge machine, probably the largest computer ever built, and it is likely to hold that record for a very long time. It used 55,000 vacuum tubes, about ½ acre (2,000 m²) of floor space, weighed 275 tons, and used up to three megawatts of power. SAGE became operational in 1958 and by early 1960s it had 22 advanced command and control nodes installed. However, the question being asked at the time was could the US build its early warning air defense system faster than the USSR could built its long-range bomber fleet the fear was the USSR would build so many bombers they would simply overwhelm US air defenses - a theme that still is discussed today about intercontinental missiles. The SAGE center computers collected the tracking data and sent it to the Situation Display (SD). The SD was a large (19-inch) round cathode-ray tube that used randomly positioned beams (now called vector graphics) to draw icons images on the screen. SD console operators at the center could select any of the targets on the display with a light gun, and then display additional information about the target. Each center supported up to 150 operators. The SD operator console was even equipped with an integral cigarette lighter and ashtray so the operators wouldnt have to leave their station to take a smoke break, seems quaint in todays no-smoking world. A similar system was built at MIT and used for research. And it was there Ivan Sutherland developed his famous Sketchpad project in 1963, but over a decade of work computer graphics had gone on before Sutherland ever got to the MIT campus, thanks to the Soviets scaring us. ============================ SIGGRAPH is the place of wonder for us CG geeks, its Oz. I suggest you go to the web site http://www.youtube.com/user/ACMSIGGRAPH and then look at the 2013 videos (and everything else. You really have to SEE this stuff.
jon peddie (jonpeddie) Fri 19 Jul 13 11:38
One last comments on SIGGRAPH - nothing you see at the web site http://www.youtube.com/user/ACMSIGGRAPH is real NONE OF IT IS REAL!!!
Rob Myers (robmyers) Fri 19 Jul 13 14:23
Do you remember the first time you saw a computer image and thought it was real? Do you remember the first time you were sat in a physical space and it set off your "this is badly modelled|textured" sense?
Ed Ward (captward) Sat 20 Jul 13 12:21
Incidentally, Jon, you actually can use pictures here, as long as they exist on a website. One merely goes <img src="URL"/, where URL is the URL of the graphic. This ancient system *can* be made to perform new tricks!
Craig Maudlin (clm) Mon 22 Jul 13 10:45
I'm enjoying this book -- following the various paths of development from their earliest beginnings all the way to the present day gives a strong sense of the trend lines that may be dominating the near (and possibly more distant) future. This makes me want to ask about what you see happening in the market now. You have a great figure on page 233 (Fig. 6.18) that depicts the evolution of graphics controllers along with the expansion and then contraction of the number of suppliers. Do you see trends active today that might give rise to another approach to graphics controllers that might replace 'GPU Unified?' Or do you see controller technology evolution as 'settling-down' with current architectures? What about the impact of the mobile market? Are the needs there sufficiently different that they might take us in a new direction?
Stoney Tangawizi (evan) Mon 22 Jul 13 14:23
Fascinating discussion, Dr. Jon Peddie. I seem to recall that the first time the Air Force turned on that system, they detecting a massive Soviet attack - until someone realized they were scanning the Moon rising. True, or urban legend?
Ted Newcomb (tcn) Tue 23 Jul 13 10:46
Jon and David are both at Siggraph the next few days and will catch up with your questions and give us an idea of what's in the future as soon as they get back :)
a plaid pajama ninja (cynsa) Sat 27 Jul 13 12:58
God, that's wonderful if true (the Moon rising.)
jon peddie (jonpeddie) Tue 30 Jul 13 14:00
Craig Maudlin - sorry to be so late answering was at Siggraph, and have just returned to reality.... Mobile devices are definitively one of the futures. I gave a couple of talks at Siggraph and made the point that this year with the introduction of (real) Win8 on tablets, and OpenGL ES 3.0 wee are the tipping point where tablet will move from content consumption devices to content creation devices. They won't replace real computers, but will very useful fro story-boarding and brainstorming, and even real work. Simultaneously we are moving to multi-mega-pixels displays - i.e., 4K. You can get a 50-in 4k display now for $1,200, and a really good IGZO 32-inch 4K monitor for $3,600. These prices will come down as they always do; but the important, good, news is we will be seeing more, and more better'er images. We discussed the "unified" vs. specialized GPU/co-processor concpets at a panel I conducted at Siggraph and the general conclusion was unified GPU will be with us for the foreseeable future. However, specialized functions, like the Image Signal Procesor (ISP) that handles the output of the mobile devices' image sensors will logically be a specific and standalone processor for a while - especially when you have mega-pixel monsters like Sony's new 41MPiux 1020 (my next phone). Also on the back end, specialized processor/accelerators for things like raytracing will be employed.
jon peddie (jonpeddie) Tue 30 Jul 13 14:03
Stoney Tangawizi - same lame apology for being late - overwhelmed at Siggraph. I've heard that story about the moon, and think it's folk lore. The travel time to/from the moon is long, too long to be a viable threat, and the signal would be incredibly weak due to beam spread. Also, the moon doesn't rise over the north pole. But they did have several scary incidents. One that has been confirmed was a flock of Canadian geese. I's not known if any were shot down. :-)
Craig Maudlin (clm) Tue 30 Jul 13 16:55
Thanks for the update, Jon.
Ted Newcomb (tcn) Wed 31 Jul 13 09:44
What's your biggest frustration with where the tech is at the moment. Is development necessarily a straight line or could there be surprises ahead?
jon peddie (jonpeddie) Wed 31 Jul 13 11:09
Ted, and all - here comes a bit of rant - fair warning. The software developers lag the HW developer by two to three years. They are lazy about taking advantage of the new HW acceleration features in CPUs and GPUs and use as an excuse they want to reach the lowest common denominator so they can get maximum ROI for their development costs. The net results is the power user gets penalized and doesn't get his or her money's worth from the HW they bought. In the gaming industry the ISVs to have what is called a smooth degradation - the game would senses the available HW and adjust the game's features and parameters accordingly. The higher quality games (AAA) still do that. One size doesn't fit all. And yes, it is a zoo out there. If that's too much of a burden for an ISV, then they should get in another line of work - it's the cost of doing business. HW updates at least once a year, sometimes more often. Software update about every three or four years. In between they spend out updates that are bug fixes. The software developers are holding back the growth of the market, and when you confront them with that they whine about piracy. My second rant is the monitor suppliers. We are just now starting to get high-res monitors. HD IS NOT Hi-res. HD is 15 years old. The add-in board (AIB) vendors have been selling AIBs that can drive multiple monitors at 2560 x 1600 for three or more years from a single AIB. Tablets have "retina" display and sell for $600. A retina like PC monitor display is $1,200. The cost difference is negligible. The monitor suppliers complain there isn't enough demand. The users complain the prices are too high. Hmmmm. EOR - end of rant.
John Payne (satyr) Thu 1 Aug 13 18:31
I'd like to relate a couple of annecdotes. Circa 1986 or '87, Tom Mandel (<mandel> here) who was host of the Whole Earth discussion group on CompuServe, asked why computer monitors were so much worse than televisions. The answer, of course, was that it wasn't the monitors, but the signals, and that computers were at a disadvantage as compared with televisions in that they had to generate those signals rather than simply reconstructing them from a recording. At roughly the same time I attended a presentation by a Colorado State University professor (who'd come there from Utah), during which he showed a ray-traced animation, which had been presented at SIGGRAPH. Each frame of that animation required minutes or hours of CPU time. I remember commenting at the time that it would be awhile before we were doing that sort of thing in real time.
John Payne (satyr) Thu 1 Aug 13 18:44
> rather than simply reconstructing them from a recording From a transmission, of course. VCRs reconstruct video from recordings.
Members: Enter the conference to participate