Talk:Computer animation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Computer animation:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Priority * -- 22:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

This page[edit]

This page really needs some examples of animation, such as via some simple animated GIFs. A POV-Ray rendering of the room/pyramid thing would be useful too. Of course, I should contribute some of this stuff. But if anyone else feels so inclined...Frecklefoot 13:46, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Should mention animated GIFs. --Daniel C. Boyer 22:09, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
And Macromedia Flash. violet/riga 17:10, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Needs a lot of work[edit]

I reckon this article needs quite a bit of work. Major enhancements and film breakthroughs should be mentioned - Toy Story, Bullet-time, and Avatar. Also, the technique used for armies in the LOTR trilogy, for example. I'll try and see if I can do something soon. violet/riga 17:10, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We should definetly have something more flash than the sliding goat animation. I suppose it's a good minimalistic example of the definition of computer animation, but something more up to date should be added. The demiurge June 29, 2005 04:25 (UTC)
Well, I suppose it is an improvement over the red circle I initially had there. :-) I'd support a better example, but it has to remain somewhat simple. It has to get the point across without being distracting. Frecklefoot | Talk June 29, 2005 13:48 (UTC)
That example should stay, but how about having a loop from something that looks modern too, like a movie or video game. The demiurge June 29, 2005 20:16 (UTC)

This article falsely takes for granted the idea that all significant computer animation is 3D, while glossing over 2D computer animation. (talk) 01:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

2D Computer Animation[edit]

A discussion about how computers have affected 2D animation production seems appropriate. ie: Digital cell painting, Primitive Vector-Based animation Macromedia Flash, and more advanced 2D animation systems.

I personally developed one of these systems, called Synfig. I'll actually be Giving a talk about Synfig next month, so I could adapt some of the material from that for a discusson on more cutting-edge 2D animation systems.

I agree. This article falsely takes for granted the idea that all significant computer animation is 3D, while glossing over 2D computer animation. (talk) 00:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

"Computer animation is faster than..."[edit]

I changed this:

Computer animation is faster than traditional drawn or stop motion animation, because the animated figure is only created ('drawn') once on the computer monitor. Then the limbs, eyes, mouth, clothes, etc. of the 3D figure are moved by the animator. Finally, the animation is rendered.

...because it's not true. The method isn't inherently "faster" than traditional animation, although it is possibly faster than stop motion (though not always). --FuriousFreddy 8 July 2005 21:37 (UTC)hjkdgvkdfnglkdflgkdt

The first computer animation[edit]

I found this on the net (some call him Zajac, others call him Zajak. Some say 1961, some say 1963. 1963 i am probably correct):

1) "E. E. Zajac, a scientist at Bell Telephone Laboratory (BTL), created a film called "Simulation of a two-giro gravity attitude control system" in 1963. In this computer generated film, Zajac showed how the attitude of a satellite could be altered as it orbits the Earth. He created the animation on an IBM 7090 mainframe computer. Also at BTL, Ken Knowlton, Frank Sindon and Michael Noll started working in the computer graphics field. Sindon created a film called Force, Mass and Motion illustrating Newton's laws of motion in operation. Around the same time, other scientists were creating computer graphics to illustrate their research. At Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, Nelson Max created the films, "Flow of a Viscous Fluid" and "Propagation of Shock Waves in a Solid Form." Boeing Aircraft created a film called "Vibration of an Aircraft." ( for those who wants to read further)

2) "The cheapness of film production on the Stromberg-Carlson recorder suggested the use of movies. Accordingly, Robert M. McClure made a classified movie of a cloud of incoming enemy missiles and decoys, and Joseph B. Kruskal made a movie to display the iterations of his algorithm for multidimensional scaling. Then Edward E. Zajac conveyed the results of his computer simulation of satellite motion as a movie of a gyrating and tumbling box. A. Michael Noll made a stereographic three-dimensional movie, and Frank W. Sinden illustrated the educational potential of computer movies in his article "Synthetic Cinematography." At about the same time, Knowlton introduced a special movie-making language called BEFLIX, with which several award-winning scientific and artistic films have since been produced."

3) 1963 1st (?) computer generated film by Edward Zajac (Bell Labs)

4) "Computer-generated images (CGI) in motion pictures is an obvious and relevant example of the magic of digitization. Edward Zajac of Bell Laboratories in 1963 began the field with his simulated trip around the globe based on satellite still photographs. Hollywood caught on several years later."

5) "1963 - 1st (suspected) computer generated film by Edward Zajac (Bell Labs)"

6) "Edward Zajac produced one of the first computer generated films at Bell Labs in 1961, which demonstrated that a satellite could be stabilized to always have a side facing the earth as it orbited. This film was titled A two gyro gravity gradient altitude control system. Ken Knowlton developed the Beflix (Bell Flicks) animation system in 1963, which was used to produce dozens of artistic films by artists Stan VanDerBeek, Knowlton and Lillian Schwartz. Ken Knowlton and Leon Harmon experimented with human pattern perception and art by perfecting a technique that scanned, fragmented and reconstructed a picture using patterns of dots (such as symbols or printer characters.) Ruth Weiss created in 1964 (published in 1966) some of the first algorithms for converting equations of surfaces to orthographic views on an output device."

7) "First computer animated film (Two-Gyro Gravity-Gradient Attitude Control System, by Edward Zajak, Bell Labs) (1961)."

You get the picture. Speaking of picture, you can see picture of it here: Just click on "1960's" on the left. It can also be seen here:

I wonder if it is still around. And if not, what is the earliest computer animation still available? There is some early stuff from the late 60's on the Scanimate DVD, which is maybe not the oldest, but still pretty old since we are talking about CGI here.

And then we have John Whitney Sr., who created some visual effects with a computer in 1971 in the movie The Andromeda Strain. But at imdb, it says he also created some animation back in 1943, called Film Exercise #1. What kind of animation could it be?

Peter Foldes made the animated shorts Metadata (1971) and Hunger (1974), but this was 2D CGI (or more precise; computer assisted animation, computers assisting a 2D artist). When the first 3D animation was created, I don't know. There was some CGI in this series, made by this guy (Lee Harrison III): on an analoge computer. But if some of it was 3D, I can't tell.

I know The Adventures of André and Wally B. from 1984 was made by Pixar, but was it made similar 3D CGI shorts before that?

The first electronic animation (electronic animation as in animation created ny using a machine as the tool, transforming electric signals into animation that can be seen on a screen) may not have been real computers, so what's the main difference between real computer animation and electronic animation in general? The fact that computers are digital? Can non-computer electronic animation still offer something that CGI can't? Slit-scanning and Lear-Siegler video processors and such seems interesting since they are so little known in todays digital world.

Something more interesting at the end:

1957 John Whitney used 17 Bodine motors, 8 Selsyns, 9 different gear units and 5 ball integrators to create analogue computer graphics.

1961 John Whitney used differential gear mechanisms to create film and television title sequences.

1964 Ken Knowlton, working at Bell Laboratories, started developing computer techniques for producing animated movies.

The correct name is Edward E. Zajac. His first movie has a date of 1963 and can be viewed at the AT&T Tech Channel. Knowlton developed the BEFLIX language, which was used to create some computer-animaeted movies, notably "Man and His World" with Stan Vanderbeek in the 1960s. A. Michael Noll did not use BEFLIX, but programmed all his movies using FORTRAN in the mid 1960s. Noll did some of the earliest 3D stereoscopic computer animations (random object, hypercube, ballet). The AT&T Tech Channel has many early computer animations done at Bell Labs by Zajac, Sinden, and Noll. Also at the AT&T Tech Channel is "Incredible Machine" with its opening computer-animated title sequence done by Noll.

Hierarchy needed? - the 'Root page' suggestion[edit]

This is only one of many good articles on aspects of Animation, all of which tend to be suffering from omissions and duplications, as well as misconceptions over what constitutes CGI for example, as opposed to, computer animation, and whether CGI is a 'film technique'.

I've solved a similar dilemma on other topics by introducing the concept of a 'Root page', in this case Animation, and a hierarchy. I suggest that CGI is computer animation, is animation. If anything, CGI is 'hi-end' computer animation, meaning probably hi-res 3D rather than 2D, but the distinction is disappearing. CGI cannot be a 'film technique' as fully animatied 'movies' like Toy Story are now about to be delivered to cinemas digitally without ever seeing 'film' even as 'videotape'. Avatars and games come 'highest' in the hierarchy, as they involve real-time CGI.

The newcomer to CGI, or to Computer animation, may need to have animation explained, hence the need for hierarchy, with the 'Root page' listed at the top of 'see also' and described as such. The Root page should list all key associated pages in the hierarchy first. --Lindosland 18:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The Future[edit]

I'm removing this block of text because it isn't really appropriate for an encyclopedia article.

The future of animation is unimaginable, there is no way we can know what will be released next. Every day a new program, a new rendering technique enters the market, flipping everything around. Some are so good that the prices for the new capability can be in the tens of thousands of dollars.

This one too

There's no way of knowing how far computer animation can go, every day new effects are created which make it more realistic and more immersive.

Jared Grainger 22:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

2 1/2D?[edit]

Not 2D and not 3D, but 2 and a 1/2 D? "In 1974, the first computer animated film called Hunger was produced by Rene Jodoin, and directed and animated by Peter Foldes. This effort was a 2 1/2 D system that depended heavily on object interpolation techniques." What would such an animated short look like?

VideoCel animation[edit]

Does anyone knows if this mix of traditional animation and computer animation was developed further?

In 1975 Thomas Klimek and Richard Brown patented the Video-cel technique which permitted the inbetweening of key drawings adding color and three dimensions.

I think this was written in 1980: A process designed to simulate the look of cartoon character animation is VideoCel offered by Computer Creations of Indiana. The process was developed by two aerospace engineers, Thomas Klimek and Richard Brown, who had formerly been involved with computer graphics applications in the missile industry. Their intent in designing VideoCel was to create a computer animation process in which the artist has the most direct possible involvement. This is in contrast to computer graphics houses that expect an agency to submit a storyboard for total execution by the computer firm. Key drawings for the animation are drawn by the artist using a digitizing tablet. The computer then calculates the movements in between the drawings needed to make the action complete (using information put into the computer by the operator) and creates the sequences. Animation of the 30-second TV spot takes about a week, much less than the standard five to six weeks for conventional animation, but the cost is about the same as cel animation. Sequences can be recorded on videotape or film. Like Synthevision, VideoCel uses a high-resolution display.

what is the difference between ....[edit]

what is the difference between computer asisted animation and computer generated animation.? can someone give me a few examples? it got me really comfused...

is beauty and the beast considered as computer asisted animation? what about the 2d animation system developed using complex interpolation techniques?

Editing the article'
Hey guys,
So I read this and thought that is is somthing that needs to be displayed clearly within the article. I have gone and done my research and tried to come up with something that could awnser this question within its own sub header. I have not yet completely finished my sub heading information but thought I best see what other people thought to the idea. I think that having this sub heading within the article could help people easily locate information required. So what do you think? Check out my sandbox and please feel free to make suggestions as I am new to this and would appreciate any advice.

Many thanks, --JLM003 (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the main difference is Computer Assisted animation is 2D and Computer Generated animation is 3D. CAA is typically drawn by hand whereas CGA is generally created purely on a computer. So in that sense then yes, Beauty and the Beast would be CAA. I think someone else could probably elaborate much more eloquently than I could, so I would appreciate if someone could support this. Jbaron88 (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes thanks Jbaron88 , that is what I am trying to portray in the sub heading I am creating at the moment. Please feel free to Check out my sandbox and suggest more information then I have already written.--JLM003 (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

This article suffers from a distinct lack of historical information[edit]

... for example who were the first folks to use computers in animation? I know one of them was John Whitney, but there must have been others. How were the first computer animation processes developed? I don't know about anyone else but I'm far more interested in the early experiments than I am in Toy Story.

Pruning the lists[edit]

Wikipedia articles are not collections of lists - the ones here are too long, should be pruned. --Janke | Talk 18:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This is still an issue. Every time a big cgi movie comes out, it works its way into this article. It seems clear to me that certain films, like Toy Story, deserve special mention. Others don't, and I'd like to remove them. What guidelines would be fair for adding or removing titles from this article? Crater Creator (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

"Technical Details" section incredibly unhelpful to newcomers[edit]

I've added a {confusing} tag to the section since I'm well aware that it won't make the slightest bit of sense to anybody who doesn't already know the meanings of the terms back buffer, primary buffer, render, v-sync, electron gun... It must be gibberish. And why does it even need to be there? -- 11:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, on a second reading, most of the article is gibberish. This was clearly written by a programmer. -- 11:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I've been a computer animator since 1988 and it is really hard to follow even for me. Seems like the person is writing about what a computer does not just in computer animation but with every screen redraw. I'll work on a (not so) technical explanation of how a computer renders an animation. - Roy Williams, 16th August 2006

I found it usefull, since I am a hardware design (microelectronics) student and I'm trying to work on a project about computer animation on the hardware level... this was very understable to me and far from confusing. Dont descredit the autor because you dont understand. -- Moonglum_(at)

I didn't understand it, but it sounds relevant. This is just a case of hardware technology vs software technology. Computer technology is best divided into 3 disciplines defined by ITT in the 1970s, software "programer", software (user) "operator", hardware "technician". This section is written for the hardware technician. I'm going to re-title the section for now. Maybe the whole pages, and other page that discusses computer technology on all three disciplines need to be organized as such. Oicumayberight 19:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering when this article was written/created. Around 2000? It mentions having to use "workstation" computers which have (gasp) two or four processors and therefore are more powerful than "home" computers. In fact it says doing CGI is "impossible" on a home computer (!) I'm pretty sure I was doing nonlinear video on an early Pentium back in the mid-90's...over our house Network even. I know CGI is pretty processor intensive, but saying it's "impossible to do on a home computer" struck me as REALLY datedCRivermoon (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The Future? Truly?[edit]

To quote the article,

"One open challenge in computer animation is a photorealistic animation of humans. Currently, most computer-animated movies show animal characters (Finding Nemo), fantasy characters (Shrek, Monsters Inc.), or cartoon-like humans (The Incredibles). The movie Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within is often cited as the first computer-generated movie to attempt to show realistic-looking humans. However, due to the enormous complexity of the human body, human motion, and human biomechanics, realistic simulation of humans remains largely an open problem. It is one of the "holy grails" of computer animation."

I feel that this section should be updated to include the breakthroughs in visual technology that Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children has brought to the plate in terms of digital technology.

I would try the edit myself, but I am just starting to get into the field of Computer Animation, so I would like this best left to someone who knows more about what they are talking about.

I just feel that the film is being misrepresented, because, from my point of view, it has the most photorealistic humans to date.

  • But it didn't look real. It was close, but it didn't look real. 11:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Anime since 1998 or so[edit]

I think this article should have a section covering technology/techniques used in some of the amazing newer Japanese anime movies and features such as Spirited Away and Karas (anime). Approached as art, these works are quite different from the Pixar type CAA and I'm sure there is much of interest to be written about the software, programmers and artists. It may take some recruitment from JDG 18:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hang on, wasn't Spirited Away drawn by hand, as is Ghibli's latest film, the Ponyo one? Wilsonsamm (talk) 10:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Computer animation in television[edit]

Does anyone know of any TV shows that are ENTIRELY CG, particularly utilising the real photorealism style? I'm working on creating an entirely CG show and was wondering whether it's "breaking new ground" or whether it's already been done before. I know it's been done in FILM (e.g Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within and Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children) but as far as I know it hasn't really been used for TV except for special effects in Live Action shows like Stargate. - The preceding comment was made by Grevenko Sereth 14:33 11 August, 2006 (UTC)

While there are many TV series that heavily use CGI for all visuals, I don't know of any that strive for photorealism. However, the first FF movie was derided because of it's laughably unrealistic CGI. I don't think the second ever made it to theaters in the U.S. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe Jimmy Neutron is pure-CGI; Code Lyoko switches bewteen pure-CGI and conventional animation, depending on whether the characters are in the "real" world or the virtual one. Dragon Booster seems to use heavy computerization, but I'm not sure it counts as CGI. None of these works is particularly realistic in style, though; they all look cartoony. I can't think of any shows that used "real photorealism style". Of course, there are a few shows that used green-screens almost exclusively; Lexx springs to mind immediately. But the actors in those are still live-action. 22:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Best animator[edit]

Which of the programs mentioned ( Amorphium, Art of Illusion, Poser, Ray Dream Studio, Bryce, Maya, Blender, TrueSpace, Lightwave, 3D Studio Max, SoftImage XSI and Alice ) are the best for say... A 3D mini clip. I have got the characters, I just need to know which one is the best to make a 3D scene and post the characters. Danm36 16:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Making qualitative judgments about software is far outside the scope of this article, and furthermore this is not a forum for general discussion about the subject, just the article itself. (talk) 00:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Computer animation is the art of creating moving images via the use of computers[edit]

I'm sorry guys, this is as far as it can get what Computer animation is all about. Moving images are called motion graphics and that is what this article in the beginning is mostly about including the examples given. If anything than Computer-generated imagery is that much closer to what is called computer animation than this article. I don't wish to mess around with it yet, tagging or anything at the moment and would like to hear some thoughts about it first but in general , something needs to be done to set things right regarding the subject here. Thanks--Termer 04:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


This is a very informal page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:43, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Attempting to modernize; improve style & accuracy[edit]

I've just largely rewritten the section "Creating Characters on a Computer" with the goals of bringing the article up-to-date, using more encyclopedic language, and correcting inaccuracies. I may re-work the next 3 sections or so in the same way. This subject is important to me; let me know if I'm going in the 'right direction'. --Crater Creator (talk) 07:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Computer animation applies predefined motion to computer graphics? Well, instead of inventing anything I'd suggest getting a book on the subject, reading, studding it and then the article should be rewritten from scratch by using the books for reference, thats what's missing here.--Termer (talk) 08:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Page Overhaul[edit]

I'm afraid I want to overhaul this page to cover the fact that it is a general article on computer animation. See my start on it at: User:Rpgsimmaster/Computer animation --Rpgsimmaster (talk) 09:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the page needs an overhaul, But it should remain as general as possible. My main issue with your new version is that it seems to be getting much more into the specific renderring and production techniques. I'll be interested to see what comes of it. Adam McCormick (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


Could an example of motion capture be Gollum (played by Andy Serkis)? For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The Hungarian breakthrough[edit]

The Leonar3Do (since 2003!!!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Where Computer Animation is Heading[edit]

It's my feeling that Computer Animation in the future will become another potential method for hackers to generate dangerous animated videos which could potentally harm people right from their own Computer. Images of a certain nature could indeed be created to trigger off certain nerve impulses from the brain based on how an animated image could be programmed. At the moment I would say there's some nice stuff around, though for some average joe like myself to imagine such a thing, there must be other people with concerns about it. Wikipedia (or someone with the knowledge on Computer Animation) could perhaps look this and followup with something about it for the article because it simply seems scarey that suddenly it may not necessarily be your computer which is attacked from the Internet, but your mind! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpm22 user (talkcontribs) 09:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Zero references?[edit]

Hi guys, I noticed that this page has no references at all. That is surprising. The material here is not incorrect by and large, although it is dated in many instances. There was a quote there: "Modern (2001) animation...". 2001 is no longer modern. Are there 2 or 3 people who maintain this page, so to speak? I may add refs or update things, but I do not want to start reshuffling things unannounced. General comments:

Overall, this is an important topic that deserves a more in depth treatment. History2007 (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge most of Computer-generated imagery[edit]

There are two types of computer generated images: static and dynamic. The dynamic/animated parts need to be here, e.g. all the discussion of movies etc. The static parts (which are currently mostly missing from Wikipedia) need to be in the Computer-generated imagery articles. Examples of static cases include Fractal landscapes, which are Computer-generated imagery, but are not animations. The history in that other article is almost all about animation. So we need a reshuffle. The architectural section here is not about animation by scene generation and needs to move there. History2007 (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, sounds reasonable. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, and I think some of the categories will also need touch up, after the fact. The static items are really missing, like texture , etc. as well as the landscape issues. I think eventually the architectural elements need to get a different category which falls into "interactive Computer-generated imagery". In those cases, there is no animation, but the user can interact to see things from different perspectives, unlike the landscapes which are totally static. But that should wait until other things have been cleaned up. Also the scientific type animations and visualizations have been hardly mentioned, and the main focus here has been on movies. I will add some of that after the fact.History2007 (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


Is pseudocode really suitable for this article? At one point we are discussing top level issues like future of animation, the next low level pseudocode for moving a sprite? I think this is too much detail, is unreferenced and would be better parked in the sprite article for now. I am not sure if pseudocode is really needed in Wikipedia, this is not a programming manual. History2007 (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree on this. It looks way out of place in the animation article. Kind of like adding step by step instructions on how to boot from a floppy disk on an article about operating systems.--ObsidinSoul 00:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes. I have been planning to work on this, but a few things came up. Now that you commented, I just remembered it again... so I will try to fix this page soon. History2007 (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I've removed most of the section "Detailed Examples and Pseudocode". It read like a tutorial/lesson on how to render a scene. It's not appropriate for a Wikipedia article, and even if it were, only the last sentence pertains to computer animation. Perhaps there is a use for the text, but in my judgment it doesn't belong in this article. --Crater Creator (talk) 07:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Persistance of Vision[edit]

DO NOT use persistence of vision to explain the illusion of movement.

If you read the article (linked here) you will see that it is a myth that was debunked in 1912. Why, 100 years after it was proved wrong, are we still using persistence of vision to explain the movement illusion?

Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd? 08:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out and fixing the article. : ) — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


I've had a go at overhauling the section previously called "The Future". I tried to make it more encyclopedic by removing opinions and speculation, and cutting down to a more reasonable number of examples. I also drew the distinction between rendering and animation, leaving the former to other articles. I realized what was left was not really a discussion of the future, but of realism, so I renamed the section appropriately. I haven't improved the citation situation with this revision, but I still believe this to be an improvement. Crater Creator (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Editing this page[edit]

Hey, i am thinking of editing this page on the Movies section and would appreciate if anyone has the time to read my sandbox and what i have written to add to the section. Have a look at my sandbox Any input would be appreciated to help me with my intentions of editing this page. --JLM003 (talk) 12:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Weclome to wp. You should read the Wikipedia:Cheatsheet to see how the mark-up language affects the look of pages. Your sandbox seems to need work in that area to start.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for replying to my query , i assure you i am going to fix my sandbox straight away and will let you know when it is correctly presented. and many thanks for the link, very useful. --JLM003 (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
You are very welcome. I have machinima and Second Life articles on my watchlist and it seems I may be busy helping a few students with them. I also noticed that your sandbox text was written in your 'own words'. We are a very dry wikipedia. We can only paraphrase what cited sources say about the subject of articles. We can't include our own first hand ideas, opinions, research etc. Colourful words can be frowned upon as well unless used in quotes from sources.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
You are been a great help Canoe1967, i am really new to this and all the information is really helping me understand the Wiki way of life. I did think that the Sandbox was just like a personal notepad if you did not share it. is this true? Cited sources as things such as official websites etc. i am guessing? Also can u explain what you meen by Colourful words? Many Thanks.--JLM003 (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
LA citizens are 'terrified' to be shot by their own police now. If the term 'terrified' can be quoted from a reliable source we can use it as a quoted term. If not then we can only say things like wary, cautious, adjusting their lifestyles, etc. Even dry terms like those may be dried out further. We are basically just a paraphrase of other sources with policies like Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Consensus, and many others. WP:5P has links, to links, to links, from those five basic principles. Most editors don't edit others' sandboxes unless asked for input. I just thought I would add some samples on the talk page of it. Most frown on the term 'wiki' as well, but I forget why. I think Wp, wp, or en:wp (this English one) are acceptable by most. This talk page is actually for discussing improvements to this article. Some of our converstion may actually belong on our talk pages or your project ones. I don't think anyone will mind too much though. Many editors are very anal about all of these policies and hopefully will let you carry on with your wp experience without causing too many problems. Wikipedia:Ownership of articles is the worst case of that scenario, I think. This article should be fine though, as it does need work and any edits should be an improvement.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
What Canoe1967 is referring to is Wikipedia's policy of neutral point of view. Everything should be presented in as neutral a tone as possible, so it sounds like you (the editor and Wikipedia) are not passing judgement or presenting a personal opinion. The link I provided gives better guidelines than I can sum up here, but, for example:
POV: Unfortunately, Janey Farnsworth did not appear in the sequel.
NPOV: Janey Farnsworth did not appear in the sequel.
But Canoe1967 is right: your discussion here is getting OT for this page. Feel free to continue your discussion on your personal talk pages (where you can talk as much as you like). Peace. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 01:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Are toys considered machines?[edit]

In the section about Realism in the future of computer animation It is said in that "[m]any animated films instead feature characters who are anthropomorphic animals (Finding Nemo, Ice Age, Bolt, Madagascar, Over the Hedge, Rio, Kung Fu Panda, Alpha and Omega), machines (Cars, WALL-E, Robots), insects (Antz, A Bug's Life, The Ant Bully, Bee Movie), fantasy creatures and characters (Monsters, Inc., Shrek, TMNT, Brave, Epic), or humans with nonrealistic cartoon-like proportions (Despicable Me, Up, Megamind, Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius, Planet 51, Hotel Transylvania, Team Fortress 2)." You know, Toy Story is a computer-animated film obviously and since it has anthropomorphic toys in it, are toys actually considered machines? If so, Toy Story would be added to where it talks about "anthropomorphic machines", along with Cars, WALL•E, and Robots. Please, let me know for sure when anybody respond to this discussion. Thank you. Ptb1997 (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Computer animation/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Three images, one video file, interesting article, largely uncited, must have gone through education assignment. JJ98 (Talk) 11:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Last edited at 11:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 12:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


I liked the fact that you brought about the cost of the animation programs and the technology to create this, but I would also like to know what kind of technology is being used within major video game companies as well as movie animation companies. The history was well written and I understand the fundamental beginnings of how computer animation began. The one topic that really caught my eye was that you introduced animations that were key in breakthrough technology of animation. I would say this is a sound article and appreciate the time you put into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Computer animation. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Split article into 3D computer animation and 2D computer animation[edit]

This article seems to be talking about two topics at once — 2D and 3D animation. While the films and modeling sections, along with the thumbnail, are wholly covering 3D modeling and animation, the examples section talks solely about 2D animation, and the rest are in between. Each topic can fill its own article, with 2D computer animation on the modern adaption of traditional animation, and 3D computer animation summarizing the modeling, rigging, and rendering process, and all the major animation studios.

To split this article, I think it's best to move the current to 3D computer animation, remove the bits on there about 2D animation, and create 2D computer animation. This is because a larger portion of the article seems to be covering 3D animation. – XYZt (talk  |  contribs) – 04:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


Strongly Support - The terms "computer animation" and "CGI" tend to refer solely to rendered 3D and "traditional animation" is used to refer to hand-drawn CGI and cel animation. This is factually incorrect and shouldn't even be up for debate yet every time I try to oppose their incorrect use I get shot down by salty conservative industry veterans who refuse to accept that 2D animation has evolved and that rendered 3D is a legitimate form of animation. Mattwo7 (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


Archiving older sections of this talk page[edit]

The earlier sections are more than a decade old... – XYZt (talk  |  contribs) – 04:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)