Talk:Timeline of CGI in film and television

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To-do list for Timeline of CGI in film and television: edit · history · watch · refresh

Look this ! http://imdb.com/title/tt0136748/

All that does is confirm the movie exists. The "trivia" item claiming that the film is the first 100% digital film ever made is NOT a reliable source, as you could have been the one who submitted it. However, the claim of being the "first 100% digital film" is invalid, as (even if you exclude Toy Story, which you shouldn't), that also leaves out the VeggieTales home video, and any of the Pixar short films. You need to find a RELIABLE source. TheRealFennShysa 17:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Reliable source ? Nor the Wikipedia is a source that if can trust! After all of accounts any person can “affirm the absolute truth” more does not go to modify this wrong timeline, therefore elea she is made by Americans for Americans, who live in its proper realities. Nobody denies the importance of the Toy Story, but before writing a “absolute truth” it searches with impartial tenacity and either.
By reliable source, I mean an article in a reputable magzine, such as (in this case) Animation World or Cinefex that backs up your claim. All you've done is constantly enter that film with no corroboration, references, or proof of your claim. This is not an American vs. non-American issue, as Japanese entries share spaces on this page, and they've backed up their claims. You have not. You've offered nothing at all, other than a dogged insistence to ramrod the info into the article. And until I see some corroboration of your claims, I'm going to remove it, as nothing I've found from reliable sources backs up any claims you've made. TheRealFennShysa 21:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
It is really very dificil to find a site or magazine that is American speaking on the history of the Cassiopeia. This is a site of a museum of informatica back in Brazil: http://www.mci.org.br/historia/cassiopeia/cassiopeia.html
I have looked at the website that this person provided a link to using Google Translate (from Portugese to English). While the translation is not a hundred percent perfect, I believe I know what this person (with the IP address only) is thinking. The website makes the claim that Cassiopedia, although not the first CGI feature film to be released, was the first CGI feature produced entirely in the computer, as opposed to Toy Story, which used laser scans of clay models as the basis for the wireframe character meshes (I actually recall seeing this on the Toy Story DVD special features). However, despite this, I have to side with FennShysa on this one, as Toy Story is the first feature length (e.g. over 60 minutes) animated film using CGI, and I don't feel that the use of clay models diminishes that at all. Just my two cents. --Green451 20:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I do not want that you it thinks that I am trying to take off the merit the Toy Story, is not this! But for if dealing with a “Timeline about cgi”, it lacks the first done film entirely digitally. I understand of the following form, the shape process of a personage is very important for the film, he is one of the beddings of the cgi, and the Toy Story had one “assists not digital” in this part. This does not diminish the importance of the film, but on account of this you cannot say that it was made 100% digitally. The Cassiopéia did not have this “assists not digital”, 80 minutes done total in the computer. It is fact, the Cassiopéia was omitted of timeline!!--Flávio_Ed 16:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

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.

Contents

[edit] Transformers

"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 agree, though damn if it isn't an impressive effect, if you happen to have seen the movie. How about first movie to have completely CG robotic characters interacting with live-action characters and locales? Unless something beat Transformers to the punch on that. I guess there was I, Robot...--Hawkian (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Appropriateness of some entries

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)

Thanks for the thoughtful comments, Neckro. I guess I completely agree. We need better information on Futureworld, we should remove Black Hole, we may wish to remove 2010, unless there was other notable CGI, we should remove Max Headroom, we should remove Total Recall and find out where motion capture was used for the first time, and we should consider whether Lawnmower Man CGI depiction of virtual reality is sufficiently novel and notable or not. I'll try to find the missing information, meanwhile, let's see if anyone agrees/objects. BTW, I suggest that on removal of these items we move them to Talk (just add a table with these entries somewhere here) so that others have a chance to doublecheck the validity of the deletion. Paranoid 09:08, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I agee, for instance the "Elephants Dream" entry in 2000's seems out of place. It's not a full Movie but in fact a Short. Other shorts existed before using opensource software (admitedly not to this level), so apart from the ammount of effort put into it it doesn't seem CG Film & TV wise historically notable. While at the same time the list lacks the 1958 Hitchcock Vertigo titles by Saul Bass which was on general release and does qualify I think for the list.
Well, I also thought that Vertigo was a rather obvious absence in the list, so I added it. For whatever reason not specified here, it was removed though. I do think it is quite in every book that Whitney was one of the handful pioneers you only need one hand to count. Elmimmo 16:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Vertigo is not on the list because its title sequence was not computer animation. PBP 16:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually computer animation is exactly what it is. John Whitney used a WW2 analog computer to generate the imagery using it's gun fuse timing solvers, I assumed this was pretty common knowledge.

[edit] Andromeda Strain

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)

[edit] Superman

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?

CGI at the time wasn't up the the task of creating graphics of this complexity... the opening titles and the logo were done with a process called Slit-scan photography - I've removed Superman from the list because of this... TheRealFennShysa 18:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Are you quite sure about the superman titles? According to http://accad.osu.edu/~waynec/history/lesson14.html it seems that CGI was used. Could you post some references? ALoopingIcon 06:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The animated logo in the opening is CGI, it is said on that page : http://www.filmsite.org/visualeffects3.html |Gorkab Nitrix
I don't agree with your source (who lists no references). Considering it was 1978, CG would have been prohibitively expensive and ugly. Also listed on IMDB is title & special optical sequences photographer. This corroborates a traditional optical effect using motion control which would have been usual for the motion trails effect. (Open the shutter, truck inwards a bit, close the shutter, reset to the beginning, and repeat moving in further, do this all day and you have your motion trails shot.)
Sorry, I know people love to tout CG, but it really wasn't used until TRON, and even up to Jurassic Park there were only a couple shots done without the real hydraulic dinos. .--Iamscottevil 08:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Futureworld

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)

[edit] The Black Hole

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)

[edit] 2010: The Year We Made Contact

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)

I agree. It's not at all notable. - LeonWhite 01:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Max Headroom

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)

Yep, just a lot of character makeup, early use of Chroma-Key background replacement, and a whole lot of editing.--Iamscottevil 08:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I had a brainwave about this. Although there was no landmark in terms of the CGI, it was interesting that people THOUGHT Max was a CGI creation when it was just prosthetics (and jump-cutting). Highlights how CGI was being ingrained into the minds of the populace. It also contrasts nicely with PotC2, where people thought a CGI character had been done with prosthetics. Worth a mention? GDallimore 17:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Total Recall

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)

The first uses of motion capture might have been Brilliance commercial by Robert Abel (1985) and Don't Touch Me music video (1989). I am still unsure what was the first use in a feature film or a TV film. Paranoid 09:28, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Lawnmower Man

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)

[edit] Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow

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)

Immortel (ad vitam) was released even earlier (March, according to IMDB), as opposed to May for Casshern. But Sky Captain did apparently start the production (and so the use of this technique) much earlier. So we should either leave Sky Captain or change it to Immortel. Paranoid 09:02, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The timeline appears to be ordered by date of release, adding such uncertain considerations as the first use in production makes the list untenable. Many CGI techniques were tested (and sometimes passed over) in production for years before their respective films were released. I'm going to replace Sky Captn. with Immortel. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 05:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
That's a point; I'd forgotten about Immortel. Perhaps we should mention all three? I think I was also a little worried that the list had become a bit too U.S.-centric (even though most of the innovations do come about in U.S.-produced films). neckro 19:07, 15 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.

[edit] Alien

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)

Well for starters the movie is called Alien -- Aliens was the sequel. :) I don't see a problem with this one -- it seems to be that the Star Wars animation was created using an analog vector display (like those used in arcade video games during the early 1980s, like the original Star Wars arcade game itself, Battlezone, etc.), while the Alien effect was created using raster rendering, which is a good deal trickier. neckro 21:52, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I added these clarifications to the article. I also uploaded an arguably better image for Star Wars. It's somewhat sharper, although the resolution is smaller. It's not light years ahead in quality, but I think still an improvement. Revert to the older one if you disagree. Paranoid 09:02, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Kill and Kill Again

This may well have been the first film to feature "bullet time" but was CGI involved?

[edit] Star Wars A New Hope

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.

The graphics weren't made by ILM, they were made by an independent computer programmer, this is confirmed by Lucas in the DVD commentary on the film. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 157.157.176.104 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Final Fantasy

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)

Isn't the movie made from a custom off the shelf renderfarm using P3 933mhz chips, not that it has much to do with this article. Wouldn't it be noteable as the first feature length cgi film made by a videogame company.Atirage 16:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Then the entry should say that. - LeonWhite 22:36, 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.

[edit] Quarxs

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)

[edit] Radioland Murders

Isn't this just the same as what Knightmare had been doing since the late 80s? If so, it should be removed. BillyH 01:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Entries

[edit] Antz

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.

[edit] Final Fantasy Advent Children

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).

On what grounds do you say this film is worthy of an entry in this list? "First movie to have "believable" movements" is a highly subjective term, but if you can provide some inline citations from critics saying that the animation and motion are very realistic or similar, than I'll go along with this. Green451 14:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Batman Returns

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)

According to this article, it used simple collision detection to control the penguins (I haven't seen that film, BTW). After some deliberation, I think it doesn't really deserve its own mention and doesn't warrant changing the LOTR:TTT entry, although if you disagree, please feel free to go ahead and edit. Paranoid 17:30, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In a making of about Batman Returns the producers (or others) discussed the flocking (behavior) of bats flying out of Batman's cave and how they stepped on new terrain simulating this for a movie. --Abdull 12:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I've seen the real rocket penguins, and they're big. Very cool work, not much CG there.

[edit] Shrek 2

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)

Matrix Revolutions above had near-photo realistic renderings of Hugo Weaving. I am sure that other films had similar scenes. Paranoid 10:12, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Vital difference: Hugo Weaving was appearing as a actor portraying a character: the "character" of Joan Rivers in Shrek 2 was intended to be the actual person. HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 09:01, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fight Club

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

Couldn't find any material on the effects in this film, nor could I find a CGI punch. I have commented out the entry. -Ravedave 06:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Innocence: Ghost in the Shell 2

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)

[edit] The Andromeda Strain

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 agree on adding Andromeda. It show some computerized visual effects, mainly 2D, but not in the titles. You can find a sample of it at http://www.filmsite.org/visualeffects2.html ALoopingIcon 10:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I watched the movie. I think that the claim is correct so i have added the entry in the article page. Other snapshots supporting this claim: Media:AndromedaStrain_1.jpg Media:AndromedaStrain_2.jpg ALoopingIcon 21:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
No, it was not real computer graphics, just 2D drawings, layered and rotated to the camera. That's all in the DVD "making of". You can see some pics here: http://www.lostmarble.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4512 -- Edusilva 19:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Man with the Golden Gun

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)

[edit] Waking Life

first digital-rotoscope-animated feature? (Blah movie IMO) Joestynes 08:07, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I believe so, and I vote for inclusion.

Me too, although I think that there was a forerunner by the same director. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timtak (talk • contribs) 05:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] O Brother Where Art Thou?

colors were altered digitally throughout the film

So they were in Schindler's List. --ToastieIL 19:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Last Starfighter

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)

[edit] The 13th Warrior

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)

[edit] Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones

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)

[edit] Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

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)

Except it wasn't the first time. People thought Apollo 13 was using stock footage for some of its launch sequences that were completely computer generated. When some intial still shots of Gollum came out for Two Towers, the were people swearing blind it was a model - until they saw it moving. People have been fooled into thinking things are real for a very long time, so you'll have a hard time proving which one was the first. GDallimore 09:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
True, but it is the first instance of a CGI character being mistaken for an actor wearing prosthetic makeup (by moviegoers and reviewers alike) which I think is certainly a noteworthy accomplishment. Xargon666x6 24 December 2006 (UTC)
What character are you talking about exactly?--Threedots dead 22:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Entries

[edit] Matrix Revolutions

The following text was removed by User:68.103.154.165:

The Matrix Revolutions 2003 First realistic CGI punch in the face.
Image:Matrix Revolutions.jpg

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)

Well, that description DOES make it sound like a "CG punch in the face" was some sort of important milestone that effects technicians have been aiming at for decades... :) Perhaps just mention the achievement as "close-up realistic facial deformation"? Do these all really have to be "firsts", or just milestones? neckro 19:07, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I added it back with a new description. If anyone needs more info on why it was notable, check out Siggraph paper Making of The Superpunch by George Borshukov or this article. Paranoid 14:24, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Is everything in that shot CGI? Pretty damn impressive if it is...--Threedots dead 22:26, 2 March 2007 (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.

[edit] Clarification of Information

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)

I believe this is true. I actually hadn't noticed before that the article references the second film instead of the first one. neckro 05:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'd have to check, but I think that Massive is used in the first film only for the "crowd" shots in the prologue. In the subsequent movies, the rendering was improved to the point where Massive characters were actually seen in "foreground" shots: in other words, when the Orc army is seen marching by, all of them are rendered by Massive, and no live actors were used even for the close-up figures. --Phil | Talk 10:14, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
I believe all of the direct interaction in Jurassic Park was with Stan Winston Studios' animatronic beasties, rather than with CG. Certainly there was nothing on a par with the face-to-face conversations in SW Ep 1. Blufive 21:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Possible entries?

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:

  • Automan - TV series - first TV series with a CGI character, "Cursor". He was only CGI in the beginning few episodes. Sorry I put this in the wrong place, I'm new to wiki-edits but feel this is important.

1996:

  • 101 dalmations
  • Dragonheart
  • Independence Day
  • Mars attacks
  • Star Trek: First Contact
  • Striptease (ok ok, I kid :)
  • Twister

1997:

  • Alien: Resurrection
  • Batman & Robin
  • Contact
  • Dante's Peak
  • Fifth Element
  • The Lost World: Jurassic Park
  • Men in Black
  • Starship Troopers

1998:

  • Deep Impact
  • The Faculty
  • Godzilla
  • Lost in Space
  • Saving Private Ryan
  • Species II
  • Star Trek:Insurrection
  • X Files

1999:

  • Fight Club (there were some sweet scenes like when the apartment blows up)
  • Galaxy Quest
  • Green Mile
  • The Mummy
  • Sixth Sense
  • Stuart Little
  • Thirteenth Floor
  • Toy Story 2
  • Wild Wild West
  • South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut

2000:

  • Chicken Run
  • Gladiator
  • Perfect Storm
  • Pitch Black
  • Red Planet
  • X-Men

2001:

  • A.I.
  • Evolution
  • Harry Potter & The Philosopher's/Sorcerer's stone
  • Jurassic Park III
  • Monsters, Inc.
  • Mummy Returns
  • Pearl Harbor
  • Swordfish
  • Vanilla Sky

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)

Well, for starters, Chicken Run wasn't CG. :) If I recall, Saving Private Ryan was the first extensive use of computer color grading (although whether that qualifies as CGI is a good question). As I mentioned a few months ago in the discussion above, Fight Club is another possible entry for its use of photogrammetry techniques. Starship Troopers used CG characters animated using traditional stop-motion techniques (although I don't know if this technique was used before). Other than those, I mainly see an evolution of technology rather than any large milestones. neckro 12:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lord of the Rings

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)

It was. I will post a transcript from the Extended Edition DVD features if anyone is doubtful. I shall also capture an image and edit the article tomorrow. --J Darnley 23:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Yup, Massive was used on Fellowship. The Lord of the Rings entry should be changed to reflect this, though Two Towers should probably get a nod for first use of a CG character that wasn't completely nausiating in a live action film. :)
Fer sure. Oh, and does anybody know about the number effects used for Antz? --Carl Lumma

[edit] First Blue Screen

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)

You're talking about chroma keying, which doesn't require CGI. --ToastieIL 19:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Color difference blue screen was invented by Zorin Persec and won an academy award and it is an all optical process. Later the blue and green screens were used to signal to a video process (later a computer) what to replace with a second video image. The image replacement technique is made better by a computer so we don't have those dark black matte lines around the image like in the original star wars prints. --Iamscottevil 08:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move?

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 agree. ---- 81.155.80.24 (sig added by Cburnett 15:16, May 14, 2005 (UTC))
  • Exactly what contributions of TV would be added to the list? Knightmare and what else? I guess I don't see TV has contributed much to CGI and don't see the reason to include it. Cburnett 15:16, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, ReBoot and Max Headroom are also on the list, so that's 3 contributions. I think that's sufficient for inclusion.-81.155.80.24 16:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
      • And Babylon 5 too.-81.155.80.24 19:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Not forgetting "The Adventure Game" - see below --PeeKay 23:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sky Captain and the world of tomorrow

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

[edit] Star Trek: Generations

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)

[edit] Westworld the first?

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.

[edit] Recent additions

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:

  • Superman - added twice to the list, citing CGI for inclusion, which is incorrect. The opening titles were done using the SlitScan method, which while computer controlled, is a mechanical effect.
  • Back to the Future III - listed as using a CGI train, which is incorrect. Train was built as a model, as documented in the book ILM: Into the Digital Realm"
  • RoboCop2 - living head CGI stated, not sure on this - Tron predates this, as does The Abyss, both with similar effects.
  • Predator 2 - second movie to do something? you've got to be kidding me...
  • "Star Trek VI" listed elements had been done before
  • The Lawnmower Man" - cites first use of virtual reality, forgets Tron and Knightmare
  • Alien 3 - no citation given
  • Honey, I Blew Up the Kid - first quartz crystals - this a milestone how?
  • Hellraiser - morphing cited, so what? common and overused by that point
  • Aladdin - first extensive use of CGI in an animated movie cited, untrue, forgets Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Rescuers Down Under predate this
  • Toys - CGI representation of weapons for video games cited, no citation for WHY this is important
  • Les Visiteurs - morphing cited, so what? common and overused by that point
  • Super Mario Bros. - morphing cited, so what? common and overused by that point
  • Last Action Hero - no citation given
  • In the Line of Fire - first CGI addition of character cited - gonna need to see a reference on this one, as its the first I've heard of it
  • Free Willy - first CGI orca - so? animals had been done before
  • Hocus Pocus - first CGI cat animated face - so? animals had been done before
  • Demolition Man - no citation given
  • "The Nightmare Before Christmas - CGI snow & cels cited, but again, so? common by this point
  • RoboCop 3 - Use of morphing & 3D CGI - so? common by this point
  • We're Back! A Dinosaur's Story - shaders & 3D CGI use - so? common by this point

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)

[edit] Appleseed

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)

Can you cite any proof of such a claim? ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 07:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indiana Jones?

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)

[edit] Knightmare should be replaced with "The Adventure Game"

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

The difference between that and Knightmare was that the Vortex was a single, 2D computer graphic that was simply overlaid onto an actual studio set (with chromakey backdrop). With Knightmare you had entire rooms that were 3D computer graphics (along with more conventional hand-painted rooms), only the people and props were real. I'd agree that The Adventure Game should be added, but as a seperate entry rather than a replacement. BillyH 11:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Should it be added? I thought the purpose of writing the timeline for CGI in films was its actual use. If chromakey was used, then really the only thing the computer was used for was the graphic. It didn't break any ground, it didn't open up any doors and if anything a computer was only used because that was the "theme" they were going for. All other entries in the timeline are about milestones that were reached which could not previously have been done without the use of computers or which represented a breakthrough that would lead to more later. Enigmatical 22:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jason and the Argonauts

They used CGI lol

It was predated by "Birth of a nation" in 1915. Used MASSIVE to generate the clan-rallies.
OK, sorry, not the place for bad jokes...

[edit] 2001 in 1968 was the first use of Vector graphics before Star Wars

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.


  • No. The "computer graphs" were actually rear-projected film animations.

--Edusilva 15:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Batman Returns

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)

[edit] Structure Change Suggestion

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)

[edit] Revised Wrath of Khan entry

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)

Then Nicholas Meyer (or whoever said that) was mistaken. Pixar did not exist until it was spun off from the Lucasfilm Computer Graphics project in 1986. I'm going to revert it back to the correct original phrasing. TheRealFennShysa 22:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Then provide a source that contradicts Nicholas Meyer's statement. Please don't perform further reverts without providing a contrasting source. The Pixar article itself does clearly not note when the name change occurred. Perhaps it was internally referred to as Pixar, maybe not. From the Pixar article, we do not know for certain. 66.57.26.43 provided a reputable source to backup the claim, after I reverted his change to include the name as Pixar. There not being a contrasting source, I think the revision should stand. I'll give you some time to find such. Thanks, --Durin 00:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually it was Michael Okuda who wrote the text commentary track for Wrath of Khan, and he is generally considered an accurate source for information. I agree unless something out there directly contradicts this then this source is correct. Macnbc 21:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Movie to be re-edited to include CGI

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)

That would be incorrect - The Abyss was re-edited with new CGI for it's director's cut, and that predates the Special Editions. TheRealFennShysa 06:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure of this? It was my belief that the Director's cut was simply an extension of the original movie which had to be reduced (like all of Cameron's movies at the time) for theatrical release. Thus the additional footage was not created specifically because CGI had advanced to make it possible, but because Cameron wanted the full story to be told. The two are very different. Enigmatical 22:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Titanic

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)

Nope. And besides, it's a very minor point to make - insignificant, as far as I'm concerned - what's next? First horror film to use CGI? First comedy? What's so special about a historical drama using CGI, unless it's someone jonesing to have Titanic listed here.... TheRealFennShysa 14:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone object to its removal? PBP 21:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe the point in segregating the "first historical drma to use CGI" is that it is the use of CGI to "re-create" something from our own history. Thus it is an attempt to be as accurate as possible. In Titanic, this was of course the recreation of the ship itself which could not have been achieved through any other means (and not look like a toy boat in a bathtub). Thus it is a very significant feature of the timeline for CGI because it was the first time we could actaully see such a true recreation. I have to admit, I am not sure exactly where Forrest Gump used CGI, all I can think of was the superimposing of Forrest into presidential meetings. That could easily have been achieved via other means and thus I dont think it qualifies for this section. Neither does Braveheart because again it could have been achieved without. The point being that CGI enabled something to happen which was previously not possible. This is the reason why we don't list "first Horror to use CGI" or "First Comedy to use CGI" because we are writing a timeline and not just a bunch of firsts. I say that it stays as it represents the the first film which paved the way for other movies such as Pearl Harbour (film) and similar movies that simply could not have been made in that fashion without CGI. Enigmatical 22:29, 21 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)

Then the description is not accurate. I believe the category is talking about the fact that CGI was used to make it possible, not that *any* CGI was used at all. Napalm blasts, ping pong balls, actors legs etc, etc could all have been achieved with other means and simply used the technology of the day (which had been established in previous movies). There was nothing new about doing any of that stuff. Titanic on the other hand was the first time that something historical had been re-created with that level of detail or with that much accuracy. Prior to that, all films about the titanic used little toy boats that sat in pools. Thus before this movie nobody could truely get a sense of what the ship was like. As the film was specifically about this historical ship, the use of CGI actually made it possible to do where before it was not. From this point forward it was now possible to create movies which more accurately portrayed what it would have been like because it was no longer prohibitively expensive to re-create historical events on such a large scale (ie the battle at Pearl Harbor). I say we perhaps re-label this to read something like "First movie to use CGI to realistically re-create an historical event or artifact". BTW, have added it back in under this new category, to remove it without at least a few days for people to comment (and claiming that as there were no objections) is a little premature. Enigmatical 23:31, 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)

As I said before, all "other methods" for recreating such movies clearly showed the boat as a model and purposely slowed the footage down to try and simulate size. Scenes featuring wide shots of the boat was done with matte paintings which clearly showed no other passengers at a distance and all scenes involving its sinking were extremely poor. Until the use of CGI there was simply no means at all to portray this kind of footage at all and give a true representation of how it would have appeared visually. I have to admit I dont know exactly what CGI was used in Apollo 13 to give comment. All I know is they used a diving aircraft to simulate weightlessness. Do you have any specific references which showed the use of CGI for this movie? It would have to involve the use of CGI specifically with the space craft itself and not something indirect or ancillary to the event/artifect which it was portraying. Enigmatical 00:48, 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)

And how did this use actually provide us something that could not previously be done without it or where did it lead? I believe they already had footage of Apollo 13 launching, which would have been as realistic as it could have been. The point I was trying to make is that it must in some way pioneer the use of CGI. Perhaps it was Ron Howard's "subtle" use of CGI for certain scenes that didn't make it stand out but I dont think anyone can say "As a result of Apollo 13, CGI was able to X" or that it effected anything to do with the timeline. Titanic on the other hand I think clearly demonstrated something new and which was previously not possible (there was little footage taken and so nobody could know what it was really like). Thats just my opinion any way... if you think Apollo 13 deserves a mention, I have no problem with you finding an accurate caption that describes what it brought to the world of CGI and adding it :) Enigmatical 22:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy behind this page

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)

[edit] Revert *AGAIN* of Titanic and now Stuart Little

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
Image:Titanicscreen1.jpg
 Titanic 1997
First movie to use CGI to realistically re-create an historical event or artifact
Happy to accept new name here for pioneering use of CGI
Image:Stuartlittle.jpeg
 Stuart Little 1999
First movie to feature photo-realistic CGI hair
Image:Gollum.jpg
 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)

Your rudeness was not in disagreeing (as already stated), but in just blatantly removing it, despite either providing something better or by stating something better and not even bothering to add it. If you dont think something should be a category, then bring it to the discussion... don't just go in and revert it because you dont agree. Its not the first time you have done this. Just be a little considerate of others and be willing to listen/talk a bit more. Your descriptions above are what you should have written in the first place. But again, you mentioned Batmat Returns as a possible pioneer of using CGI stunt doubles yet it is not in the article. If you are an editor of this article, I would assume you want it to be accurate... but it seems you are just interested in reverting what you dont like. So does Batman Returns go in? Enigmatical 22:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
And just out of curiosity, are you making some kind of subjective difference between the way in which fur is done? both Flintstones and Jumanji while obviously using characters which had fur, they certainly were not photo-realistic and didn't move as if it was real. Stuart Little on the other hand pioneered the computer software to bring it to life and that software has been used ever since. This is the reason why your blatent reverting is rude... because its based purely on your own subjective views on what should or should not be included and your consistency is appauling. Enigmatical 22:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to Stuart Little

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)

I knew the cat was CG, but I couldn't bring myself to believe that it was actually CGI. --mboverload@ 02:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
LOL! The cat was actually real, its mouth was modified with CG. Enigmatical 03:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First movie with all-CGI backgrounds and live actors?

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

I may be wrong in saying this, but I dont think the purpose of this article is to list Firsts as such. while it does appear it has gone that way, I beleive the article is more about the timeline of how CGI has advanced through film and television. Simply being first doesn't mean it is significant. Take The Matrix for example; Bullet Time in that movie was something that got people to sit up and pay attention and ever since then it has grown in when/how it is used. Does anyone really remember Blade featuring something similar? Do we credit Blade with pioneering this effect? For me it only depends on whether Blade started the trend, made people realise what CGI could do and thus was a significant point in the history of CGI in getting it to where it is now. Some 38 min amateur movie which would have rarely been seen by anyone, unless it actually pioneered some technique or made some contribution which lead to further developments I don't think it should be listed. Like I said though... There seems to be a lot of people here who think this should just be an arbitrary list of "firsts" where you find some deliniation between the movie you want and what is already there just to get it listed. Enigmatical 22:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Real-time

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

[edit] Early computer animation

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".

[edit] Gone to the dogs

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)

I don't know it the use of CGI in The Professional: Golgo 13, Lensman and The Black Cauldron is pioneering in each single case. It depends if different and more modern computer technology has been used. But it is a fact that the CGI in Golgo 13 looks awful, and in The Black Cauldron it looks much butter. But of course, it is impossible to include every movie which are showing improvements compared to earlier ones. Unless, as said, it has some relevance to pioneer use of CGI techniques. Maybe someone else knows more about it. 193.217.194.133 07:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah this list has gone to crap. No references, people adding random movies... I give up. -Ravedave 17:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Backdraft

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

Probably a digital composite ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Things that haven't been done yet by CGI

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)

Well, thus far, there has not been a single completely-CG movie (or anything close) that looks truly completely photorealistic in every frame, eliminating the necessity for any actors, location shots, props, or other practical elements. That is to say, a movie made using only CGI that could be re-shot using real actors and sets and practical effects and be indistinguishable from the CG version. As I see it, that will be the final milestone listed on this page, but I still believe it's a long way away. The first step is definitely the perfection of completely photorealistic CG human actors that interact flawlessly with real environments and actors- while some recent attempts have been made (such as the digital recreation of Marlon Brando for Superman Returns, or the CG humanoid characters in Immortal_(film)), thus far to my knowledge they have either been intentionally obscured (as in Superman) or not truly photorealistic when viewed against their real-life counterparts (as in Immortal, wherein they are also aided by a digital backlot).--Hawkian (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Using photographs as basis for a texture map

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)

Texture mapping goes back at least as far as Young Sherlock Holmes, for the Stained Glass Knight sequence. Reflection mapping (based off photographs) was used in Flight of the Navigator as well, so it's not exactly a recent phenomenon. The other thing you're referring to is subsurface scattering, and it's been developed incrementally over the years. There's no real "breakthrough" application of it, though. TheRealFennShysa 15:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


Reflection mapping is hardly the same thing as texture mapping. Basic reflection mapping is just taking a photo, warping it according to some surface and pasting it on the surface. In FotN that was probably done with some overall general colour filter to prevent it from being a perfect reflection. What would have been really clever, is if the reflection map had been modified point to point according to the texture/colour of the reflective object. What would have been really REALLY clever, and is the sort of thing I really want to know about, is if that point to point modification had been done based on a photographic texture map.
As for subsurface scattering, yes, the technology will probably have improved in a relatively gradual manner, but the first person to think "hey, what about multiple layers of textures" had a real breakthrough.GDallimore 15:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2001: A Space Odyssey

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)


  • It wasn't real computer graphics, just film animations.

--Edusilva 15:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inline citations needed

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)

[edit] First CGI fire?

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)

[edit] The Six Million Dollar Man (1974)

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)

[edit] Andre and Wally

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)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Futureworld CG Scene.jpg

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)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Moneyfornothing.jpg

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)

[edit] truth in article?

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)

Sorry, but that makes no sense. If you can find something saying that Dinosaur was a step forward in CG, then add it to the list with the reference. GDallimore (Talk) 09:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing

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)

[edit] Simpsons and Walking with Dinosaurs

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)

[edit] Transformers

Please discuss edits. Edit warring with just the words "undo" or meaningless phrases is not helpful. GDallimore (Talk) 21:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Transformers, while certainly very nice to look at, was not a breakthrough in effects technology. Just because some reviewers praise it doesn't mean it's something special. Well-made, yes, but nothing in the film merits inclusion in this list. TheRealFennShysa 22:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree.--Threedots dead (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Early CGI

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.

I don´t speak russian, but very interesting nonetheless. Was it used in an actual TV-program, though? If so, definitely add it.--Threedots dead (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First full-length computer animated series: Insektors

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)

Everything I've seen indicates that it premered in 1994 (same as Reboot) and never aired outside the UK. I'm not sure how to present that, but it's the information I've been able to find after a few quick searches. Hewinsj (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, everything you've seen is wrong, it first aired in France (because this is a french serie), then in Canada/US, UK and other countries. And it premiered in 1993 in many festivals, Imagina, Image of the future festival of Montreal, Computer Graphics Images Festival of Geneve... Also it was awarded since 1993. --86.199.54.128 (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi there folks, just happened into this conflict from the ReBoot page. As it stands, Insektors was the first fully-CG animated series, but at a running time of 12 minutes, it was not actually full-length in the sense of a traditional animated series (really it would be better considered a series of animated shorts, and might warrant inclusion on that page). I'm updating the timeline to reflect both of these milestones, since they are both significant and both had influences on future CGI developments.--Hawkian (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1960s

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)

As a matter of fact, The Great Mouse Detective used CG backgrounds. It was on the list at some point, but it got removed... Green451 (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)