I'm wondering how they were able to make bit-mapped/rasterized graphics in this film (and many other of Bell Labs' CG films of the 1960s), considering the output device used to write it to motion picture film (the SC4020) used a vector-scanned & "character stencil mask"-based "Charactron" CRT. My guess would be that the character stencil mask in the tube (used to shape the electron beam of the Charactron to display a character on-screen) had a "square" character to act as a pixel of sorts, no?
Apparently they defocused the Charactron image en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BEFLIX&oldid=797023373 ; and by choosing different characters they could achieve different greyscale levels.
Notice that there's no framebuffer! Probably a bitmap image of a whole frame would not have fit comfortably into the computer's memory; and there's no urgent need for one when you are writing to the film progressively using multiple exposures, anyway. Effectively the system is using the film as the framebuffer.
Can you imagine having to program over a hundred thousand punch cards just to make a short movie like this? Then storing the program, the assembler, the VERY basic (by today's standards) operating system AND the compiler on multiple magnetic-core memory boards? I can! I learned both BASIC and ForTran on a Burroughs 6800 mainframe which used punch card readers and teletype machines to input the code line by line. It could take a couple of hours to input the code for a program which *might* run for ten minutes!! 😆
What I find strange is that it says that they shot these films on microfilm cameras... wouldn't it be easier at that time to get regular single-frame-advance 16mm or 35mm-film cameras? Or was it because they already had those microfilm-recorders laying around?
I think it was a control issue with the exposure-time that precluded the use of regular SFA cameras. They required the entire frame to be available in a single go, which, if the picture-tube-animation is anything to go by, was not the case with this system.
Huh. So the standard font for Closed captioning DOES predate 1976. Even with basic visuals, the techniques applied here remain unrivaled and extremely relevant! Sick effect at 4:56!
This predates the Amiga by about 20 years or so. The company itself, Commodore International, didn't enter the computer market until 1977, when it introduced its "PET" computer (I had one), and a chess computer a year later called "Chessmate." The PET & PET 2001 computers paved the company's way to introduce the VIC-20 in 1981 and the Commodore 64 (had one of those, too!) in 1982. The Amiga didn't come along until 1985, which I think was about the same time the Commodore 128 came out (I didn't have either of the latter two, but I had a friend who had both the Amiga AND the 128). The main feature of the 128 was its higher memory capacity and an optional 5-¼", 360-kB floppy disk drive (128 kB were a LOT of memory in 1985!), but in actuality, the 64 had more computing power, even though the 128 contained *2* CPU's -- the MOS Technologies MOS-6510, and a Zilog Z-80 running at 2 MHz (half speed). The user could switch back and forth between processors. The Amiga ran on a Motorola 68000 CPU and out-performed both the 64 and 128 (and even the IBM PC with its Intel 8088 CPU!). The PET was a good, entry-level computer; it was good for learning to program simple games in BASIC. In my personal opinion, the Commodore 64 was one of the best home computers of its day, short of the IBM PC and the Radio Shack TRS-80 (also had one of those).
To be fair, I wasn’t exactly knocking it down for that. In fact, it’s downright impressive that it was animation on par with a computer released over 20 years later.
Interesting... some time ago I'd refer to some of your videos occasionally to brush up on the rules of games like makruk and sittuyin... I was just checking out videos about John Whitney's analogue computer work prior and ended up here.
10:51 the first "like this" It beat facebook by 40 years.
I'm wondering how they were able to make bit-mapped/rasterized graphics in this film (and many other of Bell Labs' CG films of the 1960s), considering the output device used to write it to motion picture film (the SC4020) used a vector-scanned & "character stencil mask"-based "Charactron" CRT.
My guess would be that the character stencil mask in the tube (used to shape the electron beam of the Charactron to display a character on-screen) had a "square" character to act as a pixel of sorts, no?
Apparently they defocused the Charactron image en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BEFLIX&oldid=797023373 ; and by choosing different characters they could achieve different greyscale levels.
@@leocomerford Ah, I see, a bit of a Charactron "hack" then, interesting. Thanks for the info.
Notice that there's no framebuffer! Probably a bitmap image of a whole frame would not have fit comfortably into the computer's memory; and there's no urgent need for one when you are writing to the film progressively using multiple exposures, anyway. Effectively the system is using the film as the framebuffer.
Bell basically invented bitmapped graphics. Prior to this, it was all vector or point-plotting. This was all memory-driven.
Can you imagine having to program over a hundred thousand punch cards just to make a short movie like this? Then storing the program, the assembler, the VERY basic (by today's standards) operating system AND the compiler on multiple magnetic-core memory boards? I can!
I learned both BASIC and ForTran on a Burroughs 6800 mainframe which used punch card readers and teletype machines to input the code line by line. It could take a couple of hours to input the code for a program which *might* run for ten minutes!! 😆
RIP Mr. Knowlton. And thank you.
imagine how long this film took with making and then feeding punch cards....
Seems VERY primitive to our eyes, but we have what we have now because of this.
What I find strange is that it says that they shot these films on microfilm cameras... wouldn't it be easier at that time to get regular single-frame-advance 16mm or 35mm-film cameras? Or was it because they already had those microfilm-recorders laying around?
I think it was a control issue with the exposure-time that precluded the use of regular SFA cameras. They required the entire frame to be available in a single go, which, if the picture-tube-animation is anything to go by, was not the case with this system.
It may seem primitive now, but the basic ideas are similar to later techniques. This lead to Jurassic Park!
11:50 the first anti aliasing ever
That's not anti-aliasing, as the original graphics don't have aliasing.
It's actually more like the smoothening algorithms used in some Super Nintendo emulators.
Huh. So the standard font for Closed captioning DOES predate 1976. Even with basic visuals, the techniques applied here remain unrivaled and extremely relevant! Sick effect at 4:56!
ahead of its time!
Would there not be considerable Flicker if that were the case? Great question!
I wonder what we will be able to achieve 50 years from this film
This is one of the first CGI ever made.
EPILEPSY WARNING! The end of the movie contains flashing screens.
Disney movies are great in that order, good explanation of AT & T Tech Channel, Thanks.
so this WAS the very first "VCR", .. well to be more accurate, a Video Reel to Reel Recorder.
amazza!
Cool
10:55 Like and subscribe
Misaka Mikoto you can't even put the right minute you fucking idiot
Zephir il ventilatore chiassoso shut the fuck up anti-Semite
Misaka Mikoto what
You're a fucking antisemite you piece of shit. You berated me because I'm Jewish.
Misaka Mikoto uhm ok now get your head checked
It kinda looks like it was done on a Commodore Amiga
This predates the Amiga by about 20 years or so. The company itself, Commodore International, didn't enter the computer market until 1977, when it introduced its "PET" computer (I had one), and a chess computer a year later called "Chessmate." The PET & PET 2001 computers paved the company's way to introduce the VIC-20 in 1981 and the Commodore 64 (had one of those, too!) in 1982. The Amiga didn't come along until 1985, which I think was about the same time the Commodore 128 came out (I didn't have either of the latter two, but I had a friend who had both the Amiga AND the 128). The main feature of the 128 was its higher memory capacity and an optional 5-¼", 360-kB floppy disk drive (128 kB were a LOT of memory in 1985!), but in actuality, the 64 had more computing power, even though the 128 contained *2* CPU's -- the MOS Technologies MOS-6510, and a Zilog Z-80 running at 2 MHz (half speed). The user could switch back and forth between processors. The Amiga ran on a Motorola 68000 CPU and out-performed both the 64 and 128 (and even the IBM PC with its Intel 8088 CPU!).
The PET was a good, entry-level computer; it was good for learning to program simple games in BASIC. In my personal opinion, the Commodore 64 was one of the best home computers of its day, short of the IBM PC and the Radio Shack TRS-80 (also had one of those).
To be fair, I wasn’t exactly knocking it down for that. In fact, it’s downright impressive that it was animation on par with a computer released over 20 years later.
My dad made this. Just sayin'
+AncientChess No, my dad made this!
+DarthChrisB No really, my dad is Ken Knowlton, early computer graphics pioneer. I'm Rick, his son, chess variants guy. Who's your dad really?
Interesting... some time ago I'd refer to some of your videos occasionally to brush up on the rules of games like makruk and sittuyin... I was just checking out videos about John Whitney's analogue computer work prior and ended up here.
Great! So now you know the whole family story. Find what dad's been doing lately at knowltonmosaics.com :)
Was he deaf or mute ?