I think this is a reasonable time to consider what our interest in computer animation in the future is to be. The Animation Symposium last Friday was a success and indicated that there is considerable interest in the subject. Also I think it indicated that the Atlas Laboratory is the leading establishment in the country at the moment. This position has been achieved partly by a large amount of work by Paul Nelson and myself, but also by the good fortune in getting involved with two users (Open University and Nuffield Foundation) who had considerable photographic expertise so that a commercial product could be completed.
The number of users other than these two is disappointingly small. This is partly due to the fact that it is a new technology and therefore difficult to get the conservative university staff interested. It is also due to having equipment that has been badly maintained. The main fault, however, has been the incredibly bad turn round and support offered to users. Mustoe's turn round of one run every week or two is just not good enough. The user without photographic expertise also gets no support from the Laboratory in going from a crude piece of film output to one that is of the necessary quality for public viewing. The difference in standard between Mustoe's film produced at the Laboratory and that shown by the BBC was very great. Finally, the amount of software available at the Laboratory is not as high as it should be.
I think now is as good a time as any to make a decision as to whether we continue with the work on computer animation. I am not keen on continuing with the kind of support received in the last two years. Computer Animation could be an important tool for both education and scientific research. If SRC and the Atlas Laboratory are interested in getting it off the ground, then it will require considerably more effort and enthusiasm than has been available in the past.
One major problem at the moment is lack of staff in every department. If adequate support is to be provided then either SRC or the Atlas Laboratory will have to increase the complement devoted to animation. On the Programming side we have currently two people other than myself. The amount of work I can do in the normal day, other than generally managing the project, is small. This amount of programming staff is completely inadequate. I could use two people in getting POLYGRAPHICS working well on the 360/195, or in doing the basic PDP15 software, or in implementing our existing packages on the 1906A, or in defining our new system, or in joint efforts at making films with users, or in generating our own films, but I only have two. It seems likely that out of the last round of boards I will get nobody to help on the animation side. Sufrin has already refused the post offered, and Francis, who was to be partly animation and partly hardware, has not replied.
Even so, I do not think this is the major staffing problem. I do not think there is any real support for animation in either the Operations or Support Groups. Even the running of the SC4020 in general leaves a lot to be desired. Currently I am discussing with JEH the kind of support required. Without going into detail, there are a number of changes that are essential. A turn round on the SC4020 which is an order of hours rather than days or weeks should be provided. The SC4020 must be run 24 hours a day and that includes processing the film as well as running on the SC4020. It is desirable that jobs run on Atlas overnight should be processed on the SC4020 and be available to the user the next morning. If we are to specialise in animation, then I think some priority for animation over normal hardcopy output should be considered.
The work on computer animation at the Laboratory will not be a success unless we are capable of producing film output which is of commercial quality. At least this will mean employing a photographic technician to understand the problems and get the necessary photographic work done either internally or using commercial services. For example the quality of the final Change and Chance films sold by Penguins and the best copy obtained by me using photographic houses, was completely different. A large amount of work had to be done photographically to get that final film. Until we can produce films of that quality, we will not get people interested.
The quality control on the SC4020 output is, at the moment, practically non-existent, apart from observance of gross malfunctioning. The Operations Group will have to provide a consistent output and this requires much closer control of the SC4020. I do not think that this can be done unless someone of reasonable seniority has control of the SC4020 and does this as a full-time job. Currently, it is just one small part of Gary Williams' equipment, and I do not see how he will be able to supervise it adequately. Most of his time is bound to be spent on the 1906A over the next year. I recognise that the Operations Group may not have people to spare for these jobs out of their complement. If this is so, then I see no other alternatives than either getting the complement increased or stopping the animation work. We cannot continue with the current operation.
This problem of complement also applies on the Programming side. At the end of the current recruitment it is likely that JCB will have six people involved in applications; I will have two, and EBF the rest. I do not think either of the other groups will be overstaffed. EBF will have Pavelin, Toll and Modi, which should help the 1906A software side but is, in my opinion, not enough, especially as expertise on the 360/195 will also be required. The outstanding three places in the Programming Group could easily be used to recruit people for EBF's section. Alternatively, they could be used for computer animation, but that would probably mean that EBF and my section would be understaffed. Unless a considerable increase in complement of the Programming Group is achieved, then some of our current work must be abandoned.
