COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00003 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	Dear Mr. X,
C00007 00003		First,  the benefits:  it is for me to claim  (and for you to
C00014 ENDMK
C⊗;
Dear Mr. X,

	This letter is essentially a feeler for  a grant to support a
basic  research  program  in  computer  animation.   Unlike  defense,
transportation and medicine; the government does not fund  reseach in
entertainment.  Nevertheless,  I will try to demonstrate that a novel
situation  exists  where  your  particular  company  can  benefit  by
influencing  the  direction  of  university  based  computer  science
research.

	As I am sure you are aware,  films with the technical quality
and realism of Snow White will at sometime in the future be generated
by means of script writers and cartoonists using interactive computer
graphics. At that future date, each cartoonist and script writer will
have a display computer  console in his  office connected to a  large
central computer (say  two PDP-10's,  300K words core,   with 50 mega
words  of disk for  virtual memory and file  storage). The cartoonist
will design actors,   objects  and scenery by  typing in commands  to
build completely  synthetic objects. An existing  physical object (or
actor) could  be entered  into the  computer by  means of  television
cameras. Script  writers would  develope their  ideas using a  script
language  similar to  their present notations.   A  "script compiler"
would then compile the script  into detailed commands for a  "reality
simulator".  For  developmental  work,  CRT  line  drawings  and  low
resolution video are provided in nearly real time; for final filming,
the  computer  generates  high  resolution  video  images  which  are
transferred  from  computer  media   to  celluloid  by  an  FR-80  or
equivalent. The  point is  that  the hardware  for making  very  high
quality,  three dimensional,  color animation already exists. What is
lacking  is the software;  and that  software does not  exist because
scientific  problems  in  three  dimensional  object  representation,
photometric  modeling,     animation   languages,     hidden  surface
elimination  and editing  a simulated  process have not  been solved.
Whether this technology appears  sooner rather than later  depends on
how much skilled computer science effort is directed at the problem.

	Next, I wish to argue  that the most expedient,  and mutually
advantageous way of developing this technology is for  (company-X)    
to  support  the  relevant  computer  science  research  at  Stanford
University; there are two points: propriety and benefits.

	First,  the benefits:  it is for me to claim  (and for you to
judge)  that Stanford  can do  long range basic  exploratory research
that would  be  too expensive  for you  to do  for  yourselves.   The
capital cost of our exotic  computer system; has been paid for by the
government.  The labor cost of highly skilled and motivated  students
and research programmers is  low. The main results of  our work would
be the explicit  theory (algorithms,  languages,  representations and
systems design)  required for  doing computer  animation.   We  would
advance the state of the art to a point where you could apply it.

	Second,    my  answer   to  the  propriety  problem  involves
distingushing  between "basic research" and "applied research". Basic
research involves  creating  theories  and demonstrating  matters  of
principle.  Applied  research involves using the state  of the art to
make money.  (company X)      would do its  own applied research  and
product  development which  would  be secret;  and  we would  do  the
computer  science which would be  in the public  domain. Naturely, if
you think that you can do all  the research on your own,  then it  is
to you advantage to  keep it a secret and to tell  us to "forget it".
On  the other  hand,   if you  accept the premise  that sophisticated
software can require  years of  development and that  we are as  good
programmers as we claim,   then it would be to your advantage to have
us begin programming the system  for computer hardware that you  will
buy in 1976 or 1980. A final minor  point is that Stanford University
is a  school and will not go into  business for itself doing computer
animation. My argument can be summarized in three statements:

1. (company X)     should  obtain by 1980, a large  and sophisticated
computer animation system of the size and quality depicted above.

2.   The  Stanford Artificial  Intelligence  Project already  has the
necessary futuristic hardware and some  of the software out of  which
such a large computer animation system could be built.

3. The software  development of such a system could  require three to
ten years  of basic research.  And the cheapest way to assure success
is  to have  outside  consultants  (Stanford),   do  the  preliminary
development and feasibility study.

	I  have enclosed  a  slightly  reworked  draft of  a  similar
proposal  that  we were  going  to submit  to  NSF  (National Science
Foundation);  before the  energy  crisis  cut  off  their  funds  for
computer science. Also enclosed is a flip book of animation showing a
mechanical  arm turning a block  over.  Finally, I  wish to extend an
invitation to you and your  associates to visit the A.I.  Lab whether
or  not you are  interested in  this present  idea.

				Sincerely
				Bruce G. Baumgart, Research Assistant