Perspective on 3-D

I agree with much of what Charles Solomon said in his commentary on the state of computer animation (“Working the Bugs Out,” Nov. 27). But as a film industry artist who has used both traditional and digital means, I would submit that a good number of his perceptions have little to do with what computers are capable of (by themselves, nothing; in the right hands, almost anything) and are colored by a high degree of familiarity with the former.

Traditional animation has built up an enormous level of perceptual equity with the public. It has a large “vocabulary of line” that immediately speaks to those of us who have grown up with and cherished it--and also leaves much to the imagination.

Three-D animation can supply much more information to the eye--and may leave some viewers unsatisfied when that information (texture, accurate shadows on surfaces) does not match what they previously only imagined. The best of 3-D computer animation often borrows heavily from that vocabulary, which was borrowed in part from even older performance arts. “A Bug’s Life” is a terrific example.

The younger and less experienced crop of animators who practice 3-D will find their own vocabulary and styles--I hope not too far from what we know and love--and our children will grow up remembering Buzz Lightyear and Flik with as much affection as Solomon and I have for Jiminy Cricket.

PETER MITCHELL RUBIN

Los Angeles