Platform for Animation and Virtual Reality (PAVR)

TMR Network of Excellence

Minutes of Management Meeting

Glasgow 22nd April 1999

Dept of Computing Science,

University of GLASGOW G12 8QQ

Present: Prof Philip Willis, Frédéric Labrosse, Max Froumentin (Bath U), John Patterson, Jean-Christophe Nebel, Sylvain Brugnot (Glasgow U), Prof Frank Van Reeth (Limburgs UT), Johan Claes (U Balears), Prof Gérard Hegron (E de M Nantes), François Faure, Christian Faisstnauer (TU Vienna), Amaury Aubel (EPFL), Sumedha Kshirsagar (U Geneva)

Apologies: Jean-Dominique Gascuel (U J-F Grenoble), Jean-Daniel Fekete (E de M Nantes)

1. Welcome

The coordinator welcomed all the participants.2. Adoption of Minutes The minutes of the meeting at Vienna October 21-22, 1998 were accepted.3. Matters Arising from the Minutes
 
 
Section
Action
Who?
Status
3.1
Licences for SoftImage 

(SoftImage is now owned by Avid)

J-D F
Done
6
Meeting of WP 8
JWP
Will happen this meeting

 

4. Workpackages
 
 
Work

package

Status
Represented by
2
One meeting only so far Amaury Aubel
3
No meeting Gérard Hegron (for Jean-Daniel Fekete)
4
Facial Interaction - No meeting. This WP should link with WP 5, also Glasgow work on facial modelling and (just starting) animation Samedha Kshirsagar (Geneva) 

Siemens were coordinators here (needs resolving)

5
Dynamic Simulation - Meeting 8-4-99 J-D Gascuel, F Faure, C Faisstnauer in Grenoble. Josh Hale (PhD Student Glasgow) and J-C Nebel would like to attend in future François Faure
6
WP needs to change to 2D animation. PAVRML server subsumes this WP so deliverable has been completed. 

'WP redundant because of the good work of WP 5' 

-rest falls to WP 8

F Van Reeth
8
meeting to happen April 23rd (separate minutes) Need to establish collaboration between M Froumentin (Bath) and F Van Reeth (LUC) J Patterson

 

4.7 Research Appointements:

We need to establish the number of funded person-months chargeable to the project since Vienna, as in the following table:
Site Person-months
Bath 11
Glasgow 12
Siemens out
Ecole des Mines, Nantes 0
EPFL not applicable
Geneva not applicable
TU Vienna 12
Grenoble 0
IRSA 3
UIB 6
LUC 12

 

4.8 Associated Countries

The question of what constitutes an associated country was resolved. Essentially this is a much smaller group than thought (e.g. Liechtenstein, Iceland) and excludes East European countries. The status of this last was the point of the query.
 
4.9 Funding The mid-term review is approved, so next tranche of funding will be available in July. The amount is not known. Funds for the UK have to be converted from Euros at whatever exchange rate prevails in July, which is already very different to level at which budget was originally calculated,.
 
5 . Feedback from the Vienna Review Commission's report was favourable. Minor criticism only, also useful feedback. Financial comment - we are underspending (due to late take-on of personnel). Past rate of expenditure is too low. We need to attend more carefully to the 'mobility' part of TMR. In response to a query about non-partner sites: we can have meetings at non-partner sites (e.g. LE2I Dijon) but cannot have exchanges with them.
 
6. Workgroup Reports 6.1 Managerial Issues

6.1.1 Capture Technologies

AA asked about deliverables. Ambiguous D11 deadline. Choose end Year 4.

6.1.2 Deliverables

Query: are demos required at the end (for final review)? Commission only requires reporting of progress and deliverables. It is a matter of courtesy to provide a demo to the commission when appropriate, e.g. during a review at which they are present/are invited. May be policy to invite commission to attend reviews when deliverables fall due.

Query: what is a deliverable? Here it is a record that the work has been done, e.g. a report. AA: Tom Molet (EPFL) delivered D5 (handed in a report) some time ago but no feedback. Format of report is on commission guidelines. In regard to software as part of deliverable, partners should be able to use it.

6.2 Preparation for next Meeting (autumn 1999)

This will be for preparation for next annual report due November 1, 1999. Question about Bath and 3D models: Glasgow has already provided 3D models for Vienna review, has capability to produce more and has just learned that new capability for whole-body scanning is to be funded (this is confidential until 15th May)
 

7. Exchanges
 
Who From To How long From when
François Faure TU Vienna U J-F Grenoble 6 weeks 19-4-99
Jean-Dominique Gascuel U J-F Grenoble TU Vienna 1.5 weeks 9-4-99
Johan Claes U Ilas Balears Limburgs UC 8 weeks several dates

 

8. Replacement for Siemens

Commission has changed the profile for a desirable industrial partner. Originally wanted a large research lab, now SMEs acceptable, and may be more than one. Bath now has Siemens money, none of which has been spent. This is available for new industrial partners but is fixed. This is approximately the same as for the other partners but can now be freely reassigned within industrial partner(s) budget.

Several candidate companies suggested:

Name Country Size
Pers
Proposer(s)
WP
Comments
Androme Belgium small 
10
F. Van Reeth
8
Founded 1990. Spin-off from LUC. 2D animation systems and networked VR
Company B Germany large   J. Patterson/ J Blat
8
Founded 1996. 700 MEuros initial capitalisation. Are they still interested?
Ganymedia France small 
3
J-D Gascuel
2
Ex U J-F Grenoble. Lipsynch system. Real-time interaction with capture hardware.
Imagination Computer Services GesmbH Austria small 
6
C Faisstnauer
5
Spin-off from Inst. Comp. Graph. Tu Vienna. Co-funded by Institute and private investors. 3D VR and interactive animation. 'Virtual Mirror', Interactive visualisation of technological systems.
W-Interactive France small 
2
N Magnenat-Thalmann
4
3D cloning of faces and animation of these. N M-T is co-founder.

  Discussion: Need to find out what are EC rules on financial trust of small companies. Suggestion: proposers approach each company and ask the following questions:
  information about the company e.g. nature of business, products

annual turnover

markets

contact person in company

nature of association with PAVR academic partners

scale of visits the company will accept

charge to PAVR for a person month

number of person-months sought
 

 
9. Next meeting after Geneva, end May 1999 Suggest Grenoble or Rennes.
 
10. AOB 10.1 PAVR Panel Session in Geneva
Web page for CA99 has details. Session scheduled so people can charge to PAVR. Invited speakers & panel members have conference fee waived.

10.2 Funding Variation

WP (Vienna) asked if funding can be shifted from sites which can't attract people to sites which can. Answer: don't want to do this at this stage.