gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> But $300?? My specific objection is in the photorealistic smoke.  Can that be
> done that well with a plug-in under twice that?  Doubtful.  And I didn't even
> mention the program.  Don't get me wrong, this artist has done something
> amazing, but I'm guessing he has access to $2k to $10k in software.  Perhaps it
> was only $300 "once you already have" the software, which is like counting the
> cost of the movie "Titanic" "once you already have" the ship.

  Well, what should be counted into the "budget" of the movie?

  If you make a movie using your personal computer, should the price of the
computer be included, even though it was not bought precisely to make the
movie? Should the electricity consumed by the computer during the production
be counted? How about the rent, if you live in a rented apartment? The food
you eat during the production?

  If we go to an extreme here, one could equally well say that a CGI movie
took $0 to create or, alternatively, that it cost $50000 (depending on what
you count as going into the making of the movie).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message