|
 |
"gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoo com> wrote in message
news:web.4b2cdce812950fc534d207310@news.povray.org...
> Maybe my memory is failing, but I thought I heard about it from this
group.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dadPWhEhVk
>
> It IS a great inspiration to see what one guy can do in his basement.
(That's
> why I love the early Disney & early Wallace & Gromit flicks). I see all
kinds
> of things that will help in my animations.
>
> 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.
Why focus on the software? The hardware, the time (credits list was fairly
long) all have a value. That's why it's meaningless to claim such a project
was done for only $300, when it's done with volunteer actors, composers,
animators, extras, with borrowed equipment and software... etc. One should
assign a monetary amount to a project only if it is commercially feasible
(that is, when it's repeatable on demand and on a timeline). Do you think if
I offer the guy another $300 (each), that he would make an (or a dozen)
advertisement clip(s) for my business that is (are) comparable? If he will,
then I'd say he's come up with a supremenly efficient workflow. If not, it
says $300 is nowhere close to quantifying the real resources that has gone
into that project.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
