UncleHoot <jer### [at] mutualdatacom> wrote:
> Can't remember where I read it, but it's stop-motion and CG.

  Well, CG in a way.

  The dolls had a horizontal line at eye level (because the lower and upper
halves of the face were separate and changeable). The line was removed in
post-production using computer image manipulation. You *could* argue that's
"CG". However, when one speaks about "a CG movie" it means that the contents
were generated with CG, rather than something removed or filtered. That's
rather normal post-production, even if it's done with a computer.

  (It's the same as when in a live action movie something like safety wires
being removed in post-production using a computer. While a computer is
involved, it's not usually referred to as "CG".)

  The fog was not computer-generated, but it was instead real fog produced
using dry ice. The computer was involved in pasting patches of that real
fog into the film.

  The flames in the fireplaces were the most CG in the movie. They were done
primarily by making a flame animation by traditional hand-drawing, then
scanning the frames into the computer and coloring them using photoshop,
after which they were added to the film (similarly to how the fog was added).
You could argue that is CG, as photoshop was involved in the actual creation
process of the flames.

> 2D animation generally contains "CG" to some extent now as well.  Some 
> things are just easier if there is a computer involved.  But then, we all 
> know that here...  ;-) 

  Sometimes it just gets blurred what is "CG" and what isn't. Just because
a computer is used to post-process frames doesn't necessarily mean what is
usually meant with "CG".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message