 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Simon de Vet wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
> > The second thing is on the new TV watching Crusade the graphics
> > are no better than most experienced users can create in POV.
> I noticed the same thing.
> After years of hearing people rave about the graphics on the show, I had the
> chance to actually see an episode (a movie, maybe.. we don't get the show out
> here.) Was I ever dissapointed. It looked terrible! I've seen POV graphics
> look much, much nicer.
> Ah well...
I was not quite awake but I did view a third season B5, when
they were still using Amigas and Video Toasters, Sheridan just
taking over. It is one hell of a come down from what I saw on the
old TV.
As to what we can do with it that was the point of my post. A
1.1 or 1.2 gaussian blur would imitate B5 on an old TV. I can do
that in PS but not in POV.
We are just talking here but final product is what matters.
--
<blink>-------please--don't-----------------</blink>
http://www.giwersworld.org/artii/
http://www.giwersworld.org/artiii/
Finally up on 99/06/22 updated 07/13
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (1 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Zeger Knaepen wrote:
> Kentauren heeft geschreven in bericht <378fc5d0@news.povray.org>...
> >It's made using Lightwave right ?
> I don't know about Crusade, but B5 was made using Lightwave 5.0, running on
> a Pentium!
Last I heard that change occured for the fourth season/year when
Amiga failed to keep up.
--
<blink>-------please--don't-----------------</blink>
http://www.giwersworld.org/artii/
http://www.giwersworld.org/artiii/
Finally up on 99/06/22 updated 07/13
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (1 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nieminen Mika wrote:
> Matt Giwer <mgi### [at] giwersworld org> wrote:
> : The second thing is on the new TV watching Crusade the graphics
> : are no better than most experienced users can create in POV.
> I think that the idea is that a cheap scanline renderer can render those
> animations much faster than a raytracer. They have no time to wait.
I beg to disagree. I have imitated some things such as a
jumpgate. I appreciate why opening it is such a short scene
except for the CGI intensive eps twice a year. It takes fer-efing
ever to render on a PII/333. And theirs are better, much better.
They do not use raster renderers. You can not go from front to
back in raster machines.
--
<blink>-------please--don't-----------------</blink>
http://www.giwersworld.org/artii/
http://www.giwersworld.org/artiii/
Finally up on 99/06/22 updated 07/13
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (1 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
> I think the main problem is money and time. for a series you have serious
> deadline issues and strict bugets to adhere to. If this were no problem
> you would throw away your lightwave program and hire ILM to take care of
> your special effects for you and give them all the money and time they ask
> for to do.
K-rap!
If I see that expanding torus (compressed in y) with media one
more time I think I am going to barf.
Why is it a "good" image? ILM tells me so.
Gentlemen, Lucas bought ILM and they have been technical state
of the art but in practice today, anyone can afford state of the
art processing speed. The thrust has gone to creativity not to
workstation capacity.
The SGI workstations have been a running joke for at least a
year, maybe two or more. They are slow! Sure, they can do other
things while rendering without crashing but so damned slowly that
it is cheaper to buy an Intel machine (lord forgive me for saying
this) to dedicate to the job.
Look folks I greatly dislike both Intel and MS and above all IBM
for what we have to deal with in this world. "Greatly dislike" is
a phrase for a G rated newsgroup.
Look, fact of life, shut off everything in every mpu and every
os and windows only loses by the intel addressing quirk, quite
small adn variable.
--
<blink>-------please--don't-----------------</blink>
http://www.giwersworld.org/artii/
http://www.giwersworld.org/artiii/
Finally up on 99/06/22 updated 07/13
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (1 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
>
> Ken wrote:
>
> > I think the main problem is money and time. for a series you have serious
> > deadline issues and strict bugets to adhere to. If this were no problem
> > you would throw away your lightwave program and hire ILM to take care of
> > your special effects for you and give them all the money and time they ask
> > for to do.
>
> K-rap!
>
> If I see that expanding torus (compressed in y) with media one
> more time I think I am going to barf.
>
> Why is it a "good" image? ILM tells me so.
>
> Gentlemen, Lucas bought ILM and they have been technical state
> of the art but in practice today, anyone can afford state of the
> art processing speed. The thrust has gone to creativity not to
> workstation capacity.
Holy Matt droppings Robin,
The point you are missing is that it is not just computational speed
as much as it is the marrige of film and computer generated graphics.
The two are becoming mutualy inclusive and the talent to do so in a
convincing manner is not something left to amateurs. ILM has paid
their dues, experience wise, and so earns them the recognition that
the industry and the public pays them.
That the producers of Babylon 5 were able to do this in a weekly
production is a phenominal feather in their respective caps but
there were sacrifices in quality that had to be made to do so. I
stand by what I said that if superior quality was their goal, and
time and money were of no importance, they would have hired a firm
like ILM or Pixar to do their production work for them, and it would
have been a much more impressive presentation.
You may now barf if you like... that is your prerogative.
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/links.htm
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Jul 1999 03:10:56 -0400, Matt Giwer
<mgi### [at] giwersworldorg> wrote:
> As to what we can do with it that was the point of my post. A
>1.1 or 1.2 gaussian blur would imitate B5 on an old TV. I can do
>that in PS but not in POV.
I have done radial blur (spin and zoom), motion blur (uni- and
bi-directional), and twist blur in POV using the average pigment and
image_maps.
Regards,
Peter
Peter Popov
ICQ: 15002700
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Not exactly the most efficient way to go about it, but I guess as a challenge...
Margus
Peter Popov wrote:
>
> I have done radial blur (spin and zoom), motion blur (uni- and
> bi-directional), and twist blur in POV using the average pigment and
> image_maps.
>
> Regards,
> Peter
>
> Peter Popov
> ICQ: 15002700
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Jul 1999 16:26:38 +0300, Margus Ramst <mar### [at] peakeduee>
wrote:
>Not exactly the most efficient way to go about it, but I guess as a challenge...
>
>Margus
He he he
My nick in ICQ is POV-Nut, I guess I wasn't wrong when choosing it :)
And oh, btw PhotoShop doesn't come with a twist blur filter though
there're surely several done in Filter Factory.
Sorry, I know it's OT. I'll shut up... NOW!
Peter Popov
ICQ: 15002700
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
> Holy Matt droppings Robin,
While I am nothing if not arrogant, obnoxious and opinionated, I
do have some negative qualities also.
> The point you are missing is that it is not just computational speed
> as much as it is the marrige of film and computer generated graphics.
> The two are becoming mutualy inclusive and the talent to do so in a
> convincing manner is not something left to amateurs. ILM has paid
> their dues, experience wise, and so earns them the recognition that
> the industry and the public pays them.
I have a minor document on that subject that I may post before
verifying and footnoting. My general conclusion is that existing
parallel machines could render a two hour HDTV movie in less than
48 hours.
I will give ILM all the credit for creativity they could ask for
but with the above, procuding a two hour movie is a touch more
than the processing power.
I have otherwise noted Star Wars I, everything but the central
character in a scene is out of focus and the characters in focus
are movie so much you can't tell if they are properly animated
or not.
> That the producers of Babylon 5 were able to do this in a weekly
> production is a phenominal feather in their respective caps but
> there were sacrifices in quality that had to be made to do so. I
> stand by what I said that if superior quality was their goal, and
> time and money were of no importance, they would have hired a firm
> like ILM or Pixar to do their production work for them, and it would
> have been a much more impressive presentation.
Having watched B5 from ep 1 and having managed to see every ep
on its first airing I can say my critisms are long considered. I
mean, did you notice that two eps a year were graphics
spectaculars?
As to what they did, yes, the producers get the credit. But look
at how many of the outside scenes were generic creations. There
were so many where clearly the plot and script made the creation
fit. Open a jumpgate? There are at least a dozen identical ones
rendered from slightly different perspectives. That is something
from the comps to do over night and weekends. The same with ships
moving. It was production managment, not great CGI.
I frankly do not think ILM or Pixar could have done any better.
Nor do I see these folks are really doing that good.
What they did was save us from matte shots and animated models.
It is faster but not necessarily more creative.
And what started all of this, finally seeing it on a state of
the art TV is what ruined my impression of what they were
accomplishing.
> You may now barf if you like... that is your prerogative.
If I had bought a Trinitron I just might have already.
But when everyone updates to a TV of 1999 quality, B5 is going
to look a cut above the original Star Trek but not much.
--
<blink>-------please--don't-----------------</blink>
http://www.giwersworld.org/artii/
http://www.giwersworld.org/artiii/
Finally up on 99/06/22 updated 07/13
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (1 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
> If I had bought a Trinitron I just might have already.
>
> But when everyone updates to a TV of 1999 quality, B5 is going
> to look a cut above the original Star Trek but not much.
>
Well, I'd give it a bit more than that, but not as nice as Next Gen for
example (Aside from some of the space work). Of course one thing to
consider is that at the time, B5's budget per episode was about half that
of Next Gen. I'd have to say that their graphics were more than half as
good.
The thing the series had over the current ST at the time was in the stories
and in the non-perfect people. ST took a lot of this for Deep Space 9 (but
with lawyers and such lurking about we won't say 'stole'). Bottom line is
that for the most part, I feel the graphics were sufficient to help the
stories move along, but were not quite as good as a different TV might make
them seem.
--
"My new computer's got the clocks, it rocks
But it was obsolete before I opened the box" - W.A.Y.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
