It's made using Lightwave right ?

Simon de Vet <sde### [at] istarca> wrote in message
news:378E6657.3BE863AC@istar.ca...
>
>
> 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...
>

Post a reply to this message

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!

ZK

Post a reply to this message

Matt Giwer <mgi### [at] giwersworldorg> 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.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

>  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.

LOL, so can an expensive scanline renderer!

I think the main problem is that a lot of artists doing that kind of work
are more techies and don't spend enough time on the ART part of it...

--
Lance.


---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://listen.to/colorblind
Nieminen Mika wrote in message <3792c93d@news.povray.org>...
>Matt Giwer <mgi### [at] giwersworldorg> 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.
>
>--
>main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
>):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

Lance Birch wrote:

> I think the main problem is that a lot of artists doing that kind of work
> are more techies and don't spend enough time on the ART part of it...
> 
> --
> Lance.

  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.

-- 
Ken Tyler
  
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/links.htm

Post a reply to this message

True... I know all about deadlines... *stares at U-th website and goes back
to work*

--
Lance.


---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://listen.to/colorblind
Ken wrote in message <3792D37D.A0716034@pacbell.net>...
>
>
>Lance Birch wrote:
>
>> I think the main problem is that a lot of artists doing that kind of work
>> are more techies and don't spend enough time on the ART part of it...
>>
>> --
>> Lance.
>
>  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

Post a reply to this message

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] giwersworldorg> 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)