 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Marc Champagne wrote:
> Just imagine if they had current CG technology back then...
What, for the first 45 minutes? A bunch of computer-generated
man-apes jumping around a transparent (in the book, at least,
where it counts) box with dimensions in ratios 1:4:9, followed
by...
stereotypical CGI space shots. With sound, because CGI space
scenes are required to have sound. And a few extreme zoom-out
jobs, starting from a molecule and working their way to a glory
shot of a space station. And some nice volumetric atmospheric
effects to get the beams of light. Oh yeah. And a nebula.
In space, you can always see a nebula. Hmm what else do we have
in stereotypical film CGI space shots...
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.scifi-fantasy.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
news: 3DE### [at] videotron ca...
>
>
> Program ended abnormally on 12/2/02 4:46 AM, Due to a catastrophic Marc
> Jacquier error:
May be human kind is a BIG syntax error? ;-)
>
> >
> > lights reflections are bended this way. They are blurred which is a
strange
> > thing for a likely well polished lense.
>
> That's actually the lights lighting up the media inside the lens. I'll
> try to fix it.
>
I meant reflected lights are blurred in HAL's lense in the movie, not in
your image
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> CGI space scenes are required to have sound.
This sometimes nerves me. It would be fresh to have some scenes without
sound. There's also problems with explosions, or thunder when we're on a
planet of some sort. The sound is never delayed by distance to the lighting
or explosion.. Doh.
> extreme zoom-out jobs
They aren't SO common... pretty nice stuff.
> In space, you can always see a nebula.
It's a bit typical, I agree.
But do you have something in mind, that would be new or uncommon?
Regards,
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Marc Jacquier" <jac### [at] wanadoofr> wrote in message
news:3dec6028@news.povray.org...
>
> I meant reflected lights are blurred in HAL's lense in the movie, not in
> your image
I would expect the reflections to be blurry if the camera DOF is shallow.
I was going to give HAL a try some time ago and use an old video tape I have
as reference. Was too cruddy to use for that purpose, it was *all* blurry,
so I skipped it.
Speaking of its evilness... that 2010 sequel really seemed to change HAL's
personality. Got real moral and empathetic, a stark comparsion with its
original demeanor.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hugo wrote:
>>extreme zoom-out jobs
> They aren't SO common... pretty nice stuff.
well, I was trying to think of all the blatantly-CGI stuff that's
done when it comes to outer space. yeah, it's cool, but you can
only do that with CGI.
> But do you have something in mind, that would be new or uncommon?
one thing the original had that a CGI-remake should have: HARSH
LIGHTING! how many CGI spaceships have we seen that are all evenly
lit so we can be impressed by the ship itself?
apart from that, put some effort into making the CGI look non-CGI...
which has been improving by leaps and bounds in films.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.scifi-fantasy.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> all evenly lit so we can be
> impressed by the ship itself?
I agree this would be a rather realistic light, more than those static side
lights, seen even at warp speeds... But isn't an evenly lit ship going to
lose a lot of details, since it removes most of the shadows? It just doesn't
look very good that way.. Maybe you're thinking of a studio light, that is
more "all round" like a broad area of light.. Instead of typical CG
point_lights. But I think they've already gotten past that point.
Regards,
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
