Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> It seems trendy for people to bash movie effects as if it makes
> them look clever for spotting the effects - even if it's logically impossible
> for a scene to be done any other way.

  It's amusing when people claim to see CGI artifacts in a scene which has
no CGI effects at all... Like that scene in the second LotR movie where
the Black Gates open and close: Some people claim that the gate edges go
inside each other, revealing it to be CGI. Yet the gates were miniatures
and filmed for real.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> It's surprising how many people think making computer models is somehow 
> "easier" than making real ones...

  It makes some things easier. For example, don't like the texturing?
A couple of mouse clicks and you can try a different texture. Some part
too large or too small in relation to the other parts? Again, a couple
of mouse clicks, and it's fixed. And so on.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 10/9/2009 10:27 AM, Warp wrote:

>> Ever seen, I don't know, any movie Pixar has ever made?
>
>    You mean pixar generates the voice acting by computer too?
>

Yep, The voice acting is completely synthetic. You didn't know this? All 
they have to do is assign some famous names, feed the computer the 
script, and it churns out voice acting... ;)
-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:

> Yep, The voice acting is completely synthetic. You didn't know this? All 
> they have to do is assign some famous names, feed the computer the 
> script, and it churns out voice acting... ;)

Heh, if they ever want Steven Hawkings for some reason, this would 
actually be more or less the truth... ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Interesting. When I walk into the bank, you get to watch the person 
> stare at the cheque, type in the various code numbers, stamp the cheque 
> to say it's been processed, and hand you a recipt...

You must really live in the back country out there. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

I *do* think it's cool how advanced the motion capture is getting. They now 
have a system where the daub UV paint on your face with a sponge, leaving 
you all speckled. Then they film you, with white lights and UV lights 
alternating in a flicker, and a camera synched to each set of lights. Then 
the animators can look at your face in time with your voice and all, and the 
computers can analyze every movement down to pursed lips and blinking eyelids.

It's like right out of Diamond Age.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On 10/09/09 10:27, Warp wrote:
>    Art can be admired in more than one way. Often it's not only the end result
> that matters, but also the *performance* and the skills shown in the work can
> be a target of admiration as well.

	My question was:

"If they can make CGI that is very hard to tell from real stunts, why 
should I value real stunts more?"

	To which you responded:

"Because it's admirable when a film crew puts some effort and work into
making the film."

	Yes, some people may admire it, and I have no problem with it, but no 
one explained to me why *I* should admire it.
	
	It's kind of like telling someone who likes rock music that they should 
admire classical music. At the end, what you're talking about is art, 
and it's merely a matter of taste.

>    For example, if a highly skilled guitarist plays a superb piece of music
> which is extremely hard to play, I can admire both the end result, ie. the
> music that I can hear, *and* the skills that were necessary to produce that
> music.

	But if he plays an incredibly difficult piece that doesn't sound at all 
good (to me), I'm not going to admire it - because I'm not really into 
how the music is made.

	When I was a kid, my father would really try to get me to watch circus 
performances (simple stuff like juggling, etc). It was all quite boring 
for me. He'd essentially try to say I should enjoy it because of the 
amount of effort and training the performers have to go through.

	I *know* they have to put a lot of effort to master those performances. 
That doesn't change the fact that they're boring. Just because I can 
appreciate the amount of work that went into it doesn't imply that I'll 
become interested in it. In fact, I suspect that most of the times, you 
first get interested in the "output", and only then will interest in the 
methods follow.

>    Lack of skill doesn't make the music itself worse, but if high amount of
> skills were necessary to create the music, that in itself is admirable as
> well.

	Sure. If you admire that stuff.

>    Likewise for movies: I don't only admire the end result, but also how it
> has been created.

	That's fine. I'm not trying to say you shouldn't. Just don't expect 
others to for the same reasons.

>>          If we're talking about purely artistic endeavors that are _not_ made
>> mostly for commercial purposes, I can see your point. But if I'm buying
>> a chair and I have two choices: One made in a factory and the other hand
>> built, and I can't distinguish between the two, why should I care how it
>> was made? I want the chair to be comfortable.
>
>    Because art and entertainment is not about what is most comfortable and
> practical. It's a completely different category, not comparable.

	Not at all. Building stuff by hand is an art, and I sure know people 
who _would_ care. I'm just not into it, and neither are you.

	Also, perhaps you'll disagree with me, the shift to CGI really is just 
switching from one form of impressive skill to another. There's a 
Hugo/Nebula novella winner that goes into precisely this theme (except 
it was about live plays rather than movies). (*SPOILERS FOLLOW*) The 
protagonist was an actor in the old style, but during his career 
everything shifted to machine-oriented plays. He became obsolete (as did 
all live actors), and he spent the rest of his days being loyal to the 
"true" art of plays (which virtually no one was interested in) - whereas 
most of his fellow actors found some creative roles in the new system. 
Only at the end did he realize that it was really just the natural 
evolution and was better for the whole art form in the end.

-- 
AAHH!!! I've deleted all my RAM!

Post a reply to this message

On 10/09/09 10:29, Warp wrote:
>> There's a reason why most things in the world are done that way now, because
>> it's more efficient.
>
>    Art shouldn't be about efficiency. Thus I stand by my opinion.

	And artists will continue to make art. But I thought we were talking 
about movies... ;-)

-- 
AAHH!!! I've deleted all my RAM!

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> It is a shame. Nowadays it's hard to even go to a movie just to see the
>>> special effects, too. :-)
>> Back in 1988, when making Die Hard, John McTiernan actually blew out the
>> windows on the first three floors of the Fox tower (despite having
>> signed a release saying the building itself wouldn't be harmed :) ).
> 
> I thought that was a composited effect? I heard that the building's owners were
> aghast at that scene, until it was explained to them that actually the building
> wasn't touched.
> 
> That's what Die Hard's trivia on imdb claims anyway. Might not be true. It
> certainly seems a cheaper way of doing it though!

Well, we went on one of those bus tours of the city, and that's the 
story I heard... of course, the tour guide could have been embellishing, 
could have heard it wrong, or any number of possible explanations :)

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> Seriously, who uses cheques anymore?

Businesses.  We've got customers that regularly (ie multiple times a 
week) deposit several hundred checks at once.

Of course, the same scanner that we use behind teller row is available 
to our merchant customers to use at their stores.  Want to write a check 
at a grocery store?  When the clerk scans the check, they're actually 
clearing the d*** thing right then and there.

It's saving us a ton of work, because we don't have to process as many 
large deposits.  It also saves our merchant customers a ton of work, 
because they don't have to put together a bank deposit & make the trip 
to drop off the checks.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message