Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!caen!umich!vela!hastoerm From: hastoerm@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Moriland) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: 3D Objects Message-ID: <4523@vela.acs.oakland.edu> Date: 3 Jan 91 04:45:49 GMT References: <6632@crash.cts.com> <4491@vela.acs.oakland.edu> <981@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz> Reply-To: hastoerm@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Moriland) Organization: Evil Young Mutants For A Better Tomorrow. Lines: 32 In article <981@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz> ifarqhar@sunc.mqcc.mq.oz.au (Ian Farquhar) writes: ....[Stuff from other articles deleted].... %> %>This is going to surprise a lot of people, but it is still more %>expensive to create a 3D object description for a computer that looks as %>good as a model, as it is to build a couple of real models. This situation %>is changing slowly, but for something like a 13 episode TV series or a %>movie, realistic computer graphics are still an expensive model. This %>is why ILM and Co. still use models after Lucasfilm's massive investment %>in computer graphics technology. %> %>However, I wonder if, for a long running show, graphics aren't the best %>option. Many people may remember the BBC series Blake's 7, where they %>destroyed the main ship at the end of the third series. Although it was %>never acknowledged by the BBC, it was suggested that the reason they %>destroyed the ship was because pieces kept falling off the well-used %>model during filming. That problem is one that doesn't happen to %>computer graphics... Those were my thoughts on it. Yes, initially it would cost more because of the detail needed to achieve realism, but once you've got it in there you can just re-use it countless times without any extra effort outside of raytracing whatever you want it to do. For a long running series it would seem like the best way to go. -Morland -- | hastoerm@vela.acs.oakland.edu | __ | | | __/// Viva Amiga! | | Founder Of: Evil Young | \XX/ | | Mutants For A Better Tomorrow | "Single Tasking: JUST SAY NO!" |