Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!uunet!munnari.oz.au!metro!macuni!sunc!ifarqhar
From: ifarqhar@sunc.mqcc.mq.oz.au (Ian Farquhar)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: 3D Objects
Message-ID: <981@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz>
Date: 2 Jan 91 21:53:29 GMT
References: <6632@crash.cts.com> <4491@vela.acs.oakland.edu>
Sender: news@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz
Organization: Macquarie University, Sydney
Lines: 30

In article <4491@vela.acs.oakland.edu> hastoerm@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Moriland) writes:
>In article <6632@crash.cts.com> seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) writes:
>%>The starfields and planets may be computer generated, but the Enterprise and
>%>other ships are miniatures.
>
>Hmmm. Okay. Seems kinda weird though. With todays 3D rendering
>packages available on the bigger machines you'd think they'd skip the
>models and just raytrace everything.

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...

--
Ian Farquhar                      Phone : 61 2 805-9400
Office of Computing Services      Fax   : 61 2 805-7433
Macquarie University  NSW  2109   Also  : 61 2 805-7420
Australia                         EMail : ifarqhar@suna.mqcc.mq.oz.au