Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!wucs1!wuibc!gmat
From: gmat@wuibc.UUCP (Gregory Martin Amaya Tormo)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: Graphics on TV
Summary: Its made for TV ie to sell to views
Message-ID: <296@wuibc.UUCP>
Date: 30 Sep 88 18:43:29 GMT
References: <14384@hc.DSPO.GOV> <69200002@cdp>
Reply-To: gmat@wuibc.UUCP (Gregory Martin Amaya Tormo)
Organization: Washington University in St. Louis
Lines: 30

In article <69200002@cdp> ableier@cdp.UUCP writes:
>
>Of course beauty is a matter of taste, but in the spirit of being constructive
>rather than destructively critical, I would like to suggest to practioners
>of computer graphics that they keep working for what feels beautiful after
>they have achieved their initial goals of near-realism or lots-of-simultaneous-
>motion.
>
>For example, the piece where the dragon throws the ball through the pagoda door
>approaches beauty for me when the colored bands move in circles like a 
>dancer's ribbon -- but then those national flags come flying through, wiggling
>like little fishes -- why so much overkill?

	Because the graphics are made for television.  NBC desperately
needs to sell the Olympics to the Amercian viewer.  It is a losing
investment if they can not get little share of the ratings, and believe me,
it is costing them a fortune to produce the show.  If they can wow the
audience with fancy graphics (asthetic, not artistic), they keep the
viewer's attention.  Be honest.  If you were walking into a room with the
TV on and saw a the slide "And now back to the Olympics" would it grab your
attention?  But what if you walked in and saw flying torches, dragons,
flags, and other whatnot.  To the average person, that would attract their
attention.  In my opinion what the artist/programmers should have done was
to give more motion to the camera angle, weaving through the flags.  That
would be neat.


		David Deitch, Computer Connection
		dwd0238@wucec1.wustl.bitnet
		Fido 1:100/22