XPost: alt.tv.scifi, alt.tv.scifi.channel   
   From: gortamus36@yahoo.com   
      
   "Tim McGaughy"  wrote in message   
   news:POGdnR0pEc_cqpbWnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@posted.toastnet...   
   > catpandaddy wrote:   
   >>   
   >> "Tim McGaughy"  wrote in message   
   >> news:17ydnWp2f9kwZpTWnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@posted.toastnet...   
   >>> RT wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> It was ground-breaking in its use of computer imagery, but the   
   >>>>> bar was   
   >>>>> about as low as it could be at that point. It would have been   
   >>>>> nice, too,   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Quite good for 1982.   
   >>>   
   >>> Again, the bar was quite low. They weren't even able to integrate   
   >>> the computer animation with the live action. Most of the scenes   
   >>> where people seemed to be interacting with computer imagery were   
   >>> done with matte paintings or traditional cel animation. There   
   >>> weren't even any textures.   
   >>   
   >> I knew bits and pieces of that, but I never fully got why there was   
   >> such a technical barrier with compositing the CGI over the live   
   >> shots.  One would think computer generated images would be just as   
   >> easy to make mattes from. Any word on what made it problematic at   
   >> the time?   
   >   
   > Lack of imagination, maybe. Or maybe cost.   
      
   Most likely cost.  There is probably more computing horsepower in my   
   phone today then what was available for what was basically the infancy   
   of CGI in those (VisiCalc) days.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)