XPost: alt.tv.scifi.channel   
   From: no@spamthank.s   
      
   Stewart wrote:   
   > "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.   
      
   Higher graphical resolution, too.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)