XPost: alt.tv.scifi.channel   
   From: gortamus36@yahoo.com   
      
   "Ian B"  wrote in message   
   news:4b0eaa69$0$2534$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...   
   > 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.   
   >   
      
   Nothing like doing CAD drawings and looking at stair stepped angled   
   lines on one of the old pre-VGA video displays.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)