XPost: alt.tv.scifi, alt.tv.scifi.channel   
   From: gortamus36@yahoo.com   
      
   "catpandaddy"  wrote in message   
   news:hemi00$rr8$1@news.eternal-september.org...   
   >   
   > "Stewart"  wrote in message   
   > news:hem8pb$hc6$1@news.eternal-september.org...   
   >>   
   >> "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.   
   >   
   > But if the problem was the cost of integrating existing computer   
   > footage with live action, I don't see where cost would have been a   
   > factor.  Just make the pixels in the empty background space the same   
   > color as whatever blue screen you are using for the actors, and the   
   > CGI objects should composite in just as easily as any physical   
   > object.   
      
   Maybe today that would be true.  I'm not privy to how it was done then   
   or now and what were the main drivers for cost......but limited   
   resources and cost always makes sense as to why something wasn't done.   
   Lack of CPU, memory, software and hardware (and skilled help) from 25+   
   years ago also would be logical.   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)