home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   alt.battlestar-galactica      Worshipping this overlooked Scifi show      119,658 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 117,721 of 119,658   
   Dillon Pyron to All   
   Re: Jeff Bridges returns to next TRON (2   
   30 Nov 09 22:40:50   
   
   XPost: alt.tv.scifi, alt.tv.scifi.channel   
   From: invaliddmpyron@austin.rr.com   
      
   [Default] Thus spake "Stewart" :   
      
   >   
   >"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.   
      
   For quite some time, the standard measure of compute power was the   
   "MIP" (millions of instructions per second).  The VAX 11/780 was   
   considered the benchmark for this.  At a cost of roughly $1M and up.   
   For the machine.  Disks were extra, and 1MB of memory was considered   
   "very nice".  The LM05 was a monsterous dirve.  15 14"  platters, 4   
   feet high, 240 V, 20A.  For 512MB.  I don't have any price sheets from   
   the time, but I seem to remember it being around $800/MB.   
      
   So, yeah, compute power was very pricey.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >   
   --   
      
   - dillon  I am not invalid   
      
   "Get a shot off fast. This upsets him long enough to   
   let you make your second shot perfect."   
      
   -- Lazurus Long   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca