[continued from previous message]   
      
   Well, and/or mixed with Ed Wood style effects.   
      Like, say, a paper plate on a string for UFO;   
      or BBQ lighter rocket engines...   
      
   Or, have some costumes with some really cheap rubber masks (like the   
   sort that sometimes come with Halloween costumes).   
   Or maybe papercraft (like construction paper or cardstock). Maybe in   
   combination with fabric+stuffing and googly eyes.   
      
      
      
   Maybe also cool if they could capture some of that "terrible holiday   
   special" vibes. Or, maybe some musical numbers, but it is mostly   
   "Schoolhouse Rock" style stuff.   
      
   Though, preferably "so bad it is funny" kind of effects...   
   Not so much "Manos: The Hands of Fate" bad, which was also technically   
   bad, but not it a way that I found particularly amusing.   
      
      
   Well, and while in theory could be cheaper still to use sock-puppets,   
   this is going a little too far.   
      
      
      
   Or, the extreme opposite that was 90s CGI jank. Proceeds to watch   
   episodes of "Donkey Kong Country" or similar, "Yeah, that's the crap".   
      
   Not everything needs to look good though, sometimes there is a certain   
   charm in the "jank".   
      
   Where, could maybe classify CGI into a few buckets:   
      80s/experimental:   
        Tron;   
        "Money for Nothing";   
        Various CGI "fever dream" stuff.   
          Looked like they really liked CGI solids,   
            and some kind of ray-casting.   
      Some early/mid 90s stuff:   
        ReBoot, Donkey Kong Country, Beast Machines, ...   
      Some late 1990s/2000s stuff:   
        Where human type characters got *very ugly*.   
        Side Branch:   
          Shows like "Jimmy Neutron" going to a more cartoony style   
          Humanoids still looked OK, if kept cartoon-like.   
      2010s to present:   
        Paths solidly split into "photo realistic" and cartoon styles.   
          Or, Pixar liking to sit right on the edge.   
          Like, they want to do photo-realism,   
            but if they try too hard, it gets ugly.   
      
      
   If I were to do anything, might try to borrow some from the 80s style,   
   and use a lot of CSG.   
      
   Could maybe make either "artistic choice" effects, like dithering, and   
   saving JPEG images at 0% quality (so that the image looks "kinda cooked").   
      
      
   Though, reminds me of a funny observation with my color-via-monochrome   
   experiment:   
   The images could be LZ compressed to fairly small sizes, and seemingly   
   beat JPEG in terms of Q/bpp while doing so (because one needs to save   
   the JPEG at 0%, and then it looks cooked; with the dithered image   
   looking less bad than the 0% JPEG).   
      
   Though, not sure what to make of this exactly.   
      
      
   >> Looking on Wikipedia though, this doesn't look like the same algorithm   
   >> though.   
   >   
   > Goldschmidt is just a N_R where the arithmetic has been arranged so   
   > that multiplies are not data-dependent (like N-R). And for this   
   > independence; GS lacks the automatic correction N-R has.   
      
   Dunno.   
      
   In my case, both terms being iterated do depend on each other.   
      
   The actual calculation didn't look the same either.   
   But, it does involve iteration, like N-R, and uses 2 terms with one   
   being a reciprocal of the square root (like Goldschmidt), and appears to   
   converge in a relatively small number of loop iterations.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)