From: YourName@YourISP.com   
      
   In article , Dimensional Traveler   
    wrote:   
   > On 6/12/2016 2:53 PM, Your Name wrote:   
   > > In article , Dimensional Traveler   
   > >  wrote:   
   > >> On 6/11/2016 10:40 PM, Your Name wrote:   
   > >>> In article , Dimensional Traveler   
   > >>>  wrote:   
   > >>>> On 6/11/2016 7:22 PM, Tim Bruening wrote:   
   > >>>>> On Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 2:11:34 PM UTC-7, Your Name wrote:   
   > >>>>>> In article ,   
   > >>>>>>  wrote:   
   > >>>>>>> On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 8:57:18 PM UTC-7, Your Name wrote:   
   > >>>>>>>> In article <7b85ccf7-fa9d-491d-bc0a-21c849a4aeda@googlegroups.com>,   
   > >>>>>>>>  wrote:   
   > >>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>> When Mark was removing pieces from the Aries 4 MAV, it looked to me   
   > >>>>>>>>> like the pieces were falling as fast as they would on Earth!   
   > >>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>> That's because they made the movie on Earth.  ;-)   
   > >>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>> But the producers were able to simulate zero gravity on the Hermes.   
   > >>>>>>   
   > >>>>>> It's easier to simulate in a small space (or even filmed in reality   
   > >>>>>> using the "Vomit Comet"). It requires attaching everything to wires on   
   > >>>>>> an overhead gantry system or filming underwater, which is far more   
   > >>>>>> difficult and cumbersome in a wide open space than inside a studio.   
   The   
   > >>>>>> only other way is to digitally add the pieces in post-production,   
   which   
   > >>>>>> makes it difficult for actor interaction.   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>> How did they simulate the balls of water floating in the Hermes as a   
   > >>>>> crew member cartwheeled and ate them?   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> CGI water.   
   > >>>   
   > >>> Yep, or booking time on a "Vomit Comet" plane ride.   
   > >>   
   > >> You'd have to paint the inside that special shade of blue so you can   
   > >> insert the CGI background then.  CGI water would be cheaper I think.   
   > >   
   > > It depends on what is being filmed. In some cases they simply build a   
   > > set of the spacecraft interior inside a "Vomit Comet" plane - then no   
   > > CGI is needed at all.   
   >   
   > My first thought is, "CGI water is still probably cheaper."  (I suspect   
   > the bean-counter thinking is, okay, have to rent the plane for the   
   > entire day plus the extra to build inside it, pay for an on-site camera   
   > crew for the entire day and then have the actor(s) get motion sick on   
   > the second take.  Or they can just stay in the studio, take five minutes   
   > to slowly spin the camera in front of the actor as he stands there and   
   > then pay a geek for two hours to make CGI water.)  :)   
      
   CGI water is probably cheaper than hiring the place, but that's not the   
   only cost. If you use CGI water then you've also got to add in all the   
   costs of making the actors appear to be weightless via cabling, etc.   
   plus the CGI work to then remove those cables ... it might work out   
   cheaper to just rent time on a plane ... especially if you use an old   
   Russian plane tourist attraction version.  ;-)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)