From: dtravel@sonic.net   
      
   On 6/12/2016 7:03 PM, Your Name wrote:   
   > 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.  ;-)   
   >   
   "... insurance premiums on your stars flying in a zero maintenance   
   ex-Soviet aircraft...."   
      
   --   
   Running the rec.arts.TV Channels Watched Survey for Summer 2016   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)