View Single Post
Old February 15 2013, 10:18 PM   #109
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Galileo Restoration Update - Jan 2012

Maurice wrote: View Post
I don't think Trevanian is unaware of the realities of VFX technology and it's capabilities/limitations. Call it a hunch. ;
The password is "facetious" eh?

I should've checked back on this thread before this.

The point made about technology being able to accomplish better work in the TOS era than we got is true; Richard Edlund, who was actually doing some of the TOS fx work -- planets and beamups for Westheimer I think -- had already done successful matting work with models dressed in LACE, which is a bluescreen nightmare. But we're talking about a lot of time to finesse lighting and a lot of compositing tries, too, whereas TOS would do it as often as possible and then just have to run with what it had to make airdates.

As for the cgi vs physical debate ... stuff like this one you linked to is pretty impressive, but I still come done on the side of physical in a lot of instances, if you could actually budget for it that is ... except for some stuff in the next Neil Bloomkamp movie and some submarine stuff in that Ed Harris movie next month, there aren't many using them, because they want one-stop shopping for VFX, which is sadly not the 'right tool for the right job' approach in some instances. Plus, Trumbull is still planning on using 80% minatures for his backgrounds in his virtual cinematography/digital backlot projects, because he feels CG has a 'looks like 2002' or 'looks like 2009' aspect to it, a viewpoint I've heard expressed by others as well ... personally I find the late 90s VFX to be among the least-dated work, when CG and miniatures were being used in tandem (STARSHIP TROOPERS, SPACE COWBOYS, EVENT HORIZON) rather than a whole cloth CGI approach.

I'd go into more detail, but I'm still in trouble here for having screwed up Valentine's Day. Will check in again next week when the smoke clears!
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote