Of course. Does a painter not often sit in front of the scene they are painting?
I phrased it poorly, what I meant is what you're saying- that there needs to be a gap of time between the people you are showing it to, and the year of the technology. You could do people of the year 2000 with 2100 tech, but not 2100 people with 2100 tech.
Bah, I can't phrase this right at all. Thank you for stating it better.
Are you an Aslyum refugee or another of the recent closures? del Toro just opened up a new shop in Marina Del Rey, might be worth checking out if you're looking for work- called Miranda.
Also, this is my favorite comment in this thread:
This is an excellent comment with excellent points, thank you. With those well stated points I would have to agree, it works as an enabler.
It's the problem of the tail wagging the dog. The VFX department is so large, and builds such a momentum, only the strongest-willed directors have the force to keep them in check.
You are insane. VFX companies are entirely at the will of the director/studio heads. Please cite an example of it being the other way around.
Actually, production companies mostly allocate money to themselves. VFX companies have been dropping like bees lately from bankruptcy as clients demand more, better work faster and for less money.
Sorry, mocap is bullshit. Directors and behind the scenes DVDs and video games love to go on and on about it because it sounds great, but the actual data generated by mocap is almost never used. What happens if that mocap data is generated. The director sees it and says it looks fake, than points to the reference footage shot during mocap and says: Make it look like that!
The animators than use the 380x260 reference footage to animate the entire thing from scratch. The bad animation you are talking about is bad animation. The good animation you are attributing to mocap is just good animation.
I don't believe you're quoting him correctly- it's sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic to people back then. He meant that if you traveled to 1810 with a flying car, it'd just be magic to the natives of the time. They don't even grasp automobiles and you're showing them something so many steps removed from a horse and carriage that they can't make the jump.
It's not supposed to be applied to people of today with technology of today.
This times 1000. We have the tools now, but very little worth putting them to use on.
I wish people would stop saying that the VFX are ruining moves. We're a tool used by the director (or, more often, by the studio) if that Director (or again, the studio) fail to utilize us within the story properly, how is it the VFX that are ruining movies?
Creating the VFX of Keanu fighting a raptor on top of a truck that's racing around the deck off a cruise liner that's going to explode if it goes below the speed of sound isn't just pressing a render button on a computer? Just because the tools of the trade have advanced to the point where we're finally creating very impressive but invisible effects, that doesn't make the job any easier.
I guess if no one is in physical danger of death (unless you count working 12-16 hour days 7 days a week for 3-6 months in a row), it just doesn't impress anymore.
It's more expensive to shoot in 3d. It's a lot harder to shoot in 3d. It's fairly cheap to get low end VFX companies to underbid each other to do a crummy 6 week stereoscopic conversion.
Either in camera or post done cheaply looks like shit. Post done well looks okay, but in camera done well will always blow it out of the water.
The real problem is a lack of Film crews experienced and able to shoot 3d in camera well. Combined with an INCREDIBLE variety of camera rigs and technology, shooting in 3d is no picnic.
This is actually a big problem. The standard left right offset of the film cameras themselves is larger than a child's eyes- resulting in a poor or headache inducing 3d effect. Certain children's movies have adjusted the distance between the lenses to reflect a child's eyes better (such as Spy Kids 3d) others have ignored it.
IMAX 3d is significantly different from other 3d technologies. Put simply, IMAX technology was done first, and is linear. Left eye is horizontal polarized, right eye is vertical. That means no tilting of your head!
RealD technology (normal movie screens, not IMAX), use circular polorization. One eye is clockwise one eye is counterclockwise. Do not ask me how that works. The result is that you can sit off center and tilt your head. If you're seeing a 3d movie, don't buy the IMAX hype.
(Note: I might have mixed up which eye is horz and which is vert. Forgive me)
The hackers attempted to order a macbook pro. I called Apple support- who kept asking what product I was having a problem with. One insisted that I was viewing the Apple website through a Mac, so therefore the problem was actually with the Mac.
Apparently they have no technical support/hacking section for their website- account issues don't exist according to them. I was finally able to reach level 2 tech support after faking a problem with my Macbook; where the account was flagged and order canceled.
That's not AE CS5, that's a student project demonstrated at Siggraph a year(2?) ago. I'm sure Adobe would love the technology, and might have made moves to buy it, but that video is straight from the student demo.