I want a PRIME computer for Christmas
Monsieur Tabernac
sells out!
Mark Bluemel
wrote:
> I can't believe I've never come across these before... Doctor Who
> sells out!
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJeu3LCo-6A
Wow! I never saw these before - I worked for Prime UK from the
mid-80s. They were a mini-computer company who competed/tried to
compete in the same market segments as Digital and Data General. They
went to the wall in 1992...
The Laughing Dalek
Old news, I vaguely remember they were even on one of the Classic
series DVD releases [checks... yes, Destiny of the Daleks]
Monsieur Tabernac
Sorry to waste your time. Let's talk about Yads... :)
Agamemnon
"Monsieur Tabernac" <mtab...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qpsfi59lanonp9t44...@4ax.com...
>I can't believe I've never come across these before... Doctor Who
> sells out!
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJeu3LCo-6A
>
Where were these adds shown? I don't seem to remember them being on ITV and
they seem to be directed at large businesses who required the use of
mainframes so were they just corporate videos?
Stephen Wilson
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
news:ueSdnfqo-5kMo7bW...@eclipse.net.uk...
I thought they went out in America.
Ignis Fatuus
<mtab...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
Cutting edge.
Agamemnon
"Ignis Fatuus" <Ig...@fatuusisland.com> wrote in message
news:uf3ni5dnr7s99rgp5...@4ax.com...
The 4MB Prime 750 which came out in 1979 at the time the commercials were
made could only do 1 MIPS and that's the same speed as the ZX80 or ZX81. Ok
so it was a 32 bit machine but the ZX80/81 could effectively carry out 16
bit operations per cycle on an 8bit core using register pairs so you were
effectively paying $165,000 for a machine that was no faster than two ZX80s
or ZX81s which could be had together for about �160 at the time.
In terms of graphics it was easily beaten by the BBC Micro (�400) and even
the ZX Spectrum in 1982 (�120) and the ZX Spectrum run at 3MHz and the BBC
Micro at about 2 MHz so they would have both been faster. The only thing
separating them was the amount of available RAM. You had to wait until 1995
to be able to afforded 4GB but given that that was spread over 31
workstations that would only have given each user about 128 MB of RAM to use
and you could easily upgrade a ZX81 to 128 MB it still would have been
trounced. Ok so it would have taking all day to load a 128 MB file on a ZX81
from a tape but how fast was the tape drive on the Prime 750?
Why was the Prime 9955 being marketed at CAD when the Commodore Amiga in
1985 would have trounced it both in terms of graphics and processor speed.
All the graphics for Babylon 5 were created on Amigas, and what did those
cost, about �250 quid? The Apple Mac would have wiped the floor with the
Prime. Why were companies and universities even using these things?
Also why was the company making TV commercials for a product which cost
$165,000 and which was outperformed by almost every home computer at the
time including a ZX81 with a 128MB RAM pack?
What was wrong with advertising in a computer magazine which is what most
company CEOs and IT heads would have looked at to make the decision to buy
such a thing. Were the commercials ever shown on TV anywhere because I don't
think hardly any of the people with the required spending power would have
head of Doctor Who in the US in 1980.
Cutting edge? I don't think so.
Ignis Fatuus
Wasted irony.
Mr.Smartypants
How was it at rendering animations of funnelless ships?
Any better than MS Paint?
The Doctor
And then there is now a day.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.myspace.com/502748630
Merry Christmas 2009 and Happy New Year 2010
The Doctor
The Face of Po
Agamemnon got out a spraycan and scrawled the following:
> [...]
> $165,000 and which was outperformed by almost every home computer at the
> time including a ZX81 with a 128MB RAM pack?
Because the biggest ZX81 RAM pack on the market was only 64_k_B?
--
Happiness will prevail
Agamemnon
"The Face of Po" <gkenn...@potatojunkie.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:hgm4sd$c78$2...@spuduser.motzarella.org...
Well I did say you needed two ZX81s to match the 1 MIPS of the 32bit Prime.
>
> --
> Happiness will prevail
The Face of Po
Agamemnon got out a spraycan and scrawled the following:
> "The Face of Po" <gkenn...@potatojunkie.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
> news:hgm4sd$c78$2...@spuduser.motzarella.org...
>>I was hanging out with the cool kids in rec.arts.drwho when
>> Agamemnon got out a spraycan and scrawled the following:
>>> [...]
>>> Also why was the company making TV commercials for a product which cost
>>> $165,000 and which was outperformed by almost every home computer at the
>>> time including a ZX81 with a 128MB RAM pack?
>>
>> Because the biggest ZX81 RAM pack on the market was only 64_k_B?
>
> Well I did say you needed two ZX81s to match the 1 MIPS of the 32bit Prime.
1) You'd need another two thousand (and forty six) of them to reach 128MB.
2) You can't just combine two similar machines to "match" a machine with
twice the specs - whether you're comparing processor speed, register
size or memory.
3) The Z80 was 16-bit in address space only. Those 16-bit register
pairs could be used for addition/subtraction, but nothing more
complicated without running (at least) twice as many instructions.
--
Happiness will prevail
Agamemnon
"The Face of Po" <gkenn...@potatojunkie.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
>I was hanging out with the cool kids in rec.arts.drwho when
> Agamemnon got out a spraycan and scrawled the following:
>> "The Face of Po" <gkenn...@potatojunkie.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
>> message
>> news:hgm4sd$c78$2...@spuduser.motzarella.org...
>>>I was hanging out with the cool kids in rec.arts.drwho when
>>> Agamemnon got out a spraycan and scrawled the following:
>>>> [...]
>>>> Also why was the company making TV commercials for a product which cost
>>>> $165,000 and which was outperformed by almost every home computer at
>>>> the
>>>> time including a ZX81 with a 128MB RAM pack?
>>>
>>> Because the biggest ZX81 RAM pack on the market was only 64_k_B?
> ^^^
>>
>> Well I did say you needed two ZX81s to match the 1 MIPS of the 32bit
>> Prime.
>
> 1) You'd need another two thousand (and forty six) of them to reach 128MB.
Damn, I mixed MB up with KB. Should have said 128KB.
>
> 2) You can't just combine two similar machines to "match" a machine with
> twice the specs - whether you're comparing processor speed, register
> size or memory.
You can split the task up between them.
>
> 3) The Z80 was 16-bit in address space only. Those 16-bit register
> pairs could be used for addition/subtraction, but nothing more
> complicated without running (at least) twice as many instructions.
>
Still it would have been much cheaper and just as powerful to fit out your
office with ZX81s with 64KB RAM packs than terminals running from a prime.
I looked up the specs of the Cray 1 for comparison which came out in 1976
and that ran at 160 MIPS at 64bits which wasn't beaten by something
affordable until the 333 MHz Pentium II came out in 1998 (though since it
ran at only 80MHz a P166 from 1995 could have beaten it on most tasks since
the Cary was pairing up 64bit registers like the Z80 did with 8bit ones).
But the thing is there were universities in the UK and even research centres
who were still stupid enough to buy a Prime. Why? Even the dumb terminals
would have cost more than the ZX80/81, or by 1982 the ZX Spectrum, BBC Micro
and Commodore 64 which could all wipe the floor with it.
> --
> Happiness will prevail
Alan Sailsbury
>
>
> I looked up the specs of the Cray 1 for comparison which came out in
> 1976 and that ran at 160 MIPS at 64bits which wasn't beaten by something
> affordable until the 333 MHz Pentium II came out in 1998 (though since
> it ran at only 80MHz a P166 from 1995 could have beaten it on most tasks
> since the Cary was pairing up 64bit registers like the Z80 did with 8bit
> ones).
>
I presume you don't get invited to many parties?
Soze
"Alan Sailsbury" <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote in message
news:I9qdnZuC64qIU63W...@bt.com...
Only the sort of parties you wouldn`t want to go to...
The Doctor
The Doctor
Agamemnon
"Alan Sailsbury" <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote in message
news:I9qdnZuC64qIU63W...@bt.com...
You would presume wrongly.
In my research I also found the software which was used for rendering on
Titanic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LightWave_3D
Would the Nod troll care to provide it, plus a model which is compatible?
Someone tell me if the troll responds since I still have him killfiled, and
not you Yads, because you are killfiled too. Maybe I might unkillfile you
both for Christmas if you can behave yourselves. Or maybe not.
Now I know my current computer is 10 to 20 times faster than a Cray 1 and
something top of the range today would be 100 to 200 faster than a Cray 1 so
what I said about The Mill after the Easter Special are totally vindicated
while Nod's claims have been completely demolished.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Toaster
From the above presumably Titanic was done on Amigas using 4 150MHz
accelerator CPUs. What on earth are The Mill using and why couldn't they do
HD animations back in 2005 when Pentium processor speeds reached 3.8 GHz
which is 6 times faster that what was used on Titanic? If an Amiga using 4
150MHz accelerator CPUs was capable of doing SD animations for Babylon 5
when a 3.8 GHz Pentium would be able to do HD which is 6 times the
resolution. Couldn't The Mill or the BBC afford to spend the �6,000 they
needed for the hardware but it was all right to pay Jonathan Ross 6 million
a year? Ridiculous.
Agamemnon
"The Doctor" <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:hgqjn9$kgr$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
> In article <7pc1qv...@mid.individual.net>,
> Soze <I...@salsbury42.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>"Alan Sailsbury" <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote in message
>>news:I9qdnZuC64qIU63W...@bt.com...
>>> Agamemnon wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I looked up the specs of the Cray 1 for comparison which came out in
>>>> 1976
>>>> and that ran at 160 MIPS at 64bits which wasn't beaten by something
>>>> affordable until the 333 MHz Pentium II came out in 1998 (though since
>>>> it
>>>> ran at only 80MHz a P166 from 1995 could have beaten it on most tasks
>>>> since the Cary was pairing up 64bit registers like the Z80 did with
>>>> 8bit
>>>> ones).
>>>>
>>>
>>> I presume you don't get invited to many parties?
>>
>>Only the sort of parties you wouldn`t want to go to...
>>
>>
>
> Good one Soze!
Carry on trolling like that Yads and you will go straight back into my
killfile before the Christmas special even airs.
The Doctor
sTill is Microsoft/Intel leading technology??
I prefer BSD!
The Doctor
I was complementing Soze for showing what an insult Sailsbury is.
Alan Sailsbury
>
> "Alan Sailsbury" <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote in message
> news:I9qdnZuC64qIU63W...@bt.com...
>> Agamemnon wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> I looked up the specs of the Cray 1 for comparison which came out in
>>> 1976 and that ran at 160 MIPS at 64bits which wasn't beaten by
>>> something affordable until the 333 MHz Pentium II came out in 1998
>>> (though since it ran at only 80MHz a P166 from 1995 could have beaten
>>> it on most tasks since the Cary was pairing up 64bit registers like
>>> the Z80 did with 8bit ones).
>>>
>>
>> I presume you don't get invited to many parties?
>
> You would presume wrongly.
>
Ok, APART from those parties where you said you and your weird mates
watch bestiality videos.
Alan Sailsbury
LOL! Troll vs troll.
The Doctor
The Doctor
Mr.Smartypants
Aggy, you said you'd do the render if software and model were
provided. You made the attempt, flood filled the model and lost the
funnels.
It was a FAIL.
Get over it.
Agamemnon
"Mr.Smartypants" <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:72e4f8b1-ac03-4c23...@v7g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
It was a FAIL.
Get over it.>>>
I wasn't provided with either the correct software or the correct model. The
software used for Titanic was Light Wave 3D. It was provided with trueSpace
7.6.
Nod is the one who failed and there is no question about it.
Mr.Smartypants
> "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> > needed for the hardware but it was all right to pay Jonathan Ross 6
> > million
> > a year? Ridiculous.
>
> <<<Aggy, you said you'd do the render if software and model were
> provided. You made the attempt, flood filled the model and lost the
> funnels.
>
> It was a FAIL.
>
> Get over it.>>>
>
> I wasn't provided with either the correct software or the correct model. The
> software used for Titanic was Light Wave 3D. It was provided with trueSpace
> 7.6.
>
YOU made the attempt and posted the pathetic results for our perusal.
Since YOU made the attempt with ONE of the softwares provided it
obviously was acceptable to you at the time.
It was only when you found out YOU didn't have a clue about rendering
an animation that YOU went all squirrelie on us and started crying the
blues about everything YOU could possibly think of.
Don't open your big mouth about stuff you know little or nothing about
next time.
Alan Sailsbury
>
>
> I wasn't provided with either the correct software or the correct model.
> The software used for Titanic was Light Wave 3D. It was provided with
> trueSpace 7.6.
>
> Nod is the one who failed and there is no question about it.
>
I think you failed.
Agamemnon
> > needed for the hardware but it was all right to pay Jonathan Ross 6
> > million
> > a year? Ridiculous.
>
> <<<Aggy, you said you'd do the render if software and model were
> provided. You made the attempt, flood filled the model and lost the
> funnels.
>
> It was a FAIL.
>
> Get over it.>>>
>
> I wasn't provided with either the correct software or the correct model.
> The
> software used for Titanic was Light Wave 3D. It was provided with
> trueSpace
> 7.6.
>
> Nod is the one who failed and there is no question about it.-
<<<YOU made the attempt and posted the pathetic results for our perusal.>>>
Only to humiliate Nod.
<<<Since YOU made the attempt with ONE of the softwares provided it
obviously was acceptable to you at the time.>>>
It was only acceptable if it was the software used on Titanic and capable of
doing the job, which it was not. Nod humiliated himself and have humiliated
yourself too since you can't follow logic and reason.
Agamemnon
"Alan Sailsbury" <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote in message
Nod failed and so have you since you have shown us that you can't follow
logic or reason.
Hornplayer9599
>
> "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:68b6248c-e8bf-4abb...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com
> ... On Dec 22, 5:58 pm, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM>
Yer right.....you didn't make any attempts useing any of the other
models and software provided. Perhaps one of those other models and
software were the ones you claim Nod used to make his example so much
better than yours?
>
> <<<Since YOU made the attempt with ONE of the softwares provided it
> obviously was acceptable to you at the time.>>>
>
> It was only acceptable if it was the software used on Titanic and
> capable of doing the job, which it was not. Nod humiliated himself
> and have humiliated yourself too since you can't follow logic and
> reason.
Quite easy to claim after the fact since you have just only stated
(meaning as in a few posts above) that you have only recently figured
out what software they used on Titanic.
--
Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped.
Elbert Hubbard
Hornplayer9599
Aggy, I don't know what kind of logic or reason YOU may be personally
following, but it definately is NOT the logic or reason of this
universe.
Agamemnon
"Hornplayer9599" <Hornpla...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8uidnd5Zt8JRsa_W...@giganews.com...
Nothing which the Nod troll provided was either the software or model used
on Titanic.
Nod was humiliated.
>
>>
>> <<<Since YOU made the attempt with ONE of the softwares provided it
>> obviously was acceptable to you at the time.>>>
>>
>> It was only acceptable if it was the software used on Titanic and
>> capable of doing the job, which it was not. Nod humiliated himself
>> and have humiliated yourself too since you can't follow logic and
>> reason.
>
> Quite easy to claim after the fact since you have just only stated
> (meaning as in a few posts above) that you have only recently figured
> out what software they used on Titanic.
It was obvious the software that Nod provided was not used on Titanic since
it did not exist at the time the film was produced and was not marketed as
such.
Hornplayer9599
>
> "Hornplayer9599" <Hornpla...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:8uidnd5Zt8JRsa_W...@giganews.com...
> > Agamemnon wrote:
> >
> > >
> >>"Mr.Smartypants" <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> > > news:68b6248c-e8bf-4abb...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups
> > > .com ... On Dec 22, 5:58 pm, "Agamemnon"
Non sequiter. The posed question that you ducked had nothing to do
about whether or not the software & models provided were used on
Titanic. The question posed was that one of the provided software &
models was possibly the ones used by Nod to humiliate you by producing
a much better rendition than yours.
>
> >
> > >
> > > <<<Since YOU made the attempt with ONE of the softwares provided
> > > it obviously was acceptable to you at the time.>>>
> > >
> > > It was only acceptable if it was the software used on Titanic and
> > > capable of doing the job, which it was not. Nod humiliated himself
> > > and have humiliated yourself too since you can't follow logic and
> > > reason.
> >
> > Quite easy to claim after the fact since you have just only stated
> > (meaning as in a few posts above) that you have only recently
> > figured out what software they used on Titanic.
>
> It was obvious the software that Nod provided was not used on Titanic
> since it did not exist at the time the film was produced and was not
> marketed as such.
So you were unable to do a proper render using software (one you
selected from several offered you) that should be an improvement over
what was used for Titanic...even if it wasn't marketed as such?
The Doctor
Hornplayer9599 <Hornpla...@aol.com> wrote:
>Agamemnon wrote:
>
>>
>> "Alan Sailsbury" <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote in message
>> news:nNWdnRAOf6sa6qzW...@bt.com...
>> > Agamemnon wrote:
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > I wasn't provided with either the correct software or the correct
>> > > model. The software used for Titanic was Light Wave 3D. It was
>> > > provided with trueSpace 7.6.
>> > >
>> > > Nod is the one who failed and there is no question about it.
>> > >
>> >
>> > I think you failed.
>>
>> Nod failed and so have you since you have shown us that you can't
>> follow logic or reason.
>
>Aggy, I don't know what kind of logic or reason YOU may be personally
>following, but it definately is NOT the logic or reason of this
>universe.
>
So much for good will towards men.
Mr.Smartypants
Well what logic did you use when you used one of the softwares to do a
shit render? (losing the funnels in the process)
Agamemnon
WRONG! I set the task and my stipulations was that Nod provide the software
and model used by the makers of Titanic and the hardware to run it on. He
provided none of the above.
> models was possibly the ones used by Nod to humiliate you by producing
> a much better rendition than yours.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > >
>> > > <<<Since YOU made the attempt with ONE of the softwares provided
>> > > it obviously was acceptable to you at the time.>>>
>> > >
>> > > It was only acceptable if it was the software used on Titanic and
>> > > capable of doing the job, which it was not. Nod humiliated himself
>> > > and have humiliated yourself too since you can't follow logic and
>> > > reason.
>> >
>> > Quite easy to claim after the fact since you have just only stated
>> > (meaning as in a few posts above) that you have only recently
>> > figured out what software they used on Titanic.
>>
>> It was obvious the software that Nod provided was not used on Titanic
>> since it did not exist at the time the film was produced and was not
>> marketed as such.
>
> So you were unable to do a proper render using software (one you
> selected from several offered you) that should be an improvement over
> what was used for Titanic...even if it wasn't marketed as such?
1) NONE of the software offered was fit for the task let alone the software
used for Titanic by its makes and most of it I had to pay for which was not
part of the bargain or would change my system files.
2) NONE of models offered was fit for the task let alone the model used for
Titanic and most of them I would have had to pay for which was not part of
the bargain.
3) NO computer was provided to do the rendering on making it impossible for
me to install software that would change my system files or in the fastest
time possible which was the reason I stipulated that condition.
4) Even the model and software that Nod used for his own render was not fit
for the task. His render even had the ship coloured all red at one end and
all green on the other.
Therefore Nod failed and was humiliated.
Agamemnon
It was Nod's software and Nod's model. The fact that it had no funnels was
Nod's fault since it would have had no funnels even if he had done the
render himself with the same software and model.
Mr.Smartypants
> "Hornplayer9599" <Hornplayer9...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:IKGdnQRUGqew7q_W...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Agamemnon wrote:
>
> >> "Hornplayer9599" <Hornplayer9...@aol.com> wrote in message
Aggy, you FAILED............but you did it quite spectacularly when
all your excuses are taken into consideration......but still a FAIL.
Get over it.
Alan Sailsbury
>
>
>
> 1) NONE of the software offered was blahblahblahblahblah
I'm getting ready to go out for Christmas Eve. Try to tear yourself away
from your PC to do something too won't you Aggy? Just as long as it's
not watching bestiality.
Mr.Smartypants
He used the same model.........and it had funnels.
YOU lost the funnels off your model through incompetence.
The Doctor
Hornplayer9599
Non sequiter....again.
In any case.....
Yes, Aggy, you are wrong....you made none of those stipulations until
only AFTER you presented your work. It was at that time you needed to
come up with an excuse for your poor work.....and as everyone here saw
through that excuse, you had to come up with even more bullshit (which
we also saw through).
>
> > models was possibly the ones used by Nod to humiliate you by
> > producing a much better rendition than yours.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> >>> >
> >>> > <<<Since YOU made the attempt with ONE of the softwares provided
> >>> > it obviously was acceptable to you at the time.>>>
> >>> >
> >>> > It was only acceptable if it was the software used on Titanic
> and >>> > capable of doing the job, which it was not. Nod humiliated
> himself >>> > and have humiliated yourself too since you can't follow
> logic and >>> > reason.
> > > >
> >>> Quite easy to claim after the fact since you have just only stated
> >>> (meaning as in a few posts above) that you have only recently
> >>> figured out what software they used on Titanic.
> > >
> > > It was obvious the software that Nod provided was not used on
> > > Titanic since it did not exist at the time the film was produced
> > > and was not marketed as such.
> >
> > So you were unable to do a proper render using software (one you
> > selected from several offered you) that should be an improvement
> > over what was used for Titanic...even if it wasn't marketed as such?
>
> 1) NONE of the software offered was fit for the task let alone the
> software used for Titanic by its makes and most of it I had to pay
> for which was not part of the bargain or would change my system files.
>
> 2) NONE of models offered was fit for the task let alone the model
> used for Titanic and most of them I would have had to pay for which
> was not part of the bargain.
Excuse made after you turned your work in.
>
> 3) NO computer was provided to do the rendering on making it
> impossible for me to install software that would change my system
> files or in the fastest time possible which was the reason I
> stipulated that condition.
This was not a stipualted condition. This was another excuse you came
up with after you submitted your work.
>
> 4) Even the model and software that Nod used for his own render was
> not fit for the task. His render even had the ship coloured all red
> at one end and all green on the other.
And it was still light years ahead of yours....and had funnels (four in
fact).
>
ROFLMAO! It is nice to see how your excuses for failing the task
increase and become exaggerated over time. I promise you that if you
had put as much time and effort into the actual task as you have for
all of your excuses for failing....you would have come up with one hell
of a fantastic render (and I'm not being sarcastic).
Go ahead, continue to tell us all how wrong we are if it makes you
happy....the rest of the universe knows better, and we get a big kick
out of watching you rant and rave.
Now, walk out of the nursury, and go have a big egg nog. Trust me,
you'll feel better.
The Laughing Dalek
My god you really are stupid, aren't you?
As was explained to you at the time by numerous people it is not the
actual processing of the video that takes the time (after all that can
be done in real time on a current gen console) it is all the design
work and the prep work - the 3D model which have been used in previous
DW episodes may look fine in SD but in HD they would look extremely
crude and out of place and ruin the effect just as much as the
extremely badly done 70s CSO.
It would take many times more man-hours and therefore much more money
to produce.
look at the most expensive films of all time:
01 Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
02 Spider-Man 3
03 Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince 2009
04 Avatar 2009
05 The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
05 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
07 X-Men: The Last Stand
08 Superman Returns
09 King Kong
=10 2012
=10 Titanic
=10 Spiderman 2
=10 Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
do you see what all of these have in common?
*all* of them have large amount of SFX, mostly CGI which as it is on
film has to be in high-def.
all of them cost at least $200,000,000 and only �6000 was the cost of
the CGI? ROTFLMAO!!!!!
OTOH to pick a couple of recent films:
State of Play which starred Russell Crowe, Ben Afflek, Robin Wright
Penn, Jeff Daniels and Helen Mirren only cost $60m
The Taking of Pelham 123 - Tony Scott directs Denzel Washington, John
Travolta, James Gandolfini, Luis Guzman and John Turturro yet it only
costs $100m
are you putting 2 & 2 together yet?