The future is animated
Ken from Chicago
TOTAL DIGITAL ANIMATION
It's what all the technical developments in moviemaking, videography and
animation have been building towards from simple stick figure drawings on
flip-book animations to true photoreal, audioreal, videoreal animation--and
everywhere in between.
Not merely bluescreen, certainly not merely motion capture, but
ultra-high-resolution total digitally-created animation that could pass a
"Turing test" of being indistinguishable from live-action video.
Essentially moviemaking could be a one-person project (combining director,
writer and animator). Virtual 3d models of actors, of costumes, of objects,
sets and backgrounds could be retrieved--perhaps bought or rented if said
items are trademarked--and assembled. Stock scenes (e.g., classroom, home
kitchen, police station, hospital room, courtroom, street intersection,
shopping mall, department store, highway, open field, mountain top, ship at
sea, airplane cockpit, etc.) could even be used for basic storyboarding,
illustrating the movie then refined
Each part and model could be edited customly or randomly, for look, sound,
mannerism, age, body language, etc. New places, objects and people could be
scanned digitally, for voice, look and motion, with a high-resolution 3d and
audio scanners and stored to be edited and used in digital library along
with other 3d models, motions, backgrounds, lighting,
angles, views, filtering, texturing, transparencies, etc.
We've already seen steps toward total digital animation in stops:
--Still photos are digitally tweaked, "photoshopped"
--JURASSIC PARK didn't just have 3d dinos, but digitally super-imposed the
face of Arianna Richards over the stuntwoman hanging from a hatch above
t-rexes in one of the ending scenes,
--digital "extras" were used in TITANIC,
--Clint Eastwood's IN THE LINE OF FIRE digitally replicated crowds along a
parade route
--Gary Sinise's legs were digitally amputated while Tom Hanks played ping
pong with digital ping pong balls and watched a digital feather at the start
and end of FORREST GUMP
--the crowds and sections of the colosseum were replicated and animated for
GLADIATOR
--CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON tried to shoot throwing some kind of spiked
"piepan" in shot between 3 characters and couldn't get it to look right so
they did it digitally.
--Anthony Hopkins was digitally de-aged for the prequel RED DRAGON.
Actors use makeup and costumes and special girdle-like underwear and plastic
surgery to achieve a look that's if not natural at least not their own. But
with total digital animation, actors need never age, merely lease out their
digital likeness for use in movies and tv shows.
Hollywood is often considered a land of fantasy and movies the stuff of
dreams and entertainment media business designed around one question:
Why limit yourself to reality?
The point of entertainment is to escape the restrictions, and burdens, of
reality, if only temporarily (and for a "reasonable" fee, after all it is a
business).
-- Ken from Chicago (who envisions such a future could be technologically
possible in 20-50 years of exponential tech developments)
P.S. Digital animation is even used in non-fiction: digital virtual
billboards at sporting events, 10-yard line in football, hockey pucks in
hockey, headshots in Nascar, to say nothing of the ubiquitous scrawl of info
about athletes or teams or some background info about some scene, to say
nothing of weather and traffic, heads-up displays that superimpose info
onscreen of time, place, weather, scores, names, etc.
le...@my-deja.com
a new movie ever again. I've got thousands of movies at home on tape
and DVD that have real human beings, REAL ACTORS in them and real
cinematography of real locations and real buildings and real skies. I
can just as well watch those for the rest of my life. Or, just as good,
hundreds of seven-minute cartoons with hand-drawn creations that have
more life, more personality, more humor, more energy than ANY digital
creation. I'd rather watch 11 seven-minute Foghorn Leghorn cartoons
than have to sit through the 80-minute computerized abomination CHICKEN
LITTLE again.
So I say to the networks, studio heads and other media creators: keep
up all the digitalization of entertainment and you'll never have to
worry ever again about trying to build enough of an audience to keep
your jobs. They'll all be playing video games and you'll be out of
work!
Captain Infinity
>Thanks. Just the excuse I need to never, never, NEVER, NEVER!!!! watch
>a new movie ever again. I've got thousands of movies at home on tape
>and DVD that have real human beings, REAL ACTORS in them and real
>cinematography of real locations and real buildings and real skies.
They're all celluloid, just shadows on plastic. None of it's real.
**
Captain Infinity
Derek Janssen
> BEHOLD the future of entertainment media:
>
> TOTAL DIGITAL ANIMATION
Why...why...it sounds like a *final fantasy*! :-D
Derek Janssen
dja...@charter.net
Jack Bohn
<dja...@nospam.charter.net> wrote:
>Ken from Chicago wrote:
>
>> BEHOLD the future of entertainment media:
>>
>> TOTAL DIGITAL ANIMATION
>
>Why...why...it sounds like a *final fantasy*! :-D
I'd watch it if there were a "looker" in it!
(I hope "simone" gets that.)
--
-Jack
Ken from Chicago
"Jack Bohn" <jack...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:a4fom1tekdimr41t1...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 15:44:07 -0500, Derek Janssen
> <dja...@nospam.charter.net> wrote:
>
>>Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>
>>> BEHOLD the future of entertainment media:
>>>
>>> TOTAL DIGITAL ANIMATION
>>
>>Why...why...it sounds like a *final fantasy*! :-D
>
> I'd watch it if there were a "looker" in it!
Hello, world, here's the song that we're singin
C'mon get scanned nude.
> (I hope "simone" gets that.)
If not Simone, then Eddie. He is God's special little creature.
> --
> -Jack
-- Ken from Chicago (cross-referencing like mad before he takes a
flamethrower to this post)
Ken from Chicago
<le...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1131130944.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
And how many of those saved recordings are from the late 19th century?
Do you ride in cars with hand-crank starters?
Do you watch tv and movies in black and white? With really high contrast and
no contrast controls? With a small screen but huge box to hold the vacuum
tubes?
Just because there are crappy pop singers do you not listen to any popular
music?
Would forgo movies with your favorite actors because their physical
appearance are digitally maintained because studios are too scared to show
actors in their ... gasp ... mid-to-late 30's or older as their romantic
lead?
OR
Would you watch with the option to show characters as having the actual
then-current appearance of the actor that said character is based on?
With total digital animation you can be the casting director. You can
replace the 20-something actresses said 40+ actor is paired with in romances
with 40-something--or older--actresses.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Captain Infinity" <Infi...@captaininfinity.us> wrote in message
news:npcnm11u9h68rrsh6...@4ax.com...
Technically all film is animated--60 still pictures per second.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Roger Blake" <rogbl...@iname10.com> wrote in message
news:slrndmpbkh.f...@moog.netaxs.com...
> In article <L42dnT9h2Oz...@comcast.com>, Ken from Chicago wrote:
>> Do you watch tv and movies in black and white? With really high contrast
>> and
>> no contrast controls? With a small screen but huge box to hold the vacuum
>> tubes?
>
> don't have a CD or DVD player (vinyl and tape rule here), have driven
> the same car for over 25 years, and still use the internet like we
> did over 20 years ago (via a Unix command shell). I have no interest
> in living like the Jetsons.
>
>> With total digital animation you can be the casting director. You can
>
>
> --
> Roger Blake
> (Subtract 10 for email.)
Why are you communicating by computer? What's wrong with telephones and
letters?
-- Ken from Chicago
Paige
Back to Ken's original post:
I can't see entire films being created digitally and the masses really
going for it. Every movie example in the article just mentioned one or
two scenes that were digitally enhanced. In each instance, it made the
film better.I liked the feather segment in Forrest Gump, however, the
amputated leg scenes made me wonder "how did they do that" so it
distracted me a little.
I did have a problem with some special effects scenes in Lord of the
Rings and the new Star Wars trilogies .... the masses of armies
fighting ... give me a break. Not to mention that stupid scene in The
Matrix where Keanu Reaves is fighting Hugo Weaving who reproduces
himself a million times ... oy vey!
paige
Obveeus
Ken from Chicago wrote:
>With total digital animation you can be the casting director. You can
>replace the 20-something actresses said 40+ actor is paired with in
romances
>with 40-something--or older--actresses.
I find it highly unlikely that Hollywood will ever turn into a place where
'real' people are turned into perfect digital replicas that are used for
acting in movies. If/when Hollywood reaches the 'perfect replica' ability,
that technology will be used in only a few simple ways:
1) Nude scenes could be created with the actors/actresses not having to
actually do them. Of course, they will probably still demand more money if
the script calls for their digitally animated/created alter-ego to get nude.
;-)
2) Stunts scenes won't all have to be shown with distance shots to hide the
fact that the actor isn't the one doing the stunt.
Beyond that, it is unrealistic to think that actors will give up their trade
in exchange for a chance to do voice-over work. Actors (at least some of
them) like to do animated films now, but I doubt that the majority of them
would want their entire careers reduced to standing in front of a microphone
doing the voice work for a digital character.
It is also not realistic to believe that very many film creators would want
to use perfect replicas of the actors. Why use a perfect replica of anyone
when you can have a vastly 'improved' digital actor instead? Why use a
Julia Roberts when you can have a Julia Roberts with an 18 inch waist and
double D boobs? Why use a Denzel Washington when you can have a Denzel
Washington with Arnold Schwartzeneger sized muscular build? The bottom line
is that when 'perfect digital replicas' are available, the film creators
that would use them will all be making the actors look like the Aeon Flux
type characters...comic book proportions, not perfectly real proportions.
Ken from Chicago
"Paige" <paige...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131201629.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Those are akin to turn of the 20th century movies when merely having motion
pictures onscreen was exciting
--Like the early films of a horse running in those olde tyme kaliedescopes.
--Then being able to show plays on any courthouse or barn in any small town
that could afford a movie projector and a huge flat vertical surface.
--Then someone filmed scenes so that it upclose, first person point of view
which was a big buzz.
--And then sound was added.
--And color.
Of course over time audiences became used to it, more experienced, and
demanded or at least expected more. Altho some at the time expected more and
weren't awed merely by the techno-glow of the then-state-of-the-art fx, but
wanted a story, a plot, good characters, perhaps even some kind of theme or
moral to the tale.
Part of the problem is there are TWO broad types of digital animation or
digital effects in general:
1) The kind that draw attention to themselves.
2) The kind that don't, the "invisible" kind.
Most people and most of the hype are about the first kind, everything from
STAR WARS, THE MATRIX, or those scenes in FORREST GUMP where Tom Hanks is
digitally inserted into historical footage. Those tend to be the one used in
all the trailers and advertising and news articles. And they can be used and
abused, the best example being the original trilogy versus the prequel
trilogy of Star Wars movies.
Compare the scenes with Obi Wan, Luke, Han and the droids on the Death Star
from 1977 versus the scenes with Obi Wan, Anakin and the droids on the
battlecruiser this year. I can remember the original from almost 30 years
ago and can barely remember a scene from the latter from 3 months ago. Oh
yeah, writing was a key difference--and Lucas hadn't fallen in love so much
with fx back then.
The second kind is where the "real" action is act because they help the
moviemaking process itself. Yeah, you were distracted by Gary Sinise's "Lt.
Dan" being a double amputee in FORREST GUMP. I remember seeing the movie and
at the time wondering when Sinise was in an accident since Sinise is from
Chicago(land) area and a cofounder of Steppenwolf Theater, a local theater
company, so he had some local media buzz. Moreover I was trying to remember
any scenes where they showed his bare legs since he could have being using
prosthetics. After the movie ended I realize Sinise hadn't been in an
accident that it was a fx and stunned because all the original hype had been
about Hanks in old footage in a moving version of ZELIG.
Imagine filming in downtown Chicago present day, on the steps of the Art
Institute in front of the twin lion statues out front. It's costly,
time-consuming, noisy, you need all kinds of licenses, have to deal with
lookilou bystanders, weather, time constraints, lighting, boom mikes, etc.,
versus doing so digitally. The same goes for pert near any on-location shot.
Now imagine if you wanted to do the same--but set in the 1980s. Now you have
to worry about modern cars and of course the near ubiquotous cell phones and
Starbucks getting in the shots. Plus if you wanted to do a flashback, who
plays the characters as teens or kids? With digital anaimation you can
simply de-age them, maintaining a resembleance, even raising their voices
slightly or the flipside for flashforwards and aging them. Of course not
just the sets and backgrounds but makeup and costume savings and flexibility
would be enormous.
Add to that actor availablity. Once scanned, the same actor could be in
multiple movies simultaneously since the look, voices, facial expressions,
body languages, mannerisms, would be digitized to be recreated. Moreover
multiple scans of an actor in different kinds of roles would allow for a
range of portrayals (e.g., Pacino in INSOMNIA versus A SCENT OF A WOMAN
versus SCARFACE versus THE GODFATHER versus CARLITO'S WAY versus HEAT). Said
actor could even be hired to advise on how a new portrayal could made in a
particular film in a particular role even if not available for filming
"live"--since like letter writing, radio, live stage, total digital
animation would not completely supplant previous technology.
It would simply open the gate for more to enter the field (tho that can be
both good and bad ala online "publishing" of original fiction and fan
fiction, original films and fan films).
-- Ken from Chicago
ANIM8Rfsk
kwicker1...@comcast.net wrote on 11/5/05 12:29 AM:
please please please tell me you're kidding about that figure.
--
You Can't Stop the Signal
Ken from Chicago
"ANIM8Rfsk" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:BF92255B.5B0B4%ANIM...@cox.net...
24 frames per second?
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote in message news:436cc...@x-privat.org...
>
> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>With total digital animation you can be the casting director. You can
>>replace the 20-something actresses said 40+ actor is paired with in
> romances
>>with 40-something--or older--actresses.
>
> I find it highly unlikely that Hollywood will ever turn into a place where
> 'real' people are turned into perfect digital replicas that are used for
> acting in movies. If/when Hollywood reaches the 'perfect replica'
> ability,
> that technology will be used in only a few simple ways:
You already know why Hollywood not only would but has done so. Now I gotta
run some errands but will be back later to see if you remember why Hollywood
would and has.
<snip other stuff I'll address later>
-- Ken from Chicago (who's has places to go, forms to fill out, possibly
fines to pay)
J. Clarke
>
> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>With total digital animation you can be the casting director. You can
>>replace the 20-something actresses said 40+ actor is paired with in
> romances
>>with 40-something--or older--actresses.
>
> I find it highly unlikely that Hollywood will ever turn into a place where
> 'real' people are turned into perfect digital replicas that are used for
> acting in movies. If/when Hollywood reaches the 'perfect replica'
> ability, that technology will be used in only a few simple ways:
>
> 1) Nude scenes could be created with the actors/actresses not having to
> actually do them. Of course, they will probably still demand more money
> if the script calls for their digitally animated/created alter-ego to get
> nude. ;-)
>
> 2) Stunts scenes won't all have to be shown with distance shots to hide
> the fact that the actor isn't the one doing the stunt.
>
> Beyond that, it is unrealistic to think that actors will give up their
> trade
> in exchange for a chance to do voice-over work. Actors (at least some of
> them) like to do animated films now, but I doubt that the majority of them
> would want their entire careers reduced to standing in front of a
> microphone doing the voice work for a digital character.
(a) if it's the only work available to them then it's take it or starve
(b) what makes you think that voice synthesis won't reach a point where
actors are not needed for that either?
> It is also not realistic to believe that very many film creators would
> want
> to use perfect replicas of the actors. Why use a perfect replica of
> anyone
> when you can have a vastly 'improved' digital actor instead? Why use a
> Julia Roberts when you can have a Julia Roberts with an 18 inch waist and
> double D boobs?
Well, now, there's the point--you can have her triple D in one movie and
flatter than Twiggy in another. But why have Julia Roberts at all? At
that point the whole character would be synthesized.
> Why use a Denzel Washington when you can have a Denzel
> Washington with Arnold Schwartzeneger sized muscular build?
Because that's not what the part calls for?
> The bottom
> line is that when 'perfect digital replicas' are available, the film
> creators that would use them will all be making the actors look like the
> Aeon Flux type characters...comic book proportions, not perfectly real
> proportions.
Only if that suited their purpose.
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
ANIM8Rfsk
jack...@bright.net wrote on 11/4/05 10:01 PM:
That'll be the dey.
Obveeus
J. Clarke wrote:
Obveeus wrote:
>> Beyond that, it is unrealistic to think that actors will give up their
trade
>> in exchange for a chance to do voice-over work. Actors (at least some of
>> them) like to do animated films now, but I doubt that the majority of
them
>> would want their entire careers reduced to standing in front of a
>> microphone doing the voice work for a digital character.
>(a) if it's the only work available to them then it's take it or starve
Sure...but at that point we are only talking about the has-been actors doing
it, not top actors. It will be a method of last resort, not the way that
'everything' is done.
>(b) what makes you think that voice synthesis won't reach a point where
>actors are not needed for that either?
Actually, I think the voice synthesis will catch on as fast as the digital
animation. Characters in some movies will be totally artificial. Why would
any stiudio/director/producer pay for 'perfect digital replicas' of someone
when they could just create their own 'perfect' someone? The only place
where this 'perfect digital replica' stuff might hang on is in
commercials...where Pepsi wants to pretend that James Dean prefers them.
>> The bottom
>> line is that when 'perfect digital replicas' are available, the film
>> creators that would use them will all be making the actors look like the
>> Aeon Flux type characters...comic book proportions, not perfectly real
>> proportions.
>Only if that suited their purpose.
There would be no other purpose to using fake replicas. If you are just
going to use an exact replica of a person, you would just go out and hire
that person to begin with. Sure, the people sitting at home with the latest
Apple computer making 'movies' will buy kits full of replica actors (the way
they buy garbage like 2million+ clipart pictures now), but the *real*
directors/producers/studios would have no reason to junk things down to that
cheap of a level. Hollywood just isn't known as the place where people do
everything in the most cost effective manner. Hollywood isn't going to
replace all the real actors with 'pocket studio' kits just so they can keep
making movies for the next 100 years with the same dozen 'top entertainers'
in their replicated, un-aging, form.
ANIM8Rfsk
jclarke...@snet.net.invalid wrote on 11/5/05 9:40 AM:
At which point you have Carmen Electra.
>
>> Why use a Denzel Washington when you can have a Denzel
>> Washington with Arnold Schwartzeneger sized muscular build?
>
> Because that's not what the part calls for?
>
>> The bottom
>> line is that when 'perfect digital replicas' are available, the film
>> creators that would use them will all be making the actors look like the
>> Aeon Flux type characters...comic book proportions, not perfectly real
>> proportions.
>
> Only if that suited their purpose.
--
You Can't Stop the Signal
Ken from Chicago
Digitized with the voice, gestures and acting chops of Selma Hayek or
Jennifer Lopez, Rita Moreno or Catherine Zeta-Jones.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
It sounds like you think you love her.
-- Ken from Chicago
Derek Janssen
>
(Is it irony that Ken's cutesy-bulk-troll header is coming in mixed with
posts about "Chicken Little"?) :)
Derek Janssen (and if there was one animated movie that DIDN'T have a
future...)
dja...@charter.net
Ken from Chicago
>>With total digital animation you can be the casting director. You can
>>replace the 20-something actresses said 40+ actor is paired with in
> romances
>>with 40-something--or older--actresses.
>
> I find it highly unlikely that Hollywood will ever turn into a place where
> 'real' people are turned into perfect digital replicas that are used for
Unknowns have and are cast for a very common reason: MONEY.
Horror routinely casts unknowns.
Also routinely young "hot" female unknown ingenues are cast opposite male
stars:
--Richard Gere and Julia Roberts in PRETTY WOMAN
--Brad Pitt and Claire Forlani in MEET MISTER BLACK
--Colin Farrell and Q'Orianka Kilcher in the upcoming THE NEW WORLD
That said, re-casting a 40+ actress doesn't mean she is unknown.
> acting in movies. If/when Hollywood reaches the 'perfect replica'
> ability,
> that technology will be used in only a few simple ways:
> 1) Nude scenes could be created with the actors/actresses not having to
> actually do them. Of course, they will probably still demand more money
> if
> the script calls for their digitally animated/created alter-ego to get
> nude.
> ;-)
Negotiated licensing fees for likenesses, simulated nudity, body doubled
nudes, actual recorded nudity--at different ages.
> 2) Stunts scenes won't all have to be shown with distance shots to hide
> the
> fact that the actor isn't the one doing the stunt.
>
> Beyond that, it is unrealistic to think that actors will give up their
> trade
> in exchange for a chance to do voice-over work. Actors (at least some of
> them) like to do animated films now, but I doubt that the majority of them
> would want their entire careers reduced to standing in front of a
> microphone
> doing the voice work for a digital character.
They need not. They could license out their likenesses and continue to do
work. Moreover their voices once recorded could be artificially recreated or
synthesized using advanced test-to-speech voice synthesizers. Feed in the
script, along with emotional cues as to how the dialogue should be delivered
and the actor could cool their heels and collect their royalties--or work on
another project.
> It is also not realistic to believe that very many film creators would
> want
> to use perfect replicas of the actors. Why use a perfect replica of
> anyone
> when you can have a vastly 'improved' digital actor instead? Why use a
> Julia Roberts when you can have a Julia Roberts with an 18 inch waist and
> double D boobs? Why use a Denzel Washington when you can have a Denzel
> Washington with Arnold Schwartzeneger sized muscular build? The bottom
> line
> is that when 'perfect digital replicas' are available, the film creators
> that would use them will all be making the actors look like the Aeon Flux
> type characters...comic book proportions, not perfectly real proportions.
They are arteests.
Some will insist on "realism" over "perfection". Some will flat out refuse
to use digital animation while some will insist only on total digital
animation and some will use a combination.
Plus, you're a member of the audience.
Would you want characters to "super-hero" proportions? all of them? all the
time? I know I wouldn't. It's one of the knocks I have against Cartoon
Network's JUSTICE LEAGUE UNLIMITED with it's distorted (they say "stylized"
I say "distorted") superheroes versus BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES and
SUPERMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES with their proportionate characters.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Derek Janssen" <dja...@nospam.charter.net> wrote in message
news:2B8bf.59980$RG4....@fe05.lga...
I didn't say animation was always good.
The dirty little secret about Pixar's success is NOT the cgi but the
WRITING.
They make movies that are well-WRITTEN and would be good without animation.
-- Ken from Chicago
ANIM8Rfsk
kwicker1...@comcast.net wrote on 11/5/05 1:02 PM:
So what am I so afraid of?
Ken from Chicago
Charges of incest.
Look at that Greg / Carol Brady dating scandal.
-- Ken from Chicago
Obveeus
Ken from Chicago wrote:
>Would you want characters to "super-hero" proportions? all of them? all the
>time? I know I wouldn't.
Take a good hard look at American made film/TV compared with European
film/TV. Here in America there already seems to be way too much emphisis on
plasticoat looks. Your digital future will make that far worse. No horror
movie director is going to cast a digital replica of Janine Garafalo when
they can cast a digital replica of Pamela Anderson instead...and yes, that
is largely why films of that genre suck and are not worth watching.
Ken from Chicago
"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote in message news:436d8...@x-privat.org...
Again, it comes down to money. If the exact same or same types of digitized
actors sell movies then they will continue to be used until the licenses fee
for their use skyrockets beyond the producer's or studio's ability to pay
said fee for using that likeness.
Plus, considering that darling of tv, the police procedural, is starting to
wane in ratings, 't'would indicate not everyone will want the same them all
the time.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. While said digital actor looks like Pam Anderson, her persona could be
digitized from Meryl Streep.
J. Clarke
Yeah, right, they're going to use Pamela Anderson for the "smart but plain
girl who figures out how to defeat the monster" role? So who are they
going to use for the "dumb but pretty blonde who everybody has to rescue"
part?
ANIM8Rfsk
11/5/05 9:30 PM:
Wow . . . who would I rather see hacked to death with a machete . . .
Janeanne or Pamela . . . that's REALLY a tough call . . .
ANIM8Rfsk
kwicker1...@comcast.net wrote on 11/5/05 7:26 PM:
(singing)
"GregBrady's got a cerrrrrtain . . . Wessonality! Yeah!"
xla...@cix.compulink.co.uk
<SNIP>
>Technically all film is animated--60 still pictures per second.
Oh no it aint! (Apart from slo-mo, that is.) All real films run at
24 pictures per second in the cinema and NTSC TV, or 25 in PAL TV.
Some US film series are shot at 30 fps to prevent the jerkiness of
3:2 pulldown. The only 60 fps film was Showscan
In NTSC-land you get 60 fields/sec on TV but these are not real
still pictures - rather half-pictures plus an interpolated one (or
repeated half-frame).
Regards, /Peter/
Ken from Chicago
<xla...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:_5SdnQlRY-V...@pipex.net...
Whatever, 60 stills / 24 stills per second. Regardless it's animated.
-- Ken from Chicago (who grouses at having the nitpicking tables turned on
himself)
Ken from Chicago
"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:dkknn...@news1.newsguy.com...
Paris Hilton.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote in message news:436d8...@x-privat.org...
So then why aren't all the females in horror movies double-Ds?
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
Janeanne can be hysterically funny when she's not <thwack> going on <thwack>
and on <thwack> over your <thwack> head about <thwack> political issues.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote in message news:436d8...@x-privat.org...
Also with digital animation, you, the audience, can recast, as well as
re-set, re-costume, not to mention self-censor--and thus take the heat off
studios.
-- Ken from Chicago
ANIM8Rfsk
kwicker1...@comcast.net wrote on 11/6/05 2:10 PM:
I used to really really like her. And then she went nuts. And for some
reason, she's not even cute anymore in West Wing.
Derek Janssen
> Janeanne can be hysterically funny when she's not <thwack> going on <thwack>
> and on <thwack> over your <thwack> head about <thwack> political issues.
However, before Janeane, no one (imagine, *no one*!) had ever made the
"In a world..." joke about movie trailers.
Yes: There was an actual time, and not too long ago.
Derek Janssen (I mean, just think how it happens--One day, somebody woke
up and said, "Cops...donuts...I could make a joke about that!")
dja...@charter.net
Derek Janssen
>
> Also with digital animation, you, the audience, can recast, as well as
> re-set, re-costume, not to mention self-censor--and thus take the heat off
> studios.
So...guess that means the Star Wars prequels are a *good* thing, then?
Derek Janssen (okay, guys, guess we have to shut down all the posts, Ken
says it's okay!)
dja...@charter.net
Ken from Chicago
Yeah, what was with the badly bleached hair? She looks so much better with
her original dark hair.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
Hey, animation can't do squat about writing.
Altho total digital creation could have CAS (Computer-Assisted-Scripting) to
prompt writers to answer basic questions, basic plotlines, basic
motivations, matching actions with persona, and considering how characters
would react to various events, compare and contrast with other well-known
stories.
-- Ken from Chicago
trotsky
Whatever. I would say that her and Sam Cedar singing "Let the Eagle
Soar" on Air America is just about the funniest moment I've ever heard
on radio.
Paul Vader
>Technically all film is animated--60 still pictures per second.
24 for film, 30 interlaced for video. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Paul Vader
>no contrast controls? With a small screen but huge box to hold the vacuum
>tubes?
For some reason, you didn't get in my killfile the first time. I'm going to
go and fix that right this minute - you really are clueless. *
ANIM8Rfsk
pv+u...@pobox.com wrote on 11/7/05 8:44 AM:
> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> writes:
>> Technically all film is animated--60 still pictures per second.
>
> 24 for film, 30 interlaced for video. *
Unless you want to talk about 18 or 60 or 29.97 or 59.94 or progressive or
or or :-)
And lets not forget those pesky double and triple bladed shutters, making 24
really 48 and 18 really 54 . . .
Paul Vader
>Unless you want to talk about 18 or 60 or 29.97 or 59.94 or progressive or
>or or :-)
Yes of course, but 60, except for showscan, is never the correct number. *
ANIM8Rfsk
pv+u...@pobox.com wrote on 11/7/05 11:23 AM:
> ANIM8Rfsk <ANIM...@cox.net> writes:
>> Unless you want to talk about 18 or 60 or 29.97 or 59.94 or progressive or
>> or or :-)
>
> Yes of course, but 60, except for showscan, is never the correct number. *
Wasn't 60p one of the half dozen hi-def finalists?
Oh, and let's not forget 25 and 50.
--
You Can't Stop the Signal
SERENITY on DVD December 20th
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000BW7QWW
Ken from Chicago
So then what is 60 hertz? Then again maybe it's more a computer monitor
standard than tv standard or movie standard. Course, maybe it's change in
the decade or two since I was really up on state of the art in computer
tech.
-- Ken from Chicago (who's not sure what DRAM, SRAM, SDRAM is, to say
nothing of DLP, not even sure of minutes of video per standard 4.7 gig dvd)
electr...@gmail.com
Just as we say PCI =66 megahertz when it's actually 66 and 2/3.