[lbo-talk] Re: Art is Dead

[Miike Quenling Ellis]

--- Brian Siano <siano at mail.med.upenn.edu> wrote:
> > And one doesn't have to render the stuff in complete, excruciating
> detail, 
> either. Let's say we've modelled a tree in our computer... but the
> tree's 
> only a tiny part of an overall scene. So one doesn't need to create a 
> fully-detailed tree. One uses a model that's just one good enough to
> make 
> the shot work. (Albert Whitlock, one of the greatest matte painters,
> used a 
> lot of pointillist techniques in his work. The paintings looked very 
> indefinite, almost impressionistic... but the viewers own minds would
> 'fill 
> in the details' when they saw the final scenes.)
> 
> The problem with computer-generated effects isn't resolution or fineness
> of 
> detail. It's mainly things like motion (CG creatures don't always move 
> right), or motion artifacts (like blur), or a mismatch in the color
> palette 
> (the animals in _Jumanji_ looked pretty washed-out), or things like 
> perspective. 

no the real problem is that CG affects are put in to make it look like
something it's not....real motion occuring in physical space. much more
will be lost than gained. i mean aesthetically alot can be said for
technical limitations....eventually with more and more cg stuff things
like cinematography and inventive camera work will suffer. what's more
intersting.... how a cinematogrpher makes limited wire work effective (not
neccesarily more realistic or believable) in a wuxia/kung fu film or that
matrix stuff? not all people like having the physics completely spelled
out for them. why do we even need say a CG affected shot were it makes the
camera look like it's doing something it can't do like zoom through solid
matter without any cuts? what's the point?

~M.E.

~M.E.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com