[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: chick flick?
- To: idrama@flutterby.com
- Subject: Re: chick flick?
- From: Dan Lyke
- Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 21:06:18 -0800
- CC: idrama@flutterby.com
- In-reply-to: <v04104417b30059afba14@[216.64.14.73]> (message from Morbus Iffon Mon, 1 Mar 1999 09:54:23 -0500)
- References: <v04104417b30059afba14@[216.64.14.73]>
- Reply-To: idrama (at sign removed to prevent spamming) flutterby (dot) com
- Sender: owner-idrama@flutterby.com
I'm kind of blasting through, picking out things I think bear comment
'cause I'm not going to get to write again 'til Saturday...
> The latter lends itself to dialog well. There is a LOT of dialog in
> Starship Titanic. If it's spoken, it becomes much better than reading
> dialog on the screen - more like a soap.
I'm a graphics weenie so bear with my prejudices. I'm painfully aware
of the difference between a 3dFX card and 3d Studio and RenderMan. But
I think with the right art director it's still possible to render
quite compelling emotional scenes with a couple of hundred thousand
bilinear mip-mapped point sampled polygons ala 3dFX.
Synthesizing speech for emotional content, however, is a danged hard
problem.
Not that I don't agree with you, when I first envisioned this I was
thinking King's Quest graphics (with better art direction), and good
sound is critical to emotional films.
(In fact, the snide part of me just piped up and said: Yeah, most porn
films are well lit, but the foley work and dialog sucks!)
Dan