At 12:26 AM 12/20/97 -0500, Mike wrote:
>James Cameron, director of the film "Titanic," was interviewed last night
>on Charlie Rose (yeah, I'm still watching Charlie). Questioned about the
>cinematography, Cameron said they built a 25-foot-long model of the boat,
>complete with scale figures, to determine camera angles. Given the
>availability of computer modeling and animation, I find this quite
>extraordinary.
Not really. It's expedient. Much cheaper to rough out a model and gather
people around it to talk than tie up the high dollar computer animation
people and then try to crowd everyone around a monitor, not to mention
manipulating said computer model to try different shots. The computer
resources are best used for the production itself---dollars "on the screen."
Don't forget that they actually built a 7/8 (I think) scale version of the
ship to film on---why? They didn't _have_ to---they could have done it all
with models and sets like they have for years, and also with the computer
modeling. They built a real ship so it would BE real for the actors, and
hence the camera, and therefore the viewer.
> I know, too, that one large engineering/construction
>company builds huge models of industrial facilities in order to determine
>critical dimensions. Apparently, there is no substitute (yet) for the
>reality of a 3-dimensional, physical model for certain tasks ...
This has been the norm for years. Power and chemical plants and refineries,
and their ilk were designed on the model, and the drawings made from it.
It's almost imperitive when such large numbers of pielines and pieces of
equipment are involved. In ways, such plants are many, many times more
complex than any building. Now, some engineering companies build similar
models using 3D CAD models, which had to really speed the process.
Mark
>James Cameron, director of the film "Titanic," was interviewed last night
>on Charlie Rose (yeah, I'm still watching Charlie). Questioned about the
>cinematography, Cameron said they built a 25-foot-long model of the boat,
>complete with scale figures, to determine camera angles. Given the
>availability of computer modeling and animation, I find this quite
>extraordinary.
Not really. It's expedient. Much cheaper to rough out a model and gather
people around it to talk than tie up the high dollar computer animation
people and then try to crowd everyone around a monitor, not to mention
manipulating said computer model to try different shots. The computer
resources are best used for the production itself---dollars "on the screen."
Don't forget that they actually built a 7/8 (I think) scale version of the
ship to film on---why? They didn't _have_ to---they could have done it all
with models and sets like they have for years, and also with the computer
modeling. They built a real ship so it would BE real for the actors, and
hence the camera, and therefore the viewer.
> I know, too, that one large engineering/construction
>company builds huge models of industrial facilities in order to determine
>critical dimensions. Apparently, there is no substitute (yet) for the
>reality of a 3-dimensional, physical model for certain tasks ...
This has been the norm for years. Power and chemical plants and refineries,
and their ilk were designed on the model, and the drawings made from it.
It's almost imperitive when such large numbers of pielines and pieces of
equipment are involved. In ways, such plants are many, many times more
complex than any building. Now, some engineering companies build similar
models using 3D CAD models, which had to really speed the process.
Mark