[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

CG fuzz was Re: Walking with Dinosaurs

consider the effort to 'fuzz' CG lemurs as something that took >about<
20 years from the inception of CG in films to be done succesfully enough
to be believable (go Stuart Little! WET fur woohooo!).  

The first film use of a CG 'fur' implemenation was in THE FLINTSTONES
and was used on the Rubble's sabertooth tiger that chases around with
Dino.  Fur is a LOT easier for a computer than feathers.  

Feathers are DAMN hard to make as a procedural bit of code that the
conputer keeps track of for you (as is done in the case of CG fur).  Up
to now CG feathers have been done either badly as a modification of CG
fur procedural codes, OR are done by hand by an animator/modeller or
group of animator modellers and never enough time can be devoted to

The CG dinobirds in LIFE OF BIRDS were hand-feathered in a lengthy
process by a modeller.


David Krentz wrote:
>  Feathers are a very costly thing to render in CG.  It can be done, and very
> well, but time rendering = money.  I tried so hard to get feathered dinos in
> our movie, and we had done some tests on it, but ultmimatly it was canned
> because of costs.
>    The series was pretty cool nonetheless, an outstanding effort.  The thing
> that bothered me the most was the Tyrannosaur.  It reeked of 
> design-by-comitee.
>   "make it look like the Jurassic Park T.rex, but not,  yet like a lion, but
> not exactly.  My wife thinks it should have a wider jaw like Arnold
> Shwartzeneggar, and my son thinks...and the guy whose giving us money
> thinks..."  When it comes to T.rex, everyone has an opinion on what it should
> look like.
>  David Krentz

Flying Goat Graphics
(Society of Vertebrate Paleontology member)