[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Feathered topics.
Well, I beg to differ. We are not talking about sentiments here, we are
talking science and hard evidence (instead: Disney movies ARE about
'sentiments' don't they?).
Obviously I'm also not talking about covering in protofeathers, and even
less: Feathers, ALL the dinosaurs (I'm specially leaving out all
ornithopods, although things might change in the near future, and
anything "±rhino to elephant plus size").
Let's put it to the test and do the 'Small Theropod Count". How many in
Walking With Dinosaurs? Coelophysis, Ornitholestes and...? Maybe we
should add Tyrannosaurus hatchlings?
And what about the Disney movie: Velociraptor, Oviraptor and..?
This meager count of should-be-furry dinosaurs amounts to nothing
compared to the sophisticated work done in the 'lemurs' and the amount
of work in the absurd reconstruction of Cretaceous grasses.
So I think the argument about excuses-while-pandering-the-audiences
still stands. This is not by any means an attack on the hard labor of so
many artists and CG workers involved.
Also, taking it to the extreme and assuming that budget is what really
counted for the absence of protofeathery theropods: Constrains on
budget meant here purpotedly unreal animals based on dated or obsolete
And the problems extend beyond that: I have seen CG people who got
involved in parallel productions to WWD that animated running
Utahraptors without any knowledge of the comparative anatomy of the
animal, thus recreating those absurd 'cheetah speed' Utahraptors with
'loose thighs' legs running like a man!
What is more desirable: To depict a lion without hair and create a
fictional, distorted animal based on what we know is true or no lion at
all? It all depends on the intentions.While I agree the Disney movie is
not precisely about dino-science and is just about about a bunch of
'cute' talking monsters, it is more difficult to understand the criteria
with the WWD series that pretended to be "Attenborough in the Mesozoic".
Dinosaur Interplanetary Gazette wrote:
> With all due respect for the sentiments and (from a "I wish it were so
> also" point of view), I have spoken with almost all of the major
> individuals responsible for the design of the dinosaurs in the Disney
> movie and some of the ones done by Framestore and your impression
> about "time and budget" is simply wrong.
> It's helpful to remember that CG technology is constantly advancing.
> I'm sure that as I sit here and type this, some nerd in Silicon Valley
> has already upped the ante of the cutting edge.
> Nonetheless, at the time that Disney Dinosaur was in actual
> pre-production, there was no satisfactory software that was capable of
> generating the feathers for all of the Velociraptors in a realistic
> amount of time for the film to be completed on schedule. The
> animators, the designers, the directors and even the producer had both
> considered and desired feathered animals: the technical people were
> unable to come up with the right solution. The major consideration is
> the MASSIVE amount of CPU time necessary to compute the feathers with
> the proper shape, color, and movement.
> Ironically, just as production started, a new solution was found that
> would, in fact, have made it feasible to do the feathers on time and
> on budget. Nonetheless, a committment had been made to a certain look
> and it was too late to turn back.
> The lemur "fur" program was a modification of some existing "fur" work
> that was refined for this film. The refinements included tools that
> allowed them to direct "wind currents" through the hair.
> Interestingly enough the historically innacurate grass seen at the end
> of the film was created using the lemur "hair" software. I mention
> that only to demonstrate that these effects and "textures" don't exist
> in a vacuum: they have to be founded upon some existing technology and
> not upon heartfelt wishes.
> One would only suppose that given the comparatively miniscule
> resources of Framestore, WWD suffered from the same constraints.
> Now the REAL question is... going forward in the next generation of
> dinosaur films and given the (at last!) existence of software that
> will produce feathers in an economical and time efficient manner...
> will the NEXT dinosaur movies have dinosaurs with feathers?
> My guess would be: Absolutely YES. While I have virtually no
> information whatsoever about Jurassic Park III, I'd be willing to bet
> money that there will be feathered dinosaurs in that picture. And if
> there's not, I really can't think of any good excuse, and I'll eat my
> hat (well, not my hat, maybe, but probably my lunch which I hardly
> ever bother to eat).
> Luis Rey wrote:
>> Concerning the Disney dinosaur movie and Walking with Dinosaurs, I'm
>> little tired of hearing excuses of how difficult feathers or hair
>> are to
>> treat in computer animation. If animators want to deal with real
>> animals, depicting small theropods without feathers or dinofuzz is
>> this time) more or less the same as depicting bald lions or naked
>> eagles... if they tried to animate bears or ground birds why would
>> the excuse then? Lack of time and budget? Why the 'lemurs' in the
>> weren't bald too? By this assumption, we would NEVER see a complete
>> animated movie with birds or mammals as stars.
> AOL IM Pager - DinoEditor
> When you think of dinosaurs, think of DIG!
> The Dinosaur Interplanetary Gazette - 245 Million Years of News at
> Dinosaur Central
> http://www.dinosaur.org mailto:Editor@dinosaur.org
> Recommended by The National Education Association,Encyclopedia
> Britannica Internet Guide, Yahoo and Yahooligans Choice, Netscape Site
> of the Day. Member of The Paleo Ring
> Bear Bob's Story - Where the first teddy bear really came from....
> A prequel to Teefr by Edward Summer
> Book Two of the Teddy Quartet, A Yahooligans choice.
> Laser Publications, Planetarium Station, Box 502-DIG, NY, NY
Visit my website on http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~luisrey