|
rio209 (May 14, 2008 at 3:45 pm)
what program? Is it OpenGL?
Amnesiacmidnitetoker (May 12, 2008 at 12:16 pm)
Amazing!
wrnqzx (May 8, 2008 at 8:31 pm)
Did they say 2000 frames? That's more than I would have thought. Even so, 67 hours isn't that much, if you can render 24/7. I really don't think this should take more than 2 weeks, not counting reshoots.On the other hand... Every time I assess the time required to complete a project at work, I seriously underestimate how long it will take. So I'm probably wrong here too.
d3p3ch3mod3 (May 7, 2008 at 2:56 pm)
damn, i think the dials and data tablet pen are a better way to do cgi than a crappy mouse... i want one dammit
matopc (May 5, 2008 at 6:58 pm)
outstanding!
guimbadriver (May 5, 2008 at 2:42 am)
hey its a pre autocad 3 D?
testbedproject71 (April 30, 2008 at 12:09 am)
Thats hardcore programing!! and 2 think i moan when my wifi slows down. top work 1977 man.
OldSchoolJungle (April 29, 2008 at 1:36 pm)
Awesome video! Just imagine - instead of drawing everything in 3D Max or Maya, he programs(!) everything by himself! I really like his rotary controllers/dials. I would like one for myself :)
carcosa (April 27, 2008 at 6:15 am)
What is even MORE amazing than this is how incredibly awesome the rest of the movie looks, without using cgi AT ALL. It's literally the benchmark that everything since then has aspired to. Much film FX even today fails to be one tenth as convincing as what they did back then with rail cameras, styrene and strings.
carcosa (April 27, 2008 at 6:12 am)
What's funny about this is that it looks almost plausible, as a plan view, even today. Also, the fact that as primitive as the hardware was, at the time it was absolutely bleeding edge. This was an astounding achievement, and 30 years ago isn't such a long time... |
