Re: [photo-3d] George Lucas Goes Digital...

[Brian Reynolds <reynolds@xxxxxxxxx>]

Michael Kersenbrock wrote:
>     Isn't much of his "film" digitally produced anyway?   Not so
> much as folk running around in front of cameras, but rather rendered
> by IL&M (probably).  Even as I recall Episode I, most or at least a
> lot of it of isn't "real in front of cameras", but digital-originals
> added in later.  So making the rest digital doesn't seem like that
> big of a deal.  IOW, the "old film" versions weren't "film" anyway.
> :-)
> 

The cost savings Lucas is looking for is not having to do the film
scanning to incorporate all the special effects.  He'd also like to
not have to make any film prints, but I think the studios are worried
(or should be) about piracy, and the theaters aren't making enough
money to completely revamp their projection setup.

> P.S. - Try imagine "Toy Story" or "Antz" done with celluloid Film
>

Toy Story was done with film.  As the last step of the production
process Toy Story was rendered to film.

A Bug's Life was the first movie digital rendered and encoded to DVD
without going through a film step.  This even allowed them to
re-render a version of A Bug's Life for the 4:3 fullscreen TV aspect
ratio by changing the staging of some scenes instead of just
pan&scanning everything (which was also used in some scences).  A
Bug's Life was also projected digitally in some locations.

-- 
Brian Reynolds                  | "Dee Dee!  Don't touch that button!"
reynolds@xxxxxxxxx              | "Oooh!"
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds  |    -- Dexter and Dee Dee
NAR# 54438                      |       "Dexter's Laboratory"

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Offer-Earn 300 Points from MyPoints.com for trying @Backup
Get automatic protection and access to your important computer files.
Install today:
http://click.egroups.com/1/2344/8/_/160438/_/957973739/
------------------------------------------------------------------------