jms graphics note (cgal repost)

[B5JMS Poster]

Subject: jms graphics note (cgal repost)
-----+-------------+--------------------------------------------------
 No. | DATE        |  FROM
-----+-------------+--------------------------------------------------
s  1: Jan 29, 1997: mmontalvo at lucent.com (Maria Ana Montalvo)
+  4: Jan 31, 1997: Mojo at foundation-i.com (Mojo)
*  5: Jan 31, 1997: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

From: mmontalvo at lucent.com (Maria Ana Montalvo)
Lines: 41



Joe posted this over at comp.graphics.apps.lightwave (I got his permission
to repost):


>Just a quick note with two purposes: 
>
>1) to alert folks interested in Lightwave to check out the B5 episode
>airing in about 2 weeks, "Into the Fire," the second new episode back, to
>see some nifty stuff one can do when one applies oneself.  That episode
>has roughly 114 CGI shots in 43 minutes, and are easily some of the most
>elaborate ever done for TV.  (There's some nice stuff toward the latter
>half of this coming week's episode, but the following one is the big
>blow-out.)
>
>and
>
>2) to plink the noses of those on here who came on proclaiming that "good
>sources" told them that the CGI EFX on B5 would either go to hell, or look
>crappy, or be less than before.  We're now doing far more EFX than in any
>previous season, and more elaborate shots.  I said these individuals were
>full of it then, and the facts have spoken for themselves in the time
>since.  These individuals have since dropped away and gotten real silent. 
>I hope they'll be as forthright now that they've been shown to be wrong as
>they were in their original proclamations.
>
>Otherwise we'd have to assume that these individuals were spewing out
>things they knew weren't true, just to poison the well and cause us grief,
>and I just can't *imagine* that *anyone* would do something like that....
>
>
> jms


I've been using Lightwave for about a month now, and have new-found respect
for the CGI....

Maria



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

From: Mojo at foundation-i.com (Mojo)
Lines: 23

garyg4430 at aol.com wrote:


>So, is this the new Foundation ad campaign? "Foundation Imaging: Use us
>for just Three Years, and you'll never need us again!"?
>The only down-side I see is eventually you run out of customers. But that
>will take years and it's a fast turnover business anyway...

Actually, it may be closer to Netter Digital's policies for more than
a few production, post-production, makeup and FX people: "Work for ND,
where years of hard work and loyal service earns you zero gratitude
and a friendly wave as you are kicked out the door!"

I do jest, however.  There was NO friendly wave!  :-)

>p.s STV has been looking a LOT better!

Gracias!  We do what we can for the program...


MOJO



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Lines: 59

"Joe, I don't think anyone *really* doubted that the new FX would be any
good."

Then, Mojo, if nobody "doubted that the new FX would be good," explain to
me whence came all those messages from pseudonymous individuals posted on
the newsgroup saying that they were going to be crap, that there wouldn't
BE any EFX, that the show was going to hell...on and on.  My message was
in reply to those individuals who set out deliberately to trash us.  If
they didn't doubt the EFX would be good, then why did they say so?  If
they did post messages that the EFX would be crap, which they did, then
why would you say that no one doubted it?  Are you suggesting they
deliberately lied in their messages?  Or that the messages, which exist,
did NOT really exist (dream state) or that they were in fact accidentally
crossposted from Bizarro World.  "New B5 EFX am bad!" meaning that they're
great.  Perhaps that's what you're suggesting.

"I'm sure that your Foundation Imaging-trained team, using Foundation
Imaging objects and Foundation animation techniques will turn out some
very fine work indeed!"

It's nothing to do with Foundation one way or another...the message posted
was in reference to the people who were slamming the people who were now
doing the B5 EFX...that has nothing whatsoever to do with what I was
discussing.

If you felt this strongly about the quality of those doing the EFX, then
I'm surprised you didn't defend these individuals from the attacks then
being made.  If they're Foundation trained, using Foundation tech, and
someone's out there trashing them, I'd think that Foundation would
actively want to defend them.  I guess when it looked like they'd be crap,
there wouldn't be much point to defending them...but when they came out
well, then I can see why one would want to jump in and make sure that
Foundation shared the credit.

(BTW, your note accidentally left out Eric Chauvin's fine work on the
show, who created many of the images of Minbar, Earth, the Garden and
other amazing sights...or Steve Burg, who helped design the Starfuries and
many other ships, neither of whom are part of Foundation.  It would be an
error for people to assume that Foundation was the be-all and end-all of
B5's EFX, and I know that neither you nor Ron would want to create that
impression.)

And certainly, we continue to use Eric on the show, and others, who were
never a part of Foundation Imaging.  So it wold be an error to imply that
they all came to us from there.

Our animators have acquired a wide range of experience, at Foundation and
elsewhere.  We have always spoken well of Foundation, which came into
existence because Doug and I were willing to give Ron a chance.  And we
have never wished them anything but good fortune.

Our continued best wishes to everyone there.


 jms




-***
-*** B5JMS SUBSCRIBERS: Replies to messages in this list go to the list
-*** maintainer, <b5jms-owner at cs.columbia.edu>.  If you want to reply
-*** elsewhere, adjust the "To" field.  The best way to reach JMS is to post
-*** to rastb5m, which can be done by sending email to <rastb5 at solon.com>.