Re: Ang. Re: Sony ´s new advert without

[Dan Yargici <dan(at)imajonline.com>]

Hehe! that's so damn true......

The other day a 'creative' came to us with a nice piece of 
animation/typography he'd found on the net and essentially just said, "I 
want this, but with our words"........

Gotta respect that creativity...

DAN

Eric Lampi wrote:

> Hmmm I don't like your casual use of the word
> "creative", since that is not an adjective I would use
> to describe a lot of them.
>
> E
>
> --- Paul Perrott <paulp(at)al.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>  Picture a Swimming With Sharks-type scenario where
> the creatives aretied to chairs and asked to
> distinguish betwen cg and shot effects.Every wrong
> answer results in 30 minutes of torture. In fact,
> everyanswer results in torture, just in case they're
> guessing.
>
> Adrian Wyer wrote:        a little bitter?
>   
>  me too!
>   
>  a
>  
> adrian wyer
> head of 3d
> milltv
>  adrian(at)the-mill.com
>  www.the-mill.com
> t: +44 (0)20 7287 4041
> f: +44 (0)20 7915 0551
>  
>      -----Original Message ----- 
>    From:    Michael Klein 
>    To:    XSI(at)softimage.com    
>    Sent:Tuesday, October 25, 2005 5:43 PM
>    Subject:RE: Ang. Re: Sony &acute;s new advert
> without
>    
>    
>    That's the problem with 3d guysthinking. There is
> no control and directing and try again necessary
> ifreal shot.
>    This is pure complex randombeauty of physics in
> reality which will be accepted IMMEDIATELY.Shooting
> done and over.
>     
>    At the moment where this willbe simulated in 3D
> all other people - except us and hopefully a
> goodproducer - will drive you mad because a 3D
> animation can be manipulated.
>    They know it and they want it.It's like a
> pseudo-creative stampede domino effect and there must
> besomeone with &raquo;balls&laquo; who will stops them
> all especially those controlfreaks called
> &raquo;clients&laquo;.
>     
>    The only solution could be:simulate, render and
> tell them: real shot. Result: &raquo;Ah, yes ... oh
> ...beautyful, great ... exactly what we expected. Ah
> ... wait ... could weremove that green ball in the
> left corner ... just a question?!&laquo;Producer:
> &raquo;Yes, we fix it in the EUR 750 / hour post.
> Another question?&laquo;
>    
>    
>        
> ---------------------------------
> From:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM
> [mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM] On BehalfOf Demian
> Zarins
>    Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 5:50 PM
>    To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
>    Subject: Ang. Re: Sony &acute;s new advert without
>    
>    
>    
>    In my opinion it must be harder"directing" 250 000
> rubber balls IRL than digitally. Ooops those    
>    balls didn&acute;t bounce like we wantedthem to,
> let&acute;s pick them all up and try again :) 
>    
>    Not only that but the team had topersuade the
> authorities for a period of 4 months before they
> actually    
>    got permission to shoot this scene!    
>    
>    
>    
>    
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> D E M I A N    Z A R I N S
> Projektledare
> S V T -> V&auml;xthuset - The Green House
> Sveriges Television
> Oxenstiernsg 26
> 105 10 STOCKHOLM
> Phone: +46 8 784 3312 ->mobile:+46 709-951984
>    
>    
>    
>    
>                           
> "peter_b"<peter_b(at)skynet.be> 
>          S&auml;nt av:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM        
>
> 2005-10-25 15:03                                      
>                             S&auml;ndsvar till
> XSI(at)Softimage.COM
>                                                      
>       
>          
>                                                      
>                                 Till
>                                <XSI(at)Softimage.COM>   
>                                                      
>                 Kopia
>                                 
>                                                      
>                     &Auml;rende
>                                Re: Sony &acute;s
> newadvert without                                     
>        
>                                                     
>                                
>                                                      
>       
>                                
>    
>    
>    I guess its a matter of "prestige"    
>      
>    They probably had a good budget tostart with, and
> probably someone of the advert company or the
> marketingdivision did a good job convincing the
> decision makers that spendingthis budget on live
> action would give a better result than faking it inCG.
>
>      
>    From our point of view, as 3Dprofessionals this is
> probably weird, as it does seem like a good casefor
> CG, a nothing that any high end 3D house wouldnt be
> able to pulloff. 
>    it would be interesting to see acomparative budget
> for doing this live and doing it CG, might
> berevealing. 
>      
>    And does it look better in the end? 
>    I'm not convinced of that seeing thisspot. 
>      
>      
>      
>      
>    
>   
> http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-video/Media/video/2005/10/25/SONYBalls60.mov
>
>    
> Wonder why they did it solely with live-action? 
>    
>    
>    
>    
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> D E M I A N    Z A R I N S
> Projektledare
> S V T -> V&auml;xthuset - The Green House
> Sveriges Television
> Oxenstiernsg 26
> 105 10 STOCKHOLM
> Phone: +46 8 784 3312 ->mobile:+46 709-951984
>    
>  
> ---Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the
> following text in body:unsubscribe xsi
>
>
> Freelance 3-D Animator, F/X Artist, Particle Man
> ---
> Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
> unsubscribe xsi
>
>  
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi