Someone has already contacted me for them...
It was a bit sad going through my Cinefex collection, I kept Issue #1 to #103 or so, about to 2004. But I'm giving the rest away. What's sad is that I was so passionate about visual effects because I used to be a model builder and painter, but now that it is all done in computers, it's hard not to yawn when reading the new articles. No matter what the subject is, the technique is the same now.
Although I work in digital effects I find traditional practical effects (models, matte paintings etc) just so much more interesting and compelling - not just in the way they are done (which is compelling in it's own right) but also in the result. But it's really hard to put one's finger on it, or find the right words to characterise it ... because it's not in how convincing or unconvincing they are ... but something else. I think it's just the nature of the photographic image - whether collaged or not - that it differs at some fundamental level from the digitally generated. There's a certain tension that remains between how a practical effect is done and the result, whether intended or otherwise. Some sort of reciprical exchange going on between the how and the what, with each supporting the other.
I've been working towards some traditional effects of late - to be done on film - but not entirely without some digital voodoo - just a different way of doing the digital side - or perhaps an old way - where the computer works more behind the scene rather than in creating the scene. As I understand it, in the original Star Wars film, there was some simple digital motion control of the cameras. In any case: that sort of thing. There's a movement in computing called "physical computing" which has been around for ages, but finds contemporary expression in things like 3D printers, where the computer is controlling something in the physical world. Robots are another example. Real ones (true lies?) as distinct from some computer animator's vision of such.
I like to make a distinction between the graphic and the photographic, where I treat the graphic as a subset of the photographic, rather than the other way around. The graphic artist, of course, will argue it the other way. Or perhaps just maintaining a tension between the two - keeping such visible rather than perfecting it's erasure.
And putting that on the screen.
Edited by Carl Looper, 25 September 2015 - 11:19 PM.