Received: from mail.webcom.com (mail.webcom.com [206.2.192.68]) by keeper.albany.net (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id BAA28394 for <DWARNER@ALBANY.NET>; Tue, 30 Jan 1996 01:39:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost by mail.webcom.com with SMTP
(1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA102374111; Mon, 29 Jan 1996 22:41:52 -0800
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 22:41:51 -0800
Errors-To: dwarner@ALBANY.NET
Message-Id: <9601300634.AA11106@garcia.com>
Errors-To: dwarner@ALBANY.NET
Reply-To: lightwave@garcia.com
Originator: lightwave@garcia.com
Sender: lightwave@garcia.com
Precedence: bulk
From: Vidiot@opus-networx.com
To: lightwave@mail.webcom.com
Subject: Re: Why use CGI anyway!!
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status:
LI>> Why all of a sudden is it the fad to make the production computer
LI>>animated?? Why not use a differrent style of 2d animation? why not
LI>>claymation? Why does it seem 3d/computer animation is becomming a fad??
LI>Because technology has finally allowed it to become financially viable
LI>to produce large amounts of high quality 3D imagery. It won't be long
LI>till 3D animation is far cheaper than most any other traditional forms.
LI>We were just asked to bid on a job that is all 3D animated, but look
LI>just like claymation. Ironic? But 3D will never replace really creative