Movie and TV GUIs: Cracking the Code

Facial recognition by jodido · 2014-03-12 09:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

Maybe they'll explain to TV producers that facial recognition software doesn't work by showing each face it's checking. Yet somehow get through ginormous databases in minutes.

Re:Facial recognition by ubrgeek · 2014-03-12 10:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

It doesn't take minutes. It takes exactly as long as it does for the person at the keyboard to look up, make some remark to the main character and then glance back down when the computer goes "beep."

--
Bark less. Wag more.
Re:Facial recognition by mythosaz · 2014-03-12 10:30 · Score: 2

...or it takes days, if it's necessary for the story.
...much in the same way that one week anyone on the planet can be tracked to inches of their location by their cellphone instantly, by anyone with a computer when the story wants it to be and other people who use perfectly normal non-CIA cellphones (because CIA cellphones are magic) can't be located, ever, under any circumstances, until the story wants them to be located.
Re:Facial recognition by vux984 · 2014-03-12 10:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

Maybe they'll explain to TV producers that facial recognition software doesn't work by showing each face it's checking
It doesn't, and it shouldn't but it could do something along those lines by way of feedback.
I've written a number of systems that have lengthy batch processes that flashes up record information as the system moves through; it doesn't show every record it passes as the screen updates would slow down the system enormously, but it updates a couple times a second and shows for example, every 10000th or so giving them real feedback that something is actually happening without slowing it down at all.
The progress bars that are time 'calibrated' and do not bear any reflection to actual progress are the bane of my existence; where the process hangs at 50% at stops dead, but the time calibrated progress bar just drifts along to 99% and then eventually reports that an error happened.
Those updates that actual data is being processed are good user feedback that its actually doing something.
Of course I don't think facial recogntion is done with a cursor search from the start of a database to finish, the way a system batch processing transactions would be. Instead I imagine they work more like traditional databases, breaking the images down to collections of indexable information and searching the indices; so a record-by-record walk wouldn't be necessary, or perhaps would only be necessary as the final pass through a returned set to further score and sort the results.
In any case, the trouble with TV facial recognition portrayals is less the software itself (because I can handle a dramatization of a computer search like that), I'm more offended by the portrayol of the results. There are no false positives (finding the wrong people) and false negatives, (failing to find people who ARE in the system), or multiple results. No its always either... face goes in and perp comes out... or face goes in and computer declares the person doesn't exist.
Re:Facial recognition by cascadingstylesheet · 2014-03-12 12:51 · Score: 1

Maybe they'll explain to TV producers that facial recognition software doesn't work by showing each face it's checking. Yet somehow get through ginormous databases in minutes.
It's technically silly of course, but ... it's a visual medium.
At least the flashing faces convey the idea that a collection of faces is being searched for matches. Which is close enough in concept (I have no idea how you'd visually convey the concept of indexing and such).
Re:Facial recognition by cascadingstylesheet · 2014-03-12 12:55 · Score: 1

It doesn't, and it shouldn't but it could do something along those lines by way of feedback.
I've written a number of systems that have lengthy batch processes that flashes up record information as the system moves through; it doesn't show every record it passes as the screen updates would slow down the system enormously, but it updates a couple times a second and shows for example, every 10000th or so giving them real feedback that something is actually happening without slowing it down at all.
I've done similar ... either I'll show the record number, updating every {whatever interval}, or if it is looping over intelligible sets of some sort show what category it is in ... as you say, at least you get some idea both that something is happening and possibly how far it has progressed.
Re:Facial recognition by drinkypoo · 2014-03-12 13:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

In any case, the trouble with TV facial recognition portrayals is less the software itself (because I can handle a dramatization of a computer search like that), I'm more offended by the portrayol of the results. There are no false positives (finding the wrong people) and false negatives, (failing to find people who ARE in the system), or multiple results. No its always either... face goes in and perp comes out... or face goes in and computer declares the person doesn't exist.
Statistically nobody would even understand what they were on about unless they devoted an entire episode to the concept. Which might be reasonable, of course.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Facial recognition by KingOfBLASH · 2014-03-12 21:29 · Score: 1

If you go to any screenwriting class or read any books on screenwriting, they'll talk to you about the use of "compression"
In a movie you have 120 minutes (or 120 pages of script) to tell your story. Were you to actually record what really would go on in a real life conversation / situation, you'd have:
a) a bored audience
b) more time needed for your "facial recognition sequence" then allotted for the movie.
It's a key element of fiction, and you'll never see exact reality. Movies DO like to be realistic when possible, but you'll still see a conversation that in real life would be a 10 minute back and forth redirected into a few succinct lines.
Re:Facial recognition by Blaskowicz · 2014-03-13 00:01 · Score: 1

3) Traversing huge databases is a trivial thing with hugely parallel networked computers. See Google, who have one of the largest networks, along with Amazon, and apparently Microsoft also have a large one as well. (likely bullshit to make investors and fans interested in Azure and Xbox One respectively, especially dropping XBOnes online-only stuff)
But almost every movie or episode that shows "the database" ('not necessarily voice recognition stuff) has it display everyone's picture sequentially along with some ID and misc info. This would be completely impracticable even with Google's or similar network.
It's the equivalent of taking a dictionary from first page and reading every definition aloud till you stimble on the word you were looking for. Even if the backend could do that, you'd be transfering all that crap to the local workstation so that the FBI/secret agents/hackers etc. can look at that flashy stuff.
Google doesn't make 45 billion pages flash before your eyes and Amazon doesn't display 42 million product pictures when you look for something.
Amusingly, Star Trek shows do a better job of representing database searchs.
Re:Facial recognition by nyctopterus · 2014-03-13 00:27 · Score: 1

This would be defensible if most fiction was good, but it's not. Way too much of it is stupid and predictable. It could do with a good injection of the sorts of uncertainties and unpredictability real life holds.
Re:Facial recognition by KingOfBLASH · 2014-03-13 00:44 · Score: 1

Dude, in movies you're asked to suspend your belief in reality.
Die Hard is not reality. Criminal masterminds are not taking over the tower of a japanese bank on christmas eve at their oh so luxurious party.
Every movie makes these kinds of leaps. Some are more than others.

Godzilla 2000 used the whats new in mame txt file by Joe_Dragon · 2014-03-12 09:46 · Score: 4, Interesting

Godzilla 2000 used the whats new in mame txt file on a system shown at high speed maybe they can just take txt files from anywhere and show them at speed that needs freeze frames to read them.

Leverage, for one, was a masterpiece by Lumpio- · 2014-03-12 09:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

A brilliant combination of real software and fake GUIs on the same screen - they obviously had a product placement deal with Microsoft, and in one scene they literally dragged a file from SkyDrive into the usual bleeping "FBI Database Lookup" window. I wish I had a .gif of that...

"Colonyyy, colony" -- Steve Winwood by tepples · 2014-03-12 09:52 · Score: 1

Maybe they'll explain to TV producers that facial recognition software doesn't work by showing each face it's checking.

I always thought of it more as a throbber, the same as if the app were to display Lindsay Lohan doesn't change facial expressions during recognition.

Revolution (the TV Show) by cmeans · 2014-03-12 10:10 · Score: 5, Interesting

Feb. 27th, Revolution had code scrolling on the screen (yes they were debugging at light speed), but they stopped at a C function that did actually have a runtime bug that matched the story line (an unused/released C malloc). The only thing that spoiled it was that the same statement was missing a semi-colon, so the code wouldn't have actually compiled in the first place.
Oh well...it was nice to see some code that did actually match what the characters were babbling about...even if there were other things that they did that didn't make any sense what-so-ever to someone who actually understood what they were seeing on the computer screen.

--
Give a hand, not a hand-out.

Re:Revolution (the TV Show) by geekoid · 2014-03-12 10:19 · Score: 2

Actually some compilers(*coughgcc4.7*) in some instance will compile a missing semi colon. They assume the next line is a continuation and funny things happen.
Of course I can't speak to the instance you are talking about.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Revolution (the TV Show) by DRichardHipp · 2014-03-12 10:42 · Score: 4, Informative

The code on-screen was real code from SQLite. The line that contained the memory leak was added by the producers. More information here: http://www.mail-archive.com/sq...
Re:Revolution (the TV Show) by linebackn · 2014-03-12 11:02 · Score: 2

The only thing that spoiled it was that the same statement was missing a emi-colon
That was the ONLY thing that spoiled it?
In a show where power is magically inhibited by some fucking nanites, who can also bring back power to stuff that has 15-year old aged batteries or no other power source, can be used as weapons, while at the same time having the ability to heal people, that that have become sentient, that can bring the fucking dead back to life, are being worshiped, communicate through hallucinations, can re-create an entire world in a Matrix-ish type way, and who knows what kind of shit they are going to pull out of their asses next! (Don't know why I watch that piece of shit)
Are you sure that is the ONLY thing that spoiled it for you?
Re:Revolution (the TV Show) by CAPSLOCK2000 · 2014-03-12 11:29 · Score: 2

Only part of it came from SQLLite. Other functions came from libfann (Fast Artificial Neural Network Library). I was rather impressed they used code from a neural network, that is completely in line with the story. Good Job, (R)Evolution.
Re:Revolution (the TV Show) by geekoid · 2014-03-12 11:30 · Score: 1

Some people can enjoy something for the context and world it represents.
I bet you a blast a parties.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Revolution (the TV Show) by fisted · 2014-03-12 11:52 · Score: 1

Actually some compilers(*coughgcc4.7*) in some instance will compile a missing semi colon. They assume the next line is a continuation and funny things happen.
This comment made me facepalm on so many levels. and then you even mention the Dunning-Kruger effect in your sig, wow.
Protip: If you have little to no understanding of C, don't try and make supposedly intelligent comments about it. It will not work.

--
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
Re:Revolution (the TV Show) by Richy_T · 2014-03-12 12:31 · Score: 2

I stopped after ep 2. If nothing else, it looked like cancel-fodder.
Re:Revolution (the TV Show) by Lumpy · 2014-03-12 12:55 · Score: 2

Hey! At least all the zombies in the Walking Dead are still mowing all the lawns....

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Revolution (the TV Show) by linebackn · 2014-03-12 15:38 · Score: 2

Thing is, it started off trying to be fairly realistic. If they had started out from day 1 explaining that these nanites were implemented to collect and redistribute power with some not fully understood tech that might be supernatural or alien, then it would be easier to just sit back and enjoy. But instead they keep everything secret so they can pull out some new WTF whenever they feel like it.
Take the basic premise and characters, and stuff it in a mind-warping anime, and it would probably work well.
But as it is, they use real actors... who ironically seem to lack energy. And the plot seems to have no real direction (Turn the lights back on? How is that supposed to work after 15 years of neglected infrastructure?). Whoever writes this stuff just wants to yank around the audience. And it probably will get canceled without a proper ending.
From my perspective, half the fun of watching any sifi-ish show is exploring the universe they have created, and too much secrecy and inconstancy ruins it.
On the brighter side, they nuked Atlanta. :)
Re:Revolution (the TV Show) by l0n3s0m3phr34k · 2014-03-12 20:22 · Score: 1

Revolution is an amazing show...still looking for Mile's sword online...another JJ show to watch is Almost Human, Someone decided to put Total Recall 2070, Blade Runner, Total Recall (the original movie), and several other motif's right from PKD into a great show that is both quite funny and very interesting...every show has some little shout-out in it, from the midget in the "fat chick exoskeleton" (looking much like Arnold's 'mask' in TR) to the slow techno-jazz that could be right off of Blade Runner's score...
Re:Revolution (the TV Show) by l0n3s0m3phr34k · 2014-03-12 20:27 · Score: 1

That seems to be a hallmark of Abram's shows...they always try to "fill in" the little details, even things that seem just like background props often are small clues to the stories. In Revolution, each sword of the Monroe Militia had a unique serial number even...something the watchers of the show will never see BUT it does add realism from the actor's POV and thus makes them more believable.
Re:Revolution (the TV Show) by l0n3s0m3phr34k · 2014-03-12 20:35 · Score: 1

I'm glad they didn't flat-out tell about the nanites from day 1. The reason they "keep changing" is because they too are evolving. If someone was dead long enough, they probably would stay dea . The nanites can repair physical damage, defib the heart, I'll bet all the people it "brought back" weren't brain-dead yet. And since they obviously have repairing capabilities, the nanites are probably also maintaining the electrical grid, since they need it to survive.

One of the few ways to "defeat" the nanites would to go around disabling power-plants past the point of them repairing them. Eventually, you might be able to destroy enough that the nanites can't survive any longer...but the real "shot" is for Aaron to somehow re-program them and put them back under "human" control.
Re:Revolution (the TV Show) by AmiMoJo · 2014-03-13 01:10 · Score: 1

In a show where power is magically inhibited by some fucking nanites
SPOILER ALERT.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC

Leverage was good until the last couple seasons by ItUsedToBeBroken · 2014-03-12 10:13 · Score: 1

They moved to Portland so it was cool to see the city in the background, but Sophie bacame a pycho stalker and the Microsoft product placemnt was hard to ignore. I loved the 3D rendered blueprints of buildings they are able to magically pull up...like most of them arent still on blue wide format paper.

Re:Leverage was good until the last couple seasons by oneiros27 · 2014-03-12 10:20 · Score: 4, Informative

Blueprints aren't blue paper.
It's actually a light-sensitive chemical reaction (cyanotype). The back side of blueprints (without the dye) are white. Before it's been exposed to UV and cured, the dye is kinda yellow-ish.

--
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Re:Leverage was good until the last couple seasons by KingOfBLASH · 2014-03-12 21:32 · Score: 1

Man agreed. Season 5 killed the show. Up until then I seriously couldn't get enough and watched the different seasons many times. Season 5 just had so much nonsense (remember when they built a bloody holodeck?) they ruined the illusion of "it's possible" and it just got to be so much nonsense.
Re:Leverage was good until the last couple seasons by oneiros27 · 2014-03-13 07:40 · Score: 1

Um ... I've developed cyanotype, as I've had almost 3 years of drafting classes between high school and college.
After you finish your technical drawing, you trace the whole thing onto velum, which is semi-transparent. To make copies, you then place the drawing against the cyanotype paper, and expose it to UV light. (you can use sunlight, but most shops will have a system of rollers and UV lamps to handle longer drawings, or a large lightbox that might be able to handle 3'x4' or so.)
After the UV exposure, the dye on the (white) paper will turn blue where the drawing didn't block the light. You then wash off the paper to remove any of the uncured dye, and you might send it through another chemical wash to deepen the colors.
So ... you have a white paper, that's coated in a blue ink. Where you see white lines on the blueprint, you're seeing the paper, not the dye.
And there's a similar product used in the screen printing industry. I'm not sure what it's called, but it's this sheet of coated acetate. You place your image on it, expose it to UV, and then when you wash the unexposed part away, the whole thing gets kinda gooey. You then press the sheet against your silkscreen (and by press, I mean, with a *lot* of force ... rollers, etc, to force it into the screen), let it dry, and then peel away the acetate. You mask off the surrounding area, and you're reading to print shirts or whatever. (for single colors, at least ... you'll want a carousel & spot dryer for multi-color)

--
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Re:Leverage was good until the last couple seasons by Macgrrl · 2014-03-16 14:25 · Score: 1

Remembering back 25 years or so when I worked as an architectural draftsman, the yellow paper printed to a purple-blue-ish line on white paper - it was quite pale. There were also gloss versions that left a black line but I can't remember if they were also 'yellow' before being exposed. We also used a stock that came out sepia brown.
Generally a print was made from a 'positive' drawing on tracing paper, the image would appear where ink obstructed the UV light from reaching the transfer sheet/copy. Anywhere with no light got exposed and would come out white-ish. Prints would fade with exposure to daylight.
The paper would be stored in black plastic sleeves in light-fast draws before use to ensure it didn't go bad. We used to go through a ton of the stuff. In the practice where I worked, we usually had one person running the print machine full time. The yellow paper version exposed to UV light was way better than the older ammonia machines, which used to leave me feeling light-headed after about 20 minutes of use.
CAD wasn't really common at that point, so we hand drafted everything, if you had to make a significant change to the drawing, it often meant starting again, minor changes were made be scratching the ink off the sheet with a razor blade and making your amendments to the 'original' sheet.

--
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World

and my favorite TV Computer scene is by geekoid · 2014-03-12 10:14 · Score: 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Enjoy the pain my friends.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

It's not just movies and TV by idontgno · 2014-03-12 10:18 · Score: 2

Fallout New Vegas has a man-portable 25mm automatic grenade launcher. It has an on-screen display scrolling what looks like code while the weapon is firing.

The code? It's a piece of BASH scripting. With a crippling syntax error ("if" without closing "fi").

If this was the height of alternate-history pre-war embedded software technology, I can understand why derelict car engines can explode in a nuclear explosion.

--
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.

Didn't we have this discussion 10 years ago? by UnknownSoldier · 2014-03-12 10:49 · Score: 1

http://news.slashdot.org/story...

Nothing Beats CSI by asmkm22 · 2014-03-12 10:49 · Score: 2

The creators of CSI are hands-down either the most tech-illiterate people on the planet, or the best Trolls in the industry. I can't tell which it is.

Here's a real gem:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Re:Nothing Beats CSI by ThatsDrDangerToYou · 2014-03-13 04:49 · Score: 1

Oh yeah, NCIS, which I'd like to point out contains 3 of 4 letters in CSI.
.. but yes, I find that having two people typing on my keyboard at once generally creates better code than I write on my own.
For the record, NCIS is probably the show I hate most of all, but then again I don't watch much crap TV if I can help it.
Re:Nothing Beats CSI by asmkm22 · 2014-03-13 07:24 · Score: 1

Oh hell, you're right. Apparently I pay as much attention to typing as they do Tech.
Re:Nothing Beats CSI by ThatsDrDangerToYou · 2014-03-13 07:51 · Score: 1

After a while they all seem to blend into sameness... interrupted by very exciting commercials.

The public is more aware? by gIobaljustin · 2014-03-12 10:56 · Score: 1

That seems highly unlikely.

--
Thank you Dave Raggett

Archer Has Gags in it's Background Code by terrab0t · 2014-03-12 11:04 · Score: 4, Informative

An animator for the TV show Archer popped into Reddit's Linux section to point out an in-joke he'd placed in some code on an extra monitor in a scene. He says he's added many more gags like this.

Re:Archer Has Gags in it's Background Code by Redmancometh · 2014-03-12 22:41 · Score: 1

I wish I had mod points! I'm sure Krieger has all kinds of bumfight code.

Second matrix movie by RandomUsername99 · 2014-03-12 12:13 · Score: 1

If I remember correctly, the second matrix movie showed a closeup of a terminal where someone was running nmap with sensical command line arguments. No, it didn't make it any better.

Re:Second matrix movie by hibiki_r · 2014-03-12 15:03 · Score: 2

It was more than just sensical: They were using it to locate a server that was vulnerable to a real exploit for a real exploit for a real(if old) version of SSH1:
http://nmap.org/movies/
It's always disappointing when terrible movies mix total nonsense with very real information, as it raises expectations too much. Other examples of somewhat correct lingo mixed with nonsense is the scene in Hackers where they go through real books that actual hackers from way back then would find useful. But even if I bring my old college book on compiler design to work, risk getting called into Human Resources by riding on a skateboard through the building, and telling everyone that we should start hacking the Gibson, it'd still not make any of my female coworkers actually look like Angelina Jolie.
All those movies, full of lies.
Re:Second matrix movie by Redmancometh · 2014-03-12 22:46 · Score: 1

I was under the impression that at the time it was barely older than 0day.
Re:Second matrix movie by Blaskowicz · 2014-03-13 00:12 · Score: 1

Last time I watched Matrix 2 I found it nice and entertaining. It's an underrated movie. There's so much worse stuff out there (including the third movie) and Neo meeting "the architect" is mindless fun, I laugh at the complicated words and trying to understand what he means. The first movie feels old and tired (rewatching it is not rewarding as you know everything about it already) and it had the horrendous crap about mining bio-electricity. One bullshit line that ruins the whole series.

A Tumblr with fake UI by samuel.progin · 2014-03-12 12:23 · Score: 2

wonderful http://fakeui.tumblr.com/

6502 by russotto · 2014-03-12 15:46 · Score: 1

Apple II disassembly used to be a go-to for this kind of thing.

Re:If they could just stick to nmap by l0n3s0m3phr34k · 2014-03-12 20:38 · Score: 1

they pulled out WS ProPing util? LOL

2001 by ThatsNotPudding · 2014-03-12 23:29 · Score: 1

Love 'em or hate 'em, but the ship display screens in 2001 were quite original. It was early foreshadowing by a detailed director, telling a future of very lazy ones to come after.

I love this subject by wjcofkc · 2014-03-13 00:20 · Score: 1

I have always found it funny that Apple gives away all these Macs to television shows and movie production, but 9 times out of 10 when they show the screen it is something completely made up and looks nothing like OS X.

Anyway, I watch out for these things very carefully and I have to lend some credit to Revolution. In two different episodes a computer booted into what was very clearly a korn shell. I was a bit impressed. They also show a lot of code on that show, but it is too briefly shown and obfuscated to make out what it is. Probably Javascript : p I can only imagine the programming jokes that are hidden within.

--
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.

Re:I love this subject by tlhIngan · 2014-03-13 03:23 · Score: 1

I have always found it funny that Apple gives away all these Macs to television shows and movie production, but 9 times out of 10 when they show the screen it is something completely made up and looks nothing like OS X.
It harks back to Apple's business model - they sell hardware. Software like OS X, iOS, iTunes Stores (music, movies, books, TV shows, apps), and other Apple software (iWork, iLife, Aperture, Logic, Final Cut) are really only used to promote that.
So Apple will happily let people run Windows on their computers - the money's been made, Apple really doesn't care you don't use OS X. Or in the movies, Fake MovieOS.
The real irony is when shows and movies cover up the Apple logo or the text labels (e.g., "MacBook Pro"). Apple's computer designs are distinct enough that you can recognize them anywhere. Likewise with their phones - they may look like slates, but there are various accents that tell you the tablet is an iPad, the phone is an iPhone, etc. (Of course, the iOS look also generally gives it away).

Iron Man's HUD GUI & Snake Plissken's glider by Dusty101 · 2014-03-13 02:50 · Score: 1

It's been a while since I watched it, but I recall that one of the DVD extras for the first "Iron Man" movie is on the GUI design of the HUDs for the suits. The designers apparently thought quite a bit about the specific HCI issues that might arise for such a usage situation (essentially like a fighter plane, but with more stuff), and so there are nested menus that radiate out from the lower left when the user's attention focuses on that part of the display, without obscuring the full field of view, etc.

The different GUI colour schemes used between the various suits was also considered, although narrative clarity and style were (sensibly) prioritized above functionality in this respect, I think.

Also...

Potentially wandering off topic (but sticking with fictional movie aircraft instrumentation):

One of my favourite special effects stories is that back when "Escape from New York" was being made, it was too difficult/expensive to do the computerized 3D wire-frame rendering of Manhattan digitally that was to be displayed on Snake Plissken's glider, so they just made black miniature models of the buildings with gridlines painted on them, and then "flew" a camera over them to get the footage that ended up being displayed on the screen. Back in those days, practical effects based on painted wood were still cheaper than CGI!

See (e.g.) http://www.theefnylapage.com/e...

Re:Iron Man's HUD GUI & Snake Plissken's glide by tlhIngan · 2014-03-13 03:33 · Score: 1

One of my favourite special effects stories is that back when "Escape from New York" was being made, it was too difficult/expensive to do the computerized 3D wire-frame rendering of Manhattan digitally that was to be displayed on Snake Plissken's glider, so they just made black miniature models of the buildings with gridlines painted on them, and then "flew" a camera over them to get the footage that ended up being displayed on the screen. Back in those days, practical effects based on painted wood were still cheaper than CGI!

The same happened way back on the original TRON as well - most of the effects were really just practical effects. There was some CGI in it, but very little (the producers remarked how the show was about computers and such, but they mostly did everything old-school).

Stuff like the glowing highlight lines on the suits and environment were all done by practical effects. In fact, one of them was an error - while they were producing the effect, they accidentally used the boxes of film in the wrong order (the film was specially made by Kodak, and as it was a special order batch, Kodak labelled them in the order of production. Film, it turns out, may have irregularities in its behavior, but these generally change gradually over the film. When the long film strips are cut and reeled, they're numbered so the end of one is the beginning of the other, so if you use it in order, there won't be visual discontinuities caused by the film having slightly different behavior). The end result was one of the buildings throbbed because the film's sensitivities suddenly jerked. It was left in the movie as a happy accident.

And there were other older movies (Robocop?) where they asked about doing things using CGI and doing things practically - the CGI was going to take longer and cost more money so they did things practically (Robocop used matte paintings to enlarge buildings and backgrounds, stop-motion animation and a few other tricks).

Even today, the director often weighs in on doing stuff practically versus CGI. CGI is really good these days, but it still takes time and is harder to work with. And a lot of directors love that practical effects often give a sense of authenticity to the scene because it's being done by real people right there.

Re:Iron Man's HUD GUI & Snake Plissken's glide by Macgrrl · 2014-03-16 14:30 · Score: 1

The "computer graphics" from the original HHGTTG TV series were hand animated cells. It was the only way for them to animate the guide within budget at the time. From memory they used a blue screen to project the animations onto the guide's screen in post production.

--
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World

Slashdot Mirror

Movie and TV GUIs: Cracking the Code

56 of 74 comments (clear)