Things the Amiga could do better than a contemporary PC

[frank_b]

Every vintage computer has something interesting going for it. c64, spectrum, Atari, Unix workskations etc. Every computer BUT the 80s PC. That's a junker with no redeeming features whatsoever. The CPU was awful pre 386. The system software was abysmal from interaction to implementation. The video hardware throughput was awful pre VLB. Anyone that was a PC enthusiast in the mid 80s must have been clinically insane. Every single system out there smoked it, including the 8 bits.

[Foebane]

Originally Posted by frank_b

Anyone that was a PC enthusiast in the mid 80s must have been clinically insane. Every single system out there smoked it, including the 8 bits.

I knew someone at college who had only ever had PCs in the 1980s and early 1990s, and I think he was like Vascillious, a PC elitist, and arrogant to boot.

Oh, and he was also a bully, in his early 20s, who made life hell for some of us and influenced a few others to join his gang, and was just generally a jerk. Even the course director commented what a "bad atmosphere" there was.

[ma693541]

Babylon 5, the series. Wasn't the VFX for it made on an Amiga with a VideoToaster in it?
An IBM-PC clone couldn't do the same thing at that time, even with a descent GFX card.

[Rotareneg]

For the first season of the series, the team was running the Video Toaster with LightWave on the Amiga. Then NewTek ported it to the PC, and another revolution occurred, as the PC began to nudge out the big blue and purple machines from SGI. Meanwhile, Video Toaster development began moving at a much faster rate on the PC, and by the third season of Babylon 5, the group was running the Video Toaster with LightWave solely on PCs, and what used to take two hours to process on the Amiga was now rendering in minutes.

[robinsonb5]

I thought they had some render farms with MIPS CPUs running Windows NT at some point - or maybe that was just another option that was available?
Edit: Yeah, I'm thinking of the Screamer. Don't know whether Foundation actually used them, though.

[d4rk3lf]

Not sure what Amiga was used for, and what not.
But after past few years playing again with my Miggy (both emulation and real), and the fact I am doing 3D animation for my living past 15 years, all I can say that Amiga was more then capable for awesome 3D animations.

I've tried Lightwave, created some simple animations, seen possibilities, and it's very impressive.
I'd go so far that I can say that Amiga could do effects as good as Starship Troopers, or Independence Day.

The thing is, back then, people were over-amazed with raytraced reflections, so they throw them everywhere - even on spaceships, or objects that should be (in reality) pretty old and dusty.
That's why many renders looks so bad today.

Throw in Lightwave some mid detailed spaceship, throw in some nice texture - FORGET about freaking stupid raytrace reflections (they are slow to render anyway), put in some motion blur, good camera... and there you go... you'd have quality on the pair with Independence Day spaceships renders (that holds up even today on many shots).

[Foebane]

Originally Posted by Rotareneg

And nowadays, the casual newcomer to Babylon 5, on average, says that the CGI sucks balls and should be remade, if not the whole show itself, with Ivanova in charge (I'm not joking).

Originally Posted by d4rk3lf

you'd have quality on the pair with Independence Day spaceships renders (that holds up even today on many shots).

Um, the spaceships in Independence Day (1996) were REAL physical miniature models animated with motion control, not CGI. Show me otherwise.

[robinsonb5]

Originally Posted by d4rk3lf

The thing is, back then, people were over-amazed with raytraced reflections, so they throw them everywhere - even on spaceships, or objects that should be (in reality) pretty old and dusty.
That's why many renders looks so bad today.

Not to mention far too may lens flares!

But the real point to all of this isn't that the PC eventually overtook the Amiga as the platform of choice for all this - it's that the Amiga was where this stuff first became *accessible* to someone who hadn't already decided they wanted to pursue this stuff and bought equipment specifically for the purpose. The Amiga allowed us to dip a toe in the water, and discover computer-related creative fields in a way that we wouldn't have been able to on a PC of the same vintage.

[d4rk3lf]

Originally Posted by Foebane

Um, the spaceships in Independence Day (1996) were REAL physical miniature models animated with motion control, not CGI. Show me otherwise.

Depends on the shot.

Lot's of shots there were miniatures, like destruction of White House (no computer could do dynamic simulation of that details, back then).
Even LOTR, many years later, was using miniatures in many shots (and I think it's wise choice)

However, you can see in lots of shots, they were 3D models, you can recognize them, even they are nicely done. I think in the first alien attack there were many.
If you insist, I can find you some (but not tonight).

But as I say, when you combine it with nice textures and motion blur, and compose it on real BG, make similar lighting, it really isn't a big deal make them believable.

Originally Posted by robinsonb5

Not to mention far too may lens flares!

Exactly!

[d4rk3lf]

@Foebane

[ Show youtube player ]

0:55

Pretty much every ship in wide shots are CG, not miniatures here.
Real explosion footage were composed over CG ships when destroyed.
Miniatures are Bg probably, or some details.

Exactly what I was saying. Look that motion blur, and overall detail level.
Yet - is sells the illusion pretty well.
Amiga was totally capable for shots like this.

But back then, everyone would place reflections on these ships and, as robinsonb5 said: huge lens flare.

[amiman99]

In 1990s Amiga was lacking in speed, it took too much time to render anything.
It could do it, but it took time.
The other day I tried to render a Blade Runner demo in Lightwave, first it was taking a long time, then it run out of memory (I have 16MB in A4000).

[Foebane]

Originally Posted by d4rk3lf

Depends on the shot.

Lot's of shots there were miniatures, like destruction of White House (no computer could do dynamic simulation of that details, back then).
Even LOTR, many years later, was using miniatures in many shots (and I think it's wise choice)

However, you can see in lots of shots, they were 3D models, you can recognize them, even they are nicely done. I think in the first alien attack there were many.
If you insist, I can find you some (but not tonight).

But as I say, when you combine it with nice textures and motion blur, and compose it on real BG, make similar lighting, it really isn't a big deal make them believable.

Sorry, let me elaborate: I meant close-up shots, like with Hiller and his buddy being chased by the lone enemy ship, and all of that stuff. As for the video clip of the human fighter jets attacking the city destroyer, it was obvious that the distant side view of the jets was a copy and paste job, but yes, the swarms of attackers pouring out of the city destroyer were small and CGI, cos we didn't see them up close unless necessary.

I am well aware of the SFX in Independence Day apart from that, cos I saw the documentary: I know that the White House miniature was built for a different movie entirely, but the ID4 people just blew it up, and it WAS spectacular. Then there was the famous shot of the flames tearing through the New York streets, they simply built a miniature on a set that was moved 90 degrees, and they shot flames up them and then slowed them down. It was awesome, if only they'd shown more of that moment.

The whole LOTR comparison is awesome, too: they used a blend of various techniques to achieve their shots, even forced perspective tricks, and it all worked because it was traditional 2D movies that were being made. What pisses me off is that Jackson chose to make the prequel Hobbit movies with 3D, and that eliminated all of those old techniques and left only CGI to work with, and it sucked as a result.

[Galahad/FLT]

Any claims that Independence Day relied heavily on CGi is erroneous.

Its rather famous as the last blockbuster movie to rely mostly on achieving its effects other than CGi.

[Foebane]

Originally Posted by Galahad/FLT

Any claims that Independence Day relied heavily on CGi is erroneous.

Its rather famous as the last blockbuster movie to rely mostly on achieving its effects other than CGi.

It most certainly did NOT rely on CGI, it was a masterwork of a mixture of different SFX disciplines. So, I would argue, was LOTR.

As I said before, I think the biggest "killer of practical effects" is 3D cinema, in which practical effects don't work, forced perspective doesn't work, and nor does miniatures, ONLY CGI. But everyone complains about CGI, and 3D has NEVER even got close to becoming popular. I think we ought to go back to traditional movie values, to be honest.

[Galahad/FLT]

Originally Posted by Foebane

It most certainly did NOT rely on CGI, it was a masterwork of a mixture of different SFX disciplines. So, I would argue, was LOTR.

As I said before, I think the biggest "killer of practical effects" is 3D cinema, in which practical effects don't work, forced perspective doesn't work, and nor does miniatures, ONLY CGI. But everyone complains about CGI, and 3D has NEVER even got close to becoming popular. I think we ought to go back to traditional movie values, to be honest.

Did you read what I wrote, because your answer sure doesn't look like you did

[d4rk3lf]

Originally Posted by Galahad/FLT

Any claims that Independence Day relied heavily on CGi is erroneous.
.

Any claim that any movie up to the 2008, relied heavily on CGi is erroneous.

@Foebane
Sorry bro..
It might be my poor english, but I don't understand if you agree to my claims. And that is: Amiga could produce animations as in ID 1 and Starship Troopers?
If not, tell me why you believe so.

[Galahad/FLT]

Originally Posted by d4rk3lf

Any claim that any movie up to the 2008, relied heavily on CGi is erroneous.

That's simply not true.

By 2007, CGi was in heavy use EVERYWHERE and in most movies, even stuff you wouldn't expect CGi to be in.

Bearing in mind Transformers was 2007, Starship Troopers was 1997 and even that was heavily reliant on CGi for its age.

Then inbetween Starship Troopers and Transformers came the Star Wars prequels, The Matrix Trilogy and just an absolute host of others, CGi was by this time not a fall back but the prime way of doing effects.

[d4rk3lf]

Originally Posted by Galahad/FLT

That's simply not true.
By 2007, CGi was in heavy use EVERYWHERE and in most movies, even stuff you wouldn't expect CGi to be in.

CGi from 96, up to 2007 is used EVERYWHERE.
But not EVERYTIME.
That was my point.

[d4rk3lf]

Originally Posted by Galahad/FLT

That's simply not true.

By 2007, CGi was in heavy use EVERYWHERE and in most movies, even stuff you wouldn't expect CGi to be in.

From what I know CGI was used EVERYWHERE, from the likes of Buster Keaton, up to now.
But what I wanted to say, all these where (including LOTR) used always as simple 3D models over the top of BG prepared Backgound.
Only after 2008... or even later.. we have fully Bg CG... fully CG shots..
Even now many shots are not full CG

There should be some distinction where 1921- (Baster Kiton) - 2008 where CGI is finally take BG to itself.

[Galahad/FLT]

Originally Posted by d4rk3lf

CGi from 96, up to 2007 is used EVERYWHERE.
But not EVERYTIME.
That was my point.

Going to have to disagree sadly.

The amount of movies that are entirely reliant on CGi would surprise you.

One that springs to me and shocked me when I stumbled on the "making of" was Zodiac by David Fincher in 2007.

You watch that movie, and you might think CGi was used to remove maybe something modern, or clean stuff up, but the level of CGi the movie uses is shocking.

It's not even unique in how much it uses, lots of other movies that you simply wouldn't think CGi would even be a thing, are major things.