From: mark@westford.ccur.com (Mark Thompson)
Subject: Re: Vivid-24 and SGI
Organization: Radiant Image Productions, Merrimack NH.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:21:24 GMT

In article <gregpen.725880320@crash.cts.com> gregpen@crash.cts.com (Greg Penetrante) writes:
>  Since I WORK in the video field, and make my living doing computer graphics
>on AMIGAS and SGI's (yes!), I can claim this for FACT, that professionals,
>despite the cost/performance ratio of the Amiga, will not choose it because
>the Amiga does not have enough horsepower to provide EFFICIENT graphics
>PRODUCTION for MEDIUM-TO-LARGE budget production.

Well I am a video graphics professional and I can tell you that your "FACT"
is complete fiction. If you choose to completely ignore the FACT that a large
scale computer graphic production like Babylon 5 was done entirely on the
Amiga with LightWave then look at the upcoming Spielberg production of
"Seaquest". This is a 22 episode television production that will have the
computer graphics done in LightWave on the Amiga. This is quite definately
a large production that has to deal with same time demands that any other
high-end animation house would have to deal with. The fact of the matter is
LightWave on the Amiga is producing exceptional quality animation with the
same time constraints at a fraction of the cost and THAT is the bottom line.
LightWave on the Amiga is the basis of my production studio and I can assure
you that it is vastly more capable than you give it credit.
 
>  For the same reasons, you see QUANTEL Paintboxes (despite their overpriced
>nature) in TV studios (every one I've seen.. KNSD-TV, KFMB, KGTV, WPIX, KSCI,
>WWOR, WGBH).  

Popular ignorance does not equal intelligence.

>>> in a REAL-WORLD business climate, you are looking for maximum
>>> turnaround for dollars spent.

Exactly my point, thats why LightWave is storming through Hollywood.

>>> a user would still have to WAIT until final images are finally rendered
>>  and dumped to tape.
>>> a fully loaded SGI can dump MINUTES of
>>> final images to tape, thereby being MORE EFFICIENT, and generating MORE 
>>> DOLLARS per hour spent.

If you are implying that an SGI will allow you to render in realtime to
tape without single framing... BZZZZT! wrong! That is only true if you
are using the Gouraud shaded polygons that the hardware was designed for.
If you are doing production work, you are using one of the various animation
packages which use much more advanced rendering techniques than the graphics
hardware provides and suddenly you are now waiting for each frame to be
generated. This can easily be many minutes per frame. An Amiga based "render
farm" can easily keep pace with that one SGI at a lower cost and provide
more animation seats.

>I AM NOT KIDDING.  If YOUR argument were true, EVERYBODY would have an AMIGA
>and the other companies would be doing something else! :-)  BZZZZT!

SGI has been around the broadcast graphics industry for a long time and is
well known. The high-end capabilities of the Amiga are relatively new.
New trends don't happen over night, especially when there is a lot of money
tied up in those big, expensive, less efficient machines.

>SGI belongs in broadcast. Amiga belongs in industrial/home video/pre-production/draft animation. 

Amigas are already in broadcast, and that is an undisputeable fact.
Wake up and smell the coffee. The Amiga may not tople the SGI empire but
it is making a lot of high-end people take notice.
%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~%
%      `       '        Mark Thompson                 CONCURRENT COMPUTER  %
% --==* RADIANT *==--   mark@westford.ccur.com        Principal Graphics   %
%      ' Image `        ...!uunet!masscomp!mark       Hardware Architect   %
%     Productions       (508)392-2480 (603)424-1829   & General Nuisance   %
%                                                                          %
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: rec.video.production