News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on It was more efficient to blow up a real 747 than to use miniatures or CGI. Parent comment

Re:It was more efficient to blow up a real 747 than to use m... by csours on Friday September 18, 2020 @09:29PM (#24523976)
> "[Note, I haven't seen the movie, so maybe there are 50 angles of it exploding, in which case it might not be]"

There are quite a few angles of it exploding, as well as it being a major set piece with people running around it before, during, and after the explosion.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:It was more efficient to blow up a real 747 than to use m... by ComputerGuru on Friday September 18, 2020 @11:04PM (#24524582)
Basing the choice on the result we now see in the cinema is a fairly tautological affair. I mean, when you’ve made the decision to go with a real one then you might as well include as many shots and angles as you can get and milk it for all it’s worth.

The real question is if the movie could have been done with fewer angles and interior shots.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:It was more efficient to blow up a real 747 than to use m... by ehsankia on Friday September 18, 2020 @10:25PM (#24524337)
Yeah the plane is part of almost a good 10-15% of the movie.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:It was more efficient to blow up a real 747 than to use m... by trimbo on Friday September 18, 2020 @11:26PM (#24524718)
I probably shouldn't have even included that note. I'm not current on the state of the art but I can't imagine there's any scenario where an effect like that would be cheaper to do practically than in CGI/models.
[ Parent | on HN ]