That question, like the nature of time itself, might seem simple at first: time is moving from the past to the future in a straight line, an understanding that holds true on a deeper plan as well. These positions belied another question: Was time subjective, living only in the mind of the observer, or, was it objective, existing independently of any observation? The Scholastic philosophers–the masters of balance– said that time was partially objective and partially subjective in that “ becomes concrete in continuous, notably, local, movement but movement becomes time only with the intervention of our intelligence.” But one of the most interesting questions–and one which exists outside the kingdom of the philosophers–is the question of time’s dimensions: Is time like a circle or a line? Plato, on the other hand, taught that time was an independent entity, almost an empty vessel into which flow different things and events. Aristotle posited that time could not exist apart from change and that time was simply the temporal relations between things and events. This is not to say that answers have not been posited, with the philosophers of the past especially eager to answer the riddle. We cannot conceive a state of being without time, which is why the state before the Big Bang–when there was no space and no time–is impossible to imagine. Time is simple in that it is one of the first concepts of which we become aware, and yet it is foundational to our very thinking. The humor of his remarks still hold because it is the same conundrum that we face.
Augustine quipped that he knew what time was until he was asked. But this belies the complexities of the subject, the root of which is the question: What is the nature of time? With the passing of the old year, it is very easy to see time as a straight arrow, moving inexorably from past, through present, to future. Ahead of us is 2017, an entirely new year that will bring with it its own sorrows and laughs, in spite of all the hope we invest in the thought that this year will be the “best year ever.” Due to the nature of the day, it is reasonable for minds to turn to the idea of time itself. Paramount and Lucas said the claim has no merit, and they intend to fight it.Another year has passed and gone with both its joys and tears. Morphing itself was pioneered in the early 1980s at the New York Institute of Technology, and was first used in films such as George Lucas’s Willow, in the late 1980s. The tool takes a shape to shape approach to lip-synching, tracing the shape of the mouth and then using drawing tools to outline how the shape of the mouth should change.
Elastic Reality was also used on the film In The Line Of Fire, though not on the lip-synching portion. If someone buys a hammer and throws it through a window, that is not our responsibility.
#ELASTIC REALITY OSCAR SOFTWARE#
Elastic Reality president Perry Kivolowitz told our sister paper Unigram.X that the company’s software was simply a general purpose tool. The filmakers used a morphing tool from Madison, Wisconsin-based Elastic Reality running on Silicon Graphics Inc workstations, which are commonplace in the film special effects industry.
Bloomstein apparently owns a patent on a method of dubbing foreign language films. According to various reports in the Chicago Tribune, freelance computer consultant Richard Bloomstein is suing Paramount Pictures and Lucas Films, with an eye on a share of some of the $300m box office takings of the blockbuster film. As the Oscar awards dinner was taking place last month, a legal row was brewing over the lip-synch technology used to make American Presidents featured in the film Forrest Gump to speak lines they never delivered in real life.
0 kommentar(er)
