Talk:Motion control photography

Old or new?[edit]

This article says the technique was first widely used in Star Wars, but the article on that film states: "A relatively old concept known as "motion control" was implemented for the majority of the visual effects."

So which is correct? Or was it a relatively old concept that had never been widely used? (Which would seem somewhat odd!). Angmering 18:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't it be that the Star Wars article is referring to the technique from the modern viewpoint (1977 special effects are easily viewed as "relatively old" from the perspective of 2006)? Girolamo Savonarola 19:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is it's bad phrasing, don't you think? Angmering 06:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold. Girolamo Savonarola 19:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the "relatively old" phrasing from the Star Wars article.Angmering 22:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Special effects or Visual Effects[edit]

I think a motion control camera is a visual effects device. It helps you to give exactly repeated layers to composite, so it is misplaced in special effects area.

Section heading[edit]

I was under the impression that motion control's chief advantage over traditional miniature film photography is the precision with which matte effect shots using multiple layers can be built up. The article's topic is the use of motion control as a means of making small models seem life-sized, but this is misleading; the techniques used to make a model look real are not intrinsically linked to motion control. The articles also fails to mention 2001: A Space Odyssey, which utilised a simple mechanical form of motion control for the fly-by shots of the spacecraft models.

The final paragraph mentions the first use of motion control photography in a computer game. Is this actually an misunderstanding of motion capture? 194.176.105.39 11:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]