NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/video/producti/2079

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-01 | 3.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!olivea!charnel!rat!ucselx!crash!gregpen
From: [e-mail] (Greg Penetrante)
Newsgroups: rec.video.production
Subject: Re: Vivid-24 and SGI
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 1 Jan 93 09:25:20 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA
Lines: 65

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Neal Wickham) writes:

>You can't pick out isolated cases and claim that they represent things as a
>whole.  Amigas are used professionaly too.  Even the major networks are
>using Toasters.  I'll bet than in any night of TV viewing, you see several
>or maybe even dozzens of clips produced with Amiga or Toasters!

NCW,
  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.
  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).

>>  Not to mention: SGI will STILL BE MORE EFFICIENT at generating images! Once
>> again, in a REAL-WORLD business climate, you are looking for maximum
>> turnaround for dollars spent.  Agreed, that a Vivid-24 system will cost way
>> less, a user would still have to WAIT until final images are finally rendered
>> and dumped to tape.  Maybe such a system could do, perhaps a few seconds of
>> images PER HOUR; On the other hand, a fully loaded SGI can dump MINUTES of
>> final images to tape, thereby being MORE EFFICIENT, and generating MORE
>> DOLLARS per hour spent.

>I think it depends on what you're doing.  With one $200,000 SGI, you can
>have one $40,000 per year artist busy while four other $40,000 per year
>artists are standing around the coffee machine.  With $200,000 worth of
>Amiga hardware, each $40,000 per year artist could have his own machine
>with all sorts of software and hardware.
>And the next thing coming down the pike is "distributive processing".
>Well it is not really new, but on a network, you can have software that
>looks around for idle machines and uses them to process.  It will
>distribute portions of the needed processing around the network.

I am sorry but the argument is wrong.  1) With an SGI, you can have multiple
artists working on MULTIPLE projects at the same time;  2) Having artists sit
around idling is STUPID MANAGEMENT and my ASS won't be employed if this were so.
ONE artist can crank out his/her project on the SGI in one hour. The REST of
the artists will be in PRE-PRODUCTION or POST-PRODUCTION consultation with
clients while the said artists is working. :-)

>> And that, folks, is all that counts.

>SGI has it's place.  I like SGI and think they're a great company who makes
>great products.  But Amiga is a great product too and you're kidding y
>yourself if you think that you need a 20, 50, or 200 thousand dollor SGI
>system for everything video or graphic.

>                                    NCW
>

I AM NOT KIDDING.  If YOUR argument were true, EVERYBODY would have an AMIGA
and the other companies would be doing something else! :-)  BZZZZT!
The SGI and others are DAMN good machines.  The Amiga is a DAMN good machine.

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


--> But yes, SGI and those folks are probably making damn too much money!
    Of course, Clinton's tax plan will tax SGI out of existence. :-)


[e-mail]