Originally Posted By mousermerf And they haven't even lit it yet.. my oh my how it;s going to be neon in person eh?
Originally Posted By mousermerf You show me your college transcripts where you've taken any class that covers lighting theory/practice. I'll wait. Then will seriously consider your new proposals/theories of beam spread, lens focal length, or light transmission that would justify how a jobsite floodlight constitutes "strong light."
Originally Posted By FerretAfros Drive past a road worksite in the middle of the night with one of those 360 inflatable floodlights and tell me that it's not a bright light. Especially when you try to look at the dark road in front of you. It may not be a well designed light for theatrical purposes, but construction floodlights are very bright. Also, the image came out clearly on the camera, which indicates that there's a decent ammount of light out there. Even the best cameras need enough light to pick up the images, which is why movie sets have so many of them, even when they're filming outside on a sunny day.
Originally Posted By mousermerf Digital cameras for blogs also have different modes and compensate for ambient lighting, unlike "film" cameras which can only record... omg. I am stopping mid paragraph because it is that ridiculous that I am being forced to have to explain this to you. Google it. It is not the same. You dont want to accept that, fine. Dont, i don care. But you're wrong. Stop getting offend that you're wrong about stuff, but google things and don't think just because you perceive things like driving down the road at night is the same as working in the industry and being trained in lighting systems.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt What does any of that have to do with the color of Mickey's coat in those images mousemerf? I'm starting to think that you might be a little bit off your rocker.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I'm not getting offended, and it wasn't even my comment to get offended about. However, I do have some experience in the construction field, as well as using point and shoot cameras in all sorts of conditions, and I can say that anything that's "blog quality" wouldn't be able to get a shot that clearly without a decent ammount of light. They also wouldn't be operating a crane and have workers out on a boom lift unless there was ample light to see what was going on. No, I don't have a degree in lighting design. No, I haven't read any article on Google. However, I do have some applicable real world experiences that I'd like to share that I feel are relevant to the discussion. I still agree that the green is too lime green to match the original film, and the red is a little too light, but I guess my uninformed eyes are alright with accepting it for what it is, and hoping for a better paint job down the road. For now, I think it looks fine, especially at night.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros Sorry if that last post seems a little snappy; that wasn't the intent. However, I do stand by every thing in it and wish that you wouldn't take things so seriously. We get that you have a lot of experience with lighting and colors, but using my "average consumer with knowledge of the original art" eyes, it really doesn't look that bad. It's not the same colors as the original film, but it's close enough that they're clearly inspired by it. Why not get upset that the support column clearly has different sky colors for each of the three sections, even though they're all supposed to represent the same sky? They can't even seem to be consistent within the single attraction, so why do we have to bring in outside refrences?
Originally Posted By mousermerf I do apologize, I just realized I barked at FA thinking he/she was DaBob, who I do sometimes think likes just to argue with me and apparently this time it was getting under my skin.
Originally Posted By mousermerf <<<Why not get upset that the support column clearly has different sky colors for each of the three sections>>> I hadn't even noticed that. I think it's because I really don't like salmon colored anything. it's my color equivalent of the word "moist." Got a link to a good pic of it? I could atleast guess what the logic for it is.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros There aren't really any pictures focusing on it, but you can kind of see it in this one: <a href="http://darkbeer.smugmug.com/Theme-Parks/Disneyland-Resort-22510/11350054_F3TYG#797164271_Yr6GU-A-LB" target="_blank">http://darkbeer.smugmug.com/Th...6GU-A-LB</a> My guess is that they are trying to make it so it feebly attempts to tell a story while the jewel opens up. That way, it's a nice happy painting when the ride is loading (though the tornado is clearly visible), and then you later see the dark scary clouds as the jewel unfolds before your very eyes. It's sure to be a magical experience.
Originally Posted By mousermerf Yeah, it's supposed to "get dark" as the jewel rises. This this is so hokey it's not funny.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros No, it's not supposed to be funny. It will be mysterious and dramatic!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <You show me your college transcripts where you've taken any class that covers lighting theory/practice. I'll wait.> Actually I have a degree in theatre. I feel no compunction to dig out my old transcripts and scan them for your satisfaction, babycakes, but I understand a thing or three about lighting. You are simply a victim of too-literal thinking on this one, mm. You think that because the green was one shade in the film, it needs to be the same shade for this topper. But the media are completely different. One is a moving image directly in front of one's eyes in a controlled environment, the other is a static figure moving in a circle 30 feet above the ground that will be seen at all times of the day and night. The decision was made that a lighter green would "read" better than a dark green against a dark red in those circumstances. The video just shows that they were probably right about that, and I think that really ticks you off since you made such a stink about it and tried (badly) to say that this difference in opinion made you better or smarter or "Disney-er than thou."
Originally Posted By mousermerf I never said any such thing, certainly never meant to imply Disney-er, but better and smarter is always a given.
Originally Posted By mousermerf And you're already calling me babycakes? You haven't even offered to buy me a proper drink at the Cove Bar. What is America coming to? No sense of of a proper gentleman anymore I tell ya. No drink - babycakes!? And then he paints a mouse all wrong and tries to blame it on the the lighting.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I didn't paint the mouse. But nice to see a sense of humor popping up in you.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>The video just shows that they were probably right about that<< Yes, it does. Must be frustrating after going so far out on a limb to see that Mickey looks really good and that no one, ever, will look up and scream "His coat's the wrong color!!!!!!!!" Well, maybe one person will do that. But that's about it.
