On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 13:29:33 GMT, "David McCall" <davidmccall@attbi.com> wrote:

>"Keven Fedirko" <kfedirko@telus.net> wrote in message news:kfedirko-ya02408000R2204032227160001@news.telus.net...

>> In article <v9qrd9mcm08f39@corp.supernews.com>, "Richard Crowley"

>> <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:

>> >Branch topic: Recommended DVD commentaries of interest for technical topics

[...]

>I did rent the "Spy kids 2" DVD for the commentary. It was very good,

>especially if you are new to the effects biz. There were many excellent

>points about choosing to use partial sets with matte paintings to fill

>out the wide shot, so as to not blow your budget on an establishing shot.

>I've been around long enough, that there wasn't much that was new to me,

>but it was still not quite boring.

Did you get near the end of the commentary running the

length of the movie (not just the "10-minute lesson", or

some-such)? Interesting comments comparing video with

film (RR used video for this, and *prefers* it to film

for tonality, ease of lighting for it, and end-product

quality...). Also interesting comment was there about

how much of the "big-time" movie production (and what

different types of work) can be done by one person and

on just a desktop computer these days...;-).

>I found it interesting to hear that $36,000,000 is now considered an

>extremely low budget. I'm getting old. I still thought low budget was a couple million :-)

Thet'z fer home-made shorts...!;-)

Given the amount of special effects that this movie

sported, 36-mil doesn't seem too bad ('course

more *could* have been spent on the writing and

actors.....;-).