#ILM
Aaron, I've been away a few days, but anyway . . .
I posted Rosebush's side just to present an opposing point of view.
As I said earlier, I feel a person's capacity is driven more by their
desire than by other factors.
I don't want to get into to position of defending Rosebush's views,
but here is a point just for kicks. Many on this forum strongly
disagree with Rosebush's view: Its easier to teach techies animation
than arties. And, most people are right that "fuction-based"
programming, etc., is not required to do good 3D.
However, consider ILM and Jurassic Park. The folks at ILM have said
that, while the individual programs used to do the CGI were
commercial, the glue that tied them all together was custom-coded.
One might deduce from this fact that it would be easier to teach a
techie the mathematics of color, than it would be to teach an artist
good programming with C, or assembler, or whatever. Not only would
the artist be required to know the software, they would also need to
understand the custom interface and what to expect in terms of proper
app. interaction.
Cleary, ILM is the exception and not the rule. Yet, few would dispute
that the work at ILM sets the "class curve" for CGI. — James —