Subject:
|
Re: new Millennium Falcon
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.starwars
|
Date:
|
Fri, 8 Oct 1999 17:35:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
384 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.starwars, John VanZwieten writes:
> I think the appearance of detail is due to shadowing and pixelization, and
> probably some SPUDs in the case of the side portals.
You're certainly enititled to that opinion.
> Care to take a stab as to why only half the radar dish is showing, and what
> that stuff below the "FAL" is?
What does the crazy way the lights sources are angled on the model have to do
with whether it's Lego or not?
Or, let me rephrase that, rather than be disingenous. I've seen someone's
suggestion that it's some sort of access hatch left open, which is what I
assume you're trying to get at. I just don't think that's the case. Given the
type of shot it is, do you really think Lego's marketing department would leave
a hatch open on it? If it were a photo grabbed to just throw into the graphic,
do you really think it ever would have been taken with the hatch open, lit the
way it is? If a marketing shot was going to be taken with the hatch open, and
at that angle, it would be lit so that you could view the interior.
Lego's marketing department has screwed up exactly one photograph that I've
ever seen- the cover of the Sith Infiltrator. And that is just shot in a
less-than-flattering way for the model, it's not incompetently lit.
eric
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: new Millennium Falcon
|
| Lorbaat <eric@nospam.thirteen.net> wrote in message news:FJAMFF.CAH@lugnet.com... (...) much (...) I think the appearance of detail is due to shadowing and pixelization, and probably some SPUDs in the case of the side portals. Care to take a stab (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
14 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
