Talk:Previsualization

Dozoretz inclusion

Please don't delete the information regarding Knoll/Dozoretz. Dozoretz is perhaps the biggest pioneer of the field, more or less starting it in earnest with work in Mission Impossible and using it extensively to essentially create a pre-viz cut of the entirety of each of the Star Wars prequels before filming began. He was also the first person hired for the prequels, with good cause. He's been cited as one of the top three pre-viz artists in the world by a noted FX publication. His interview with PC Magazine also clearly establishes his place central to the blossoming of the field. That he doesn't have an article on WP yet is an omission that hopefully will be addressed in the near future. Girolamo Savonarola 19:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edit is nonsensical - Lucas didn't previz the films. Furthermore, while discussing Dozoretz's role in an article on the film may indeed be a "minor player" mention, bringing up the name of the guy who created the field of modern previsualization is plenty germane in an article on Previsualization. If you have further problems with this, cite something to the contrary. Girolamo Savonarola 19:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

So why not mention the other "TOP THREE" pre-viz artists? Why not mention Ron Frankel? I know previz people that could run rings around David. What is the point in mentioning his name where it does not belong. He is/was a minor player.

The fact that the inclusion of only one artist's name (and not any others) is why the omission should be enacted. In your previous discussion piece, you mention that he is ONE of the top three previsualization artists (from an article dated from 2002). This leads us to the question of "Why not mentuion the other two?" So he was the first previz-artist hired at the 'Ranch. Should we not also mention the first previz artists hired at Warner Brothers?

I mean, really? There is no mention of hardware and software used, techniques, or even a brief description of the process- and yet you see fit to "drop names." The sad thing is this is all too "Hollywood." The awesome thing is, that people are going to see this discussion, and realize what a crock the name dropping is anyway.

Enjoy!

Perhaps you could actually open an account here instead of sniping from the sidelines. The notion that Dozoretz is a minor player is laughable when he pretty much started the field and supervised the work on the most previz-intensive films yet created. Why was Frankel omitted? I didn't write the Dozoretz section to begin with, so I don't know. I'm guessing that the other two were chosen on the merits of their work, which I'm not qualified to judge; however, Dozoretz was chosen not only for the films he worked on, but the amount of influence he's had in the creation of the field. I don't think it's unreasonable to include notable founding artists when discussing the history of a field. This is an encyclopedia - we are supposed to cite names when they are relevant to the article. If you want to add Frankel and Green's contributions to the field, please do as I am not familiar with the specifics of their particular work. I'm going to do a more thorough edit of this page in the next few days, with references. If you have sourced information which negates Dozoretz's involvement with the creation of modern CGI-based previsualization, cite it, otherwise future edits may be regarded by other editors as vandalism. Girolamo Savonarola 21:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

name dropping is not information

Cite what??? How do you 'prove' something that DIDN'T HAPPEN? You are asking me to cite articles that proves David Dozoretz is not the single handed "founder" of previsualization? Are you on crack? The fact of the matter is this: You (or the original author) cited Dozoretz name like three times in the article. Please get his flacid penis out of your mouth, and consider a well written entry like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storyboarding —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.162.12.103 (talk • contribs)

Yes, they mention a few artists- nothing wrong with that. But, your account is more of a fairy tale, describing the "GLORIOUS HIRING" (LMAO) of the magnificent DAVID DOZORETZ as the king of Previz. Cut us all some slack, remove your puckered lips from his anus, and make a useful entry instead of worrying about who's "sniping" your beloved post.

If you're going to make personal attacks, then I cannot assume that you are editing in good faith. The end. Girolamo Savonarola 23:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the difference between a personal attack and a personl endorsement when it comes to providing INFORMATION. Now you feel the frustration of viewers who are forced to sift through dribble to try and discern truth about an entry. The end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.162.12.103 (talk • contribs)

One difference is that personal attacks can get you banned from Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks KarlBunker 00:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As for the nature of your edit, I don't see where you've given any valid reason for it. A Google search shows that David Dozoretz is a well-recognized name in the field of previsualization. The word "glorious" does not appear in the text you're removing. So without misrepresenting your edit, and without personal attacks and vulgar language, do you have reason for making this edit? KarlBunker 01:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. We're new to discussion about previs. Surely we're not stars as David and others but we did worked hard for nearly two decades doing previs when no name was attached to this process. I can recall doing previs using sinclair spectrum and Amiga, but I don't feel the need to enter that as I'm not sure if anyone can use that information. Only reason would be PR. So if David or other people can do good PR while providing useful information - I guess it's ok. History is remembering people that are more shouted around, but I guess it's natural thing. For example - I'm sure everyone knows who is Thomas Edison, but not many people knew who was Nikola Tesla : ) Wikipedia is actually meant to deliver information that can be useful for people, in one form or another.

Just today I entered a proposal for new term - superprevis. We were doing previs for blockbuster Feature films since end of 80s, and we feel that previs should be much more than camera planning, and can serve much better on creative side of film-making. Ideally - every film will after the script is nearly finished enter superprevis stage, where all film elements are orchestrated. It will be an amazing tool to plan the movie. Hopefully it can mean more jobs to animators, as Hollywood can start greenlighting superprevis works - rather than scripts. Please read our entry about superprevis as we're interested to hear more about what you think about it. Dear Girolamo - I understand your point completely, as we also know many excellent hard-working artists, but somehow - history is always on the side of lucky ones - guys that happened to work in cool companies : ) Me and few of my friends were "wrists" on many projects - doing jobs of few directors, and we don't even got our names out there... I guess when you work too much, you don't have time for PR at all : )Girolamo - where do you work at the moment?

Best regards from Dragon (the poor unknown previs artist who wishes that previs can become an appreciated art-form (which it surely can be)).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceDragon (talk • contribs) 20:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No such thing as Superpreviz!

I have worked in the film industry for about 15 years and have never heard of "Superprevis." SpaceDragon, please site sources or remove this entire text from this article. Please keep discussion centered around Previs, not obscure proposed terms that point to your own company which I believe happens to be called "Superprevis."

SpaceDragon's answer to above:

Dear Mr, Anonymous censor. If you would have been reading article more carefully - you wold understand that Superprevis is new coined-up term that describes higher level of previs and includes nearly all final cinematic elements found in final film: Textures, sounds, music, etc. I don't think there is anything obscure to proposing new term and kind of service. I also don't see why other people could have made links to their companies in Wikipedia, and I can not. As far as I understand Wikipedia is source of knowledge - new and old, and is not a Museum-kind of register, and is not who is who IMDB-kind of read as well. If you feel that after only 15 years in film you have authority to judge others, that's a bad attitude. Why are you invisible to others?

I'm sorry to notice that this entire section we created was wiped away by someone. I don't see a reason to get into further discussions with close-minded people. Time will be the judge... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.75.43 (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It is commonly accepted that editors should avoid neologisms. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Previsualization Corrections

A new, updated and carefully researched Previsualization article was uploaded to Wiki recently. In several places it updated inaccurate or unsubstantiated entries from the previous version. The two versions have been mashed together until, I suppose, there is some decision made as to what information deserves to remain.

Below is a list of problems with the original entry(s) including information that is simply not based on fact.

History: Paragraph 2:

“In 1992 Colin Green pioneered the process of Previsualization by working on Judge Dredd.[citation needed].”

This is flat out wrong. Judge Dredd was not in production of any kind in 1992. The newer entry correctly identifies Green’s work on Dredd based on The Making of Judge Dredd book (cited) as well as conversations with Anezka Sebek (IMDB credited VFX producer on Judge Dredd) who worked in the same facility as Green . An interview with Colin Green is also cited in which Green states that work on Judge Dredd began much later then 1992. At this point, it makes no sense to leave this information on the site.

History: Paragraph 3:

The writing here is misleading. The date of 1993 refers to Jurassic Park VFX, not pre-viz. The next sentence mentions pre-viz for Mission Impossible, but with no date given. Mission Impossible was released on 5/22/96 and the production was done in 1995. The release date should be included. While the prefatory comment about ILM’s pioneering VFX work is useful for context, as written, it might appear to be suggesting that ILM was doing digital previz in 1993. They weren’t.

History: Paragraph 4:

Again, the claim that the Star Wars prequels were the first instance of a pre-viz team reporting to the director is incorrect. Lynda Weinman’s work on the previz for Star Trek V: The Final Frontier was clearly documented in 1989. The same could be said of James Cameron’s use of gaming technology for The Abyss. However, Steven D. Katz’s work on Clear and Present Danger pre-dated ILMs work and was in fact, far more sophisticated than the work of Dozoretz. A description of the type of previz Dozoretz was doing is related in an intereview with him. He explains that the early pre-viz in which he was involved used simple models. Katz’s work, which was shown on Entertainment Tonight on a special segment in 1994, met the definition of “superpreviz” as mentioned in this section in that fully textured models were used with a voice track, sound fx and musical score. In addition, all shots within the sequence were included not just fx shots and all the sets were built based on set blueprints and location photographs. Katz’s work is documented in magazine articles and an exhibit at the Museum of the Moving Image in New York. It is cited in the current article.

Digital Previsualization: Paragraph 9:

The observation and referenced article on previsualization for photography points out an interesting parallel, however, anyone familiar with the history of photography will recognize the lack of research in the Ron Bigelow article, which is used as a citation. There is a glaring omission: the names of the renowned originators of the practice of photographic visualization from the initial exposure to the print — Ansel Adams and Fred Archer.

The method Bigelow discusses but does not name is the Zone System as outlined in Adams’ classic book series on photography that were published in the early 1940s and remain a cornerstone of landscape photographic technique. This entry is a major embarrassment considering that Wiki has two very good entries on the subject. The Zone System and the process of visualization is practically religious doctrine to several generations of photographers. Adams used the word visualization not previsualization.

The contributor who added this paragraph made a valid connection, but it probably has little actual bearing on previsualization for the movies and there is no evidence that Adams’ work had any influence on motion picture art directors. There are other visualization practices employed in theater arts and architectural design that are equally interesting, for example, camera angle projection, which was used by motion picture art directors in the silent era all the way up to the mid 1990s. The question is whether or not a Wiki article can or should include this level of detail. Comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eshulusky (talk • contribs) 15:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

See Also Corrections

This section holds multiple questionable links IMHO. I've researched See Also MoS. According to Wiki's MoS, lists of links to web addresses other than to Wikipedia pages, should be under the heading "External links" The first two links are interviews even though that border on advertising but holds some interest to those interested in high end previsualization for movies. The last link to Stereoscopic 3d if deemed relevant should be under external links. The next to last link "Previsualization Software" links to an internal wiki page that promotes a specific software company's page, I will delete that one but would like opinions on the others. WLasa (talk) 05:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional citations

As a whole, this article may need stronger citations; certain paragraphs are completely devoid of in-text citations. It will require a certain amount of research as well as going over the present citations to concede what can be retained and what needs to be removed. I can start by going over those present citations. InedibleDevon (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)