2008 Apr 3 - 2001 aftermath

[Jedit]

All they did was mount the set on a spindle and rotate it, you know. Not exactly rocket science.

You must have never worked with film/video on a professional scale. keeping the camera steady, keeping the lighting constant, keeping the subject from being crushed by the mechanisms you're using, all very hard to do. And just because you can do it technically doesn't mean you can do it artfully.

I've seen footage of them shooting it. It was about as technically advanced as a hamster wheel - mostly because it was a hamster wheel, writ large. They didn't have to worry about keeping the camera steady because it was either bolted to the set and immovable (in the case of the space station) or not attached to it at all (in the case of the Discovery centrifuge). The lighting was kept constant by lighting the sets from within and designing them to eliminate shadows.

Sure, the effect looks very good, but it was no great feat of skill to achieve it - even in 1968.

[collegestudent22]

I dunno. On the one hand, he's a founding father, on the other, he's kind of (borderline?) anti-tech, so ... *shrug*

Isn't a good bit of Sci-Fi anti-tech? You know, being along the lines of some new tech is invented and ends up being really dangerous and essentially nearing or causing the destruction of the human race? Granted, most of that was written as really anti-nuclear, but since nuclear weaponry and energy is a form of technology....

[StruckingFuggle]

Sadly, that seems to be the case.