JO
Remember they were made in and before 1991. I expect most were models. Blade (is that the one that falls from the sky and embeds into a surface on the pointy bit of the 2?) would be very easily done, although it may have taken them a wee bit of time to get the angle and distance from the point of entry correct, and then slow the footage down.
Glass is easy, they just create a 2 shaped out of crystal and have moving light sources above and around it reflecting/refracting.
I thought the blade one was a model but wasn't full sure, like you say it probably took ages for them to get it right.
The glass one does look excellent, althought it did look a little perfect to me, however it just goes to show how great those models were.
I take it then it was just Woodpecker, Ariel, Excalibur & Catalyst that were computer generated then, or were they models also?
I have a question, which of the 2's from 1991-2001 were computer generated & which were model's, a lot are quite obvious (car, neon, dog) however a few I'm not sure about like glass & blade, and I only say that because I've read elsewhere that all were models yet glass always looked like CGI to me.
Remember they were made in and before 1991. I expect most were models. Blade (is that the one that falls from the sky and embeds into a surface on the pointy bit of the 2?) would be very easily done, although it may have taken them a wee bit of time to get the angle and distance from the point of entry correct, and then slow the footage down.
Glass is easy, they just create a 2 shaped out of crystal and have moving light sources above and around it reflecting/refracting.
I thought the blade one was a model but wasn't full sure, like you say it probably took ages for them to get it right.
The glass one does look excellent, althought it did look a little perfect to me, however it just goes to show how great those models were.
I take it then it was just Woodpecker, Ariel, Excalibur & Catalyst that were computer generated then, or were they models also?
JO
Paint was filmed sideways so the paint just dropped from the top
Paint is simple but clever, you can't tell that it was filmed sideways at all really.
Glass is easy, they just create a 2 shaped out of crystal and have moving light sources above and around it reflecting/refracting.
Paint was filmed sideways so the paint just dropped from the top
Paint is simple but clever, you can't tell that it was filmed sideways at all really.
MI
Remember they were made in and before 1991. I expect most were models. Blade (is that the one that falls from the sky and embeds into a surface on the pointy bit of the 2?) would be very easily done, although it may have taken them a wee bit of time to get the angle and distance from the point of entry correct, and then slow the footage down.
Glass is easy, they just create a 2 shaped out of crystal and have moving light sources above and around it reflecting/refracting.
I thought the blade one was a model but wasn't full sure, like you say it probably took ages for them to get it right.
The glass one does look excellent, althought it did look a little perfect to me, however it just goes to show how great those models were.
I take it then it was just Woodpecker, Ariel, Excalibur & Catalyst that were computer generated then, or were they models also?
Ariel wasn't exactly hard to do was it? Point a camera at a green model on a red background, then add in some fairly basic post-production faux-tuning effects. Don't confuse CGI with post-production editing.
Excalibur could have been easily done with some string and/or similarly to Paint, a solid model held in place by an out-of-shot arm behind the model, which then was moved slowly out of the water.
I have a question, which of the 2's from 1991-2001 were computer generated & which were model's, a lot are quite obvious (car, neon, dog) however a few I'm not sure about like glass & blade, and I only say that because I've read elsewhere that all were models yet glass always looked like CGI to me.
Remember they were made in and before 1991. I expect most were models. Blade (is that the one that falls from the sky and embeds into a surface on the pointy bit of the 2?) would be very easily done, although it may have taken them a wee bit of time to get the angle and distance from the point of entry correct, and then slow the footage down.
Glass is easy, they just create a 2 shaped out of crystal and have moving light sources above and around it reflecting/refracting.
I thought the blade one was a model but wasn't full sure, like you say it probably took ages for them to get it right.
The glass one does look excellent, althought it did look a little perfect to me, however it just goes to show how great those models were.
I take it then it was just Woodpecker, Ariel, Excalibur & Catalyst that were computer generated then, or were they models also?
Ariel wasn't exactly hard to do was it? Point a camera at a green model on a red background, then add in some fairly basic post-production faux-tuning effects. Don't confuse CGI with post-production editing.
Excalibur could have been easily done with some string and/or similarly to Paint, a solid model held in place by an out-of-shot arm behind the model, which then was moved slowly out of the water.
JO
Remember they were made in and before 1991. I expect most were models. Blade (is that the one that falls from the sky and embeds into a surface on the pointy bit of the 2?) would be very easily done, although it may have taken them a wee bit of time to get the angle and distance from the point of entry correct, and then slow the footage down.
Glass is easy, they just create a 2 shaped out of crystal and have moving light sources above and around it reflecting/refracting.
I thought the blade one was a model but wasn't full sure, like you say it probably took ages for them to get it right.
The glass one does look excellent, althought it did look a little perfect to me, however it just goes to show how great those models were.
I take it then it was just Woodpecker, Ariel, Excalibur & Catalyst that were computer generated then, or were they models also?
Ariel wasn't exactly hard to do was it? Point a camera at a green model on a red background, then add in some fairly basic post-production faux-tuning effects. Don't confuse CGI with post-production editing.
Excalibur could have been easily done with some string and/or similarly to Paint, a solid model held in place by an out-of-shot arm behind the model, which then was moved slowly out of the water.
Ah OK I see, yeah I did think ariel was a model but wasn't too sure, the finish on the logo looked treated (lighting wise).
Excalibur & Woodpecker were the ones that confused me more than anything, if excalibur is a model it's a great model, but woodpecker to me looks CGI, however I could be wrong & again it could be the finish on them.
I just watched a few more back & even now 20 years on neon, copper cut-out, silk, excalibur, ariel, steam & diary still would work today IMO. I just hope when we get the refresh in the next year or two that the actual 2 is the main object rather than being the "window to the world"
I have a question, which of the 2's from 1991-2001 were computer generated & which were model's, a lot are quite obvious (car, neon, dog) however a few I'm not sure about like glass & blade, and I only say that because I've read elsewhere that all were models yet glass always looked like CGI to me.
Remember they were made in and before 1991. I expect most were models. Blade (is that the one that falls from the sky and embeds into a surface on the pointy bit of the 2?) would be very easily done, although it may have taken them a wee bit of time to get the angle and distance from the point of entry correct, and then slow the footage down.
Glass is easy, they just create a 2 shaped out of crystal and have moving light sources above and around it reflecting/refracting.
I thought the blade one was a model but wasn't full sure, like you say it probably took ages for them to get it right.
The glass one does look excellent, althought it did look a little perfect to me, however it just goes to show how great those models were.
I take it then it was just Woodpecker, Ariel, Excalibur & Catalyst that were computer generated then, or were they models also?
Ariel wasn't exactly hard to do was it? Point a camera at a green model on a red background, then add in some fairly basic post-production faux-tuning effects. Don't confuse CGI with post-production editing.
Excalibur could have been easily done with some string and/or similarly to Paint, a solid model held in place by an out-of-shot arm behind the model, which then was moved slowly out of the water.
Ah OK I see, yeah I did think ariel was a model but wasn't too sure, the finish on the logo looked treated (lighting wise).
Excalibur & Woodpecker were the ones that confused me more than anything, if excalibur is a model it's a great model, but woodpecker to me looks CGI, however I could be wrong & again it could be the finish on them.
I just watched a few more back & even now 20 years on neon, copper cut-out, silk, excalibur, ariel, steam & diary still would work today IMO. I just hope when we get the refresh in the next year or two that the actual 2 is the main object rather than being the "window to the world"
MI
If the camera is where the star is, then the two arms holding the 2 model would be hidden by the model itself as it is raised out of the water, assuming the arms are at a 45 degree angle to the model itself.
, if excalibur is a model it's a great model, but woodpecker to me looks CGI, however I could be wrong & again it could be the finish on them.
If the camera is where the star is, then the two arms holding the 2 model would be hidden by the model itself as it is raised out of the water, assuming the arms are at a 45 degree angle to the model itself.
JO
If the camera is where the star is, then the two arms holding the 2 model would be hidden by the model itself as it is raised out of the water, assuming the arms are at a 45 degree angle to the model itself.
Ah I see I get you now, clever camera work like diary & steam which are "floating in space", so I assume then that only Woodpecker is computer generated or was that one a model as well?
, if excalibur is a model it's a great model, but woodpecker to me looks CGI, however I could be wrong & again it could be the finish on them.
If the camera is where the star is, then the two arms holding the 2 model would be hidden by the model itself as it is raised out of the water, assuming the arms are at a 45 degree angle to the model itself.
Ah I see I get you now, clever camera work like diary & steam which are "floating in space", so I assume then that only Woodpecker is computer generated or was that one a model as well?
MA
Firecracker was definitely a model, you can see the strings etc.
This link shows how 'Steam', 'Paint' and 'Diary' were created.
http://www.tv-ark.org.uk/mivana/mediaplayer.php?id=931818a155c8e6883bad7f32ee9aaa3d&media=howdotheydothat_bbc2idents&type=mp4
This link shows how 'Steam', 'Paint' and 'Diary' were created.
http://www.tv-ark.org.uk/mivana/mediaplayer.php?id=931818a155c8e6883bad7f32ee9aaa3d&media=howdotheydothat_bbc2idents&type=mp4
MI
Please note I am only indicating that they COULD have been models. They may well have been CGI. But that would take all the magic away.
Woodpecker could be done with models -- the springs could be wrappers for oscillating arms and again a motorised setup, with multiple shots composited into one.
Woodpecker could be done with models -- the springs could be wrappers for oscillating arms and again a motorised setup, with multiple shots composited into one.
JO
Yeah I've seen that video it is a great insight, seems a real big shame that they were got rid of them unnecessarily in 2001, you can tell they sort of regretted it by creating the "window" ones in a similar style to the originals.
I do like the accidental "error" of the last firecracker not going off in that one actually, adds a nice little touch to the ident.
I also thought it was a shame that the 2000 set only had a short life on air, they gave some nice needed fresh air to the set & then they got dropped for the yellow ones.
I've had another look at woodpecker & I'm still not sure if it's a model or CGI:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01FqWixFbCM&feature=related
Firecracker was definitely a model, you can see the strings etc.
This link shows how 'Steam', 'Paint' and 'Diary' were created.
http://www.tv-ark.org.uk/mivana/mediaplayer.php?id=931818a155c8e6883bad7f32ee9aaa3d&media=howdotheydothat_bbc2idents&type=mp4
This link shows how 'Steam', 'Paint' and 'Diary' were created.
http://www.tv-ark.org.uk/mivana/mediaplayer.php?id=931818a155c8e6883bad7f32ee9aaa3d&media=howdotheydothat_bbc2idents&type=mp4
Yeah I've seen that video it is a great insight, seems a real big shame that they were got rid of them unnecessarily in 2001, you can tell they sort of regretted it by creating the "window" ones in a similar style to the originals.
I do like the accidental "error" of the last firecracker not going off in that one actually, adds a nice little touch to the ident.
I also thought it was a shame that the 2000 set only had a short life on air, they gave some nice needed fresh air to the set & then they got dropped for the yellow ones.
I've had another look at woodpecker & I'm still not sure if it's a model or CGI:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01FqWixFbCM&feature=related
JO
Excalibur was definitely computer generated (always thought the 2 looked off in that one, not sure whether this was accidental or due to software limitations) though the vast majority of the set through to the Millennium batch were live action models (TV Ark cites Optics as the first CGI ident).
As for the last cracker failing to go off in Firecracker, I'm inclined to believe this was intentional to allow for the "B-B-C-2" motif in the soundtrack. This device can also be heard in the audios of Optics and Swan and would of course go on to form the signature theme for the Robot 2s.
It would not have been present had the fifth one popped - so if I'm barking up the wrong tree and the plan was indeed for it to go off and its refusal was by chance, you've possibly got it to thank for inspiring the aforementioned signature score.
As for the last cracker failing to go off in Firecracker, I'm inclined to believe this was intentional to allow for the "B-B-C-2" motif in the soundtrack. This device can also be heard in the audios of Optics and Swan and would of course go on to form the signature theme for the Robot 2s.
It would not have been present had the fifth one popped - so if I'm barking up the wrong tree and the plan was indeed for it to go off and its refusal was by chance, you've possibly got it to thank for inspiring the aforementioned signature score.
LL
My guess is that it's CGI. It looks real from the start but when the one that's closest to the camera falls, the motion seems a little unnatural. Whether or not it's just that capture, I don't know, but I've thought the same with other uploads.
I've read about the four-note jingle in Firecracker before; whether or not it was intended to be a signature tune throughout the idents is something I'm not sure about. Only now you mention Optics and Swan, I've realised that the notes are present. I'd have figured that they'd have made the jingle more prominent and used it over more idents if that was the case. Of course, I'm far from a branding expert.
Just on a side note, by the way, I read somewhere on a TV Forum thread a while ago that the 1991 BBC 1 globe was in fact a physical model with CG effects added onto it. It was only in that thread that I heard that, and everything else referring to it seems to claim it was entirely CG. Could somebody clarify, please?
I've had another look at woodpecker & I'm still not sure if it's a model or CGI:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01FqWixFbCM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01FqWixFbCM&feature=related
My guess is that it's CGI. It looks real from the start but when the one that's closest to the camera falls, the motion seems a little unnatural. Whether or not it's just that capture, I don't know, but I've thought the same with other uploads.
As for the last cracker failing to go off in Firecracker, I'm inclined to believe this was intentional to allow for the "B-B-C-2" motif in the soundtrack. This device can also be heard in the audios of Optics and Swan and would of course go on to form the signature theme for the Robot 2s.
I've read about the four-note jingle in Firecracker before; whether or not it was intended to be a signature tune throughout the idents is something I'm not sure about. Only now you mention Optics and Swan, I've realised that the notes are present. I'd have figured that they'd have made the jingle more prominent and used it over more idents if that was the case. Of course, I'm far from a branding expert.
Just on a side note, by the way, I read somewhere on a TV Forum thread a while ago that the 1991 BBC 1 globe was in fact a physical model with CG effects added onto it. It was only in that thread that I heard that, and everything else referring to it seems to claim it was entirely CG. Could somebody clarify, please?