Hacker News

points by reactordev 2 days ago | 0 comments

I think you are missing the point here. The art assets in question belong to the studio. Yes, they are painstakingly made. They are made with the assistance of some very very expensive technologies. Full body scans. Facial rigging with 180 high fps cameras. Mocap suits and props in a full blown warehouse studio. The works. It's not just a 3D model. It's a rigged 3d digital twin of an actor. There's image rights, etc that have to be negotiated and deals made. Preservation would be to preserve the data as is rather than reworking it into a blender scene.

[–] greycol 2 days ago

Without getting into the much debated philosophy of restoration/display of preserved things and how restoration can often cause degradation to the original piece, consider that just preserving the data in the manner you suggest also requires preserving the original software if you ever want to view it. Which requires not just preserving that original software but also all the external hardware and software that original software relies on. Quite often that's a dead end as it requires preserving an activation/license server that the preservers don't have access to.

[–] reactordev 2 days ago

That isn’t true, you preserve the data as is for the software as is. You can emulate under it if you need to run it. This is what internet archive has done and the proper preservation of the media is in tact. In NO WAY do you ever need to convert the data back to a workable source in its original authoring program.

[–] greycol 1 day ago

You are wrong, you are basically saying "black cats exist therefore cats can't be tabby", there are plenty of preservation initiatives that preserve works in different forms when the original media can not be practically preserved or displayed. Yes best practice is to preserve as close to initial state as possible, that does not mean that when you cannot feasibly preserve the work in it's original state (with digital it's often due to drm) that you just say screw it nothing we can do but chuck it in the dustbin of history.

[–] reactordev 1 day ago

circumventing DRM is exactly what separates breaking the law from preservation...

[–] greycol 1 day ago

That's like saying bank robbers don't actually shoot guns, only people who use guns legally shoot them. It's still preservation. Or even more apt saying archeologists aren't archeologists they're tomb raiders. They may be tomb raiders but they are still archeologists.

[–] numpad0 1 day ago

My point is about endemic lack of general understanding for these types of arts on English part of the Internet/WWW, no offense to GP intended. It feels like listening to museum curators discussing "oil on canvas" without ever having set foot on a store that have tubes of paints and canvases on the shelf and Apple Pay stickers at the cashier.

Without more widespread recognition about how these models, arts, games, etc., are artificially made by humans, and not magically discovered, I think discussions as to how they should be handled will be always a bit off, whichever way it would go. That's my point.