Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Jony Ive is one half of the Steve/Jony combo that saved Apple, his designs while at Apple are legendary and are what set Apple apart from the PC manufacturers. If the iMac looked like every other PC on the market, would it have sold as well? If the iPod looked like every other mp3 player? Some people care about design, even if it’s not functional. It’s purpose is to bring users enjoyment

Edit to say, at least for those users that enjoy beautiful things, which is probably quite a few I’d imagine. I buy cars based solely on how they look and feel, not how fast they are or how many features they have

Totally agree. As long as he had Steve to temper him.
Once Steve was gone, we were just left with unadulterated Johny. And that quickly went from bad to worse.
 
Um ... why practical?
Gimmie half a day and I'll have the same thing whipped up in After Effects.
Too much time and money. What a waste.
 
Imagine the amount of bugs they could have fixed with the money they're wasting on Apple TV.
 
Rather than using digital techniques, the new sequence was made by shooting large glass versions of the Apple TV logo, with physical motion and changing lighting used to create effects.
This is what I like about pre-CGI special effects, sometimes they can be made extremely fast, and fine tuned on-site.
The downside is they are sometimes hard to reproduce exactly.
 
This is what I like about pre-CGI special effects, sometimes they can be made extremely fast, and fine tuned on-site.
The downside is they are sometimes hard to reproduce exactly.
Why is this a downside? If it was easy to recreate classic paintings or easy to throw together an orchestral piece on par with Vivaldi's The Four Seasons would they really be considered masterpieces? The time and effort put into these things is what makes them special.
 
Good job Apple. This is the kind of thing they should be funding considering their cash reserves and importance of this part of the company.
 
If the result looks like CGI, then what’s the point of making it “practical”? So it can take 30 times longer to create, cost 30 times more, and be nearly impossible to change later?

This hate toward anything CGI is pure marketing — just a passing trend. All those “no CGI” movies actually contain thousands of CGI shots; they’re simply branded as something special. In reality, it just means that VFX artists — already underpaid and overworked — don’t even get proper recognition for their work. Look at Top Gun: Maverick — all those planes are CGI, yet the studio tried to downplay the VFX team’s contribution by claiming everything was real. Total nonsense.
Same reason an artist hires a model to pose for them or an animator recording themselves acting out a scene they are trying to animate.

Doing this practically, even if the end result is CGI, could have been more for reference than anything else.

Maybe they wanted to reference how the light moves along the edges of the logo and how the frosted glass responds to the colored light.

Could they have just done all of this without a point of reference? Sure. But it will always look better and more natural if you use a point of reference vs just winging it.
 
That was bloody awful.
If you're referring to the quality, remember TV back then was 480 lines of resolution and this is probably a copy of a copy of a VHS tape that someone recorded off their TV. I don't know how they claim it was "remastered" - the original was shot on 35mm film - no need to "remaster" it - just copy the original (unless someone threw it away).
Believe me, the original 35mm print looked nothing like this.
 
Except for all the cleanup and compositing VFX that needed to be done on the result to make it actually look good in the final images. Notice the thing that's holding the leaf to the apple isn't in the final image? Yeah.. someone spent some time painting that out.

CGI is not AI.. CGI is VFX work done by real human artists, no different than real human artists working on set.
I like that "captured in-camera" description. Just the original is "captured in-camera" it's a digital camera, not a film camera, so no double exposures - all the multiple images are composited in post
 
If Apple adds the Premier League to their platform, it will be worth every single penny. Tim, do it!
 
This article is about the intro for Apple TV shows. I’m talking sbout the Mac startup sound used in the previous Apple TV intro. How does no one get this?
Wait, the previous sound was the Mac startup sound? That really never registered to me but now that you mention it I can imagine it.
 
Why is this a downside? If it was easy to recreate classic paintings or easy to throw together an orchestral piece on par with Vivaldi's The Four Seasons would they really be considered masterpieces? The time and effort put into these things is what makes them special.
For sure that is why they are special, I totally agree. It was not my intention to state that irreproducibility was a bad thing, rather that for those that want to reproduce the art (composers, mixing, fine-tuning, etc), it is indeed a downside to have an "all or nothing" take. Just because something has a downside, I don't take that to mean "all the time", "for everyone", "under all circumstances", it was a just a general point of consideration.

I guess I could have qualified they are downsides to some people. For example, those in production that just have to make a tiny change...well, you don't have to wait a day for the same outside light conditions! Or, let's say the following clip was a movie, but there was some problem in the scene, the following could really not be reshot:
I know it was a different time, but I believe it demonstrates my point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SalisburySam
Reminds me of the old HBO intro from the 80s

😎



I was a little kid I knew when that music and opening came on the tv... it was time to get in front of it! Thanks for this post. So many people just bitching and blathering about cost or waste of time do not have on clue that "opening" sequences say a lot about a company. The more attention to detail and getting it right, is a sign a company cares about its product and experience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rb2112
I was a little kid I knew when that music and opening came on the tv... it was time to get in front of it! Thanks for this post. So many people just bitching and blathering about cost or waste of time do not have on clue that "opening" sequences say a lot about a company. The more attention to detail and getting it right, is a sign a company cares about its product and experience.

The request from HBO was to "Make an opening that had never been done for TV"
 
If you're referring to the quality, remember TV back then was 480 lines of resolution and this is probably a copy of a copy of a VHS tape that someone recorded off their TV. I don't know how they claim it was "remastered" - the original was shot on 35mm film - no need to "remaster" it - just copy the original (unless someone threw it away).
Believe me, the original 35mm print looked nothing like this.
No, I meant the whole thing. I mean no offence to the builders, I’m sure it was hard work and well made, but I find the design sooo tacky. I mean the thing at the end with the sparkles and the shiny logo in space – really! Of its time, I suppose.
 
No, I meant the whole thing. I mean no offence to the builders, I’m sure it was hard work and well made, but I find the design sooo tacky. I mean the thing at the end with the sparkles and the shiny logo in space – really! Of its time, I suppose.
Can you show some of the stuff you made in 1980?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.