CG ships vs. Models

Trytostaydead · Post by **Trytostaydead** » 2005-01-13 10:06pm

What do you guys think? I'm watching the Empire Strikes back DVD, and the beauty of the Stardestroyers bring a tear to my eyes and a woody. They have a realistic and awe inspring grit to them. To me, those in TPM and AOTC just looked too clean.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2005-01-13 10:09pm

There's definately a place for each. Models are the undisupted kings of closeup shots, but some sequences you simply cannot do with a physical object. CGI is a must for huge battles and shit, perhaps with a model composited in if you need a very close shot.

KhyronTheBackstabber · Post by **KhyronTheBackstabber** » 2005-01-13 10:37pm

I'm with Howedar, the old saying "The right tool for the job" comes to mind.

Post by **Vympel** » 2005-01-13 10:53pm

The problem with models is that they're not as versatile. Few would deny that if the battle in ROTJ had been CG, we would've seen a lot more interesting things- fantastic explosions as ships break apart (instead of just replacing the ship with an explosion)- turrets blasting away, etc.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2005-01-14 12:42am

Vympel wrote:The problem with models is that they're not as versatile. Few would deny that if the battle in ROTJ had been CG, we would've seen a lot more interesting things- fantastic explosions as ships break apart (instead of just replacing the ship with an explosion)- turrets blasting away, etc.

Meh, I wouldn't be opposed to shooting the shots with models, then sticking them into the computer for movment and FX's. But I prefer the models.

Lord Revan · Post by **Lord Revan** » 2005-01-14 01:45am

As it's already said it depends on what you need for the shot, a physical model must be mounted on something (what should not show in the final film). CGI can create lot of ships with little effort (compared to models) and easier to blow up CGI ship (if the shot fails you don't have to rebuild the ship), but there are some shots that just need models (there physical models in TPM, AOTC and ROTS). it' just matter of what you need for the shot.

Meh, I wouldn't be opposed to shooting the shots with models, then sticking them into the computer for movment and FX's. But I prefer the models.

the limitation of shooting with a model would still be there. (it's what done today)

nightmare · Post by **nightmare** » 2005-01-14 01:45am

Models are very nice, but CG rules when it comes to SFX. Besides, new trilogy ships are supposed to look "nice and shiny", enhancing the coming cultural decline.

Tychu · Post by **Tychu** » 2005-01-14 02:22am

Models look more real. Plus i always wanted and believe that if you want a massive space battle all you have to do is build a model than make copies and copies of them CGIly and there you go you have a massive space battle of models

and why the hell arent i becoming a Jedi Knight how many posts do you need? im still a freaking Padawan Learner i have 402 posts

Lord Revan · Post by **Lord Revan** » 2005-01-14 02:32am

Tychu wrote:and why the hell arent i becoming a Jedi Knight how many posts do you need? im still a freaking Padawan Learner i have 402 posts

500

Tychu · Post by **Tychu** » 2005-01-14 02:35am

Lord Revan wrote:500

you sure, i remember clicking through quotes and i thought i saw some guy in the 400's, i must have been tired and thought wrong

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2005-01-14 04:06am

There are room for both, but I prefer models. However, as Howedar said, you can't do everything with models and that's where CG comes into play.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2005-01-14 04:14am

What do you guys think? I'm watching the Empire Strikes back DVD, and the beauty of the Stardestroyers bring a tear to my eyes and a woody. They have a realistic and awe inspring grit to them. To me, those in TPM and AOTC just looked too clean.

The Trade Fed freighters were models, at least in TPM, so the only thing different would be that they´re cleaner due to not seeing as much action as Star Destroyers.

Dooey Jo · Post by **Dooey Jo** » 2005-01-14 09:30am

The only time I would use real models instead of CG models is when a close-up with lots of details is needed, but depending on the scene a matte painting could be even more preferrable. The best thing about CG models is that they are so much easier to work with. Just getting the lighting of a real model to match with the background is a real pain, and if the lighting doesn't match precisely, the scene will look really fake. Not to mention that CG models are a lot cheaper too.

I also think CG models, mostly, look at least as good as real models. Take Dex's kitchen from AotC, for example. It's a model, but it looks no more or less real than any other special effect in that movie. And we also have the special edition Battle of Yavin. The CG X-wings doesn't look any less real than the "real" ones. Making CG models look dirty and gritty and "real" is done precisely the way one would make a real model look that way; by painting it.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2005-01-14 09:38am

Funny you mention BoY, every time they switched from CG to old model-shots, I really wanted those scenes to get the CG treatment as well. The opening shot of three or four X-Wings diving towards the surface, with the huge cityscape below them is so awesome, the ´77 shots afterwards just feel like a letdown.

CaptJodan · Post by **CaptJodan** » 2005-01-14 11:04am

I think a balance really should be kept between both CGI and models, not relying on one or the other exclusively. I think Lucus these days relies too much on CGI, such that looking between the OT and the prequels have a different overall "feel" to them.

For the most part, I was impressed at the balance used in LOTR with bigatures/minatures and CGI. I think this kind of balance would have helped Ep 1-3. I just think the hulls of these ships look too clean most of the time, especially in a time when they should be looking more rugged as we get closer to the OT.

McC · Post by **McC** » 2005-01-14 11:39am

Anything you can do in the real world, you can do in CG, and then some. It's dependent on the ability of the artist to 'see' the necessary components to make it look real, no matter the medium. "Grunge" is easier to add to a CG model than it is to a practical model, but few artists think about it, which is one of th giveaways. If one places an appropriately constructed CG model next to a photographed physical model, you will not be able to tell which is real and which is not. CG is not faster or slower than practical model-building, either save in one respect, and that's photographing it. Rendering out CG takes immense amounts of processing power and, if the processing power is at all limited, immense amounts of time whereas photographing a model takes as long as rolling the film.

Crazedwraith · Post by **Crazedwraith** » 2005-01-14 12:07pm

I just got the OT DVDs only watched AHN so far. Did they re-do the devastator in the opening seen? Just wtaching most of the film and it felt wrong. Just wrong.

Stayr with the model is what I say.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2005-01-14 02:12pm

For the most part, I was impressed at the balance used in LOTR with bigatures/minatures and CGI. I think this kind of balance would have helped Ep 1-3. I just think the hulls of these ships look too clean most of the time, especially in a time when they should be looking more rugged as we get closer to the OT.

I think they´ve used lots of models in the PT. AOTC alone is said to have more modelwork than all three OT films put together (or maybe it was ROTS...). It´s just digital "film" that makes everything look crystal clear throughout the film.

I just got the OT DVDs only watched AHN so far. Did they re-do the devastator in the opening seen? Just wtaching most of the film and it felt wrong. Just wrong.

Haven´t heard anything new with this scene. Might be another case of digital making everything look crystal clear (since all three films were transferred to digital).

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

CG ships vs. Models

CG ships vs Models

CG ships vs. Models