Is 3D Printing Being Overused Now?

[CVWcreations]

I personally think there's a charm to something that someone has sculpted by hand then molded and cast by hand, even if its not 100% symmetrical (though still very very close, just like the original 'a new hope' Vader helmet.).

Thing is these days, people may compare a grand sculpted to a 3d print. In do many ways there's more life and charm to the hand sculpted one as opposed to something that came from a machine.

 

[JOATRASH FX]

Vader- the asymmetry makes him The Bad Guy, when they redid it for the prequels- it was off. Noooooooooooo!

No, it doesn't. Vader force-choking people left and right makes him the bad guy. The only reason symmetrical Vader and TKs feel "off" is because the imagery has been burned into our minds for over 30 years. If they could have made them symmetrical when the movie was made they would have. I wouldn't want a symmetrical TK bucket in my collection either. Even so, I you don't really hear the general tv- & movie-watching, video-games-playing public talking about this.

I noticed in the 300 movie that just came out... Xerses is a symmetrical handsome man, whose gold chain costume is asymmetrical for this purpose. The battle damage on Fett- same deal.

You're comparing machine-controlled assemby-line manufacturing of helmets to what is likely hand-cast and shaped jewelry. And how stupid (and astronomically implausible) would it look if Fett had symmetrical damage! (The good guys have asymmetrical details in the SW trilogy as well.)

Compare the following:

Scratch-built (balsa, styrene strip and bondo) BSG Viper


Firefly Early pistol, home-cast and all metal.


Serenity Mateba, direct casting of a screen-used



All-metal (well, almost) CNC machined Firefly Vera


Oblivion Pistol (3d printed master, traditional resin casting)


Dredd Lawgiver (same as the Ob pistol)


Proton Pack (cobbled together with accurate parts and a fiberglass shell)


None of these props are "better" than the other just because they happen to have been made with different techniques. As TheBlur said- you use the method that gives the best end result that you are trying to achieve. If your goal is only to test the limits of your scratch-building, by all means go nuts with bondo, clay, styrene strips and whatever. If, on the other hand, you're looking for something close to screen accurate, limiting yourself to certain techniques will make it near-impossible (in any practical sense). There is no practical point in 3d printing a Proton Pack and just he reverse with the Oblivion pistol- to make it as accurate as possible it HAD to be modeled digitally and 3d printed, because the originals were. In each case above the same tools were used- my brain and my hands (except where I bought parts or had help, as with Vera- I didn't machine most of it myself). Sometimes they shaped the object using hand tools and sometimes my hand guided the some form of machine instead be it a computer, a lathe, a dremel or something else. Which one took the least amount of effort? Which was the easiest to make? Which demanded the most amount of skill and knowledge?I honestly don't know- they all have many hundreds of man-hours in them.

To each his own which technique you prefer. They are all equally valid and I wish we could all just accept that. The energy spent debating could be spent making props instead!

 

[chukzilla]

I think we're talking about two different things, and I'm talking about it in the wrong sub forum. The impression that assymmetry gives on screen vs the realistic portrayal of replica props. You're right in replica props, the context of the media fills in the details.

I just had taken a class and the instructor mentioned that they had gone back to the TK Buckets and made them symmetrical and they started looking to friendly so they kept the mistake so I thought it was an idea worth passing along and exploring particularly since its something a bunch of my 3D modelling friends complain about (too much symmetry) with their students.

 

[otakukenn]

Here's my take on it. I haven't been a traditional prop maker but I have been a traditional artist who paints and draws, but I also use a computer to make my art. Each requires different skills but the one thing that true for both is to make good art you have to have an eye and a passion, but it's never about how hard it was to make. It's fine to admire the hard work, I'm amazed daily by the skills I see here and on similar post on the web. But at the end of the day it's about the final piece. As far as 3d printing being easy, sure if your using someone else's model and hitting print but there's still post work that needs to be done. And is it really that different than the models we bought as kids? 3d modeling on the other hand isn't easy, it may take less hand labor but it requires it's own skill set to do it right and if your planning on printing it takes more. When ever a new technology takes off it's always the same argument about how much easier it is than real art. I have a Makerbot and as someone who lives in an apartment and doesn't have a garage or workshop it's allowed me to make stuff at home. If anyone here thinks it's the easy way out and that a real artist/prop maker shouldn't use 3d printing or that it's the easy way out, I have only one thing to point out. Rick Baker the Oscar winning effects artist 3d models, has a Makerbot and 3d prints. Is he using it for everything? No, but he sees a value in it enough to take the time and money to learn how to do it. Don't dismiss it, there is bad stuff being done but that's true of any art and there is some trully amazing stuff being done that's not doable traditionally. Its a tool like a brush, chisel, or drill and a tool doesn't make the art and artist does and it shouldn't matter what tools you use as long as you or someone else is happy with what your making.