ILM Force Awakens CG ship renders. ULTRA high res.

DeanB · Sep 27, 2015

joewhite said:
Hey, I don't see any Sealab parts on that X-Wing! Lol!

I like the TIE the most. The antenna array or whatever it is looks pretty cool. I just hope they aren't unmanned. On side note, I hope they do away with the clones. Anyway....

The SD looks cool. I like the additional design elements at the nose.

Ironically, I'm not liking the X-Wing. The original bulky intakes and engines looked tougher. It seems too sleek. It obviously looks much more functional but seems like it's missing something.

The sandwiched wings of the transport are a nice retro touch.

Overall, the new vehicles still look cool. I'm still stoked!

Joe

I'm having a hard time with the x-wing as well. It's proportions are off. The intakes (or whatever they are) too big. The exhausts too small. The wing split design looks fragile and their connection to the engines kind of wonky. The cannons and their connection to the wings look weak. The canopy looks too lifted directly from the OT x-wings...I can go on. Maybe I'm just grumpy and I need to live with these designs a bit more , but I see this lack of good proportion on many of these "new' ships, including JJ's Enterprise with its grotesquely oversized engines and weird secondary hull.

-Dean

LorduDesign · Jan 8, 2016

Actually no one said that there weren't any models made. Obviously there are some. Also there were some moments in movie with models (I think one of them is TIE Fighter falling down to Jakku).

swgeek · Jan 8, 2016

Those are art department/study models. There are no on screen miniatures used in The Force Awakens.

Vacformedhero · Jan 8, 2016

DeanB said:
I'm having a hard time with the x-wing as well. It's proportions are off. The intakes (or whatever they are) too big. The exhausts too small. The wing split design looks fragile and their connection to the engines kind of wonky. The cannons and their connection to the wings look weak. The canopy looks too lifted directly from the OT x-wings...I can go on. Maybe I'm just grumpy and I need to live with these designs a bit more , but I see this lack of good proportion on many of these "new' ships, including JJ's Enterprise with its grotesquely oversized engines and weird secondary hull.

-Dean

The older x-wings were never my favourite, however I like the new x-wings proportions , like a sleek hot rod version and it's also made me appreciate the original design more as being a retro kind of guy.....I like the look of the sports cars with long bonnets , and the classic x-wing now reminds me of that style ( I won't be synical and say they shortened the nose to make the toys shorter , Cheaper and fit more in when shipping ? Could the toy manufacturers be so close to the film designers? )

LorduDesign · Jan 8, 2016

Yes, I know. But I've heard some that there are couple of scenes where there where seen models.

By the way guys what do you think of Eravana heavy freighter from new Star Wars?

swgeek · Jan 8, 2016

Nope. One of the companies I work for was in talks to do a few scenes, (which would have been a lifelong dream come true for me) but it all went to ILM. Now, I could be wrong, but from what I know and people I talked to, there are no miniatures filmed for TFA.

ProfKSergeev · Jan 8, 2016

Vacformedhero said:
( I won't be synical and say they shortened the nose to make the toys shorter , Cheaper and fit more in when shipping ? Could the toy manufacturers be so close to the film designers? )

No rhinoplasty as far as I can tell; the noses on both are the same length. The T-70's canopy has been stretched forward and the nosecone stretched back, which may make the nose itself appear shorter. Here's a rough comparison I whipped up. According to Wookieepedia, the two models of X-wing are almost exactly the same length (12.5 to 12.48 meters, respectively).

Vacformedhero · Jan 8, 2016

ProfKSergeev said:
No rhinoplasty as far as I can tell; the noses on both are the same length. The T-70's canopy has been stretched forward and the nosecone stretched back, however, which may make the nose itself appear shorter. Here's a rough comparison I whipped up. According to Wookieepedia, the two models of X-wing are almost exactly the same length (12.5 to 12.48 meters, respectively).

View attachment 575326

WOW that is a shock, mmmmm yes the cockpit is longer but I didn't think it foreshortened it visually I thought it was shorter , cool

ProfKSergeev · Jan 8, 2016

Vacformedhero said:
WOW that is a shock

Isn't it? I had the same thought as you before comparing them side-by-side. Interesting to see the decisions the designers made. I love both X-wings but especially appreciate the "leaned out" look of the new and its clever S-foil split. Somehow makes it more lethal.

swgeek · Jan 8, 2016

I would have put money on the T-70 being shorter. That's really surprising.

maxhebus · Jan 8, 2016

Is that a new photo of Blue One?

StevenBills · Jan 8, 2016

Yeah I read an interview with Roger Guyett (vfx sup) today where he said all the ships in TFA are digital. Check it out on studiodaily.com.

SB

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

astroboy · Jan 9, 2016

12.48 meters? Seriously? Why is it that the ship sizes on paper are way bigger than they appear? There is no way that the full sized x-wing they built is that long.

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

swgeek · Jan 9, 2016

StevenBills said:
Yeah I read an interview with Roger Guyett (vfx sup) today where he said all the ships in TFA are digital. Check it out on studiodaily.com.

SB

Interesting article. I love how he says they didn't have time to shoot miniatures, and then says all you need for digital models is time and patience. What?

mash3d · Jan 9, 2016

swgeek said:
Interesting article. I love how he says they didn't have time to shoot miniatures, and then says all you need for digital models is time and patience. What?

Spoken like a true Supervisor. Some of my favorites
"Can you change it some? .....but keep it the same??"
"There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over"
"I know I approved it but that's not what I want"
and the all time classic.
"I don't know what I want, but I'll know it when I see it"

What he probably means is you need the time and patience for the clients to Pixel F the digital models to death.
With physical models you actually have to make a commitment early in production and once it's shot you can't go back and change it.

astroboy · Jan 9, 2016

mash3d said:
"I don't know what I want, but I'll know it when I see it"

The designer I've been working with for the last ten years says that ALL the time. It's no wonder his props people are always over budget and in tears.

Not only that, but he can't draw. Any renderings he does are like clip art collages or drafting.

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

StevenBills · Jan 9, 2016

Yeah it was interesting to read that article and realize everything was digital, because I swear that the shot of the Falcon leaving Jakku and blasting into space was a physical model. The lighting and rendering on that shot was very well done.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

batguy · Jan 9, 2016

The TFA footage looked great. CGI has its limitations but flying sci-fi spaceships is something it's great at. Especially compared to the alternatives.

The old optical methods don't look perfect, they just look flawed in less objectionable ways than CGI flaws. But top-notch modern CGI without the flaws of low-grade CGI? Crushing it.

swgeek · Jan 9, 2016

Compared to the alternative of what, miniatures? I completely disagree. I don't think the cgi ships in TFA looked good. When I saw them in the trailer I knew right away they were cgi.

batguy · Jan 10, 2016

Compared to the alternative of what, miniatures? I completely disagree. I don't think the cgi ships in TFA looked good. When I saw them in the trailer I knew right away they were cgi.

Maybe you knew right away because the CGI lacked the flaws of even the best miniature/optical work. If your benchmark for perfection is the OT footage then you aren't wanting 100% realism.

IMO the old miniature/opticals looked better than weak CGI but they didn't look better than great CGI. The new footage looked "different" because it looked more like reality than the OT stuff.

ILM Force Awakens CG ship renders. ULTRA high res.

Well-Known Member

Sr Member

Master Member

Sr Member

Sr Member

Master Member

Sr Member

Sr Member

Sr Member

Master Member

Well-Known Member

Sr Member

Master Member

Master Member

Active Member

Master Member

Sr Member

Master Member

Master Member

Master Member

Similar threads