CGI and studio scale

[DARKSIDE72]

Did I mention that CG still looks like CG? It can't properly render the weight and physical details of a real model.

Why is this so difficult to comprehend? Doodling on the PC is art, not model building.

 

[RKW]

<div class='quotetop'>(DARKSIDE72 @ Oct 28 2006, 03:42 PM) [snapback]1346486[/snapback]</div>

Did I mention that CG still looks like CG? It can't properly render the weight and physical details of a real model.

Why is this so difficult to comprehend? Doodling on the PC is art, not model building.
[/b]

I don't think of the new Galactica ships as being CG when I see them. As the technology improves so will the visuals. Model building is still art :confused

 

[Bradleyfett]

<div class='quotetop'>(RKW @ Oct 28 2006, 02:41 PM) [snapback]1346485[/snapback]</div>

I got the impression that people were saying CG models were invalid even though the studio could output a physical model from it. We are in agreement if you accept that should someone else aquire the digital files and also output a physical model for themselves then it's still a studio scale model.
[/b]

INVALID for what? If you are talking about somebody making a studio scale replica of that particular ship, then they ARE invalid.


<div class='quotetop'>(RKW @ Oct 28 2006, 02:41 PM) [snapback]1346485[/snapback]</div>

We are in agreement if you accept that should someone else aquire the digital files and also output a physical model for themselves then it's still a studio scale model.
[/b]

I didn't say that and I do not agree with that statement.

If a hobbiest uses a studio's CG file to output (CNC, etc.) a physical model in any size, then it is NOT a studio scale replica because no physical studio model existed in the first place.

If a STUDIO uses a CG file to output (CNC, etc.) a physical model and the uses it on film, and a hobbiest (one of us) recreates that model in the same size, then THAT is a studio scale replica.

Savy?

Mark

 

[RKW]

You've just typed what I already said. I guess I should have put the "and also output a physical model" emphasis on ALSO implying the studio already had in huge letters like our friend Darkside72 like to do

Anyway, chill guys. I'm sensing an underlying hatred amongst some peoples posts here.

 

[star-art]

No hatred, but this is one of those subjects where you need a LOT of passion and dedication to be "crazy enough" to get into it.

Jaime, I would disagree with you that CG modeling is art and not model building. Having made the leap into CG myself, I can say it takes the same amount of effort and skill to *design* and *engineer* a model in the computer as it does to design/engineer a physical model. The only real difference comes when it's time to actually build it.

Model building, at it's most basic level, is, of course, about cutting out parts and building a structure. But, before you can do that, most times you need a design, specifications, and plans. That requires design and engineering, and this applies to BOTH physical or traditional modeling and to CG modeling in equal measure.

I've spent all of this year working on a major book project that deals with this issue. It's on how to design and blueprint projects. I decided early on that this book (or series of books as it's becoming) would be for both traditional/physical and CG modelers. The techniques, knowledge, and skills needed to do this are really shared in common with both groups. I'm just not sure that they really understand this yet.

From reading many different forums, it does seem that *some* of the CG folks don't relate to the traditional modeling side because -- perhaps -- they have only modeled in the computer and never did the "real modeling" thing. But, it also seems that some traditional modelers don't appreciate the similarities between CG modeling and physical modeling.

Sure, you don't have an object in front of you, but you still had to have a LOT of modeling skills to build that virtual model.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

Okay Jamie, you need to understand the PMs would not, could not, move like look like real ships if people like Derrek Meddings, Brian Johnson, John Dykstra and MANY others didn't engineer the way they are shot, lit and move to feel real. CG can have weight to it. Its the animators job to figure out the physics of it and most of the time these guys are kids that can CG models great but can't light or animate for @#$%.. Mojo, Lee Stringer and the others at Foundation Imaging were pioneers in this area. Too bad FI had to break up. They had some very talented artist. And I feel the CG field would of learned more from them.

It seems to me that there is a reluctance to embrace the new medium by some. Either thru gross ignorance of the art form or maybe hatred that one art form is bowing out and the replacement is not as good as of yet. Anyone look at the old 1950's serials? Buck Roger and Flash Gordon? WOW. They looked real,,,,, NOT. That art form later evolved into the likes of Space 1999, Battlestar Galactica, Star Wars and so on. We seemed to have endured and embraced that medium.

Don't under estimate CGI. It needs to mature. The artist need to examine how real world item move and feel. Some have done this and what they have turned out looks like it should.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm like Jim Creveling and Scott Alexander. Make em' BIG and make them detailed like the real ones. I still want to build the Valley Forge one day. Don't laugh. My friend Charles is going after the Cygnuss..... I love PM's. I just think the new medium needs to be embraced some how and that is the reason for this discussion. Out bursts and insults to the medium are not constructive. Make the argument more cogent. Not like a child throwing a fit.

You need to understand how this field reflects the PM field. Tools are different but the medium is the same. And the mind set is the same. Make wonderful designs that entertain and capture the minds of the audience.

If you knew or understood what it takes to master programs like Lightwave and Maya you would have a little more respect. It takes a lot of money, time and commitment. Sounds a little like Physical Modeling to me :rolleyes

Now play nice and no throwing tools. Virtual or physical :angel


Mark

 

[mverta]

You are of course wrong on both counts. There are plenty of examples of convincing CG - "Fake or Photo" comparisons which fool just about everybody. The physics of light and photography are well-understood, and next generation rendering correctly replicates physics in increasingly convincing ways.

I now know three things: 1) You've never built a CG model, and have no knowledge of the skill set or process required. 2) Despite your lack of knowledge and experience, you have chosen to minimize the abilities, talents and contributions of artists who do. and 3) You are unaware of the current state of CG, its technologies, or its advantages.

Your opinion is, literally, ignorant. You don't like CG. We can only guess why... some personal bias. 99% of the time it's fear. Fear that CG will minimize your hobby/profession; or perhaps you don't like change. Who knows. Your description of CG as "pixels on a wireframe" is 1 step shy of calling this the "internets," so it's clear this is a long-standing grudge you hold, which you've never chose to rectify with any pesky facts.

Personally, I have respect for artists and craftsmen; I don't minimize them. I have the utmost respect for physical model builders, and practical models are still my first choice in visual effects production.

But I don't hire people like you. Modern visual effects production has no use for elitism. Artists need to work together to find the right solution - whatever it is - to properly convey drama to the modern audience. To put personal bias, ego, or ignorant dogmatic philosophy ahead of the work is the cardinal sin, in my opinion.

Physical models aren't obsolete. People like you are.

_Mike


<div class='quotetop'>(DARKSIDE72 @ Oct 28 2006, 07:42 AM) [snapback]1346486[/snapback]</div>

Did I mention that CG still looks like CG? It can't properly render the weight and physical details of a real model.

Why is this so difficult to comprehend? Doodling on the PC is art, not model building.
[/b]

 

[DARKSIDE72]

:lol I'm just a hobbyist man, don't break a blood vessel. And I'm not wrong in the fact that an object on a computer screen is just that and isn't a phsyical model. For the most part I don't like CG, cause it looks like $hit and is easily spotted.

 

[mverta]

<div class='quotetop'>(DARKSIDE72 @ Oct 28 2006, 01:48 PM) [snapback]1346645[/snapback]</div>

I don't like CG, cause it looks like $hit and is easily spotted.
[/b]

Easily? Really...?

_Mike

 

[REL]

Holy crap. See this is why I like to use CG stuff as reference for my PM's, some of the CG stuff out there is incredibly detailed, also one can zoom in to the finest detail and see things you wouldn't on a physical model. It's taken me awhile to come around to this line of thinking so I know the thought process, but when I did I was glad.

So far I've only made one model that only existed as CG, but the renders I had for reference was above and beyond what would exist if I were using a real world model for reference.

Then you also have the best of both worlds, a physical model enhanced with CG. Sweet.

By the way mverta the stuff in your gallery is top notch, that R2 is just amazing.

 

[ShowCraft]

All right you kids, simmer down. Dont make me stop this car :angry
We're getting off topic here. I cant imagine how an argument started just because physical modeling and CGI were mentioned in the same sentence :angel

The reason for my starting this thread was simple, programs and movies like Babylon 5, Galactica, Star Wars are giving us many cool space ships that are being created digitally instead of as real models. My question is this... If some jerk (me) gets the idea to build an actual shooting miniature, just as if a studio had commisioned one, could that model be accepted for display in the studio scale forum?

Here is the defination of the forum.
>>>>>Studio Scale Modeling Forum
This forum is designed for the discussion of screen used or replica studio scale models. By that we mean models that match the size and scale of minatures created during filming. Also on topic would be kitbashing, scratchbuilding, discovering original parts and and other tips in relation to the replication of studio scale models.

Discussions about about minatures in any scale different from those used for a production are off-topic for this forum and should go in our General Modeling Forum.

A rule of thumb: if your project is the replication of a model, it belongs here. If it's replicating a starship (for example) that is not in the same scale as a model used in the production of the film/show, it doesn't.<<<<<<


This defination does favor models made from kit parts and it worked fine back in the day, but there is also some grey area open to interpretation. We now have a new and different subject matter to model examples of and people are beginning to build real physical studio scale models from (studio digital models). Is this new realm simply to be ignored by the studio scale forum?

 

[mverta]

<div class='quotetop'>(REL @ Oct 28 2006, 03:23 PM) [snapback]1346684[/snapback]</div>

By the way mverta the stuff in your gallery is top notch, that R2 is just amazing.
[/b]

Thank you, though that CG R2 has long since been surpassed. I was fortunate enough to be commissioned to do new renderings of R2 for the Star Wars Complete Visual Dictionary, which required a substantial improvement in photorealism. A few trips to the archives at the Ranch didn't hurt, either...

_Mike

 

[spastromech]

<div class='quotetop'>(mverta @ Oct 28 2006, 06:19 PM) [snapback]1346701[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(REL @ Oct 28 2006, 03:23 PM) [snapback]1346684[/snapback]

By the way mverta the stuff in your gallery is top notch, that R2 is just amazing.
[/b]

Thank you, though that CG R2 has long since been surpassed. I was fortunate enough to be commissioned to do new renderings of R2 for the Star Wars Complete Visual Dictionary, which required a substantial improvement in photorealism. A few trips to the archives at the Ranch didn't hurt, either...

_Mike
[/b][/quote]

Sure, rub it in why don't ya... :cry

 

[DARKSIDE72]

Pretty pictures Mike really, but they are just PC rendered pictures and not models. A model is something physical. Show me a film image of CGI that looks real...

 

[voice in the crowd]

<div class='quotetop'>(mverta @ Oct 28 2006, 10:12 PM) [snapback]1346660[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(DARKSIDE72 @ Oct 28 2006, 01:48 PM) [snapback]1346645[/snapback]

I don't like CG, cause it looks like $hit and is easily spotted.
[/b]

Easily? Really...?

_Mike
[/b][/quote]


Hi Mike,

I love studio modelling and also like and appreciate CG so don't take this the wrong way as I know you are obviously a talented CG artist.

Those images you posted (which are fantastic by the way) are still images. My only problem with 'some' moving image CG is the movement just looks off and it is easily spotted in movies (I wouldn't go as far as to say it looks like $hit ) but there a lot of times whilst watching a movie that CG just looks CG and not real. As with all things there will be good studio models and bad studio models so CG is the same there is good CG and bad CG.

Although people should maybe realise that in real terms CG is really in its infancy at the moment and who knows what it will become in one year or ten years. I have a feeling it will become absolutely seemless and at some point it will become almost impossible to tell when CG is in use.

Great website Mike some amazing stuff.

Cheers Chris.

 

[mverta]

Well of course, you've hit it exactly; there's bad CG/animation and there's good CG/animation. There's bad modelmaking, and bad photography, and there's good modelmaking and photography. CG at this stage is extremely unforgiving - you have to be a master if you want to have a shot at being convincing, and right now there is a TON of crappy CG in movies. A lot of that has to do with having 2000 shots to do in an unreasonable time, versus a more realistic number. Believe me, if productions had only 200 shots to do, the quality would go way, way up. But that's another matter...

"Darkside," no offense, but you have seen more CG images that you didn't realize were CG than I would ever take the time or energy to bother pointing out to you. In fact, you're surrounded by them; many commercials and print campaigns with multi-million dollar budgets are supplanting or supplementing images of their products with CG. Car companies, pharmaceuticals, technologies, furniture, you name it. They're in films, they're on TV, and they're in print, and you didn't see the difference. It's a fact. Get over it. Yes, a physical model is different than a virtual model. One you can hold in your hand, and one you can see on a screen. Congratulations, you've got a Vulcan nerve grip on the definitions there. Thank God you're just a hobbyist.

_Mike

 

[RKW]

<div class='quotetop'>(DARKSIDE72 @ Oct 29 2006, 01:09 AM) [snapback]1346716[/snapback]</div>

Show me a film image of CGI that looks real...
[/b]

Jurassic Park :love

 

[mverta]

I actually think JP is starting to show its age, but damn was that the benchmark for a long time... lots of films that came after it didn't look as good. The T-Rex stuff is the strongest; some of the Brontosaurus stuff cringe-worthy. But I'll take JP's worst shots over half the stuff in King Kong any day. The truth remains, that most of us have no idea just how much CG we've seen, because the best of it, we couldn't tell.

_Mike

<div class='quotetop'>(RKW @ Oct 28 2006, 05:42 PM) [snapback]1346731[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(DARKSIDE72 @ Oct 29 2006, 01:09 AM) [snapback]1346716[/snapback]

Show me a film image of CGI that looks real...
[/b]

Jurassic Park :love
[/b][/quote]

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

Ah yes Mike, and now we walk past the boob tube and theatre screen to the world of rapid prototyping. For something that doesn't exist, about 90% of all house hold machines, car parts, medical equipment and so on are made in the not so real and non existent world of bits on a wire :angry . Sorry, I couldn't resist :angel

Now, who defined studio Scale as ONLY Physical shooting miniature model replicas. Because a CG MODEL can be replicated by machine or by hand of man. A CG model is most of the time made in a certain scale. Lets see, do they keep the same 1/24 scale for capitol ships? Nope. They make up a scale that works. So does CGI :$

It's apparent some of you are just not going to except CG models as studio scale and I am truly sorry. You have just become the elitist club of closed minds :unsure

Totalitarian thinking makes wars and destroys cultures. The open mind and ability to embrace the new wonders of the world will allow us to grow. Back to the Spanish inquisitions I guess :angry

I bow my head to those who think CG is not Studio Scale and is not relevant. Not in respect or capitulation, but in sincere sorrow that you can not budge from such a strict and ridged way of thinking that you would close you Members only club to the new age of SFX

I will continue to build my Studio Scale replicas as defined here and the non existent ones as defined here.
I will also continue to help ANYONE that asks for help that I can render. I just can't go on with closed minds.
And that mouse and keyboard you are using was made in the non existent world of CGI. And so was the remote you use to watch TV with, and the big screen and so on. I digress :confused

Soap box bashed with a hammer. Make your own now. But don't use a CG model to have one made. It may not exist and cause you physical harm :unsure


Respectfully

Mark :rolleyes

 

[star-art]

<div class='quotetop'>(mverta @ Oct 28 2006, 05:31 PM) [snapback]1346727[/snapback]</div>

A lot of that has to do with having 2000 shots to do in an unreasonable time, versus a more realistic number. Believe me, if productions had only 200 shots to do, the quality would go way, way up. [/b]

Call me a cynic, but if you had only 200 shots to do, the damned studio would expect you to do it within a timeframe/budget more suited to doing 20 shots.. So, no matter what, I would imagine you guys are going to get pressed to create way too much in way too little time to deliver real quality in most cases. Economics win out nearly every time. That means doing things as quickly and cheaply as possible, right?



I know, Jim, we're WAY off topic -- but it's a fun discussion nonetheless..

Mike, your stuff is inspiring. I can only hope I one day get the time/energy/opportunity to even try and create CG work that looks this good. :thumbsup