CGI and studio scale

[spinner 44]

<div class='quotetop'>(DARKSIDE72 @ Oct 30 2006, 10:41 PM) [snapback]1347660[/snapback]</div>

CGI doesn't exist in the real world which is why is has no business in this forum. This forum is dedicated to real production models. It's simple and it's a black and white issue.
[/b]

Totally agree. Simple as that.

This forum is dedicated to the reproduction, in same size and closest materials, of the scale models made to be filmed.

CGI has no real size, no scale, as it's only data represented in a screen. You can choose to make a reproduction in the real world of that non-phisical model, choosing a scale. That is why they should go on Genereal Modelling. When you make a model of a a CGI created vehicle is like making a scratch-build model from or pics, there is no scaled model to reproduce.

 

[mverta]

I still haven't heard an answer to my question, which is an increasingly-used practice: a model is built in CG, at a specific real-world scale, and output in physical form for filming (think rapid-prototyping). The studio paints, lights and shoots a practical model, not a CG model. Even though it was modeled entirely in CG, is the resulting physical model not Studio Scale?

_Mike

 

[Bradleyfett]

<div class='quotetop'>(mverta @ Oct 30 2006, 11:39 PM) [snapback]1347704[/snapback]</div>

I still haven't heard an answer to my question, which is an increasingly-used practice: a model is built in CG, at a specific real-world scale, and output in physical form for filming (think rapid-prototyping). The studio paints, lights and shoots a practical model, not a CG model. Even though it was modeled entirely in CG, is the resulting physical model not Studio Scale?

_Mike
[/b]

Again, lets use some common sense- yes, that would would be a studio-scale subject. Anybody replicating that physical model (no matter how they build it) would be a studio scale replica. What matters is that there was a physical model used by the studio, no matter if they built it using a CG design sent to a rapid-prototyping setup, carved it out of foam, or threw together some kit parts.


Mark

 

[mverta]

Mark, you say that like everyone is in agreement, and that's just not been the case. I agree with you that this should constitute a Studio Scale model, but some people have been arguing that the presence of CG at any stage nullifies its qualification.

_Mike

 

[cobywan]

I think the concensus is that there has to be a physical model that was filmed. No matter how it was developed.

 

[DARKSIDE72]

I have to agree with this, IF a model is developed via CG and a real model is built from this and used for a film then it would be studio scale, a production model effect prop. The initial CG development would be the "blueprint", so to speak. But it's a moot scenario, why would a production team go to all the trouble these days?

 

[cobywan]

<div class='quotetop'>(DARKSIDE72 @ Oct 31 2006, 04:58 AM) [snapback]1347874[/snapback]</div>

I have to agree with this, IF a model is developed via CG and a real model is built from this and used for a film then it would be studio scale, a production model effect prop. The initial CG development would be the "blueprint", so to speak. But it's a moot scenario, why would a production team go to all the trouble these days?
[/b]

It's done all the time. In T4 the new TX and the new HK designs were done in CG for full figure animation and long shots. The same CG files were then used to CNC cut foam and other materials to fabricate full sized versions for practical photography.

The same process was used to rebuild the Alien Queen from AVP. It's actually quite a lot of effort to go through all the steps for CG animation. If the shot can be done in camera without any post FX work a film can save a lot of bucks.

A couple of really good reads are Cinefex issues 100 and 101. There is a round table interview, (of a sorts) in them. Basically it's the top mover and shapers in FX ripping the studios new @holes for not understanding the complexity and cost of the work they do. (That and the inexperienced filmakers that tell them to "fix it in post.")

 

[Jedi Dade]

<div class='quotetop'>(spinner 44 @ Oct 30 2006, 11:17 PM) [snapback]1347685[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(DARKSIDE72 @ Oct 30 2006, 10:41 PM) [snapback]1347660[/snapback]

CGI doesn't exist in the real world which is why is has no business in this forum. This forum is dedicated to real production models. It's simple and it's a black and white issue.
[/b]

Totally agree. Simple as that.

This forum is dedicated to the reproduction, in same size and closest materials, of the scale models made to be filmed.

CGI has no real size, no scale, as it's only data represented in a screen. You can choose to make a reproduction in the real world of that non-phisical model, choosing a scale. That is why they should go on Genereal Modelling. When you make a model of a a CGI created vehicle is like making a scratch-build model from or pics, there is no scaled model to reproduce.
[/b][/quote]

I disagree with both of you. Yes its as simple as was there a physical model built and filmed to meet the astudio scale criteria. However I think that there is enough overlap of interest and talent, and resulting end goal - an accurate representation- in the physical world- of what was on the screen that the separation into a sparate forum is a needless distinction. Is anybody actually confised about what models are replicas of CGI vs. replicas of a studio model??? I've never been confused by it.

I agreed with the separation of the general modeling forum since building a kit straight from the box is a different kind of modeling then trying to exactly replicate the model (CGI or otherwise) that was on the screen. Both utilize extensive scratchbuilding techniques that kit builders rarely if ever utilize. However while I agree that there is an identifiable difference between a CGI replica and a SS Replica, I do not beleive the difference in construction techniques or even the goals of the builders are all that dissimilar. That is why I would oppose the seperation of the two topics into differnet forums. All it does is make me have to scan through yet another forum to find informaton on topics I'm interested in, and nothing is actually gained by it. The two hobbies are already niche enough that the mixing of the two topics does not interfere with finding useful information on techiniques or peoples projects.

Jedi Dade

 

[DARKSIDE72]

What would be the point of the Studio Scale Forum if it were no longer dedicated to studio scale models? CGI aint studio scale. :rolleyes


<div class='quotetop'>(Jedi Dade @ Oct 31 2006, 07:51 AM) [snapback]1348050[/snapback]</div>

I disagree with both of you. Yes its as simple as was there a physical model built and filmed to meet the astudio scale criteria. However I think that there is enough overlap of interest and talent, and resulting end goal - an accurate representation- in the physical world- of what was on the screen that the separation into a sparate forum is a needless distinction. Is anybody actually confised about what models are replicas of CGI vs. replicas of a studio model??? I've never been confused by it.

I agreed with the separation of the general modeling forum since building a kit straight from the box is a different kind of modeling then trying to exactly replicate the model (CGI or otherwise) that was on the screen. Both utilize extensive scratchbuilding techniques that kit builders rarely if ever utilize. However while I agree that there is an identifiable difference between a CGI replica and a SS Replica, I do not beleive the difference in construction techniques or even the goals of the builders are all that dissimilar. That is why I would oppose the seperation of the two topics into differnet forums. All it does is make me have to scan through yet another forum to find informaton on topics I'm interested in, and nothing is actually gained by it. The two hobbies are already niche enough that the mixing of the two topics does not interfere with finding useful information on techiniques or peoples projects.

Jedi Dade
[/b]

 

[Clerval]

Another thought: since most models are built real world scale using whatever digital units in coordinate space, these 'studio scale' models based only on meshes should be life size to actually be 'studio scale'. Have fun with that.

 

[CaptCBoard]

<div class='quotetop'>(Jedi Dade @ Oct 31 2006, 01:51 PM) [snapback]1348050[/snapback]</div>

I agreed with the separation of the general modeling forum since building a kit straight from the box is a different kind of modeling then trying to exactly replicate the model (CGI or otherwise) that was on the screen. Both utilize extensive scratchbuilding techniques that kit builders rarely if ever utilize. [/b]

This is why the SS forum is for SS models. They have the unique distinction of being a scratchbuilt replica, as opposed to a kit or scratchbuilt model in a different scale.

<div class='quotetop'></div>

However while I agree that there is an identifiable difference between a CGI replica and a SS Replica, I do not beleive the difference in construction techniques or even the goals of the builders are all that dissimilar. [/b]

The goal of any model builder is to produce something that they can't lay their hands on in any other fashion. If there is simply nothing available to buy, then scratchbuilding is the only solution. This is true no matter what the subject is and therefore the amount of dedication and talent it takes to build the model is the same whether they take the reference from the pages of Starlog or some CGI file they have access to. The only distinction between this effort and that put forth to make a Studio Scale model is that in most cases more research is done and the search for the correct items used to detail the model have to be hunted down. Further, the effort to build a Studio Scale model can be a cooperative one, where several individuals are building the same model and share casting of the detail parts so that no one person has to bear the cost of getting donor kits off ebay. This is why Studio Scale models have a dedicated forum and CGI based models do not belong. CGI based models are scratchbuilt the same way any other copy of a movie subject is scratchbuilt. The duplication of the dimensions of a screen used model still remains the main defining factor of a SS model, with the type of details used being the second. You can build a model to the proper size and not use any kit parts and it would still be SS as the details can be duplicated by scratchbuilding. This is where the degree of accuracy comes into play, but the level of accuracy in the detailing of a SS model is not a determining factor. It will determine how good a model it is, but that is not what is in debate. Just because someone goes to an incredible amount of effort to make as close a physical copy of a CGI image as possible, there are still no dimensions to match, only proportions. The name of the forum is Studio Scale, not Studio Proportioned.

You don't think the difference in construction techniques or the goals of the builders of CGI based physical models are all that dissimilar from those building Studio Scale models. That is true, the techniques and goals are pretty much the same. But the result of all that effort is not. One you can place side-by-side with an original to see how close you got. The other you can not. It is just another beautifully built scratchbuilt model, who's origin was a CGI file. Studio Scale models are distinct in the fact they are replicas, not representations.

Scott

 

[mverta]

Based on all this discussion I got to wondering: What if you did a CG rendering of a practical model which you'd modeled in CG and rendered as a practical model? Would it create a causality loop and destroy the universe?

Guess not.

No hard feelings

_Mike

 

[xeno]

sorry if this has passed already, I didn't read all the postings (and am not planning to :rolleyes )

Studio scale is what the word says, a model used in the studio for filming ...
otherwise it's just a physical model of a virtual representation.

I think that is also a very interesting class of models, as lots of CGI props
and models would be very nice to have as a physical model instead of a picture,
it just needs a name so as not to be confused with studio scale model, like....

CGphO :eek

C-Computer
G-Generated
PH-Physical
O-Object

....so, it was just an idea... :unsure

and don't they use sculpted and painted models, and scan them to be used for CGI ??
couldn't only that model be described as "studio scale " ??

Xeno

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

Here's a question, why is that studio scale DeSanto Viper being allowed in here. There was no production , no film time nothnig. Maybe he should be booted to the general modeling forum as discussed in this thread about other NON screen used physical models. Just wondering.


Mark

 

[Jedi Dade]

CaptCboard and Darkside72 - I say this without any disrespect intended I very much respect you both...

I think that the purpose of having a SS forum is to discuss techiniques an topics realted to scratchbuilding, and kitbashing models in an effort to create PHYSICAL replicas of subjects that appear in films. Perhaps the name of the forum would be better stated as Studio replica foum so that the question of CGI scale is not a question. I do recognize that the creation of CGI model in a computer is vastly different from the creation of physical model. I was referring to the actual creation of a physical model from a CGI based model.


The purpose of the General modeling forum is to discuss the techniques etc. for building kits...

I do see the difference in the level of difficulty in finding the exact parts list of creating a part for part studio replicas vs. a real world creation of a CGI Model. IMO the skills and techniques used to create the real world replica weather the original was physical or CGI are very similar in most repsects... Mad Scratchbuilding skills are required for both, Mad painting skills are required for both. In that respect I thik that the two topics should be together.

thats just my opinion and you can disagree - its not like there is an actual "correct" answer to this. We can agree to disagree ... respectfully

Jedi Dade

 

[Clerval]

<div class='quotetop'>(Mycroft Holmes @ Nov 6 2006, 11:12 AM) [snapback]1351941[/snapback]</div>

Here's a question, why is that studio scale DeSanto Viper being allowed in here. There was no production , no film time nothnig. Maybe he should be booted to the general modeling forum as discussed in this thread about other NON screen used physical models. Just wondering.


Mark
[/b]

Good question, and the one that got me wondering about this topic long before it came up in this thread.

Seems to me that a potential breakdown would be:

General Modeling for out of the box, garage kits, resin, etc and conversions (sorry, but turning a toy into a replica... ummm...)

Studio Scale... all physical, all the time. An attempted duplication of effects house craftsmanship.

CGInspired... translating cg data into non-scale accurate physical models.

 

[cobywan]

There are plenty of scratch builds in the general forum. If you try to catagorize models by scratch, kit and bash you're going to get a ton of confusing crossover. I interepret what you are suggesting is that the SS modeling forum be renamed Scratchbuild modeling. At least that's the effect of what you are describing would be in my eyes.

I honestly don't know why this is an issue.

 

[REL]

This thread is still going on? I thought it was decided a few pages back that Studio Scale meant anything that came in an MPC/Ertl box?

 

[Bradleyfett]

<div class='quotetop'>(REL @ Nov 7 2006, 02:33 AM) [snapback]1352316[/snapback]</div>

This thread is still going on? I thought it was decided a few pages back that Studio Scale meant anything that came in an MPC/Ertl box?
[/b]

Cool. Then my Six Million Dollar Man 'Bionic Bustout' is Studio-Scale. I had no idea Lee Majors was so short...

Mark

 

[CaptCBoard]

<div class='quotetop'>(Jedi Dade @ Nov 6 2006, 08:33 PM) [snapback]1352082[/snapback]</div>

I think that the purpose of having a SS forum is to discuss techiniques an topics realted to scratchbuilding, and kitbashing models in an effort to create PHYSICAL replicas of subjects that appear in films.[/b]

Jedi Dade- You almost have the definition nailed. Here it is using your own words, but modified to reflect what the definition of Studio Scale means:

"The purpose of having a SS forum is to discuss techniques and topics related to scratchbuilding or kitbashing models in an effort to create PHYSICALLY identical replicas of physical models that were put before the FX camera, photographed and appeared in the finished film."

No matter how you look at this, building a model of a subject that exists soley as digital images can only be referred to as a completely scratchbuilt model; built to a scale of the builder's choosing, not a scale established in the making of the film. The term Studio Scale was developed to refer to one, specific kind of model; not to exclude any other kind of model. It was created to define those models that are built using the same philosophy as those prop builders who tenaciously search out the exact same materials and parts used to create screen-used props-- this is the only way you can have something that represents the prop or model that you can not normally own. The same holds true for making a model of a CGI subject, but there is nothing to match. You can't match the details, materials, the techniques or the size of what appeared on film and that all boils down to it being a model using techniques not any different from anyone scratchbuilding a model of an aircraft carrier. It may be a unique model, but how it was built was not unique in any way from any other model.

That which makes the difference between a Studio Scale model and one that is not can be slight, but it is still enough to be the difference.

Scott