Deagostini Falcon. Anyone seen this?
- Thread starter Howard
- Start date
I saw Kathleen Kennedy is a quick bit where she said people are very disappointed when they go to see ILM as now it's just people at computers.
So sad.
Tom
Last edited:
Jaitea
Master Member
Thats great,....just checking if views & enthusiasm had changed
The thing is that the CG Falcon is about 98% 5 footer,....some greeblies are missing,...some pipework added on the sidewalls,...the shape is 100% correct,...back to the fuller shape that shes supposed to be
The Full size set looks fine & dandy to me,.....perhaps youre just used to the ship being downscaled for ESB,....the new Full sized set is more accurate
I think it'll not take too long for everyone to get used to her again
J
Last edited:
That's what I'm saying... when John Dykstra was working on ANH they had that problem with multiple passes and getting everything right, but then he created the Dykstraflex which was basically a computer controlled camera system that allowed the user to run the camera one time and the computer would record every movement it made and repeat the motions exactly. Now... with todays technology and advances, it would be possible to not only record those same movements, but also allow the computer to mimic everything in real space that is created in 3D space exactly with much greater control and precision.
Now what I'm saying is basically if they used the 3D CGI environment to set up the entire shot, camera movements, and lighting... then pass that information to a practical real camera, lighting system and room, they could let it run all night creating all the effects using that system to create the multiple passes without needing the computer to render it all out and the model would always be the same. Would give it more realism and would take out all the guess work that the computer throws in-between the key frames to figure out where light is bouncing and objects are moving because it would all be done in real space.
They had plenty of time and money to do something like this rather then do it all in the computer and it would have been much more realistic and true to the actual spirit of the Star Wars universe. I think that is what sets Star Wars apart from all the other CGI infested movies that have come out since. They actually did everything IN CAMERA... an art that has been lost in the name of technology... just because we have computers that can generate realistic looking stuff, doesn't mean it's gonna look real. You can tell right away that all the shots of the Falcon in the movie were all CGI rendered and not the real thing. They get close, but we still can tell the difference. The only reason why it's not practical is because people keep saying it's not practical. I'm sure if they came up with a completely motion controlled real space environment that could be controlled by data obtained by a 3D space, it could be used over and over and over again, eliminating that "fake CGI" look entirely in movies to come and they could boost that all the effects were practical instead of computer generated making it even more impressive and may actually win them a few awards for the innovations!
It's not an impossible or impractical thing to think of using real models anymore rather than relying on CGI rendered fakery. I think that's one of the main reasons that Star Wars has stood the test of time like it has for so many years. CGI is great for small stuff, but when you throw it at the big stuff, it just feels "fake". I think the novelty of it has been wearing thin for the past few years now.
I will have to respectfully disagree. There were plenty of shots in the movie where it looked as skinny as the 32 inch from the front and back. No where near as beefy as the 5ft. When more screen grabs become available, I will be happy to compare side by side.
Also, without actual measurements or working on the set (which I'm assuming you did not), you cannot claim that the full size set is more accurate than the Empire version. I'm assuming you are saying it's more accurate size wise, because at least the Empire Falcon was complete on the outside. It sure appeared to be still undersized when seeing people in the cockpit relative to the size of the ship. Case and point is the shot I was referring to with the falcon rising above the cliff with Chewie in the cockpit. He is way too big for what the cockpit size needs to be to be practical relative to the interior set.
That being said, I loved the Falcon in the movie and enjoyed every minute and shot it was in. I would have been more upset if it died instead of Han. I'm just saying it's a bold claim at this point with what info is out there to say it's 100% accurate to the 5ft or the full size set is better than the Empire version.
Last edited:
Jaitea
Master Member
I still am not sure which of the 2 Falcon's you have issues with regarding the size of the cockpit,...the jaw & basic shape,....is it the CG asset or the Full-size set,....or both?
I haven't been on set to do any measuring,...but have noticed that the set builders have paid more attention to replicate the details of the CG asset,...which in turn is pretty much spot on tho the 5 footer,....theres a couple of missing parts & different details,...but thats the way the Full sized set was in SW & ESB
The scale of the FSS is pretty much spot on as documented early on in production compared to the ESB exterior which was about 90% below scale
J
MonsieurTox
Master Member
Yes I am, never liked the 5 footer (it's the MF "proto" for me) and even less the TFA CG 5ft.
Jaitea
Master Member
Yes I am, never liked the 5 footer (it's the MF "proto" for me) and even less the TFA CG 5ft.
...ah well,....I suppose everyone has their faults:rolleyes
......but seriously,....its not that I dislike the 32".....I just don't understand the fascination it gets,....its probably down to which bird you fall in love with first....& I'm glad that ILM/Lucasfilm/Disney feel the same
J
Last edited:
I'm not saying they look bad. I have issues with both to answer your question. The full scale is still under sized and the CG version is not 100% accurate to the shape of the 5ft. I remember seeing somewhere here on the rpf that from the top they are very close, but I don't feel the shape of the jaw box or the overall thickness of the ship is the same. If you can show me some side by side from the front or rear to show me otherwise I would happy to concede to what you are saying. The overhead shots I've seen look very close, but the front shots I briefly saw in the movie suggested otherwise to me.
That sounds like a great approach but again you're missing the chief issue - time. One model, one shooting stage, one element for the final shot. What if the mount needed to be changed mid-shot to allow for a dynamic camera move? That's just one issue I can think of. Return of the Jedi had about 900 VFX shots and I expect The Force Awakens had between 2000 - 3000. They'd still be working on the movie if they did them with models.
Again, don't get me wrong i'd LOVE them to use models instead of CGI. I love how real models look (no computer can come close to a trained eye lighting a model) and I love the limits that being physical imposes on the shots that can be done. I'm just trying to get across that I can't imagine they'll ever do this on a show with this number of shots because it's simply impractical to do so. Sure movies like interstellar had a number of model shots, but they were hardly as complex as some of the set pieces in TFA.
I just think we need to face the fact that Models are, sadly, a thing of the past for complex FX shows like this.
Anyway I don't think this is the right place to continue this discussion so i'll end my participation here.
Again, don't get me wrong i'd LOVE them to use models instead of CGI. I love how real models look (no computer can come close to a trained eye lighting a model) and I love the limits that being physical imposes on the shots that can be done. I'm just trying to get across that I can't imagine they'll ever do this on a show with this number of shots because it's simply impractical to do so. Sure movies like interstellar had a number of model shots, but they were hardly as complex as some of the set pieces in TFA.
I just think we need to face the fact that Models are, sadly, a thing of the past for complex FX shows like this.
Anyway I don't think this is the right place to continue this discussion so i'll end my participation here.
But see that's what I'm talking about... it doesn't matter the mount of the model itself... for all practical purposes, now they'd be able to use one single mount instead of several different mounts and use the CGI to edit it out. The model itself could be completely stationary and the only things that would move would be the camera and the lights. All of which could be completely automated by the computer 3D environment. The time it would save would be enormous! They spend jut as much time building a model in 3D as they would if they made a practical model. The rendering times of every single frame are enormous compared to just taking a photo with a camera which is instant without any computer processing to figure out any of the light bouncing, texture rendering, memory requirements and various screen blurs programmatically.
Models aren't dead... this entire website proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
While I agree that the shots of the CG Falcon were lacking somewhat, and that there are definitely tells for experienced eyes, all of the arguments for using CG for these shots are valid. That said, given how far advanced the tech is today, I think the way the ships react to lighting could have been much better, especially with the Falcon. It is the only ship in VII that originated as a miniature, and offers direct comparison as a result. Say what you want about the geometry of the CG version (legit crits) bit for me, it was all about the shading.
I'm not sure, but I would say that Renderman was likely used for the ship renders, as it originated at ILM back in the day, and they standardized their pipelines on it long ago. Sure, Renderman has kept up with the times (mostly) in terms of illumination models, but it falls short visually compared to more modern engines, in my opinion. Again, I do not know what was actually used, and the render engine is not the only culprit here.
As far as miniatures are concerned, I am sure that all of us would have preferred to seen their use over the CG iterations. The Falcon is what got me into miniature work in the first place, so I was sad to see no Falcon miniature used at all in the film. In fact, the worst shot for me involved *spoiler alert* -- snow. I'll leave it at that, but if you have seen the film, you likely know the shot I am referring to. There was no hiding the CG there.
Motion control has had its day. Weta and a few other places will use it from time to time when warranted, but that argument gets harder and harder to make, especially as the old guard die off, replaced with pixel pushers from the local art schools. The people who know how to do this stuff are disappearing before our eyes, and we are not any better for it. All of the issues with motion control are mitigated with digital composting and roto, save for the space and time requirements. Now, it can take roughly a half second per frame to get a beauty pass on a moco rig, though I suspect that modern digital cameras and lighting can shave that time down a little. But you still need a matte pass (unless shooting against green or blue) various lighting passes, and so on. That can really add up per shot. Even so, shots like these in CG at film resolution (particularly in Renderman) can take as long as 24 hours per frame, so it is possible that the moco could have an advantage, especially if the shot takes all of the farm resources per frame. But the people laying out and animating the shot are free to do so at will, with as many workstations as they have access to; in addition, one person can animate whole squadrons of ships and action, whereas moco has to do this one ship at a time, typically (though not always where formations are in the shot). Advantage: CG.
It is possible to have the animators work as they do know, and then output the results to files that can drive the moco systems. That has been happening for many years, and can even be used to blend between the two (say hero ship as a miniature, and other ships as CG. But then those elements still have to be lit and photographed on the moco rig, and are subject to the physical limitations of the camera robot, track length, model mover rig, and practical lighting limitations (heat being the biggest one.) It would be fun to do, but unless someone actually does this as a case study and proves it to be better (in terms of cost and time) than all CG, it won't happen consistently.
The good news is, the film was good, we have more coming, and perhaps someone will be bold enough to try this in the future versions. We can all dream...
I'm not sure, but I would say that Renderman was likely used for the ship renders, as it originated at ILM back in the day, and they standardized their pipelines on it long ago. Sure, Renderman has kept up with the times (mostly) in terms of illumination models, but it falls short visually compared to more modern engines, in my opinion. Again, I do not know what was actually used, and the render engine is not the only culprit here.
As far as miniatures are concerned, I am sure that all of us would have preferred to seen their use over the CG iterations. The Falcon is what got me into miniature work in the first place, so I was sad to see no Falcon miniature used at all in the film. In fact, the worst shot for me involved *spoiler alert* -- snow. I'll leave it at that, but if you have seen the film, you likely know the shot I am referring to. There was no hiding the CG there.
Motion control has had its day. Weta and a few other places will use it from time to time when warranted, but that argument gets harder and harder to make, especially as the old guard die off, replaced with pixel pushers from the local art schools. The people who know how to do this stuff are disappearing before our eyes, and we are not any better for it. All of the issues with motion control are mitigated with digital composting and roto, save for the space and time requirements. Now, it can take roughly a half second per frame to get a beauty pass on a moco rig, though I suspect that modern digital cameras and lighting can shave that time down a little. But you still need a matte pass (unless shooting against green or blue) various lighting passes, and so on. That can really add up per shot. Even so, shots like these in CG at film resolution (particularly in Renderman) can take as long as 24 hours per frame, so it is possible that the moco could have an advantage, especially if the shot takes all of the farm resources per frame. But the people laying out and animating the shot are free to do so at will, with as many workstations as they have access to; in addition, one person can animate whole squadrons of ships and action, whereas moco has to do this one ship at a time, typically (though not always where formations are in the shot). Advantage: CG.
It is possible to have the animators work as they do know, and then output the results to files that can drive the moco systems. That has been happening for many years, and can even be used to blend between the two (say hero ship as a miniature, and other ships as CG. But then those elements still have to be lit and photographed on the moco rig, and are subject to the physical limitations of the camera robot, track length, model mover rig, and practical lighting limitations (heat being the biggest one.) It would be fun to do, but unless someone actually does this as a case study and proves it to be better (in terms of cost and time) than all CG, it won't happen consistently.
The good news is, the film was good, we have more coming, and perhaps someone will be bold enough to try this in the future versions. We can all dream...
Most of the Studio models have more than one mounting points - not without reason. If you limit it to one, you get strong constraints on the viewing angles you can use for filming, which will make it look very stationary.
Not anymore if using digital film... the things that can be done to create a matte from a still are incredible. Hell even I can do so using AE to create a matte of a background difference on my PC... with their high end PCs it would be simple. Of course they would be using blue/green screening for the physical models. By using the physical models for the close-up and large scale shots, they can use the easier CGI for background fighters and distant shot that don't have to be seen with such scrutiny.
I'm simply stating that as far as CGI has come in the past 20 years, it still will never replace real photography. All I am suggesting is that we have the technology to merge the two finally to where it would not only be more cost effective and cheaper in the long run but visually effective and 10x more convincing. The physical models will make more money by themselves even after the movie has been released to add even more revenue.
And that is exactly what needs to be done. The camera doesn't have to be on a track... a single robotic arm that can move 360 degrees throughout any given space is not impossible. The lights themselves have also come a long way... LEDs spotlights don't have any heating problems whatsoever and create just as much light as the old halogen bulbs did. Cameras have evolved to the point where the light from a cigarette ash can illuminate a room. Things they didn't have back in the 70's but are totally achievable now. You stop and think about what Lucas could have done with the equipment of today back in the 70's and things would have been sooooooooo much better.
I believe that the camera position recorder that would work with any camera in real time would be a staple that can be used to set up any background mattes these days including the traveling matte. Rotoscoping has become a thing of the past anymore. If the modeling community put their heads together to come up with a rig that can be used to film physical models better and faster then any CGI firm could do, the industry would definitely take notice. What do you think?
Not so fast. You need a good, clean silhouette for a matte, and difference or luminance mapping won't give that to you if you have a high contrast lighting ratio, which means that you need process color in the BG. And, we're not talking stills here, we are talking motion frames with motion blur. So, while you do get the matte in the same pass as the beauty if you use process color (any primary or secondary color will do these days, though some are better than others), evenly lit, of course. Definitely better than the old photo-chemical days, for sure.
And none of this stuff is easy, especially where mechanical rigs are involved. Even simple sliders will need to be in good form for repeat passes, now turn that into an 8 axis rig. Then add the model mover(s) and possibly light movers. You need quite a bit of space and a long track, and that is expensive, too. At least you don't have to wait for dailies to see if everything worked, and temp comps can be done almost in real time (slower at film res though). So, yes, it can be done, but there needs to be a clear benefit to do so, and JJ, Disney and Co. clearly did not see such a benefit for TFA...
And none of this stuff is easy, especially where mechanical rigs are involved. Even simple sliders will need to be in good form for repeat passes, now turn that into an 8 axis rig. Then add the model mover(s) and possibly light movers. You need quite a bit of space and a long track, and that is expensive, too. At least you don't have to wait for dailies to see if everything worked, and temp comps can be done almost in real time (slower at film res though). So, yes, it can be done, but there needs to be a clear benefit to do so, and JJ, Disney and Co. clearly did not see such a benefit for TFA...
PeteVenkman
Well-Known Member
And that is why effects no longer mystify or impress me. To photograph a physical model and then incorporate it into a film convincingly was difficult, time consuming, and required a lot of effort. I'm sorry, but creating cartoons on a screen with a mouse just isn't the same. And the (relative) ease with which (I know the die-hard CGI apologists will disagree) these incredible cartoon images can be created is killing the mystery of film. There is no more a sense of 'how'd dey do dat?' Now I just shrug and say, 'meh, they did it with a computer.' Sure it all looks good and epic and such, but in the end it's just a cartoon rendered on a computer. I don't hate CGI, I've seen some great stuff, but it is over used and, sadly, unimpressive.
CGI is quicker, easier, more seductive.....
CGI has its place just like any tool, and I do use computers to create things as well, but it shouldn't be the only tool used forevermore. We are losing the craftsmen. Now we have a generation of effects guys who've never build a model, artists who've never used a pencil or paint brush, and musicians who've never played an instrument. And, to me anyway, that is a dangerous path to follow. Besides, creating everything on a computer with as mouse and keyboard is deathly boring. That's why, as much as I loved the dogfight scenes with the Falcon, I found BB-8 to be far more impressive as a technical achievement.
CGI is quicker, easier, more seductive.....
CGI has its place just like any tool, and I do use computers to create things as well, but it shouldn't be the only tool used forevermore. We are losing the craftsmen. Now we have a generation of effects guys who've never build a model, artists who've never used a pencil or paint brush, and musicians who've never played an instrument. And, to me anyway, that is a dangerous path to follow. Besides, creating everything on a computer with as mouse and keyboard is deathly boring. That's why, as much as I loved the dogfight scenes with the Falcon, I found BB-8 to be far more impressive as a technical achievement.
Last edited:
darthviper107
Sr Member
In certain processes, CG is faster and easier (which is why it's chosen) but that doesn't mean things are easier now, as technology has advanced the whole process gets more and more complex and they have pushed the FX more. So while something that took a month might take a few days, that doesn't mean that everything is that much faster and easier, instead you still take a month but it looks better than it used to because you're adding more detail or you've developed some new rendering algorithm that allows for more realistic materials or something like that. Spaceships are something that CGI can do really well though, and I think they did a good job.
Also, while it's not necessary for many of the computer artists to be able to draw, many still do. And I'd say it doesn't require someone who can draw well to be able to build a miniature either. In both practical FX and CGI there's a use for people that can draw and paint, but not everyone needs those skills.
Also, BB-8 wouldn't have been possible without CGI since they had to do a lot of enhancements for him to work, the remote control version was built after filming and wouldn't have worked for filming anyway. What you end up with is shots that require removal of the rig or puppeteer, or having a CG BB-8 for the shots that would be impossible to puppeteer.
Also, while it's not necessary for many of the computer artists to be able to draw, many still do. And I'd say it doesn't require someone who can draw well to be able to build a miniature either. In both practical FX and CGI there's a use for people that can draw and paint, but not everyone needs those skills.
Also, BB-8 wouldn't have been possible without CGI since they had to do a lot of enhancements for him to work, the remote control version was built after filming and wouldn't have worked for filming anyway. What you end up with is shots that require removal of the rig or puppeteer, or having a CG BB-8 for the shots that would be impossible to puppeteer.
Stupid Deagostini - They billed me two weeks ago for Pack 9 and still haven't shipped it yet. Called yesterday to find out what's going on only to be told that 9 is backordered and due any day. First the mess up with Month 5, now this. Ugh.
Now on to another question - is anyone thinking about altering the cargo hold to match TFA? In the same vein, is anyone planning to do the TFA dish to swap out the round one? Yes, I know the other details on the ship are different, but to the casual observer, the wouldn't know any difference.
-Gary
Now on to another question - is anyone thinking about altering the cargo hold to match TFA? In the same vein, is anyone planning to do the TFA dish to swap out the round one? Yes, I know the other details on the ship are different, but to the casual observer, the wouldn't know any difference.
-Gary
