ILM Force Awakens CG ship renders. ULTRA high res.

Discussion in 'Studio Scale Models' started by DanielB, Sep 10, 2015.

  1. DanielB

    DanielB Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,340
    Because there are no actual physical models being used for the ships in The Force Awakens, very high quality CG model assets were made for the film by Industrial Light and Magic. To help with reference, here are some ULTRA high res renders of ILM's assets. If you wish to download them to your computer, which I recommend, do the following.


    Go to the following link...


    http://imgur.com/a/lWptA


    Hover over the upper right corner of each image, and you will see a gear icon appear.


    Click the icon, and you will have two options. View Full Resolution or Download Full Resolution.


    I recommend downloading them, and use them for reference when building your own models. Have fun!
     
    Astro, gizmo, Vacformedhero and 2 others like this.
  2. swgeek

    swgeek Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,315
    BOOOOOOOO!!!! :angry
     
  3. DaveG

    DaveG Sr Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,370
    I like that even though they're digital models, the designs looks like they were built out of styrene and covered with model kit parts.
     
  4. joewhite

    joewhite Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,046
    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
     
  5. Wolfsburg

    Wolfsburg Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,730
    Yeah, I have to admit I'm pretty disappointed there were no physical models made for the movie and am a bit surprised, considering all the other efforts to go "back to basics". I'm sad we'll never get to see these models displayed and be able to admire them in person. I remember a year or two ago someone here supposedly "in the know" implying ILM was gathering up model makers for the new movie. Guess not...

    As for the designs themselves, I like them fairly well but I do have a few little quibbles with them. I'm not sure how I feel about the squat bridge area of the new SD though the ship looks cool overall. Honestly, to my eye, it looks like it should be older than the OT ISDs though. Something about it looks more primitive to me. The command shuttle looks okay, with obvious inspiration from the Lambda shuttle but I do wish it were sleeker like the Lambda, with a more apparent cockpit area. I'm not really loving the inverted color palette of the TIEs, with the black hull and gray solar panels. Wouldn't it stand to reason the panel color wouldn't arbitrarily change, even if the FO decided to paint the hull black and red? I guess that was done for the "coolness" factor? I wouldn't imagine the panels themselves are painted?

    Oftentimes, when it's decided to take something existing (stormtroopers, Imperial guards, Imperial TIE fighters, Rebel X-wings, etc.) and make it black (shadowtroopers, shadow guards, First Order TIEs, Resistance Black Squadron X-wings, etc), I feel it's done for the "ooh-ahh, cool factor" but I always found it a bit cheesy.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2015
    swgeek likes this.
  6. Vacformedhero

    Vacformedhero Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,427
    The new first order troop carrier looks like it could be a new favourite ship to scratch build here on the rpf, simple shapes and the options to build it deploying troops or make it large enough to hold bandai 1:12 troops .
     
  7. DaveG

    DaveG Sr Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,370
    In spite of Abram's desire to do more "practical effects" it still comes down to money. Flying spaceships are much cheaper to do CG than practical. The cost to build a CG model vs. a real model is about the same but the cost to shoot real models is a lot more expensive than that to render the CG model. You can also render the CG elements for a multitude of shots at the same time whereas with a real model it's one at a time making for a longer production schedule.

    We may end up seeing models shots in TFA, but they are more likely to be larger environmental models or high speed exploding models, which can be cheaper and better practical than CG.

    As far as creature effects go, the opposite is usually true, it's cheaper to build a practical creature and shoot it on set than to add a CG one later. And of course it gives the actors something to play off.
     
    StevenBills and Vacformedhero like this.
  8. Vacformedhero

    Vacformedhero Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,427
    the balance between CGI and Practical is like asking the length of a string.
    I think its related to the value we place on physical objects and how we perceive them to be real.
    The recent film Chappie is a good case in point, there was many scenes where a physical robot chassis were seen and the actors interacting with them, made the transition to the fully digital scenes easier because the physical Chappie had added gravitas to the digital scenes, and the lighting and rendering was exceptional.

    Recently enough i upgraded my TV to 1K and I have to say watching the Star Wars special edition versions back was like seeing everything come out of the washing machine after someone left a red sock in the wash.
    The scenes done with practical models looked real, the lighting looked real,.....the digital pieces really stood out as brutal, in no way realistic and also very jarring when transitioning from digital to physical assets, again these were made some time ago and the technology had moved on A LOT.
    While the Prequels are easier to look at (they built more models for PM than the whole original saga) overall they were probably too clean

    So I will wait , and pray that the lessons from all the movies made to date, will make the force awakens what we hope it will be. And when the titles role it will just be like 1977 again .
    I don't want to worry too much beforehand , as it happened a long time ago in a galaxy far far away
     
  9. Jaitea

    Jaitea Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,690
    Is your TV 720 or 1080?.....if it's 1080 that is Full HD = (1920x1080) which is just under 2K

    4K native is 4096x2160, Ultra HD is 3840x2160 (which is being promoted as 4k)

    You probably already know that,.....just throwing this wee fact out there & possibly throwing you another 1K

    J
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2015
    The Terminator and Vacformedhero like this.
  10. DaveG

    DaveG Sr Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,370
    2K resolution is actually slightly higher in resolution than 35mm film grain. So movies shot on film, as Star Wars was won't look any better when they are eventually re-released at 4k Ultra HD resolution for playback on 4K television. Everybody's talking like 4k will be so much better when it finally comes, but it's kind of like the Spinal Tap amp that went to "11". For something to look the best played back at 4k it will have had to have been shot on a digital 4k camera.
     
  11. Jaitea

    Jaitea Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,690
    I'm really not that worried about the ships being CG,...bad models can be bad models,....bad CG the same,.....look at the CG in the original Jurassic Park,...compared to the horrendous CG in the SWSE,....the 97 Jabba??

    [​IMG]
    .....the updated Jabba in 2004:
    [​IMG]


    but compare him to what he looked like in 99's PM:
    [​IMG]

    So really its all about time constraints,.....the SE's had to have been something squeezed in between projects

    The main things that ruin shots is human interaction with CG,....thats why they are making a big deal with the going back to basics,....practical sets, practical troopers, animatronic masks,......motion capture instead of winging it on the computer

    Making models for the spacecraft requires all the building, filming....the green/blue-screen....compositing.....which would take up so much more time

    ...as long as they get those Dykstra style sweeping shots I'll be happy

    The effects in recent movies like Avengers etc are pretty much flawless,.....creature & craft,...I can't imagine there being anything to worry about in the new SW

    J
     
  12. Jaitea

    Jaitea Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,690
    I don't know where you got that info,...but 35mm is considered to be equivalent to 6K,....theres more info in each frame than you'd think,...35mm is still higher quality than 4k,...JJ is using film for the new movie

    They used to scan films at 2k,.....for DVD's,...maybe thats where the confusion lies

    J
     
    The Terminator likes this.
  13. DanielB

    DanielB Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,340
    Indeed. I work in visual effects/video production. Film scans until recently were scanned in at 2k, but now mostly scanned in at 4k. Maybe some film stocks could squeeze out 6k of resolution, but probably not all. IMAX 70mm is 8k usually.
     
  14. DaveG

    DaveG Sr Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,370
    I've been in the visual effects business for more than 30 years. Yes, you can get some better image artifacts with film scanned at 4k but it mainly improves color and contrast rendition it doesn't make it sharper. Scanning at 4k also give editors (and visual effects compositors) the ability to "blow up" the image frame and reposition it if they wish with less negative impact on the final image. If you're talking about scanning a full frame 35mm negative, what we use to call VistaVision, then absolutely 4k will give you a superior resolution but for the average motion picture shot in what's referred to as Academy format (less than half the area of a full 35mm frame) a 4k scan will mainly just make the film grain sharper. It can't add more resolution than the inherent size of the grain. It's even worse for "scope" movies which have a built in optical 2:1 horizontal compression created by the camera lens.

    More recent films shot with better film stocks could look better at 4k since newer film stocks have finer grain but Star Wars, shot in 1976, won't. When it does get the Ultra HD treatment, and you know it will so they can get everyone to buy it again, it will probably get a digital "facelift" to look better in 4k but then we start getting into the same sort of issues as "colorizing" of old black and white movies.

    Besides, the trend it to watch movies on iPhones and iPads these days anyway...
     
    dejordzta and Vacformedhero like this.
  15. astroboy

    astroboy Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    3,275
    As great as practical sets are, cgi is WAY better than matte paintings
     
  16. Wolfsburg

    Wolfsburg Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,730
    Depends on how they're used but I'll take McQuarrie's (and those that worked under him) matte paintings over CGI any day. Most you can't tell are even paintings.
     
    Toadmeister and gizmo like this.
  17. astroboy

    astroboy Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    3,275
    The hangar of home one disagrees. Those are some of the worst shots in the seriea
     
  18. Wolfsburg

    Wolfsburg Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,730
    Nah, the painting is fine. Just poorly composited. Sloppy blue screen work and perhaps zoomed too tight. That one example is hardly enough to generally discredit matte paintings and there are many CGI shots that looked just as bad, if not worse. I think you would be surprised just how many matte paintings were utilized that you never knew were.
     
    Vacformedhero likes this.
  19. DaveG

    DaveG Sr Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,370
    The real problem is that these day a lot of people that call themselves "matte painters" are really just Photoshop cut and paste artists. Back in the "good old days" you couldn't fake it. Your either knew how to paint or you didn't!
     
    Davy Jones likes this.
  20. jayroth

    jayroth Active Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    441
    Vista Vision (8 perf horizontal) as roughly equivalent to 4K with Eastman 5247, which was a common filmstock used in that era. Release prints, which is what you saw in theatres, would be slightly better than 2K,IF there were a low amount of optical composites in the film (and the titles would count, typically). Terminator 2 VFX shots at ILM were at 1920 by 1080, and up-rezzed to 2K, as that extra amount saved in render time was necessary (quicker to up-res than to render).

    At ILM, shots would originate on 8 perf, and go through the optical printer, ultimately getting reduced to 4 perf, a significantly lower res format (in terms of pixels). Many shots were multi-layer composites, which would degrade the quality of each generation (comp layer) even more. And that work was done on what many considered state of the art optical printers in that time.

    For contrast, some shots in Special Edition took the original Vista Vision elements, scanned and recomped them digitally, such as several shots in the death star trench with the TIE fighters and X Wings. They were not all CG redoes. I do not know what metric was used to determine re-comps vs, CG redoes, though I consider the shot of the X Wings opening the S foils in the SE to be far superior to what was done for the original film (which appeared to be the same element repeated and reduced several times.) Other than that, they should have left it alone...

    So, to simplify, motion control (aka "Dykstraflex") VFX before CG went like this: original photography of elements (first generation, highest quality). Combination of elements together (optical or bipack).Optical degraded the image down to second generation for one comp pass. Additional passes would drop generations even more. If bipack comped, also known as in-camera, exposed elements would be backwound, holdout mattes would be made (if possible), and additional elements would be exposed into unexposed portions of the film negative, thus reducing quality-loss. More expensive budgets would allow for composites on "interpositive stock," which was a fine-grained, low contrast stock. This would help to minimize contrast and grain build up from comping.

    Oh, and if the lab screwed up your dailies overnight, you had to reshoot, as there would be no way to save anything.

    Yeah, it basically sucked back then...
     
    dejordzta likes this.
  21. swgeek

    swgeek Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,315
    There's a lot more to the decision of whether to use practical miniatures or cgi than just the cost.
     
    Falk likes this.
  22. DaveG

    DaveG Sr Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,370
    But it was a lot more fun! I miss those days. Building and shooting miniatures was the most fun I ever had doing VFX.
     
    mung likes this.
  23. astroboy

    astroboy Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    3,275
    Storage is also a big issue. (I say this as a technical director in opera whose warehouse is only so big) i remember the doc on the prequels where they mentioned scrapping set pieces the day after shooting with them.

    But with cgi, you can use them over and over again for free. The exact same model can appear in video games and even be sent to hasbro so they can ignore it completely.

    Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk
     
  24. DaveG

    DaveG Sr Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,370
    Yup, here was the beautiful 1/8 scale 70 foot long nuclear submarine model that we built for The Abyss:

    [​IMG]

    And the same model the day after shooting wrapped:

    [​IMG]
     
    gizmo likes this.
  25. Jaitea

    Jaitea Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,690
    Fixed that fer ya

    J
     
    Talisen likes this.
  26. astroboy

    astroboy Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    3,275
    Remember how many overused stock viper shots there were on old galactica? That doesn't happen anymore....as much

    Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk
     
  27. jayroth

    jayroth Active Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    441
    True dat. I really was referring to the issue of quality loss, and the optical process. I was lucky to have started with people doing in-camera effects and bipacks, along with hanging miniatures, glass shots, front screen, etc. Old school, but great looking. Even then, though, those methods were more restrictive when compared with motion control (the new kid on the block back then.) Fortunately, I was smart enough to appreciate my education as it was happening, though it did take me a few months to understand how lucky I was.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2015
  28. Sourdoh

    Sourdoh Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,730
    Dave G is the real deal. A hugely experienced VFX worker and supervisor that has litterally "been there, done that". He is a meticulous modeler and is up on the very latest technologies in the industry, and an accomplished artist in many media. He knows his stuff, and when he has time to post here, I listen very carefully!
     
  29. DaveG

    DaveG Sr Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,370
    Oh shucks S'Doh thanks! But my opinion's no more valid than anyone else's. That's what's great about the RPF, getting to hear from a variety of people. I'm just an opinionated "old fart"! Now just don't get me started on why widescreen 1:85 isn't "Scope"! :eek
     
  30. vfxsup64

    vfxsup64 Well-Known Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    560

    I remember going to SMPTE meetings in the 90's here in LA and many a debate erupted over 2.39 vs 2.40.

    ....220, 221 whatever it takes ;-)



    apb
     
  31. The Terminator

    The Terminator Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,515
    4K or rather "4K" as they(Samsung, Sony etc) claim it to be isn't even 4K, just merely four times 1080p.

    and Star Wars in 4K, already done by Reliance Media Works:
    http://makingstarwars.net/2014/07/star-wars-iv-vi-converted-4k-16-bit-resolution

    As long as Vader's saber isn't pink like it is on a few formats :facepalm

    It really can't
     
  32. Jaitea

    Jaitea Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,690
    Yep the quality looks epic,....gone are the crushed blacks & the blue hue

    ......but when can we have it?

    J
     
  33. rbeach84

    rbeach84 Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,406
    If only the Original OT (non-Special Edition) version could get this treatment - but then it may not even exist anymore except on old VHS tapes like the one in my cabinet.
    R/ Robert
     
  34. Jaitea

    Jaitea Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,690
    It exists alright,....the footage in the Reliance Media shows it,.....the effect shots of Vader & Ben are pre SE,.....

    ...also Mike Verta had done some splendid work:
    https://vimeo.com/mikeverta

    J
     
    Vacformedhero likes this.
  35. The Terminator

    The Terminator Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,515
    That is the million dollar question, isn't it? :p
     
  36. rbeach84

    rbeach84 Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,406
    Well, that is good news! Thanks for the tip, J.

    Regards, Robert

    PS: Now I've had a better look at Mike's work he is REALLY doing a bang-up job (not just technically but also analytically & artistically.)
     
  37. edge10

    edge10 Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,990
    A good question is: when we will finally see The Abyss on Blu-ray?
     
    Vacformedhero likes this.
  38. The Terminator

    The Terminator Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,515
    Around the same time as True Lies most likely
     
  39. edge10

    edge10 Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,990
    12th of Never?
     
  40. The Terminator

    The Terminator Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,515
    no idea,but supposedly both have been remastered and are just awaiting approval from Jim, but he's busy with the final three Avatar installments :p
     
  41. DeanB

    DeanB Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    566
    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
     
  42. LorduDesign

    LorduDesign Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,085
    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).
    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]
     
  43. swgeek

    swgeek Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,315
    Those are art department/study models. There are no on screen miniatures used in The Force Awakens.
     
    Vacformedhero likes this.
  44. Vacformedhero

    Vacformedhero Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,427
    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? )
     
  45. LorduDesign

    LorduDesign Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,085
    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?
    tumblr_inline_nzqd4oNW3P1qagf0b_1280.jpg
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2016
  46. swgeek

    swgeek Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,315
    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.
     
  47. ProfKSergeev

    ProfKSergeev Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    835
    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).

    X-Wing Comparison.jpg
     
  48. Vacformedhero

    Vacformedhero Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,427
    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
     
  49. ProfKSergeev

    ProfKSergeev Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    835
    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.
     
  50. swgeek

    swgeek Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,315
    I would have put money on the T-70 being shorter. That's really surprising.
     

Share This Page