Shooting small (tiny) models in motion control?

[IndyFanChuck]

This may be a stupid question, but I just wanted to ask. My wife and I were talking about my Star Trek project and she had a good point. Why try and get a massive filming model made? Why not just get something very very small made, have it lit internally, and then see about shooting it much less expensively in motion control?

Is that a silly idea, or could it be done? It just seems logical to me that making a tiny filming model would save on time, money, and everything.

Since I really am learning here, what are your thoughts? Anyone have any suggestions?

Can this be done? And if it can, who can I talk to about getting help?

Thanks!!

 

[Harry Harris]

Chuck,

I don't know what your project is but I remember reading that the general rule when filming miniatures is to make them as large as possible as the smaller they are the more they look like models on screen.

Harry

 

[mverta]

Yes, photographically it's much easier to get a believable sense of scale with larger objects. There are a ton of reasons: inherent surface detail, shadow/lighting quality, and f-stop/FOV concerns among them. There are a million cues which happen during the propagation of light which tell our brains what size and how far away an object is. It can be very difficult to fool the brain - this is why CG is so challenging. Models, because they're real objects, bring a ton of these X-Factor elements into the mix just by their nature, but you still have to compensate for a lot of variables. In the end (though not without exception) size does matter.


_Mike

 

[CTF]

Why not just get something very very small made, have it lit internally, and then see about shooting it much less expensively in motion control?

Moco isn't cheap. All I can say. And unless you have somebody who knows what they're doing (a trained cinematographer who knows how to shoot minis) you'll run into a lot of problems.

 

[S. Holmes]

Chuck,

I don't know what your project is but I remember reading that the general rule when filming miniatures is to make them as large as possible as the smaller they are the more they look like models on screen.

Harry

Well that is the general rule...... but, It also depends on the level of detail, and the quality of the camera and film. (and of course the skill of the person filming it.)

Guess how big these are.....

(and I don't claim to be a great photographer)

Gil

 

[IndyFanChuck]

Those are great! How big are they????

They look great!!!!???


-Chuck

Well that is the general rule...... but, It also depends on the level of detail, and the quality of the camera and film. (and of course the skill of the person filming it.)

Guess how big these are.....

(and I don't claim to be a great photographer)

Gil

 

[mverta]

Well these models' small scales are betrayed by the short depth of field, which you have to compensate for with smaller aperture, and thence more lighting. Too small for filming believably in any kind of "close-up" context.

_Mike

 

[S. Holmes]

Well these models' small scales are betrayed by the short depth of field, which you have to compensate for with smaller aperture, and thence more lighting. Too small for filming believably in any kind of "close-up" context.

_Mike

Thank you Mike..:unsure.. again I said I was not the best photog. And with the right amount of detail and the right lighting .... (inside the model and out)... and the correct aperture and a good photographer...... these would work for a small budget project.
It's been done before.... check out the some of the web fan sites.

Gil

 

[S. Holmes]

Those are great! How big are they????

They look great!!!!???


-Chuck

Thank you very much, Chuck. Got your pm, so here I am posting again.

These are all 1/1000 scale.

The Excalibur, and the Enterprise are the Polar Lights kit and the Wayfarer is my own kit that I made for a short time. It uses the engines from the Polar Lights kit.

What is the project your doing?

Gil

 

[phase pistol]

Yeah you can't keep those small models all in focus at the same time, it seems.

There is a reason the hero TOS Enterprise was 11 feet long, the Enterprise-D used in TNG was 6 feet (later 4 feet)... and the Discovery from 2001 a space odyssey, was 54 feet long!

You may get better bang for your buck doing it in CG (it's what all the kids are doing these days!)... but beware lame-ass amateurs who will do cheap work that looks like plastic.

If it's your TNG-era project, the member here named REL is supposed to be working on a "studio scale" 1701-D kit, but as I recall that is pretty small for filming purposes.

The three-foot TOS Enterprise by Master Replicas would be the very minimum size for a filming miniature, and you'd have trouble even with that I think.

- k

 

[IndyFanChuck]

I signed up to purchase REL's superb Enterprise D replica. I think I am going to use that model for my project.

The PROBLEM then is finding someone who is willing to do the motion control work for me.

It looks like it's going to be EXCEEDINGLY expensive. But you never know. I may find someone who LOVES Star Trek TNG and LOVES how awesome I am.
lol

But when REL is done and I have the Enterprise D model in hand, then I can make the planning and see where this goes. I was just hoping that it might be possible to use tiny models. But everyone seems to think it's a bad idea - and I see everyones point about it......

Right now REL's model is the best thing around, and frankly the single best Enterprise D I have seen, outside of the real ILM filming models! So that is hope!

I HATE CGI! I hope to have ZERO CGI in my project! (famous last words! haha)

Yeah you can't keep those small models all in focus at the same time, it seems.

There is a reason the hero TOS Enterprise was 11 feet long, the Enterprise-D used in TNG was 6 feet (later 4 feet)... and the Discovery from 2001 a space odyssey, was 54 feet long!

You may get better bang for your buck doing it in CG (it's what all the kids are doing these days!)... but beware lame-ass amateurs who will do cheap work that looks like plastic.

If it's your TNG-era project, the member here named REL is supposed to be working on a "studio scale" 1701-D kit, but as I recall that is pretty small for filming purposes.

The three-foot TOS Enterprise by Master Replicas would be the very minimum size for a filming miniature, and you'd have trouble even with that I think.

- k

 

[mverta]

Thank you Mike..:unsure.. again I said I was not the best photog. And with the right amount of detail and the right lighting ....

I wasn't blaming you in any way, the model's too small for this use. I mean, it's POSSIBLE, but not if you don't want it to look like the ass on fan websites.

Motion control is tricky - the eye scrutinizes models in motion with brutal sensitivity, that's all.


_Mike

 

[IndyFanChuck]

I am glad the discussion is going in all areas. I have studied what I can about Motion Control on the internet, but wow! It truly seems like you have to get in there and be involved in the actual filming process to have a TRUE understanding of the whole Motion Control working process.

This may be a stupid question, but what companies are actually still DOING sci-fi Motion Control?

Perhaps they will be kind enough to give me some information or something....

Suggestions????

I wasn't blaming you in any way, the model's too small for this use. I mean, it's POSSIBLE, but not if you don't want it to look like the ass on fan websites.

Motion control is tricky - the eye scrutinizes models in motion with brutal sensitivity, that's all.


_Mike

 

[vistaVision]

Any fx production company can accomidate motion control, if they have the need. Stages and equipment are available for rent, and experienced crew can be hired. A rather expensive proposition, by fan film standards, anyway.

I can probably answer your questions about the process. It will help to better understand why you feel mo-co will be suitable and necessary for your production.

It might help if you better understand why motion control was developed and used in the first place:

*It is much easier to light and mount a static model and move the camera (to create the illusion of a moving model) than the other way around.

*Non-realtime photography allows for ultimate control of exposure, depth of field, complex camera/model moves, etc.

*Precision registration offers the flexibility of repeat-pass photography to accomidate variable lighting and exposure needs, such as matte, beauty, inter-active and practical lighting passes, etc.

Sometimes a camera, skateboard and roll of gaffer's tape is all you need. Don't make your production more complicated than it has to be!

Marcus