Studio scale Tantive IV
- Thread starter Themodelshopman
- Start date
darthviper107
Sr Member
It takes just as much work to make a CG model as it does to make a physical model, don't discredit CG artists just because the work is done on a computer. A computer is just a tool like anything else.
3phase
Sr Member
What are you crazy :wacko It may be a tool but it’s the wrong tool in this case.
darthviper107
Sr Member
Of course people here are biased but really these days CG has many advantages over physical models. The only place it's lacking is being able to have many unique details and the rendering time. Otherwise, using CG allows a great deal of freedom while still looking just as good if not better.
No discredit, just the medium leaves a bad taste in my mouth, nothing will change that.
Your in the studio scale section mate, all due respect for the CG artists, but this is all about physical, labor intensive modelling, blood, sweat and do overs, its a different world.
lee
Again, your in the wrong forum. Freedom, possibly, but i dont really buy all that, given the money, just as much creative freedom can be achieved with a filming mini.
As for aesthetics, no, not for me, physical models will always rein over CG for me, again, all respect for the artists, its a huge task to create and animate, but its a cheap trick, a can of worms yes, but in another 30 years time, will we really be viewing models from movies on an LED screen in a museum, god i hope not, what a sad little world it would be.
lee
IEDBOUNTYHUNTER
Sr Member
To me theres no way a computer generated image can be better than a Physical Model. Something real will always win out, at least to me.
LastBattlestar
Well-Known Member
I couldn't agree more gentlemen. Besides, nothing has more impact on people than when they see a huge studio scale Tantive, SD or Battlestar on the bench.
There's just that intangible something about a CGI ship on screen that bothers me. Maybe it's the lack of mass or non compliance with movement and inertia laws that doesn't sell it. Not to mention that weird grey cast all CGI seems to have. Those ships way back in ANH still look more convincing than anything seen today.
Stellar work Lasse, this is a build for the history books!
Mike
There's just that intangible something about a CGI ship on screen that bothers me. Maybe it's the lack of mass or non compliance with movement and inertia laws that doesn't sell it. Not to mention that weird grey cast all CGI seems to have. Those ships way back in ANH still look more convincing than anything seen today.
Stellar work Lasse, this is a build for the history books!
Mike
jme3
Sr Member
darthviper107
Sr Member
No, there's inherent problems with a miniature that make it impossible to do the same things as CG. For one there's the motion, which in a computer you can get perfect, but you'll always be limited when using a physical model. Then there's things like lighting, a CG model can be let and textured at the actual proper scale. A physical model can't, it's physically impossible unless you have it at 1:1 scale. There's nothing about doing CG that's a cheap trick.
Support your views, don't just make claims
You might just be used to how unrealistically miniatures have been in movies and that's why the CG is odd to you. With CG they can actually move things physically accurate. Take for instance the opening shot of ANH, the motion of the Blockade Runner isn't at all accurate and the matching of the Star Destroyer to the blockade runner doesn't really work once it becomes clear that the Blockade runner is in front of and above the nose of the Star Destroyer yet they're somehow still able to shoot at each other. That's because they animated the Blockade Runner wrong, and the Star Destroyer wasn't shot at the same angle that the Blockade Runner was (to try and make them go in the direction they were going for).
Again, physical models have a couple advantages, such as the ease of making many unique objects, or that CG still has render times to take into account. But these days there's really nothing that a physical model can do that a CG one can't.
I love the real stuff because it's really awesome to see those, but don't downplay the effort of CG just because it uses computers, it's not cheating in any way and there's nothing wrong with it.
I think we may have to agree, to disagree mate :lol. Besides, its not right for us all to bash on, in Lasse's amazing thread.
Further discussion in a new thread possibly, but its nothing that hasnt been debated before, itll continue to run while us Dinosaurs still do it the hard way :lol.
lee
Further discussion in a new thread possibly, but its nothing that hasnt been debated before, itll continue to run while us Dinosaurs still do it the hard way :lol.
lee
ZAP
Well-Known Member
hi to you all , just to put fire to the conversation , why not the best of both worlds :love
3D printed LEGO wedge completes chipped rock by greg petchkovsky | designboom
darthviper107
Sr Member
As many of you know several of us are working to build a 1:1 scale Millenium Falcon. We can create virtual walkthroughs, fly overs and cut aways of 3D models all day long.
But how many of us want to walk through, touch and/or sit in the cockpit of the real thing?
vaderdarth
Master Member
The only thing I like about CGI models is that they can be used to print a 3D physical model and that plastic model is what trips my trigger!!!!!
dsp5500
Well-Known Member
Lot of polarised view's on the subject but I'm in Vaderdarth's camp, right in the middle. Love the idea of designing on the comp then getting a real model from that. Do have a read of the following article on the aston from the new bond film.
The secret behind James Bond's priceless Aston Martin DB 5 stunts: 3D printed models were used for Skyfall's most dangerous scenes | Mail Online
The secret behind James Bond's priceless Aston Martin DB 5 stunts: 3D printed models were used for Skyfall's most dangerous scenes | Mail Online
