Bandai 1/72 PG Millennium Falcon (also the Revell Germany rebox)

Re: Bandai 1/72 Millennium Falcon

http://schizophonic9.blog103.fc2.com/blog-entry-3201.html

Posted from my crappy windows phone as we have no power here in Orlando.

Schizophonic9's look at the Falcon:

http://schizophonic9.blog103.fc2.com/blog-entry-3201.html

Including the included lighting kit.

2017091124332354003.jpg

We has power again!
 
Re: Bandai 1/72 Millennium Falcon

There have been some "heated" discussions about preshading on the Falcon. Suffice to say, the "don't do it" faction had very strong arguments. I won't with mine.

Is there a specific thread where this conversation took place? I haven't run across it, but with the kit's impending arrival I want to hear both sides as I decide which approach I'm taking.
 
Re: Bandai 1/72 Millennium Falcon

Is there a specific thread where this conversation took place? I haven't run across it, but with the kit's impending arrival I want to hear both sides as I decide which approach I'm taking.
I don't think its a heated discussion.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
Re: Bandai 1/72 Millennium Falcon

The way I look at it, there are three Falcon paint jobs: the way it appears on screen (that can vary from film to film and even shot to shot), the way the studio miniature was actually painted (we'll stick just to the 5-footer, for simplicity sake), and the way modelers paint their replicas to accurately represent either of the first two.

Model paint jobs are about illusion. In some ways, they're like make-up: done right, they augment reality while minimizing flaws and imperfections. The 5-footer studio model doesn't seem to have much pre-shading or extensive use of washes, but does have over-spraying and some selective staining. For some people, that means pre-shading and washes should be avoided on their models -- which makes sense intellectually. Why use techniques that weren't used on the original? But models are a representation of reality. If the right look can be achieved using techniques that weren't used on the original, what's the harm in using them? In fact, given that our models are much smaller than the original, and will be seen under a different type of lighting (the studio model was painted for high intensity studio lights that are much different than home lighting) using a variety of techniques could actually result in a final product that looks closer to the studio look than it would if restricting oneself to the limited number of techniques used on the original. Washes, for example, could create the kind of shadow effects on details that we see on the studio model due to the high intensity lighting but that wouldn't be seen under lower home lighting. Pre-shading could add the dimensionality we see in the studio model when its photographed using multiple light sources that at home won't be present. In other words, pre-shading and washes can replicate how the model looks when properly lit even while sitting on our shelves. Whether you choose to use them depends on personal preference, home lighting, where the model will be displayed, etc.
 
Re: Bandai 1/72 Millennium Falcon

In painting the 1/48 X-wing I have found it looks a little better without specifically doing panel line shading, but in other areas like the droid strip and rear plate, doing washes really helps bring out the detail. I didn't pre-shade panel lines, but I did prime in black, and then spray thin coats of a grey/white mix leaving that didn't quite cover everything. I did use several "filter" layers over brown, black and white oils and added pastels

https://i.imgur.com/3TmiQo6.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/AUoAF7g.jpg

For me it was how I replicated something that was somewhere in between the studio model as seen in person and as seen on screen after processing.

I was happy with the results and will be using that approach on the Falcon

On the other hand, I have seen other people get great results using different approaches such as panel line shading and airbrush streaking.

As mentioned above, there are many tools to achieve a certain look and all can be used to varying degrees

In the end, your the one looking at it on your shelf, so all that really matters is if you are satisfied with your results
 
Re: Bandai 1/72 Millennium Falcon

The 5-footer studio model doesn't seem to have much pre-shading

Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.
The studio model was quite black, as though the entire ship was in pitch darkness, before being coated in white.
So the studio model was heavily pre-shaded, from a certain point of view.
 
Re: Bandai 1/72 Millennium Falcon

The studio model was quite black, as though the entire ship was in pitch darkness, before being coated in white.
So the studio model was heavily pre-shaded, from a certain point of view.

I was referring more to the panel line pre-shading. This sounds more like black-basing. But my point is that we don't necessarily need to strictly follow the same techniques used on the studio model to get a look that accurately replicates it.
 
Re: Bandai 1/72 Millennium Falcon

I personally like black basing. Before when I was using gray primers, I couldn't tell if I was fully covering the primer because the primer and paint colors are so close together. With black primer, I know the Falcon is sufficently painted when the surface finally hits off-white. The nooks and crannies also have some nice "ambient occlusion" shading which is far more subtle than doing a black wash over everything.
 
Re: Bandai 1/72 Millennium Falcon

I just need to pipe in about something that has bothered me for years on this forum. I want to let everyone know that I'm not pointing any single member out as I've heard this from many people and think that the theory has just become fact over time. The idea that ILM painted models very heavily to compensate for the extreme studio lighting used in filming is a complete farce and misconception. It doesn't matter how bright the lighting is as long as the exposure of the camera is set correctly it will look just fine. In fact, I will argue that bright light will allow you to see details of painting better. So saying that they were "blowing out" these models with lights is then insinuating that they are not able to expose there subject matter correctly. I will further argue that the opposite is true, that the ILM models were painted heavy for the detail to show up under low lighting conditions. Case and point if you look at the film during space battles, the ships are under exposed on purpose because, hell they're in space and it's dark. It would look absolutely fake to have the dark of space and a beautifully exposed ship flying through the screen. That's why on any screen grabs you may notice you can't see most of the colors or details on the ship. Another sure indication of low light is film grain. High ISO's always constitute more graininess, even if shot digitally.

I don't ever claim to be the most knowledgable about Star Wars lore, or claim to know everything about modeling, but one thing I will defend until I die is that I know photography and lighting as I've spent over 15 years as a professional photographer. So there is my rant about the heavy paint because of bright studio light theory.
 
Re: Bandai 1/72 Millennium Falcon

Also, the modelers and the filming crew were two separate groups, so unless the modelers had extensive knowledge of photography, I imagine they were just trying to make good looking models. Plus, if the models look like they are painted heavy in real life, that may be due to the lighting conditions in which the models were painted. In behind the scenes photos, it looks like the model shop was pretty well lit (or bright if you will), so they may have compensated for that by painting them heavier than if say they were working on their kitchen tables or garages at home.
 
Re: Bandai 1/72 Millennium Falcon

Actually, the times I've seen the 5-footer in person (three times), and other studio models, like the star destroyer, what impressed me was that they DIDN'T look heavily painted or over done -- just the opposite. They looked far more uniformly white and even toy-like than I expected. I won't deny anyone their professional expertise. All I'm saying is how a model is painted as studio prop doesn't necessarily have to be how its painted in order to achieve a replica look.
 
Re: Bandai 1/72 Millennium Falcon

Thank you for the thoughts on painting everyone - much appreciated!

I've used black-basing for models for years and ever since discovering the technique, I've enjoyed using it. I feel like it gives a stronger depth to the paintwork, and it can be as pronounced or minimized as preference goes. However, I know that when it comes to a model like this with a strong basis on a real filming model, inevitably there will be numerous opinions on the proper painting methods to utilize.

I know it's all in the modeler's preference, but it's nice to hear differences in technique and rationale for choosing that approach. I haven't done a lot of research into the painting of the 5'-0 studio model yet, but I plan to brush up on it prior to starting this build. I'm not starting anything until I have a solid plan for painting in place!



Blakeh1 - That x-wing looks fantastic by the way! As does everyone else's examples on the previous page.
 
Last edited:
Re: Bandai 1/72 Millennium Falcon

I just need to pipe in about something that has bothered me for years on this forum. I want to let everyone know that I'm not pointing any single member out as I've heard this from many people and think that the theory has just become fact over time. The idea that ILM painted models very heavily to compensate for the extreme studio lighting used in filming is a complete farce and misconception. It doesn't matter how bright the lighting is as long as the exposure of the camera is set correctly it will look just fine. In fact, I will argue that bright light will allow you to see details of painting better. So saying that they were "blowing out" these models with lights is then insinuating that they are not able to expose there subject matter correctly. I will further argue that the opposite is true, that the ILM models were painted heavy for the detail to show up under low lighting conditions. Case and point if you look at the film during space battles, the ships are under exposed on purpose because, hell they're in space and it's dark. It would look absolutely fake to have the dark of space and a beautifully exposed ship flying through the screen. That's why on any screen grabs you may notice you can't see most of the colors or details on the ship. Another sure indication of low light is film grain. High ISO's always constitute more graininess, even if shot digitally.

I don't ever claim to be the most knowledgable about Star Wars lore, or claim to know everything about modeling, but one thing I will defend until I die is that I know photography and lighting as I've spent over 15 years as a professional photographer. So there is my rant about the heavy paint because of bright studio light theory.

I always though the overdone colors were because of the optical compositing process

i.e. they were overcompensating for that degradation/transparency

Most of the color panels in the end on the X-wings etc.. came wound up more grey or washed out (like the yellow stripe on Red 5). Just enough to give the illusion of various panels, but no where near as obvious as seeing them in person or in regular pictures

I figure for the larger capital ships etc.., they used natural shadows to create the illusion of size, so things like Star Destroyers etc.. really had nothing more than a simple base coat
 
Re: Bandai 1/72 Millennium Falcon

I always though the overdone colors were because of the optical compositing process

i.e. they were overcompensating for that degradation/transparency

Most of the color panels in the end on the X-wings etc.. came wound up more grey or washed out (like the yellow stripe on Red 5). Just enough to give the illusion of various panels, but no where near as obvious as seeing them in person or in regular pictures

I figure for the larger capital ships etc.., they used natural shadows to create the illusion of size, so things like Star Destroyers etc.. really had nothing more than a simple base coat
That's a good point about the overlay degradation. Funny I was thinking about the yellow stripes on Red 5 specifically also. I wonder if the blue screen had something to do with the disappearance of the yellow since blue is the spectral opposite of yellow. If you want to get rid of the color yellow visually you add yellow. So there's a thought too.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top