Gary Sebben wrote:
Frankly, I've long been sick of analog nostalgia. You know, "models are better than CGI", "vinyl LPs are better than digital", all of it. Maybe these things were true once upon a time. I don't care — they aren't true now.
And if you don't agree, well, its not like your existing 480-interlaced disks are going anywhere. For the rest (as the Modernists liked to say) "Make it New".
I think this is a bad analogy. A CD is not trying to synthesis sound from scratch that sounds like real sound. A model has weight. The light hits it just right. Its a real object. A CG model is and it render engine is trying to simulate that real thing. Yes, the CG is more flexible, but it is also a less than accurate representation of the model.
EDIT ADDON: just saw the pics above. I'd say 5 & 10 are photos of the model, and 8 probably. The blurry ones I won't guess at, though, just cuz
they're blurry, which hides a multitude of sins (and artifacts.)
But the whole point of CG is being able to do things which are impossible with a model, or would take so much time and money with one that they are unpractical.
If that really was the whole point, then we'd still be doing all the other things with miniatures, because you'd be choosing the proper solution for a given shot, rather than just sweeping the whole list into the CG bag.
By doing beauty shots in CG, you're competing with physicality, reality, plus all the happenstance stuff you can't program for. Distant shots, fleet shots, ... sure, use CG, just like in pre-digital days you could use photo cutouts and animated them in views that don't involve perspective change. But close in stuff, or pyro stuff ... usually doesn't work as well, unless you are using huge files, 8k or more, and finishing at 4K, not 2K. And even then the artists have a lot of variance.
Plus the bit about doing the impossible shots is that some
times those shots shouldn't be done
just because some aspect of them seems impossible and it will take away from overall credibility.