RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,821
Posts: 5,472,847
Members: 25,039
Currently online: 561
Newest member: noroadcordova

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Covenant
By: Michelle on Nov 22

Two Official Starships Collection Previews
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Saldana: Women Issues In Hollywood
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Shatner Book Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Nov 20

Trek Original Series Slippers
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19

Hemsworth Is Sexiest Man Alive
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19

Trek Business Card Cases
By: T'Bonz on Nov 17

February IDW Publishing Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Nov 17

Retro Review: The Siege of AR-558
By: Michelle on Nov 15

Trevco Full Bleed Uniform T-Shirts
By: T'Bonz on Nov 14


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Welcome to the Trek BBS! > General Trek Discussion

General Trek Discussion Trek TV and cinema subjects not related to any specific series or movie.

View Poll Results: CGI or Models?
Models! 21 27.63%
CGI! 8 10.53%
both are good! 47 61.84%
Voters: 76. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 19 2014, 09:23 PM   #61
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: Models or CGI?

One effect I though about would be to have a model explode, but far above it and in shadow, a lot of large debris--larger than the FX model.

Explode the model--drop the debris towards the camera.
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 28 2014, 11:50 PM   #62
Drone
Captain
 
Drone's Avatar
 
Location: Palookaville
View Drone's Twitter Profile
Re: Models or CGI?

Season One of Space 1999 is certainly another example of the superlative use of models in the genre.

From someone with really no knowledge of the line of endeavor, how much has the body of artisans who are truly accomplished in this craft attentuated over the past, say, twenty years? Is there sufficient impetus present today in various entertainment platforms to sustain the availability of capable practitioners well into the future?
__________________
"Well, the world needs ditch diggers too"
Drone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 29 2014, 12:02 AM   #63
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
View Maurice's Twitter Profile
Re: Models or CGI?

publiusr wrote: View Post
One effect I though about would be to have a model explode, but far above it and in shadow, a lot of large debris--larger than the FX model.

Explode the model--drop the debris towards the camera.
That would require one REALLY high ceiling. Plus the framerate of the camera for pyro wouldn't be ideal for the movement of debris. Explosions were frequently shot at 120 to 300 fps, and at 32 feet per second it would take 3840 to 9600 frames for the debris to travel 32 feet towards the camera. Sloooooow motion. Better to shoot the debris separately.
__________________
* * *
"The road to hell is paved with works-in-progress."
—Philip Roth
Maurice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 3 2014, 08:04 PM   #64
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: Models or CGI?

Slow motion would give the impression of greater size--but shooting both separately is best for mid sized ships.
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 3 2014, 11:06 PM   #65
martok2112
Captain
 
Re: Models or CGI?

When it comes to starships, I love both practical and CG models.
Practical models are just gorgeous, and photograph well.

But, you can't get the opening shot that you could get with Star Wars Episode III. For that, you needed CG, and ILM pulled it off beautifully. Two Jedi starfighters zooming along the surface of a Republic star destroyer, and then flying amidst the massive fleet battle. Sure, Return of the Jedi did a nice job with its practical models in their final, epic battle....but the opening shot of Revenge of the Sith was, to me, breathtaking.

Besides, CG models only take up harddrive space, not shelf space.

But, in the end, I still love both!
__________________
If at first you don't secede, try and petition again.
martok2112 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 3 2014, 11:55 PM   #66
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Models or CGI?

To me the opening space battle in ROTS looked fake. The space battle in ROTJ looked more real to me.
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 4 2014, 02:01 AM   #67
martok2112
Captain
 
Re: Models or CGI?

I hear ya', Mac. I can see why, sometimes.

I guess, if I had any one gripe at all about the opening battle in RotS is that there just wasn't enough dogfighting. I mean, I know the battle was just a background for Obi-Wan and Anakin's mission, but still, we coulda stood a few more dogfights.
__________________
If at first you don't secede, try and petition again.
martok2112 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 4 2014, 02:04 AM   #68
Albertese
Commodore
 
Albertese's Avatar
 
Location: Portland, OR
Re: Models or CGI?

Maurice wrote: View Post
publiusr wrote: View Post
One effect I though about would be to have a model explode, but far above it and in shadow, a lot of large debris--larger than the FX model.

Explode the model--drop the debris towards the camera.
That would require one REALLY high ceiling. Plus the framerate of the camera for pyro wouldn't be ideal for the movement of debris. Explosions were frequently shot at 120 to 300 fps, and at 32 feet per second it would take 3840 to 9600 frames for the debris to travel 32 feet towards the camera. Sloooooow motion. Better to shoot the debris separately.
And yet, this is exactly how the explosion of the Genesis Device was handled in Star Trek II.

From the book Industrial Light and Magic: The Art of Special Effects pages 113, 114:
One of the fastest frame rates ever used at ILM was for the film Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Near the end of the film an incredible explosion is to take place as a planet called Genesis is formed. Jim Veilleux, co-supervisor of effects on this project, chose a special rotating prism camera to film a phosphorous explosion.

While a standard motion picture camera holds the film momentarily immobile during the exposure, camera speeds greater than 250 frames per second test the capacity of even the best high speed cameras. With a rotating prism camera, a prism bends the image to follow the film as it races past the lens. The film is never held immobile: therefore very high shutter speeds are possible.

The explosives for the Star Trek II shot were placed high above the floor of the Cow Palace in San Francisco. Black material was attached to the ceiling to provide the appropriate black space background, while the camera looked straight up at the falling phosphorous material. The special camera ran at 2,500 frames per second. In real time it took one second to occur; on film it became a one-minute, forty-four-second event. Since the image from the rotating prism camera was not rock steady, each frame was repositioned and rephotographed in order to eliminate the shaky quality of the picture. The resultant effect was spectacular.
--Alex
__________________
Check out my website: www.goldtoothstudio.squarespace.com
Albertese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8 2014, 08:06 PM   #69
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: Models or CGI?

My favorite movie explosion ever.

Now the ending credits for Buck Rogers in the 25th Century were also good. The (misplaced) explosion in the 1970's-1980's Wonder Woman live action transformation scenes would have fit in with the Missile Command/Space 1999 blasts.
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:41 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.