RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 146,318
Posts: 5,765,952
Members: 25,925
Currently online: 627
Newest member: borginanalcove

TrekToday headlines

Two New ThinkGeek Trek-themed Items
By: T'Bonz on Jul 2

July-August 2015 Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Jul 2

Pegg: Star Trek Beyond Scary
By: T'Bonz on Jul 2

San Diego Comic-Con Guide
By: T'Bonz on Jul 1

Nimoy Memories From Friends and Family
By: T'Bonz on Jul 1

Stewart: It’s in My Genes
By: T'Bonz on Jun 30

Star Trek Beyond
By: T'Bonz on Jun 30

Trek-themed Car Accessories
By: T'Bonz on Jun 29

First Three 2016 Trek Novel Details
By: T'Bonz on Jun 29

Spock Documentary Close To Funding Goal
By: T'Bonz on Jun 29


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 June 26 2014, 04:46 AM   #1
Shat Happens
Captain
 
Shat Happens's Avatar
 
Models or CGI?

Simple question, much polemic.

My vote: I prefer models, but I concede that the saucer of the Enterprise in the 2009 movie was impressive. Problem there was the LENS FLARES!!! and digital dirty lens (even worse choice than the flares IMO).

In ST:ID I didn't like the shaky camera. In the 1980s the SFX motion control cameras had to be in rails, having it shake on purpose was impossible, and by accident meant a ruined shot. So we got beautiful images. Now with CGI they can shake, but what did the President say? "just because we can do a thing desn't mean we should".
Shat Happens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2014, 05:20 AM   #2
Last Redshirt
Lieutenant Commander
 
Last Redshirt's Avatar
 
Location: On the Starship Enterprise
Re: Models or CGI?

Both are lovely. There are some lovely instances of both. However, models are very limited in their usages and it can give the impression that only a few types of ships exist in the universe, but CGI also suffers the same, with the same couple ships being used again and again.
Last Redshirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2014, 05:59 AM   #3
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Models or CGI?

Both have their place. Model work can look outstanding as can CGI, but the reverse is also true sometimes they can look awful.
__________________
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 June 26 2014, 06:15 AM   #4
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Models or CGI?

Look at the TMP refit and the Phoenix from FC ... miniatures, when well-shot, are the tops, man. SUNSHINE's CG spaceships are pretty damned good, though, I'll give you that. The SOLARIS remake, too.

I think if you take the jitter and lens flare and digital dirty lens away from the Abrams, that you'd see something that maybe didn't withstand scrutiny. The best stuff so far in the Abrams was the KELVIN stuff, which really did have a physical look to it as the camera closed in while it was getting the crap kicked out of it.

I'm still trying to find out what Kerner Optical did on Trek09 - they were the former ILM modelshop, and early reports had them doing pyro stuff, probably with models, and they have a vague screen credit, but nobody has ever gone on record about what they did. Kind of makes me think it is like the Sebulba crash in TPM ... a shot that looks so good it is hard to believe it is CG -- and a decade later you find out it was NOT cg.

And ILM themselves don't always do all the work. The really good earthscapes you see in a lot of late 90s early 2000s ILM shows were actually farmed out to a place that had created a high-rez digital Earth for scientific purposes... it was used for GALAXY QUEST and I think SPACE COWBOYS, probably others. I can't find the name of the company (I interviewed the owner for a space.com article that never happened, I think they couldn't get an okay to run illustrations), but I'll dig around.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2014, 06:30 AM   #5
Melakon
Admiral
 
Melakon's Avatar
 
Location: Unmarked grave
Re: Models or CGI?

I prefer model miniature effects, and the field produced some specialists like the Lydecker brothers, Ray Harryhausen, and Derek Meddings. I can't think of any person working in CGI who has achieved that type of brand name familiarity with the public. The field seems to require many more specialists to do the same thing.
__________________
Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard: For duty and humanity! --Men in Black (1934)
Melakon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2014, 10:41 AM   #6
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England
Re: Models or CGI?

I love physical models. I'm awed by the intricate detail and craftsmanship involved. It's a huge shame that their use has declined as much as they have.

BUT... I've seen Avengers many times, and it wasn't until I saw the behind-the-scenes ILM thingie on their Youtube channel did I realized that the New York City in the movie was entirely digital. THAT was a "holy shit!" moment. The future cities in Into Darkness are just as realistic - I absolutely believed there were thousands of people populating each megaskyscraper which Khan and Spock flew between during their battle. And the way real shooting locations were merged seamlessly with CGI, the days of spotting the "green screen" are long gone.

Sometimes CG looks cartoony (case in point: TOS-R), and sometimes models look hollow and fragile (when most TNG ships explode, it's immediately apparent that they're hollow shells). Budget and execution makes all the difference.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2014, 12:58 PM   #7
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: Models or CGI?

Use ALL your tools.
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2014, 01:30 PM   #8
Viper78
Lieutenant Commander
 
Viper78's Avatar
 
Location: Scotland
Re: Models or CGI?

I went for both. For me it depends on the films. Take Star Wars for instance, the prequels were full of CGI and looked far too glossy, the models/props and lack of CGI used in the original's for some reason looked much better.

For Star Trek CGI seems to work better as the ships are supposed to look shiny and new, Nemises was a great example.
__________________
IF IN DOUBT, FLAT OUT!!!
Colin McRae 1968-2007
Viper78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2014, 01:42 PM   #9
SPCTRE
Boobs
 
SPCTRE's Avatar
 
Location: So lifelike!
View SPCTRE's Twitter Profile
Re: Models or CGI?

I voted models, but I'm not exactly opposed to the use of CGI - if it is well done, CGI can create a very believable, even used or lived-in look.
__________________
Philitas of Cos, Greek intellectual, is said by Athenaeus to have studied arguments and erroneous word usage so intensely that he wasted away and starved to death. British classicist A. Cameron speculates that P. died from a wasting disease which his contemporaries joked was caused by his pedantry.
SPCTRE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2014, 01:48 PM   #10
Melakon
Admiral
 
Melakon's Avatar
 
Location: Unmarked grave
Re: Models or CGI?

It does depend on the film. I'm in the middle of watching Forbidden Planet right now. Even when Anne Francis isn't in a scene, nearly every frame has something to marvel at. I can't imagine a film of such impact being made today.

Apparently there was an idea to remake it a few years back, but it wouldn't be the same. Many shots of C-57D done with live actors would likely be supplemented with CGI, the same when Morbius reveals his Krell lab with the power meters along the walls. Not building something just because you can fix it with CGI seems lazy to me.
__________________
Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard: For duty and humanity! --Men in Black (1934)
Melakon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2014, 03:10 PM   #11
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Models or CGI?

Both.

Ten years ago, I would have said models but CGI has really grown in the ability to present realistic objects.
__________________
Self-appointed Knight of the Abrams Table! - Thanks Marsden!
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2014, 04:45 PM   #12
137th Gebirg
Rear Admiral
 
137th Gebirg's Avatar
 
Location: Who is John Galt?
Re: Models or CGI?

Both are good, when taken in moderation. VFX of any stripe should never be used as a crutch to hide a weak story.
__________________
Gebirgswick - Ind, Tra, Sec & Env.
137th Gebirg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2014, 05:15 PM   #13
Shat Happens
Captain
 
Shat Happens's Avatar
 
Re: Models or CGI?

border-topic:

Shat Happens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2014, 05:23 PM   #14
Richard Baker
Captain
 
Richard Baker's Avatar
 
Location: Warrior, AL
Re: Models or CGI?

I think it really depends on what you are trying to do with a scene. 'Independence Day' used everything in the book, from rubber bands (Cruise Missle wing deployment) to CGI, mixing from shot to shot.
Models have a certain mass of scale that CGI has to struggle with still. Models also have filming limitations to work around- mounts have to be hidden (The KBoP landing on Vulcan shifted from tail to nose mount as it swept by, using the rock spire to hide the transition).
I remember how the early CGI looked trying to show real non-Tron objects in The Last Starfighter. What we have today is incredible and continues to evolve. I still prefer the look and feel of actual filming models, but CGI can create things that would be either impossible or too time consuming to do physically.
Richard Baker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2014, 06:53 PM   #15
Alrik
Rear Admiral
 
Alrik's Avatar
 
Location: Alrik is on A deck chair, somewhere....
Re: Models or CGI?

BillJ wrote: View Post
Both.

Ten years ago, I would have said models but CGI has really grown in the ability to present realistic objects.
This.
__________________
When I grow up, I want to be just like you. But different.
Alrik 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 08:36 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.