Getting your ship-pron on -OR- to CGI or not to CGI, that is the (?)

[Praxius]

Re: Getting your ship-pron on -OR- to CGI or not to CGI, that is the (

...... i'm practical though, i understand the cost effectiveness of a cgi model, and the limitless use one can get out of it from a single animation technician, verses the entire crews it takes to film a miniature.

its a real shame these models are becoming a thing of the past. the artists responsible for them are truly the invisible stars of the shows.

They may not be a thing of the past quite yet.... heck people still use stop motion animation.

All it takes is someone who's about to make a movie to determine which one they would like to use.... and if this thread is any indication, I don't think Physical Models will completely die out..... just as some people still use Film Photography rather then digital..... most of the time it all boils down to personal preference.

My personal preference is 3D models because that's what I was trained to do and it's the only thing I know how to do..... I imagine if I knew how to make plastic/physical models from scratch, my view would be different.

 

[EmperorTiberius]

Re: Getting your ship-pron on -OR- to CGI or not to CGI, that is the (

Add my name to the list of those who appreciate the beautifully-detailed miniatures we've seen on ST and other Sci Fi series. (Side note: is it still proper to call a model a "miniature" even if there's no full-scale counterpart built? In other words, is it just as correct to call the 1701R model a "miniature" as it is to call the small Type 6 shuttle model a "miniature," considering the Type 6 also had a full-scale mockup?)

I will say, though, that the Trek XI crew did a wonderful job of building and shooting the CGI Enterprise. Back in the days of Bab-5, CGI was so crappy, I couldn't conceive of the Enterprise ever looking good as a collection of polygons as opposed to a physical model. First Contact through Nemesis did a good job of disabusing me of that notion, but XI sealed it - especially in the shot where the shuttles carrying our heroes pass over the dorsal registry on the saucer.

That said, I really do miss seeing the creative work and craftsmanship that results in truly massive-looking models like the Ent-D.

I think First Contact Enterprise was a model. The other ships were CGI, and you could tell because they had almost no detail.

 

[Lazarus]

Re: Getting your ship-pron on -OR- to CGI or not to CGI, that is the (

Although it would probably look weird if they didn't, why do starships generally behave like they are planes in atmosphere - banking into turns for example?

 

[RapidNadion]

Re: Getting your ship-pron on -OR- to CGI or not to CGI, that is the (

I think First Contact Enterprise was a model. The other ships were CGI, and you could tell because they had almost no detail.

The majority of the shots in FC were of the physical model, but some sequences (like the time vortex shots) used the CGI version.

 

[Chrisisall]

Re: Getting your ship-pron on -OR- to CGI or not to CGI, that is the (

One of the reasons I like a lot of model work better is because of the physical limitations it puts on the action. This could be done in CGI of course, but all too often it seems that we see massive starships zipping and zooming around like fightercraft. The majesty and weight and size of starships so far has always seemed more real when done with models.

Limits breed creativity, IMO.

 

[Geckothan]

Re: Getting your ship-pron on -OR- to CGI or not to CGI, that is the (

Not keen on CGI. There's always something wrong with it, whether it's exaggerated motions, overuse of it, poor lighting or bad texturing. Good model work usually looks better. CGI has it's uses, but ship porn isn't one of them.

 

[Forbin]

Re: Getting your ship-pron on -OR- to CGI or not to CGI, that is the (

One of the reasons I like a lot of model work better is because of the physical limitations it puts on the action. This could be done in CGI of course, but all too often it seems that we see massive starships zipping and zooming around like fightercraft. The majesty and weight and size of starships so far has always seemed more real when done with models.

I never did get the issues people had of large starships zipping around quickly..... they're in a Zero G environment, thus their size would have little effect on their speed and agility imo.

I could get these issues if everything was under water, or in a sky, or on land.... but in space, I just don't get it.

Zero G doesn't mean zero mass. It still requires a lot of effort to suddenly alter the vector of a 6 million ton mass. It's basic Newtonian physics.

 

[NIUPonyBoy]

Re: Getting your ship-pron on -OR- to CGI or not to CGI, that is the (

I always enjoyed ST VI when the Ent-A and Excelsior are kicking butt against the super BOP.

And I agree, physical models are much sexier than the CGI.

You can feel the dimensions of the ship much more.

 

[SilentP]

Re: Getting your ship-pron on -OR- to CGI or not to CGI, that is the (

Although it would probably look weird if they didn't, why do starships generally behave like they are planes in atmosphere - banking into turns for example?

You've answered your own question there, because it would look weird, and thusly put off viewers who didn't understand why they were acting like planes. It's purely an aesthetic choice.

 

[Praxius]

Re: Getting your ship-pron on -OR- to CGI or not to CGI, that is the (

Zero G doesn't mean zero mass. It still requires a lot of effort to suddenly alter the vector of a 6 million ton mass. It's basic Newtonian physics.

Well yes there is still momentum and mass in space, but still, it wouldn't be the exact same as flying around in an atmosphere and you'd still have less resistence to deal with in space, thus trying to compare ships moving in space to aircraft carriers on the ocean or fighter jets in the air isn't an accurate method of reference imo and I don't think we'll really ever know how fast and agile such ships in space woud be until we actually make them and fly them.

 

[AnyStar]

Re: Getting your ship-pron on -OR- to CGI or not to CGI, that is the (

One of the reasons I like a lot of model work better is because of the physical limitations it puts on the action. This could be done in CGI of course, but all too often it seems that we see massive starships zipping and zooming around like fightercraft. The majesty and weight and size of starships so far has always seemed more real when done with models.

I never did get the issues people had of large starships zipping around quickly..... they're in a Zero G environment, thus their size would have little effect on their speed and agility imo.

I could get these issues if everything was under water, or in a sky, or on land.... but in space, I just don't get it.

zero-g has nothing to do with mass. just because there's no discernable gravity point, doesnt mean that things move instantly "♫with the greatest of ease♫"

however its not moving the large objects that is the problem, its STOPPING them... ideally they would need those big impulse engines on the front and sides and top and bottom of the ships too in order to maneuver in such "zippy" fashions

those teeny little RCS-type thrusters just wouldnt do the job in reality

 

[Forbin]

Re: Getting your ship-pron on -OR- to CGI or not to CGI, that is the (

Changing vector in space would probably be harder than an airplane or ship changing vector - planes use the resistance of the air on the wings and control surfaces to change their direction, and ships' rudders and screws use the resistance against the water. Spaceships will have no medium to push against, and would rely entirely on directional thrusters (or gyros) to alter their attitude, and their drives to alter their vector.

 

[RapidNadion]

Re: Getting your ship-pron on -OR- to CGI or not to CGI, that is the (

however its not moving the large objects that is the problem, its STOPPING them... ideally they would need those big impulse engines on the front and sides and top and bottom of the ships too in order to maneuver in such "zippy" fashions

those teeny little RCS-type thrusters just wouldnt do the job in reality

For that reason, I've always been a subscriber to the "impulse engines have invisible thrust-reversing forcefields" theory.