• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

CGI 3D studio max 2010

N

Nick_B

Ensign
Red Shirt
Hi all,

I just thought I'd start a thread about CGI. In particular, the creation of CGI using 3d studio max 2010.

I've been using this program for a few months now and thanks to the fantastic tutorials on YouTube I've been able to create some fairly basic and effective CGI scenes.

For the Phasers in the stellar trek battle scene I used adobe after effects cs4 but I've now found that the cgi Phasers are much better.

Also, after reading the film makers guide on this forum I'll be using the tips on cinematography Eg, 30 degree rule and jump frames!

I've learned so much from this forum and YouTube vids I believe that youll see a marked impovement with the cgi for the next stellar trek film!

If you have any hints or tips for cgi or know of any good tutorials please post them here.

Thank you

Nick_b
 
Nick_B said:
Hi all,

I just thought I'd start a thread about CGI. In particular, the creation of CGI using 3d studio max 2010.
Click to expand...
Most topics of this sort end up under the Fan Art forum. For instance, the CGI model for the POLARIS film is being shown and discussed over there. However, to be fair, I suppose if the CGI is intended for a fan production it might belong here.

I'm of the opinion that it's best to discuss general techniques rather than specific software, because not everyone uses the same tools.
 
Hello,

Yes sorry, I was a bit unsure of where to post this.

it would be interesting to see what other software people use to create CGI. I have only really used 3ds max and Adobe After effects. I have looked at Maya but that looks waaaay too advanced for me.
 
If the mods decide to move it, they'll move it.

Why don't you kick things off and talk about a technique you've user/are planning to use?
 
Thanks Maurice,

Ok, a technique I've learned is camera shake. It really makes the space scene look more realistic specially of a ship is passing by close to the camera or just as a ship disapears into warp!
I've also been playing with different ways of producing warp fields. I've found that particle showers look pretty good.
If anyone has any tips on making a ship look like it's at warp please let me know.

My next little experiment will be making reactive shields, when the phaser hits the shield you see the beam disapate accross the shield!
 
The arch enemy of fan films is this nasty thing called "real life".
For example, this is the kind of backgrounds Potemkin was supposed to get (Max 2011, mental ray (Final Gather) ):

 
Yeah, doesn't quite work out the way we'd've liked in real life, does it? But we're comfortable with the compromises we had to make for budgetary concerns.

Sadly, the greatest challenge for fan films continues to be funding.
 
Nick_B said:
Here's my 1st attempt at the shakey camera thing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zBqKDazLPI&feature=related

PLease let me know what you think or if you have any tips

Thank you
Click to expand...
Selling camera shake requires a certain amount of directional blur.

Also, I a little bit of shake goes a long way. I's often good to start with very mimimal shake (like a vibration) then amp it up to some real shaking for a few frames and tamp it down again.

Also, while your example move is okay, you've picked an odd subject because the shake is giving away that your planet is tiny and not far from the sun. Point a real camera at the horizon and shake it and you'll see the moon doesn't move relative to the horizon when you're shaking it, because both the horizon and moon are so far away that you can't move enough to change the relationship to the two. :)
 
Potemkin_Prod said:
Yeah, doesn't quite work out the way we'd've liked in real life, does it? But we're comfortable with the compromises we had to make for budgetary concerns.

Sadly, the greatest challenge for fan films continues to be funding.
Click to expand...
Was the plan originally to do CGI backdrops, or were these models for the planned design for the set?
 
As a viewer I hate the overuse of shaky cam. Just saying. I enjoyed the Abrams Trek film on the whole, but the shaky cam and lens flares were annoying.
 
Maurice, we originally planned on using PSA vinyl for the control panels and then backlighting them through use of LEDs. However, after wiring one panel and realizing the logistics involved, we ended up using the vinyl for everything. Then Bill Walker suggested we animate them in post-production, which works pretty darn well. Surprisingly well, in fact. We'd seen a sample of it suggested to us here, and then when Bill showed us our sets animated, well, we fell in love with it.

As far as the set, we'd originally planned a 45' diameter, then a 33' diameter. We settled for a 24' diameter, and Michael was kind enough to work up a 3D drawing to illustrate how it could look on camera. What we got closely resembles his design, in fact.

Greg, I agree. Shakey-cam sucks. I can't stand it. Hated it in Cloverfield the worst. Also can't stand too much action in films like Star Wars "Attack of the Clones." And lens flares like in "Star Trek" 2009.

Michael, I knew what you were talking about, but I wanted to lower expectations for the reality. We're releasing "The Void" very soon. :)
 
Shaky-cam has its place. A moving camera can add energy to a scene, and the handheld look is a valid choice in some situations. However, like many techniques, it's often overdone. I didn't find the handheld look bothersome in Star Trek '09. I've seen it used very badly and inappropriately in a lot of other films.
 
This is exactly the kind of discussion I wanted to start! Do lens flares look good? And thoughts on the shaky camera!

My example vid of the shaky cam I suppose was like a ship leaving earth scene, as for the sun, that is my 1st attempt at lens flares using 3ds max.
I really appreciate all your comments and hopefully with our next film I can strike a balance between all the different opinions!

Thank you all for your input!
 
Re lens-flares et al.

Nothing exceeds like excess, and people often stick things in their films because they think its cool and often without any forethought as to if it will actually help or hinder.

I think you have to take many critiques on aesthetics from fan audiences with a lick of salt (a grain is far too small). My experience from having sat in on any number of product focus groups is that many people won't have any complaints about a particular thing until someone else is vociferous about it, and suddenly some of them will pick up on it. I think this is the case of the lens flares in Trek 09. I've heard ZERO complaints about it from general audiences. The only ones I heard bitching about it are hardcore Trekkies. (Personally, I didn't find it distracting at all. I could always see what's happening and it gave the film a stylistic touch sadly lacking in a lot of the previous productions.) Also, hardcore fan audiences are going to take you apart for nit-picky things that don't matter to the majority of more casual fans, so beware of tailoring to the former's likes.

Sorry for the rant. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top