Galileo Restoration Update - Jan 2012

[Maurice]

Check out the Sci-Fi Air Show.

Not entirely an apt comparison. Most of what you see of SciFi Airshow are real physical models. I should know...they're the work of ILM's Bill George, and I've seen them in person at his house. The Eagle model is 6 feet long, and the Jupiter 2 is 4 feet in diameter.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

Most of what you see of SciFi Airshow are real physical models. I should know...they're the work of ILM's Bill George, and I've seen them in person at his house. The Eagle model is 6 feet long, and the Jupiter 2 is 4 feet in diameter.

Does he have any regular photos of his models online?

 

[Maurice]

Most of what you see of SciFi Airshow are real physical models. I should know...they're the work of ILM's Bill George, and I've seen them in person at his house. The Eagle model is 6 feet long, and the Jupiter 2 is 4 feet in diameter.

Does he have any regular photos of his models online?

Here he is with the Eagle.

 

[Metryq]

Check out the Sci-Fi Air Show.

Not entirely an apt comparison. Most of what you see of SciFi Airshow are real physical models.

Why isn't it apt? Whether CGI or practical miniature, the composites are evidently viable alternatives to full-scale props. For the COSMOS television series host Carl Sagan toured a highly detailed miniature of the Alexandrian Library via chroma key and match-move cameras.

The Galileo was at the threshold where composites would have been more costly in time and effort than a practical prop. The facility and quality of composites has also improved tremendously since then.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

The Galileo was at the threshold where composites would have been more costly in time and effort than a practical prop. The facility and quality of composites has also improved tremendously since then.

Oh, you mean the threshold in mockup size, not the temporal turning point in technology, right? Because I was going to object.

So the Eagle and Firefly were on one side of the threshold, while the X-wing and Viper were on the other.

 

[Metryq]

Oh, you mean the threshold in mockup size, not the temporal turning point in technology, right? Because I was going to object.

Bingo. Sometimes I assume that my chain of reasoning is obvious and forget to spell it out. Visual FX technology was up to the task of delivering better composites for TOS, but the budget probably was not up to it. So a shoebox dressed up as a spaceship was the proper compromise.

If the Federation shuttlecraft were the size of an Alpha Eagle, then a partial mock-up, such as a door and boarding stairs coupled with some kind of composite effect, might have been used. SPACE: 1999 did that many times, and STAR TREK featured a handful of matte paintings. Still, that did not prevent the Eagle from having mismatched interior and exterior.

I've never done a close comparison of the interior and exterior of Serenity in FIREFLY, but I would guess that the fit is better. CAD can be very helpful with features such as collision detection. But even CGI can lie. Draco's wings in DRAGONHEART scaled as they opened and closed because actual folding would have fit him like a tent. And the nested rings of The Machine in CONTACT were not "rigged" in a real world fashion. (The movement looked odd at higher speeds.)

 

[Forbin]

I understand that serenity was designed so the interior fit nicely into the exterior shape. Some of the internal arrangement doesn't make much sense to me, but it does fit.

 

[Gary7]

VFX artists no longer need to worry about props that are "too big" to move around the set conveniently.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEDC4T-WfRw[/yt]​

For those who may not realize it, the spaceship in the back yard is a CGI model created in Blender, which can also match-move the handheld camera.

That is SO COOL! I've seen some Blender work like this before, but it was always at a distance. I'd not seen an example of walking up close to the thing, as if it were actually there, shadows and lighting in sync with the surroundings. Is it hard to learn how to do this? I take it the Blender software just incorporates the 3D model that is made in a compatible format in modeling software like Modo. What are some other reasonably priced choices out there that you'd think are suitable?
EDIT: Ah, just found your "how you did it" video.

What did you do to create those reflections on the side windows of the ship? I think that's what kind of "clinches" the realism. You're right, the shadows below are a little too dark, but that's easily corrected. Would would really be cool is if you could put a small set of steps to a little platform with a chair, and make it look like you've entered the craft and sat down at the controls. I'm guessing since the ship overlays the house and ground, it can also overlay a physical prop, like a stepped platform, so you can create the illusion of going inside the ship. It would probably be tricky to make it match the virtual flooring, but with a little tweaking I'm sure it could be done.

 

[trevanian]

I don't think Trevanian is unaware of the realities of VFX technology and it's capabilities/limitations. Call it a hunch. ;

The password is "facetious" eh?

I should've checked back on this thread before this.

The point made about technology being able to accomplish better work in the TOS era than we got is true; Richard Edlund, who was actually doing some of the TOS fx work -- planets and beamups for Westheimer I think -- had already done successful matting work with models dressed in LACE, which is a bluescreen nightmare. But we're talking about a lot of time to finesse lighting and a lot of compositing tries, too, whereas TOS would do it as often as possible and then just have to run with what it had to make airdates.

As for the cgi vs physical debate ... stuff like this one you linked to is pretty impressive, but I still come done on the side of physical in a lot of instances, if you could actually budget for it that is ... except for some stuff in the next Neil Bloomkamp movie and some submarine stuff in that Ed Harris movie next month, there aren't many using them, because they want one-stop shopping for VFX, which is sadly not the 'right tool for the right job' approach in some instances. Plus, Trumbull is still planning on using 80% minatures for his backgrounds in his virtual cinematography/digital backlot projects, because he feels CG has a 'looks like 2002' or 'looks like 2009' aspect to it, a viewpoint I've heard expressed by others as well ... personally I find the late 90s VFX to be among the least-dated work, when CG and miniatures were being used in tandem (STARSHIP TROOPERS, SPACE COWBOYS, EVENT HORIZON) rather than a whole cloth CGI approach.

I'd go into more detail, but I'm still in trouble here for having screwed up Valentine's Day. Will check in again next week when the smoke clears!

 

[Redfern]

Referring to Gary7's astonishment...

All this cool sh*t that can be done by talented individuals of "modest" means nowadays. Back when we were kids ("we" being people of our mid 40s to mid 50s), all we had were 8mm film cameras that were fortunate to even have sound. We had to make do with foreground miniatures that required the cameras be "locked" lest we experience tracking issues resulting from "wobbling". Oh, and don't get me started on "focal lengths", trying to keep both the model near the camera and the actors meters away in sharp relief!

You kids today...! Feh! Where's my Geritol?!

Sincerely,

Bill