Models or CGI?

[publiusr]

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.

 

[Drone]

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?

 

[Maurice]

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.

 

[publiusr]

Slow motion would give the impression of greater size--but shooting both separately is best for mid sized ships.

 

[martok2112]

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!

 

[MacLeod]

To me the opening space battle in ROTS looked fake. The space battle in ROTJ looked more real to me.

 

[martok2112]

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.

 

[Albertese]

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

 

[publiusr]

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.