New Enterprise: Model or CG?

[trevanian]

Gep Malakai said:
^^Err...StarTrek11, did you even look at the link Vektor posted? Get a perfect score on all of that--without looking at the discussion here first--and then we can talk. Until then...I'll keep my "sped up" "cartoony looking" BSG CGI, thank you very much.

He doesn't mention WHICH BSG cg shots are cartoony, he might be talking about the stuff that started surfacing in the last season when everything went HD. That stuff has a kind of superpresence that does seem CG to me (on a regular TV anyway.) Earlier seasons of Zoic's BSG's stuff was pretty good, though I think they do rely on speed to get by sometimes (Zoic's FIREFLY stuff still looks better to me, though oddly, their SERENITY work looked pretty bad at times.)

also the test referenced in the thread is only an indicator, not anything definitive, since it isn't stuff IN MOTION, which is where a lot of the giveaways take place. You can make a perfect reflection, but it might not work on an object in motion (I bet the car in that test looks a lot phonier in motion, that was the only one I had trouble with.)

 

[Dale]

The answer is obvious. Build a full-scale Enterprise in orbit and shoot that. Nothing looks more real than real.

I object to that statement! Here at the Tyrell Corporation, our motto is "More human than human."

 

[trevanian]

leadprophet said:
The answer is obvious. Build a full-scale Enterprise is orbit and shoot that. Nothing looks more real than real.

That's a scream. If you shot a real ship, you would just have to matte the stars in afterward anyway.

 

[Vektor]

erifah said:

Vektor said:...I am a 3D artist and I consider myself to have a pretty discerning eye and I only scored 6 out of 10.

Ha-ha! I got 8 out of 10 right.

Well, in my own defense, the first time I ran through the test I did it at work and had to rush through it in about three minutes so the boss wouldn’t catch me. I tried it a second time last night and scored 9 out of 10, but I may have been influenced by what I remembered from the first pass so that really doesn’t count.

The point I was trying to make is that you really have to study most of these images to tell which ones are CG, and a couple of them are so good you pretty much have to guess. As far as I’m concerned, the people who claim CG is always inferior and that they can always spot it a mile away are, quite frankly, full of it. Preferring physical models over CG is all well and good, to each their own, but let’s not pretend it’s anything more than a preference anymore. Realism, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, as the comparison test I posted obviously proves, else we all would have gotten the exact same scores.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Haven't read the whole thread, so I may be repeating somebody...

Obviously, the way an object moves has a lot to do with how real it looks.

That doesn't necessarily give the upper hand to either models or CG, but it does sort of render that quiz upthread somewhat pointless.

 

[I Grok Spock]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

Well, I went 10/10 on both tests, and 7/8 in the bonus rounds, primarily because I second guessed my self on the chrome/glass balls thing - I should have gone with my first instinct on the too-perfect background, but the reflections of the overhead lights in the chrome were very well done. (Though I wonder if they were mapped from a photo... )

But that was after having several minutes to study them each, and going back to a few of them (e.g. the loose nails) several times. When CG is front and center in a film, it's nearly always obvious, but when it is used with subtlety in a background, it can escape detection.

What I find more compelling is the use of digital compositing of elements, which has eliminated most issues with multi-generation optical printing passes, matte lines, etc. Effects films look much "cleaner" than before.

Finally, I think Abrams' line regarding wanting to the film to look really "real" means that he is going to build a full-scale 1701 and film it. Then he's going to sell it to that guy who used to post here who wanted to build an Enterprise-shaped hotel in Europe.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

I Grok Spock said:
I second guessed my self on the chrome/glass balls thing - I should have gone with my first instinct on the too-perfect background, but the reflections of the overhead lights in the chrome were very well done. (Though I wonder if they were mapped from a photo... )

That's usually how that sort of thing is done. The giveaway for me in one of the images was that the reflected image was missing on one side of the chrome object when it should have been there.

 

[evilnate]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

I've always been one who quickly notices CG vs. Real vs. Model (scored a 9 out of 10 on the test!), but despite my dislike of the overuse of CGI as a filmmaking crutch, I have to say that in this case I really think that it's a non-issue. CG vs. Model when it comes to things purely fictional or fantastic is six of one and half a dozen of another. You're traiding one set of imperfections and challenges with filming a real model for the over-perfection of a CG model. However, the use of CG is far more efficient from a filmmaking standpoint.

That being said, my problem with CG is when it's used for something that should be real (see: the clonetroopers in the Star Wars movies; Superman at the end of Superman Returns). That however is a minor complaint when put against the wonderful things that CG has allowed to be put on screen, especially on TV. One of the shows that has really impressed me is Doctor Who. Produced by an effects house of modest means, this past season they've shown Elizabethan England, 1930's New York, and a future version of New New York with a level of detail and realism that even just ten years ago would have only been possible in a large budget movie. That is the greatest contribution of CG to filmmaking, and I hope that the producers of Trek XI use it to it's fullest extent to allow us to see the Trek universe that up to now we've only imagined.

 

[GodThingFormerly]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

^ Holy fudge! Welcome back to the TrekBBS.com gulag, you old swabbie.

TGT

 

[Woulfe]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

ILM : We don't do models anymore, sorry....
Fans : But this is Star Trek, shurly you can make an acception for this.
ILM : Like we could of seen we were going to do Star Trek again when we sold off our model shop 5 years ago ?

 

[USS Mariner]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

9/10 on Vek's first test, Perfects on the Second and Bonus Tests.

Anyway, it's going to be CG. Hopefully, ILM will let Alex Jaegar be more creatively involved this time. His stuff for Transformers was amazing, and part of the reason Bumblebee was the best character design in the movie.

 

[evilnate]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

Thanks. I suppose my self-imposed period of simply lurking has come to an end. I wasn't even sure if I still had an account.

Nice avatar and new screen name, BTW. So that's how "The God Thing" would have ended. Would have given James Kirk's middle name new meaning.

 

[erifah]

Vektor said:

erifah said:

Vektor said:...I am a 3D artist and I consider myself to have a pretty discerning eye and I only scored 6 out of 10.

Ha-ha! I got 8 out of 10 right.

Well, in my own defense, the first time I ran through the test I did it at work and had to rush through it in about three minutes so the boss wouldn’t catch me. I tried it a second time last night and scored 9 out of 10, but I may have been influenced by what I remembered from the first pass so that really doesn’t count.

The point I was trying to make is that you really have to study most of these images to tell which ones are CG, and a couple of them are so good you pretty much have to guess. As far as I’m concerned, the people who claim CG is always inferior and that they can always spot it a mile away are, quite frankly, full of it. Preferring physical models over CG is all well and good, to each their own, but let’s not pretend it’s anything more than a preference anymore. Realism, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, as the comparison test I posted obviously proves, else we all would have gotten the exact same scores.

Oh, I agree with you completely! A static picture can be studied in detail, and still it's hard for the average person to spot the clues. On the other hand, in a moving picture, there's no time to tell if the object itself is real or CG, but as others have correctly noted, you can figure it out with flaws in lighting and movement that don't seem *quite* right.

I would like to point out that the physical models aren't all they are cracked up to be either, IMHO. I've been building the Polar Lights Enterprise A, and I've been referencing photographs of the studio model. I have to say, it looks a lot rougher and primitive than I ever imagined it would. When it is filmed and in motion, it looks so much different.

The same can be said of the CG models; after they are built, the proof of the pudding is how they are used.

(BTW, since we've also been discussing the new BSG, let me just say that I would love, absolutely LOVE, to see some footage of the Big E shot in the style of BSG, with the look of harsh lighting and handheld cameras.)

 

[trevanian]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

Woulfe said:
ILM : We don't do models anymore, sorry....
Fans : But this is Star Trek, shurly you can make an acception for this.
ILM : Like we could of seen we were going to do Star Trek again when we sold off our model shop 5 years ago ?

Just to clear up a misconception here ...

The modelshop is still occupying the same building, and it is getting plenty of work from ILM and probably other folks. I think ILM didn't want the overhead to carry and also wanted to do what Digital Domain always was saying they wanted to do, which is work without physical stuff.

 

[David cgc]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

Professor Powderpuff said:

I Grok Spock said:
I second guessed my self on the chrome/glass balls thing - I should have gone with my first instinct on the too-perfect background, but the reflections of the overhead lights in the chrome were very well done. (Though I wonder if they were mapped from a photo... )

That's usually how that sort of thing is done. The giveaway for me in one of the images was that the reflected image was missing on one side of the chrome object when it should have been there.

I also noticed there was no camera in the reflection.

 

[Kokomo]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

Do you guys think that ILM has started work on the visual effects for the film yet? Or are they gonna wait until filming has wrapped?

 

[Ace1701A]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

Whenever I see this picture,

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/scans/other/er-st2.jpg

I'm just amazed at the details of the model. It was printed in the "Art of Star Trek" book, and if you see it in person, you can even peer into the windows (you can sort of see the details on the scan).

 

[Saul]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

Vektor said:
For those of you who think you can identify the CG image vs. the real image every time, I suggest you give this a try. I am a 3D artist and I consider myself to have a pretty discerning eye and I only scored 6 out of 10.

What's ironic is that some of the realism people associate with physical scale models has to do with visual characteristics that are not necessarily valid for real, full-size objects. In other words, much of that so-called "realism" is nothing more than what we are used to seeing after decades of physical model work. In various technical ways, a properly rendered CG image might actually be more realistic, but only if reality rather than a miniature--superbly crafted as it may be--is your benchmark.

10 out of 10 on the first go and 3 out of 4 on the bonus round. So I guess that pretty much proves my point.

 

[STARTREK11]

trevanian said:

Gep Malakai said:
^^Err...StarTrek11, did you even look at the link Vektor posted? Get a perfect score on all of that--without looking at the discussion here first--and then we can talk. Until then...I'll keep my "sped up" "cartoony looking" BSG CGI, thank you very much.

He doesn't mention WHICH BSG cg shots are cartoony, he might be talking about the stuff that started surfacing in the last season when everything went HD. That stuff has a kind of superpresence that does seem CG to me (on a regular TV anyway.) Earlier seasons of Zoic's BSG's stuff was pretty good, though I think they do rely on speed to get by sometimes (Zoic's FIREFLY stuff still looks better to me, though oddly, their SERENITY work looked pretty bad at times.)

also the test referenced in the thread is only an indicator, not anything definitive, since it isn't stuff IN MOTION, which is where a lot of the giveaways take place. You can make a perfect reflection, but it might not work on an object in motion (I bet the car in that test looks a lot phonier in motion, that was the only one I had trouble with.)

In nuBSG the shots look blurry,soft focus,speeded up to cheat the viewer,they lack any mass,just whizz by like cartoonish animation.They are fuzzy and just lack any realism what so ever.In fact they remind me of the dreadful shots used in "Space Above and Beyond",which wa also ruined by this problem.I think they may be saving money by cutting on render times and then speeding it up to convince viewers this is a novel special effect but they cant fool me.The shots look cheap and cartoonish and peeded up and fast edited so that if you blink you miss it.fast.

 

[GodThingFormerly]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

evilnate said:
Nice avatar and new screen name, BTW. So that's how "The God Thing" would have ended. Would have given James Kirk's middle name new meaning.

Hehe, I am still The God Thing. This renaming is just a temporary Halloween gimmick care of the management.

TGT