• 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!

New Enterprise: Model or CG?

Procutus

Procutus

Admiral
Admiral
In one of the recent articles I read (I think it was the one about the movie's supposed $150 mill budget) it was stated that JJ wants everything in the film to look as 'real' as possible, therefore if they have a scene set in a cave, he wants to film in a real cave (with appropriate set dressing, of course).

This led me to wonder: With his penchant for realism, will Abrams want the new Enterprise to be a physical model that can be filmed, or will they go the CGI route? Personally, I'd prefer to see a model, even though that's pretty rare these days. I still think the version of the Big E built by Doug Trumbull's outfit for ST:TMP looks more like a convincing spacecraft than the E-E from Nemesis (or Necrosis, as I call it).

Just my .02 worth.
 
They'll likely go the CGI route for budgetary reasons if no other. I'm hard-pressed to think of a sci-fi film in the last ~5 years that's even had model work for its spacecraft, it's so much cheaper to make ships in the computer.

Plus computer graphics have gotten pretty good at handling things like aircraft and spaceships by now. Some examples of high-quality computer-created vessels are the background ships in the Borg battle at the beginning of First Contact, Daren Docherman's work on the TMP Director's Cut, nuBSG, and the space station in Solaris, which was so realistic that many people thought it was a model.

If Abrams gives ILM time, they can probably deliver a very photorealsitic Constitution class.
 
I tend to agree that a CG Enterprise is most likely, and if it were anyone other than JJ running this thing, I wouldn't think twice.

I'm dying to see the new sets.
 
If ILM has its' way, they'll go CGI. They made no secret in the past how much they hated the Enterprise model after TMP. CGI-no question about it.
 
Ya, as much as I have a love for the days of blue screen and models, that day has come and gone. Paramount/Christies auctioning off all the models was the clearest sign that that day is over. Gone the way of stop-motion animation and even conventional cell animation.

Ya, as much as I have a love for the days of blue screen and models, that day has come and gone. Paramount/Christies auctioning off all the models was the clearest sign that that day is over. Gone the way of stop-motion animation and even conventional cell animation.

If they can make cgi animals look photorealistic, it's high time they get the great Enterprise right. The guys over at CBS have gotten pretty darn good lately.
 
Procutus said:
In one of the recent articles I read (I think it was the one about the movie's supposed $150 mill budget) it was stated that JJ wants everything in the film to look as 'real' as possible, therefore if they have a scene set in a cave, he wants to film in a real cave (with appropriate set dressing, of course).

This led me to wonder: With his penchant for realism, will Abrams want the new Enterprise to be a physical model that can be filmed, or will they go the CGI route? Personally, I'd prefer to see a model, even though that's pretty rare these days. I still think the version of the Big E built by Doug Trumbull's outfit for ST:TMP looks more like a convincing spacecraft than the E-E from Nemesis (or Necrosis, as I call it).

Just my .02 worth.
Click to expand...

CGI, mainly because its more versatile and because these days they are indistinguishable from real models anyway.

RAMA
 
There are certain things that still look better using real models. Usually involving very randomize natural events. Yes, you can use particles in software to do reasonably good water or fire or smoke or even gravel avalanches, but they still look much better done with real physical models. Too much chaos there to effectively do by software today. Render any of those in software and unless the artist working them is VERY VERY VERY skillful, it always stands out as "fake" to the audience.

However, for most shots, CGI... ESPECIALLY for spacecraft shots... is definitely the way to go. Not only due to the ease of camera manipulation and the lack of necessity of "stand panels" and "wiring panels" and so forth on the surface of the model (one set per potential mounting direction) but you also have the ability to render in ways that are impossible in a studio... removing any hint of atmospheric dispersion, playing with lighting in ways that can't be done in a real environment (which inevitably has SOME bounce light) and creating virtual cameras in "real scale" to the model... giving you the ability to shoot it as though it were a real, full-sized starship (not practical with real-size cameras and practically-sized models, obviously!)

SO... if they show a ship being destroyed in this flick... they might have a reason to do some model work. Otherwise... I don't expect to see physical models.

Now, for Indiana Jones 4... expect to see a LOT of model work. It's NOT an "obsolete" form... just not so useful for space flicks anymore. ;)
 
Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

Great post.. I know they still used models for the past 3 'Star Wars' films since they do add "weight" that cgi lacks. Models just like painting & sculpting will always be around, they're just tools of the artist. CGI is great for what it's good at too.. Let's just hope it's well written that's always my biggest worry.. :)
 
Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

I have always had a preference for model work... and have never seen CGI that I couldn't spot as CGI. Someone mentioned photorealistic animals, which made me laugh, because organics are the worst CGI work by far. I'd love to see them do a nice large-scale miniature of the Enterprise, but I am fairly certain it'll be CGI, and reconizable as such.
 
Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

Half and Half would be nice rather than no model at all. It's hard to beat the realisim of the model but yet for the bigger effect scenes you gotta have CGI.
 
Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

Didn't ILM recently sell off it's model workshop?

That being the case, I'd say it's a foregone conclusion the new Enterprise will be entirely digital.
 
Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

leadprophet said:
I have always had a preference for model work... and have never seen CGI that I couldn't spot as CGI.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. I admit I haven't seen as many movies recently as I would like to have, but even so, I can generally spot CGI.

The only reason BSG gets away with it is because the "camera" never stops moving long enough for you to focus on anything. ;)
 
Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

I got 8 out of 10 on my first try.



Some of the "tells" for are the licence plate ont he black car, the foam on the coffee coffee cup, on the monkeys...well, they just suck...those are the CGI "tells". A "tells" on the real images of the reflection on the car is the subtle distortions of due to the imperfections of the surface. I mean, notice how MUCH there is!
Edit: I put the hints for the test in spoiler code. I know you said spoilers were ahead but even I looked before clicking the link. The words were just there, you know? Had to look.
 
Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

Well, gee, thanks for posting the answers, spoiler tag notwithstanding.

Anyway, a lack of imperfections is usually a tell-tale characteristic of CGI, but not necessarily of really good CGI, which I'm sure ILM is fully capable of.
 
Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

I got 7/10 on Vektor's test.

I really don't care if CGI or model work is used for the Enterprise. I don't have a preference. I would guess they'll use a combination of both with mostly CGI to save money.
 
Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

I got a 9/10, and the one I got wrong was one of the real ones that would have been easy to replicate in CGI.

There is still use for models in film. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. Optimally. I'd like to see them build a huge model for use in some of the shots and scan it in for the computer model to use for others. Replicate those imperfections that are innate with any man-made object. A 15 foot or so 'biggature' made with the craftsmanship of today's best artists and touched up with complimentary computer effects would be awesome for giving us some 'money-shots' of the old bird and provide a good visual example for the 3d team in their efforts.

The crash landing in Serenity is a perfect example of a fusion of CGI and model work working out far better than one of the other could have accomplished on its own.
 
Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

I got a 7/10 when I took the test a few months ago. The really freaky moments are when you mistake a real object for CGI! :lol:

It should also be noted that ILM no longer has a say in whether or not to use CGI, since they sold their model shop last year to a former employee who then renamed it Kurner Optical. ILM is all-digital now, so if they're Abrams' company of choice, he's chosen to side with computer graphics. :borg:
 
Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

8 out of 10.

They wont use model work in the new movie. Simple answer - time and money.

All those interviews with ILM over the years show that its a very time-comsuming process with models. Far too much trial and error.

Models are in the past now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ZapBrannigan
Let Me Count the Ways... I Watched Star Trek
2 3
Replies
51
Views
4K
Cryogenator
Cryogenator
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top