New Enterprise: Model or CG?

[Cary L. Brown]

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.

To be fair, Vektor, still images are much easier to make believable than animated stuff, for the same reason I mentioned above... chaos.

It's the "simulated chaos" of CGI smoke, for instance, that makes it less convincing than the REAL chaos of real smoke. You can show a single snapshot and it'll look just fine, but the swirling and billowing effects, the diffusion and dispersion, never QUITE get there. At least not yet. Eventually, more complicated algorithms will be derived to make it MORE believable, but something run in a controlled, repeatable numerical simulation can never QUITE match the behavior of something in an uncontrolled, unrepeatable, random and chaotic situation.

To compensate, you have an artist who knows the subject matter and who manually tweaks each image, or the whole animation, in an attempt to reduce the "obviousness" of the CGI version of these details. Good CGI artists can do that effectively, but it's NOT easy and it's not something that can be reduced to an algorithm (well, not yet).

 

[Vektor]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

Cary L. Brown said:
To be fair, Vektor, still images are much easier to make believable than animated stuff, for the same reason I mentioned above... chaos.

For the types of chaotic simulations you refer to, you are correct, but only up to a point. In most other respects, realistic still images are harder to make because the viewer has the luxury of sitting and staring at them and perusing every niggling detail. You can get away with all kinds of things when you’re setting a model in motion that would never hold up in a still image.

It's the "simulated chaos" of CGI smoke, for instance, that makes it less convincing than the REAL chaos of real smoke.

Well, it’s no surprise that even in the CG world, smoke, fire and particle effects are often taken from actual video footage and composited into the frame, which can be very realistic. When it isn’t, it’s usually because they forgot to account for scale when timing the playback of the composited effect, as in mile-high smoke columns that rise and disperse like campfires, or conversely, small demolition charges that look like the Deathstar blowing up.

To compensate, you have an artist who knows the subject matter and who manually tweaks each image, or the whole animation, in an attempt to reduce the "obviousness" of the CGI version of these details. Good CGI artists can do that effectively, but it's NOT easy and it's not something that can be reduced to an algorithm (well, not yet).

I never said it was easy. If it was, ILM wouldn’t be able to charge such confiscatory rates for what they do. I’m just a little reactive to people who claim they can always spot CG. I don’t think most people have the slightest clue just how much of what they see on TV, in the movies and even in print is actually computer generated these days.

 

[Warp Coil]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

Holy crap I actually got a perfect score on that quiz (yay me).

Back on topic, I definitely think the f/x in Trek XI are going to be CGI. Everyone's pretty much given up on using traditional models. It's also easier to build a starship in the computer than to build a physical model. You can tweak it and makes changes at will. And since ILM is on board, they'll do a great job. I'm still amazed at the realism of the Transformers in the film.

The past two Trek films have gone CGI and I honestly wasn't impressed. The Enterprise-E looked much better in FC than it did in INS and NEM. But I think technology continues to advance and the f/x have dramatically improved within the last 5 years. A CGI Enterprise, if done right, could look great.

 

[Stardate]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

people scold look at Star Wars II and III to see how advanced CGI has become. We are getting Ryan Church and IGLM for Star Trek XI.
p.s i got 11 right from Vektor test(the highest so far)

 

[Vektor]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

^^ Uh, that's pretty impressive considering there were only 10 images.

EDIT - Oops, I see there's a bonus round. Never mind.

 

[HarryM]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

Got 10 out of 10. It was more intuitive though. The monkeys were obvious. The BMW, I thought the cobbles were a little too clean and regular. The coffee was obvious, esp with "3D" on the cup. The diamonds were too arranged looking somehow, and the grey background was too flat. The whisks had weird white reflections.

I think they will definitely go CG, simply more practical, and you can do more with the ship in terms of moving it around, angles, etc. There are still things that probably would be very hard to do. I can't imagine the saucer crash sequence in Generations looking good with CG.

 

[Vektor]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

I scored 4 out of 4 on the bonus round. There's also another version of the test here. Got 8 out of 10.

 

[HarryM]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

I'll give those a shot. The one thing that I look for is that someone doing CG will naturally tend to avoid flaws or imperfections that exist in real life, scratches, dust, etc. The bolt is a good example, someone doing that in CG likely wouldn't have put in the machining or casting imperfections.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

Wow, 10/10 and 3/4 on the bonus round.

Spoiler: I incorrectly assessed

the smoke-colored glass being filled with liquid as CG... it was real.

And yes, I agree with the other 90% of you who think that the movie Enterprise will only exist in a bank of computers, and will look absolutely amazing. Let's just hope that the purported "redesign" isn't too drastic.

 

[HarryM]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

4 out of 4 on bonus. The shiny tube thing was pretty easy. The guy, his skin looked a little too "makeupy" in some way, but an excellent render anyways. The lizard had some brushmarks that made it real in the "imperfections" category, and the drops and smears inside the glass just seemed too natural to be CG.

9 out of 10 on the other, I missed the bent nails one. I thought that in the real item the base where the nails went in would be more messy.

 

[erifah]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

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.

(But only because I guessed correctly which subjects a CG artist wight want to do in CG, and which subjects make no sense spending the effort on as CG subjects. But if, for example, you put 2 photos side-by-side, one of a REAL BMW and the other that beautiful black BMW in the test, I couldn't tell the difference.)

 

[Dale]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

Vektor said:because they forgot to account for scale when timing the playback of the composited effect, as in mile-high smoke columns that rise and disperse like campfires, or conversely, small demolition charges that look like the Deathstar blowing up.

That made me giggle. You do realize the "death star" was blown up with small demolition charges, right?

 

[Gepard]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

leadprophet said:

Vektor said:because they forgot to account for scale when timing the playback of the composited effect, as in mile-high smoke columns that rise and disperse like campfires, or conversely, small demolition charges that look like the Deathstar blowing up.

That made me giggle. You do realize the "death star" was blown up with small demolition charges, right?

And looked it, to boot!

 

[seigezunt]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

it will be CGI, no doubt, which is too bad. But I can live with it. I love TAS, and that doesn't exactly look real, either.

 

[RAMA]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

Capt.April said:
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..

I think this is a popular myth, usually spread by the same people who say they can tell CDs don't sound better than LPs...which of course, is silly.

I scored 7 of 10 on the quiz, though it was harder than I thought. Still, most people in the audience of an FX heavy movie can't tell CGI from the real deal.

RAMA

 

[Procutus]

Yeah, I tend to agree after reading over all the above posts. Like several of you, I miss the days of actual physical models... I still think the original movie Enterprise looks real and solid, but as someone said, a thing of the past.

The whole thing never would've even entered my mind if it weren't for JJ being in charge. I hope that he gives ILM the time they need to make the old girl look great.

 

[STARTREK11]

CGI always looks fage and it is really bad in nuBSG,very cartoonish and speeded up to try to hide the cheepness of it.
The cgi was bad in Nemesis with Shinzog's shop looking not at all like a really massive ship but more like a line drawing with neons.

 

[Dale]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

RAMA said:I think this is a popular myth, usually spread by the same people who say they can tell CDs don't sound better than LPs...which of course, is silly.

Absolutely perfect digital audio fidelity is something a lot of us moldy oldies find unpleasant. There is an organic quality to analog recordings - and particularly to LPs - that many find preferable. For one thing you get a much better sense of the room where the performance took place and the ambienece thereof. A digital recording may do a better job of giving you exactly what the artist intended to record, but an LP recording gives you a more "real" experience of the performance. Plus there's the undefinable "warmth" of a needle tracking a groove. Why's that silly?

And I can spot CGI... or at least I do spot CGI often enough for its use to remain a distraction to me.

 

[Gepard]

^^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.

 

[trevanian]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

leadprophet said:

Vektor said:because they forgot to account for scale when timing the playback of the composited effect, as in mile-high smoke columns that rise and disperse like campfires, or conversely, small demolition charges that look like the Deathstar blowing up.

That made me giggle. You do realize the "death star" was blown up with small demolition charges, right?

The death star was not even blown up (though initially there had been a plan to blow up the model in a parking lot), the blast was superimposed. It used what Joe Viskocil called a special titan blend, which if you want to see in 'full scale' can be caught earlier in SW, when the sparks come out of R2 when the jawas zap him. THAT ain't no demolition charge, bud. It's just pyro.

As for the topic, obviously I'd prefer a physical miniature. But considering how much tweaking gets done with imagery these days (very little of which IMPROVES the image), you could photograph a good miniature and stilll wind up having it look like mediocre CG (DS9's T&T comes to mind with the 1701 and the K7 and the Klingon ship.)

Until folks start doing work at 4k and 8k, the cg spaceship stuff is just never gonna look good to me. That's why the CG ship in SOLARIS works, it was done with a lot of time and care. Using miniatures would seem infinitely preferable, at least for all beauty shots mid to close shots.