Suggestions Please: belivable CGI ships
- Thread starter tharpdevenport
- Start date
Absolutely Right (TM).
The Protector was a better model than earlier ones partly because toward the end of their days in the physical model business ILM was using pretty sophisticated computer-guided laser-cutting machinery to manufacture and fit parts.
See, that's the problem right there. It is not a real model. Why should it look like one? Models and CGI have their own flaws and their own specific ways of looking fake, and I don't see what we would gain if instead of trying to make CGI ships look like real ships, CGI artists tried to make CGI ships look like models.
How about that. I just assumed it was CGI.
Because that's what it's supposed to do CGI is a cost-cutting, time saving tool. It's also great for models that would have been more difficult and complex to contruct, or larger ones which wouldn't have been feasible to build large and builts small, would have looked diminished and pathetic.
Computer rendering of ships certainly didn't come about because people were board or tired of making ships.
A ship is an important part of a film or television show -- why should it be shoddy or fake looking?
Then why even make a reply? You expected me to agree with you "just because"?
And for the record:
D9: some real looking parts, but still fake-ish.
V and First Contact, fake looking. But I seem to recall the Borg cube looked a little real close up. Though I'll take any day that large, hand-crafted and junk-assembled cube from TNG anyday -- that's a work of art, to me.
Serenity[/b[ -- nice attempt and extremely good for the film, but still not a single time did I think I was looking at a real model.
Skyline -- exbarrisingly bad for such a big budget film.
Stargate: SG1 and newBS: fake looking, but they are TV budgets. Though SG1 did get better later on in seasons. In fact, on a related note, the choreographed land battles were pretty darm good, and well done -- if only DS9 could have done that well.
TrekREBOOT -- best example thus far, based upon that one photo.
Awesome attempt on Vektor's part, though fake looking.
Snaploud, good examples and point, but half them are moot points, since they were intentionally unrealistis and stylistic and done for a photo graph, while Voyager, Enterprise E, Serenity, etc, are supposed to be very real parts of a futuristic universe.
Either you are trolling or your are completely missing the point people are trying to make. You, in your mind, seem to think that "models look real". And there you are, stuck in a loop. Because you fail to realize that MODELS DO NOT LOOK REAL EITHER.
There's good model work, and bad model work. Good CG and bad CG.
And CG is not just a cost-cutting tool, as you seem to think. It is used because it is more flexible and allows you to do things that you could never accomplish with models.
We might as well turn around the question and ask you - please present a convincing model spaceship that looks just like a real spaceship of that size would look.
i find cgi is brilliant for little fast ships-vipers, but a really good model has a 'weight' to it that suits big ships.
i personally like physical models more, its not that they look more 'real', its just that they look like they 'exist'. (sort of, its hard to describe abstract qualities)
i personally like physical models more, its not that they look more 'real', its just that they look like they 'exist'. (sort of, its hard to describe abstract qualities)
As a rule, about half the people expressing a preference for physical models don't know whether they're looking at CG or practical at least half the time. 
The First Contact cube was also a physical model, and it wasn't much smaller than the TV one (30 inches vs. ~36 inches). The CG was in the starfleet ships in those shots.
Did you ever think you were looking at a spaceship?
Here, on the other hand, is some footage from the least believable space ship flight I have ever seen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOdzhQS_MMw
Yeah, some real things just look fake. They just do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOdzhQS_MMw
Yeah, some real things just look fake. They just do.
Pathetic. The ignition effect is laughable, and you can practically see the string as the ship takes off.
Not to mention the poor sound mix.
As a rule, about half the people expressing a preference for physical models don't know whether they're looking at CG or practical at least half the time.
Indeed. Tharp's utterly predictable and totally ignorant reaction to the FC space battle shots makes me wish I'd slipped more model work in there so he could tell us how CGI it all was.
The Enterprise was also a model throughout the battle, with the exception of its entrance.
"its entrance" meaning this?
That's also the real model.
But all other ships, Defiant, Akira, Steamrunner, etc... are CG.
But does a model always look like an actual ship? Or are you just more used to accepting miniatures as replicas of the the real thing?
They're both forms of fakery.
The whole idea of a "real model" is an interesting one.
Unless it's really bad CGI, or a really bad model, I just don't notice these things.
Unless it's really bad CGI, or a really bad model, I just don't notice these things.
I know. Maybe that was just awkwardly phrased, but isn't that like saying "CGI dinosaurs don't look like real stop-motion dinosaurs"?
@Shatnertage: Yes... Babylon 5, has some complaining of cartoonish looking CGI at times, but, I personally think that adds to the alien-ness of Alien things. As a Kid, I always enjoyed the half cartoon half live action shows.
And then of course you have Dr. Who, Blakes 7 and TOS:ST where you practically see card board cutouts for special effects, and it's all good because of the stories.
Models and CGI are evolving together and compliment each other.
The complaint of "Weightlessness" or "Masslessness" seems to me to be a complaint of levels of detail on the model or CGI and/or the way big things are moved across the screen
And then of course you have Dr. Who, Blakes 7 and TOS:ST where you practically see card board cutouts for special effects, and it's all good because of the stories.
Models and CGI are evolving together and compliment each other.
The complaint of "Weightlessness" or "Masslessness" seems to me to be a complaint of levels of detail on the model or CGI and/or the way big things are moved across the screen
