Special Effects miniatures today - Page 2

Senmut · 16-02-2008, 06:54 AM

Alot of CGI still tends to look like, well, CGI. No reason we can't combine the two. I prefer models, myself. Certainly the classics.

Tim Smith · 16-02-2008, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

Cool! tell us more if you want.

Sorry for the delay, I just now saw this. Two places I'd recommend: My photobucket account has got some newer clips, just enter "tsmith1999" and look through the pages for some stills and clips. Last fall we filmed an alien city sequence that has yet to be really used, that one is on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHbO0ACG1Bk
Then there's our friend Ellen, who has given us a web page for the scripts, http://www.space1999.net/~fanfiction/ufo99.html , since I can't get my partner in crime on the project to do anything to get us up on the internet at the moment.
She also added a making of story, that goes up to 2001, That one has a lot about how we filmed and built ships with VERY little money. http://www.space1999.net/~fanfiction...kingufo99.html
The stuff since then involved a revolving Christmas tree stand (See Deep Space 1999 in photobucket), an 18 inch ball from Walmart, and a new foam core Eagle bay with it's own locomotive to push the Hawk Launcher Eagle. For us, essentially, all of our stuff is models (Except for a certain Tardis) and the computer was used for editing, not rendering models. That is the best of both worlds, and lets me work with my hands and not a keyboard.
Hope this answers some questions and hopefully one day I'll be able to announce that you can view UFO:1999 right from your computer!
Cheers!

Mike Delamar · 09-04-2008, 04:16 PM

Team America World Police.

ok a spoof, but still very well done, I love the film

Mike

Mike Delamar · 09-04-2008, 07:14 PM

and what about Thomas the Tank engine? directed by David Mitton who worked on Thunderbirds

Mike

thundergod · 09-04-2008, 09:08 PM

There appears to be a "myth" developing that miniatures are not being used in todays movies/series . Although C.G effects are increasingly being utilised , the physical miniature is far from dead . I've been reading a lot on the making of the Star Wars prequels lately and was quite surprised that a lot of the shots I'd assumed were C.G creations were actually achieved with model/miniatures. C.G is good at embellishing and refining images , but the majority of the time photographing a miniature is the best way to go .The problem with C.G.I comes when it is badly executed and for want of a better term , obvious .

Mark IX Fan · 09-04-2008, 11:28 PM

I find it odd that so many of us (myself included) bash CGI for looking fake, but didn't we all gripe about the more-than-evident matte lines around the fighters in STAR WARS? The re-used ad nauseum FX footage in the original BATTLESTAR GALACTICA? The video composited STAR TREK: TNG? Even our hallowed SPACE: 1999 had some effects and model work that is just painful to look at, proof positive that even the masters can screw up occasionally.

CGI doesn't exactly have the market cornered on looking fake.

I just appreciate the sheer craftsmanship that went into so much of the model work (the eight foot Star Destroyer from TESB is nothing short of a work of art). And to me there's just a different feeling knowing that you are looking at a "real" object (a reason why I can't stand CGI characters).

Freedom of movement? The ships in so many of these CGI shows, the STAR WARS films included, seem to throw physics out the window, because they move with little or no indication of weight or mass or momentum. In many ways, the restrictions of filming models through motion control actually lends to their believability as "real" craft....simply because they can't just go off and do anything.

And CGI does not age well at all. I watched PHANTOM MENACE this weekend, and was appalled at how cartoony most of it looked just a short nine years later. Even the new BATTLESTAR GALACTICA boasts more impressive CGI rendered ships and battles than EPISODE I did!

At the end of the day, I just get a kick out of the fact that George Lucas knew better than to try and improve on the opening shot of STAR WARS - A NEW HOPE. That awesome shot of the Star Destroyer crawling forever across the top of the screen...a shot made all the more impressive when you realize the model was only a little over three feet long!

Known Space · 10-04-2008, 09:55 PM

Its not that I dislike CGI.I feel about it the same way I feel about a badly made model. If its done poorly or used too much or improbably then it ruins the illusion.
I went to the Barbican shortly after the turn of the century to have a look at the Starwars Exhibition and to marvel at the builds.And they did look impressive, most impressive but much less than in the actual films. But thats to be expected. Thats why they are called special effects.
But its hard to feel that about a CGI model at any time ,be it on a screen ,though as much time, energy and probably more money has been spent on it.
Done correctly it is superb.Take the openning battle on season 4 Galactica. Absolutley stunning.And in four decades of sci-fi I've also seen some equally unstunning effects with models that quite franckly I wouldn't give a frak about.
It all boils down to passion. The things that are built and thought through well I admire.The key is "realism". Does it feel realistic even though it can never be?
Your mind is built to expect to "see" the world in a certain way and expect it to behave in that manner. Physical models obey physical filming rules and therefore fit better.
I have no problem with CGI when it is "un- noticable." Its when it isn't that it ceases to be a special and becomes a stupid effect. And there are a lot of great films being lessened by this at the moment.

Dr Kane · 10-04-2008, 11:17 PM

I'm reminded of an interview with (I think) Mike Trim. He says that with models you sometimes get a tremendous shot by accident, rather than design - one which you may not have considered constructing through CGI.

saturnapollo · 11-04-2008, 03:52 PM

I know everyone goes on about the Star Destroyer shot (and yes, I agree it is excellent), but really it is just a variation (copy) of the opening shot of Discovery in 2001.

Keith

Mark IX Fan · 11-04-2008, 06:11 PM

Yeah, but 2001 didn't run the risk of having it's greatness diminished by an insecure director going back years later and re-doing all the special effects shots.

CR · 12-04-2008, 02:30 AM

Just a side note... let's not forget that the Star Destroyer opening shot was already done a couple years earlier in the S99 ep "War Games." Not as impressive, perhaps, but I wonder how many people newly introduced to S99 would think that the "War Games" scene borrowed the imagery from Star Wars, not realising "WG" came out first...

**Bishop** · 12-04-2008, 04:04 AM

Good point CR. This whole issue is an interesting one. Many of us comment here from the perspective of growing up with miniatures. A lot of the people 20-30 years younger than us find the old miniatures hokey because they aren't photo real in the way that the latest cgi appears to them (they think cgi is photo real even though we know it plays the same games with our senses that models did/do). We think differently because we either know or imagine the skill that goes into the models and effects, used, as they are, to this day.

The thing that will carry the day whether it be models or cgi is the ripping good yarn that they are supporting. If that's not present then you may as well use shadow puppets. These younger people may have a good old laugh at the puppets, but still get sucked in by the good story, they will find the same with UFO and S99, and STTOS for that matter.... that's if such things are their cup of tea.

I think a balance between models and cgi is the best thing... perhaps I should say live action and cgi. I prefer real sets and so forth, but if the cgi is necessary to create the space then I can live with that too if its done well.

saturnapollo · 12-04-2008, 01:24 PM

Well, actually I wasn't referring to the context of the shot, but purely to the SFX of a large spacecraft passing by the camera, and just coming, and coming and coming and the viewer not knowing when it's going to get to the end.

As far as I know prior to 2001, I don't think that had been done. The War Games shot and the large spacecraft which we know was based on Discovery was obviously a straight copy. Who knows whether Lucas would ever have thought of that shot if it hadn't been for Stanley Kubrick.

Keith

CR · 13-04-2008, 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saturnapollo

Well, actually I wasn't referring to the context of the shot, but purely to the SFX of a large spacecraft passing by the camera, and just coming, and coming and coming and the viewer not knowing when it's going to get to the end.

That's actually a very good point; I understand now what you were getting at.

Quote:

Originally Posted by saturnapollo

As far as I know prior to 2001, I don't think that had been done. The War Games shot and the large spacecraft which we know was based on Discovery was obviously a straight copy. Who knows whether Lucas would ever have thought of that shot if it hadn't been for Stanley Kubrick.

Keith

If the story about Lucas seeing Brian Johnson's fx work is true, I think Lucas might have been more directly inspired by Johnson's "War Games" shot. Or more likely, a combination of Kubrick's beauty pass of the Discovery and Johnson's "War Games" shot. BUT, to be sure, Johnson likely mightn't have come up with that had it not been for Kubrick. So basically, your point still stands. Very interesting.

Known Space · 13-04-2008, 10:23 AM

The discussions about the effects shots in 2001 and Starwars are interesting. Lucas has stated how influenced he was by 2001,a film that he was in awe of for its techniqual production values, but which had a story that he found obscure and slow. Remember Lucas was a boy racer and he set out to make a film in the pace of his childhood sci-fi series and a realism unseen before in cinema. Hence Industrail Light and Magic.

His team, particularly Joe Johnson in design and Dykstra and Murren in effects filming have all frequently stated how 2001 influenced SW. So it is not surprising that the openning tracking shots were hugely influenced by 2001.But then Lucas beefed up the speed of the action because that was the pace that he wanted.And he succeeded tremendously well.

Its all a question of generations as Tony said. The pre SW or post SW. I saw SW about two years before 2001 made the rounds again in the cinema. And this was before video or digital so you either saw it at the cinema or waited three years for it to come onto the tele.And I was immediately struck by how similar the 2001 production values had influenced SW, from the realism of the planets to the long tracking shot of Discovery , even though Lucas had obviously hot rodded it.

PreSW there was nothing like it. Post SW it grew more common because thats what people want to see. Think BSG (original ) A complete rip off but that didn't stop me enjoying it. And Dykstra of course had his bust up with George and went on to do the effects for that show.

There is so much out there now it will be almost impossible to come up with something original ( though I still rate the Adama manouvres atmospheric jump of Galactica possibly " The Greatest 60 secs of Sci -fi " ever for me) because we oldies were lucky enough to grow up with it as sci-fi effects matured.

But I do rue replacement of models with a computer generated enviroment because there is something viscerally satisfying about a great kit . Hence I spend a large part of my time now admiring Eagles "Avenger" build and since being on this site now see a large portion of my spare time disappearing in the pursuit of such things (when the bank account allows).

But with out computers there would be no Halo or Half life for me to play and I love those games as much as I love the films. I think Tony said it on a previous thread.Its what you grow up with and what you loved whilst you grew up. And everything is a bit over done these days.

Even Doc Who suffers this.Lastnights prog was great to look at but it just didn't do anything for me. Because I remember being terrified by the maggots in "The Green Death" . But there is still a great deal of great sci-fi out there now, which ,when I was a kid there wasn't. So keep bringing it on but keep it real.

Mark IX Fan · 13-04-2008, 07:59 PM

I only wish I was in a position to make a sci-fi film. I would certainly insist on the FX being done with real models. CGI has it's place, it's excellent for backgrounds, and can certainly be used to hide those annoying matte lines that show up around models.

I watched EMPIRE STRIKES BACK this weekend, and I'll say it again.....that eight foot Star Destroyer is an incredible piece of work!

MkIXHawk · 13-04-2008, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CR

That's actually a very good point; I understand now what you were getting at.

If the story about Lucas seeing Brian Johnson's fx work is true, I think Lucas might have been more directly inspired by Johnson's "War Games" shot. Or more likely, a combination of Kubrick's beauty pass of the Discovery and Johnson's "War Games" shot. BUT, to be sure, Johnson likely mightn't have come up with that had it not been for Kubrick. So basically, your point still stands. Very interesting.

It's very unlikely since Johnson worked on 2001, having left Century 21 - it's a little knoiwn fact that Century 21 were approached by Kubrick to produce the Effects for 2001. Having been rebutted, (Century 21 were rather busy with their own projects at the time), Kubrick tempted Johnson (with his knowledge of model dressing using kit parts - then considered to be proprietary information) away. This is why the discovery and Wargames shots were so similar - the same person was responsible, although Martin Bower actually built the Bomber

cmdrkoenig67 · 23-04-2008, 09:46 AM

Even though we've come quite far with CGI work...I still think much of it looks unreal. I love to see actual model-work and even Matte paintings in new shows/films...I hope it never goes away totally.

Dana

minieffects · 02-08-2008, 11:36 PM

Well being a 20 year veteran of miniature effects for film I can tell you there has been a big decline in the use of miniatures. However I have been very busy the last 3 years doing a lot of miniature effects work, Dark Knight, Ironman, The Watchman, The Mummy 3, Robot Chicken, are just a few. But despite the busy schedule the last few years its much different than when I started at Boss film back in 88' and then went to Stetson Visual Services. My 6 years at SVSI were the busiest in my career but we all saw a sudden decline after 1998. Cgi took a lot at first but the big hit here in LA was jobs going to other countries. We lost more work to vendors outside the us than we did to CGI. Nowadays it hasnt returned to its former glory but more and more Directors are getting tired of the CG look and want things done practical. Chris Nolan was really particular about this and only used CG when he had no other choice.

Films today are also trying to make things look more real, less grand, its not about how big of an explosion, its how real it looked. When I worked on The Aviator there was a tremendous pressure to not turn the film into big FX film.

The sad part is that the jobs are fewer and far between and those of us still building miniatures are finding it harder to get jobs. Eventually their wont be enough work to sustain us all and the need for miniatures wont go away but their wont be anybody left who can build them.

scott

atemylunch · 03-08-2008, 01:39 AM

I remember when Babylon 5 made big waves with their CG work.
It has come a long way since those days, but I think it has a long way to go. One thing that bugs me about is the interaction with real actors. In SW TPM it looked to me that eyelines were everywhere but where they should have been. But things are great when everything is CG, Pixar is the best example of this.

It is going to interesting to see the future. When Hollywood goes all out on replacing real actors. They will have their ultimate image of performers, all you will need is a voice. The image of Hollywood will be under perfect control, no more getting old, fat, or need cosmetic surgery. Kind of scary, any of you guys remember "Looker".

Along side all of this CG work, we will have software to allow us to play Director. Each of us will have the ability to make movies without the large capitol or crews, on our yottaflop desktops.

12-04-2008, 02:30 AM	#31
CR Science Officer Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: wandering the universe Posts: 5,471	Just a side note... let's not forget that the Star Destroyer opening shot was already done a couple years earlier in the S99 ep "War Games." Not as impressive, perhaps, but I wonder how many people newly introduced to S99 would think that the "War Games" scene borrowed the imagery from Star Wars, not realising "WG" came out first... __________________ I really need to get a new sig...

12-04-2008, 04:04 AM	#32
Bishop Chief Science Officer Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: South Australia Posts: 11,796	Good point CR. This whole issue is an interesting one. Many of us comment here from the perspective of growing up with miniatures. A lot of the people 20-30 years younger than us find the old miniatures hokey because they aren't photo real in the way that the latest cgi appears to them (they think cgi is photo real even though we know it plays the same games with our senses that models did/do). We think differently because we either know or imagine the skill that goes into the models and effects, used, as they are, to this day. The thing that will carry the day whether it be models or cgi is the ripping good yarn that they are supporting. If that's not present then you may as well use shadow puppets. These younger people may have a good old laugh at the puppets, but still get sucked in by the good story, they will find the same with UFO and S99, and STTOS for that matter.... that's if such things are their cup of tea. I think a balance between models and cgi is the best thing... perhaps I should say live action and cgi. I prefer real sets and so forth, but if the cgi is necessary to create the space then I can live with that too if its done well. __________________ "I saw Avatar last weekend, it was so awesome, I wish the whole world was in 3D"

02-08-2008, 11:36 PM	#39
minieffects Alphan Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: USA Posts: 5	miniatures in film Well being a 20 year veteran of miniature effects for film I can tell you there has been a big decline in the use of miniatures. However I have been very busy the last 3 years doing a lot of miniature effects work, Dark Knight, Ironman, The Watchman, The Mummy 3, Robot Chicken, are just a few. But despite the busy schedule the last few years its much different than when I started at Boss film back in 88' and then went to Stetson Visual Services. My 6 years at SVSI were the busiest in my career but we all saw a sudden decline after 1998. Cgi took a lot at first but the big hit here in LA was jobs going to other countries. We lost more work to vendors outside the us than we did to CGI. Nowadays it hasnt returned to its former glory but more and more Directors are getting tired of the CG look and want things done practical. Chris Nolan was really particular about this and only used CG when he had no other choice. Films today are also trying to make things look more real, less grand, its not about how big of an explosion, its how real it looked. When I worked on The Aviator there was a tremendous pressure to not turn the film into big FX film. The sad part is that the jobs are fewer and far between and those of us still building miniatures are finding it harder to get jobs. Eventually their wont be enough work to sustain us all and the need for miniatures wont go away but their wont be anybody left who can build them. scott

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

16-02-2008, 06:54 AM	#21
Senmut Eagle Pilot Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Right here. Someplace. Posts: 609	Alot of CGI still tends to look like, well, CGI. No reason we can't combine the two. I prefer models, myself. Certainly the classics.

09-04-2008, 04:16 PM	#23
Mike Delamar Medical Officer Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Liverpool Posts: 3,263	Team America World Police. ok a spoof, but still very well done, I love the film Mike

09-04-2008, 07:14 PM	#24
Mike Delamar Medical Officer Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Liverpool Posts: 3,263	and what about Thomas the Tank engine? directed by David Mitton who worked on Thunderbirds Mike

09-04-2008, 09:08 PM	#25
thundergod Astrophysics Technician Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: St Helens , Merseyside , U.K . Posts: 368	There appears to be a "myth" developing that miniatures are not being used in todays movies/series . Although C.G effects are increasingly being utilised , the physical miniature is far from dead . I've been reading a lot on the making of the Star Wars prequels lately and was quite surprised that a lot of the shots I'd assumed were C.G creations were actually achieved with model/miniatures. C.G is good at embellishing and refining images , but the majority of the time photographing a miniature is the best way to go .The problem with C.G.I comes when it is badly executed and for want of a better term , obvious .

09-04-2008, 11:28 PM	#26
Mark IX Fan Weapons Technician Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 148	I find it odd that so many of us (myself included) bash CGI for looking fake, but didn't we all gripe about the more-than-evident matte lines around the fighters in STAR WARS? The re-used ad nauseum FX footage in the original BATTLESTAR GALACTICA? The video composited STAR TREK: TNG? Even our hallowed SPACE: 1999 had some effects and model work that is just painful to look at, proof positive that even the masters can screw up occasionally. CGI doesn't exactly have the market cornered on looking fake. I just appreciate the sheer craftsmanship that went into so much of the model work (the eight foot Star Destroyer from TESB is nothing short of a work of art). And to me there's just a different feeling knowing that you are looking at a "real" object (a reason why I can't stand CGI characters). Freedom of movement? The ships in so many of these CGI shows, the STAR WARS films included, seem to throw physics out the window, because they move with little or no indication of weight or mass or momentum. In many ways, the restrictions of filming models through motion control actually lends to their believability as "real" craft....simply because they can't just go off and do anything. And CGI does not age well at all. I watched PHANTOM MENACE this weekend, and was appalled at how cartoony most of it looked just a short nine years later. Even the new BATTLESTAR GALACTICA boasts more impressive CGI rendered ships and battles than EPISODE I did! At the end of the day, I just get a kick out of the fact that George Lucas knew better than to try and improve on the opening shot of STAR WARS - A NEW HOPE. That awesome shot of the Star Destroyer crawling forever across the top of the screen...a shot made all the more impressive when you realize the model was only a little over three feet long!

10-04-2008, 09:55 PM	#27
Known Space Eagle Pilot Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Up North! Well, Yorkshire! Posts: 587	Its not that I dislike CGI.I feel about it the same way I feel about a badly made model. If its done poorly or used too much or improbably then it ruins the illusion. I went to the Barbican shortly after the turn of the century to have a look at the Starwars Exhibition and to marvel at the builds.And they did look impressive, most impressive but much less than in the actual films. But thats to be expected. Thats why they are called special effects. But its hard to feel that about a CGI model at any time ,be it on a screen ,though as much time, energy and probably more money has been spent on it. Done correctly it is superb.Take the openning battle on season 4 Galactica. Absolutley stunning.And in four decades of sci-fi I've also seen some equally unstunning effects with models that quite franckly I wouldn't give a frak about. It all boils down to passion. The things that are built and thought through well I admire.The key is "realism". Does it feel realistic even though it can never be? Your mind is built to expect to "see" the world in a certain way and expect it to behave in that manner. Physical models obey physical filming rules and therefore fit better. I have no problem with CGI when it is "un- noticable." Its when it isn't that it ceases to be a special and becomes a stupid effect. And there are a lot of great films being lessened by this at the moment.

10-04-2008, 11:17 PM	#28
Dr Kane Communications Officer Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 1,458	I'm reminded of an interview with (I think) Mike Trim. He says that with models you sometimes get a tremendous shot by accident, rather than design - one which you may not have considered constructing through CGI.

11-04-2008, 03:52 PM	#29
saturnapollo Medical Officer Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edinburgh, UK Posts: 2,626	I know everyone goes on about the Star Destroyer shot (and yes, I agree it is excellent), but really it is just a variation (copy) of the opening shot of Discovery in 2001. Keith

11-04-2008, 06:11 PM	#30
Mark IX Fan Weapons Technician Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 148	Yeah, but 2001 didn't run the risk of having it's greatness diminished by an insecure director going back years later and re-doing all the special effects shots.

12-04-2008, 01:24 PM	#33
saturnapollo Medical Officer Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edinburgh, UK Posts: 2,626	Well, actually I wasn't referring to the context of the shot, but purely to the SFX of a large spacecraft passing by the camera, and just coming, and coming and coming and the viewer not knowing when it's going to get to the end. As far as I know prior to 2001, I don't think that had been done. The War Games shot and the large spacecraft which we know was based on Discovery was obviously a straight copy. Who knows whether Lucas would ever have thought of that shot if it hadn't been for Stanley Kubrick. Keith

13-04-2008, 10:23 AM	#35
Known Space Eagle Pilot Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Up North! Well, Yorkshire! Posts: 587	The discussions about the effects shots in 2001 and Starwars are interesting. Lucas has stated how influenced he was by 2001,a film that he was in awe of for its techniqual production values, but which had a story that he found obscure and slow. Remember Lucas was a boy racer and he set out to make a film in the pace of his childhood sci-fi series and a realism unseen before in cinema. Hence Industrail Light and Magic. His team, particularly Joe Johnson in design and Dykstra and Murren in effects filming have all frequently stated how 2001 influenced SW. So it is not surprising that the openning tracking shots were hugely influenced by 2001.But then Lucas beefed up the speed of the action because that was the pace that he wanted.And he succeeded tremendously well. Its all a question of generations as Tony said. The pre SW or post SW. I saw SW about two years before 2001 made the rounds again in the cinema. And this was before video or digital so you either saw it at the cinema or waited three years for it to come onto the tele.And I was immediately struck by how similar the 2001 production values had influenced SW, from the realism of the planets to the long tracking shot of Discovery , even though Lucas had obviously hot rodded it. PreSW there was nothing like it. Post SW it grew more common because thats what people want to see. Think BSG (original ) A complete rip off but that didn't stop me enjoying it. And Dykstra of course had his bust up with George and went on to do the effects for that show. There is so much out there now it will be almost impossible to come up with something original ( though I still rate the Adama manouvres atmospheric jump of Galactica possibly " The Greatest 60 secs of Sci -fi " ever for me) because we oldies were lucky enough to grow up with it as sci-fi effects matured. But I do rue replacement of models with a computer generated enviroment because there is something viscerally satisfying about a great kit . Hence I spend a large part of my time now admiring Eagles "Avenger" build and since being on this site now see a large portion of my spare time disappearing in the pursuit of such things (when the bank account allows). But with out computers there would be no Halo or Half life for me to play and I love those games as much as I love the films. I think Tony said it on a previous thread.Its what you grow up with and what you loved whilst you grew up. And everything is a bit over done these days. Even Doc Who suffers this.Lastnights prog was great to look at but it just didn't do anything for me. Because I remember being terrified by the maggots in "The Green Death" . But there is still a great deal of great sci-fi out there now, which ,when I was a kid there wasn't. So keep bringing it on but keep it real.

13-04-2008, 07:59 PM	#36
Mark IX Fan Weapons Technician Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 148	I only wish I was in a position to make a sci-fi film. I would certainly insist on the FX being done with real models. CGI has it's place, it's excellent for backgrounds, and can certainly be used to hide those annoying matte lines that show up around models. I watched EMPIRE STRIKES BACK this weekend, and I'll say it again.....that eight foot Star Destroyer is an incredible piece of work!

23-04-2008, 09:46 AM	#38
cmdrkoenig67 Eagle Pilot Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Portland, Maine Posts: 588	Even though we've come quite far with CGI work...I still think much of it looks unreal. I love to see actual model-work and even Matte paintings in new shows/films...I hope it never goes away totally. Dana

03-08-2008, 01:39 AM	#40
atemylunch Hydroponics Technician Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 31	I remember when Babylon 5 made big waves with their CG work. It has come a long way since those days, but I think it has a long way to go. One thing that bugs me about is the interaction with real actors. In SW TPM it looked to me that eyelines were everywhere but where they should have been. But things are great when everything is CG, Pixar is the best example of this. It is going to interesting to see the future. When Hollywood goes all out on replacing real actors. They will have their ultimate image of performers, all you will need is a voice. The image of Hollywood will be under perfect control, no more getting old, fat, or need cosmetic surgery. Kind of scary, any of you guys remember "Looker". Along side all of this CG work, we will have software to allow us to play Director. Each of us will have the ability to make movies without the large capitol or crews, on our yottaflop desktops.