Fw: Model Work and CGI

Mario Commented

>Not everyone can do CGI artwork, nor can everyone >be a software
>engineer (my profession). Just sitting at a computer does >not convey
>those skills.

>There was a couple years of debate regarding CGI and >models before
>Babylon 5 spun up - the Trek devotees proclaimed that >CGI could never
>make realistic space scenes, that models were required. >The CGI in
>Babylon 5 was excellent. Also, the movie Titanic was >almost completely
>done with CGI - only a few walls and a couple of small >hull sections
>were made as sets, an the rest was all CGI - most >people never knew
>that it was done that way. CGI, done correctly, is >impossible to
>detect.

I acknowledge the skill possessed by a software engineer,however they are not film makers.As early as Fireball XL5 Derek Meddings was writing his own storyboards,composing his own shots,talking to lighting technicians and was actively liasing with directors and script writers.He looked through the camera lens,he got his hands dirty.He drew designs,built the models and made them work in practice.This is a million miles away from what a software engineer does.
Never seen Babylon 5,so can't comment,but that may have more to do with my dislike of most modern,recent American TV shows.The original Star Trek was superb,The Invaders was highly underrated and Mission Impossible I could watch till the cows come home.

As far as Titanic goes,this was a case (as Richard mentioned) of complete over the top CGI,it drew too much attention to itself.It succeeded in spite of the CGI not because of it.
In total contrast A Night to Remember,an equally if not better version of the tragedy of the Titanic used models and a tank.The models were used because they needed to be.Unlike Titantic however their simple restrained but creative use did not distract from the emotional impact.Special effects do not have to be brilliant to work.They don't even have to be impossible to detect.


>Also, for the people that talk about how impressive the >models were in
>Star Wars - don't you remember that they had to use >CGI to "clean up"
>the artifacts of the model matting process when high >definition
>screens starting becoming prevalent? While it was hard >to see in a
>darkened theater, the lines around the various ships >where they were
>matted onto the background were VERY visible when >viewed on HD after
>the movies were initially released as DVD - hence they >went back and
>used CGI to clean them up and make the ships look >better.

Ok I agree good use of CGI is as clean up tool.

Mark UK




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Bab 5 - shame they didn't spends some money on better scripts.



From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Mark
Davies
Sent: 17 June 2009 02:30
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [SHADO] Fw: Model Work and CGI










Mario Commented

>Not everyone can do CGI artwork, nor can everyone >be a software
>engineer (my profession). Just sitting at a computer does >not convey
>those skills.

>There was a couple years of debate regarding CGI and >models before
>Babylon 5 spun up - the Trek devotees proclaimed that >CGI could never
>make realistic space scenes, that models were required. >The CGI in
>Babylon 5 was excellent. Also, the movie Titanic was >almost completely
>done with CGI - only a few walls and a couple of small >hull sections
>were made as sets, an the rest was all CGI - most >people never knew
>that it was done that way. CGI, done correctly, is >impossible to
>detect.

I acknowledge the skill possessed by a software engineer,however they are
not film makers.As early as Fireball XL5 Derek Meddings was writing his own
storyboards,composing his own shots,talking to lighting technicians and was
actively liasing with directors and script writers.He looked through the
camera lens,he got his hands dirty.He drew designs,built the models and made
them work in practice.This is a million miles away from what a software
engineer does.
Never seen Babylon 5,so can't comment,but that may have more to do with my
dislike of most modern,recent American TV shows.The original Star Trek was
superb,The Invaders was highly underrated and Mission Impossible I could
watch till the cows come home.

As far as Titanic goes,this was a case (as Richard mentioned) of complete
over the top CGI,it drew too much attention to itself.It succeeded in spite
of the CGI not because of it.
In total contrast A Night to Remember,an equally if not better version of
the tragedy of the Titanic used models and a tank.The models were used
because they needed to be.Unlike Titantic however their simple restrained
but creative use did not distract from the emotional impact.Special effects
do not have to be brilliant to work.They don't even have to be impossible to
detect.

>Also, for the people that talk about how impressive the >models were in
>Star Wars - don't you remember that they had to use >CGI to "clean up"
>the artifacts of the model matting process when high >definition
>screens starting becoming prevalent? While it was hard >to see in a
>darkened theater, the lines around the various ships >where they were
>matted onto the background were VERY visible when >viewed on HD after
>the movies were initially released as DVD - hence they >went back and
>used CGI to clean them up and make the ships look >better.

Ok I agree good use of CGI is as clean up tool.

Mark UK

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:00:05 +0100
"Mark Davies" <[hidden email]> wrote:


> I acknowledge the skill possessed by a software engineer,however they
> are not film makers. As early as Fireball XL5 Derek Meddings was writing
> his own storyboards,composing his own shots, talking to lighting
> technicians and was actively liasing with directors and script
> writers.He looked through the camera lens,he got his hands dirty.He
> drew designs,built the models and made them work in practice. This is a
> million miles away from what a software engineer does.

Some of the above is unnecessary in CGI, obviously. That doesn't for
a moment mean that the CGI animator is any less a film maker than a
physical model maker. I can't see any less reason for a CGI animator
to talk to a script writer or director than a model maker.

The notion that CGI is less artistic than making a model is risible,
it seems to me. The desired effect is exactly the same - to provide
the illusion of real objects on a two-dimensional screen. It is the
experience to the viewer, not the means by which it is arrive at in
production, that is the only important factor, and certainly the
only consideration with respect to "art".

James



--

The problem with CGI is that it is unbridled.  They can achieve virtuallyanything and they go overboard in the silly camera movements that are patently impossible, and this takes you out of the story.  Folks get so caught up in the fact they can do a thing, they don't ask themselves wether theyought to.  The 1997 special editions of the original Star Wars trilogy (1977-83) are a case in point, as are all of the new Star Wars films (1999-2005).  They become more like a cartoon, and films now are too frequently being green lit based on how much CGI can be used to realise the thing.  The story and characters are secondary, and the money men demand that theiroutlaw is seen on the screen.  Van Helsing (2004) is over egged; so is the 2005 King Kong.  I prefer to see a film that is perhaps not so hyper-realistic, that has a sense of awe and fantasy about it.  The films of RayHarryhausen are a case in point, as they are never 100% realistic but they
have a great immagination and a great sense of fantasy.  Clash of the Titans (1981) is splendid the way it is warts and all; the remake will turn out more like 300 (2007) I suspect, which is never as awe inspiring; and is too knowing.  Films like 300 are ok, but when the actors spend 90% of thetime against a blue-screen and the rest is done in a computer, then something is wrong.

The old techniques were limited, but they force the film makers to pick andchoose what they do show due to budget contraints and due to technologicallimitations.  Fantasy films like Dragonslayer (1981), Blade Runner (1982), Dreamscape (1983) work better because they don't go overboard on the effects in a way that becomes tiresome.  Compare the cityscapes of Blade Runner to those of Attack of the Clones.

Rick

--- On Wed, 17/6/09, James Gibbon <[hidden email]> wrote:

From: James Gibbon <[hidden email]>
Subject: [SHADO] Re: Fw: Model Work and CGI
To: [hidden email]
Date: Wednesday, 17 June, 2009, 10:16 AM











   
           
           


     
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:00:05 +0100

"Mark Davies" <[hidden email]. com> wrote:



> I acknowledge the skill possessed by a software engineer,however they

> are not film makers. As early as Fireball XL5 Derek Meddings was writing

> his own storyboards, composing his own shots, talking to lighting

> technicians and was actively liasing with directors and script

> writers.He looked through the camera lens,he got his hands dirty.He

> drew designs,built the models and made them work in practice. This is a

> million miles away from what a software engineer does.



Some of the above is unnecessary in CGI, obviously. That doesn't for

a moment mean that the CGI animator is any less a film maker than a

physical model maker. I can't see any less reason for a CGI animator

to talk to a script writer or director than a model maker.



The notion that CGI is less artistic than making a model is risible,

it seems to me. The desired effect is exactly the same - to provide

the illusion of real objects on a two-dimensional screen. It is the

experience to the viewer, not the means by which it is arrive at in

production, that is the only important factor, and certainly the

only consideration with respect to "art".



James



--




 

     

   
   
       
         
       
       








       


       
       


     

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:03:47 +0000 (GMT)
richard curzon <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The problem with CGI is that it is unbridled.  They can achieve
> virtually anything and they go overboard in the silly camera movements
> that are patently impossible, and this takes you out of the story.
> Folks get so caught up in the fact they can do a thing, they don't ask
> themselves wether they ought to.

Yes, I sort of agree with this. However, taking a step back from
the film-making process for a moment - isn't the purpose of what
you see on screen to entertain and tell a story, ultimately? Why
do I need to imagine that I'm looking through a camera to achieve
that?

In that light, surely the limitation imposed by a physical camera
shouldn't really be a consideration. The limitation of the camera
is not supposed to be part of the experience, surely. And anyway
much of what a camera portrays on the screen is already impossible
from the point of view of a human observer. Aerial shots zooming
out to reveal a huge landscape, sequences in which an aircraft is
followed and so on.

So I think that using CGI simply to mimic what a camera might be
capable of is missing the point. The camera isn't supposed to be
there; it's not intrinsic to the unfolding of events on the screen
and the mere fact that it's limited in what it can do is a.
hindrance, not an advantage.

I do absolutely agree that CGI has been overused but that's not
really a failing of the method itself.

James

CONTENTS DELETED

A little know aspect of Star Wars is that it has CGI in it. I don't mean the recent stuff, but the movie when it was released in the 70s had a single CGI shot in it.

It was done as a test. It's one shot of three X wings diving on the death star. With all the model shots leading up to that, and after that moment, the only way you can tell it's CGI is because the people who did the shot said it was CGI, when they were getting funding for their next project. The Last Starfighter.

CGI has come a long way since the 70s. It's used a lot more often than you think.
Yes as other people have already said it can be over used a lot of times, but the bulk of the good CGI work out there is missed by people.
It's missed because when people think of Special effects they think of Space ships, Alien monsters etc. What about the simple problem of we are doing a period piece, and the building over there has a dish on the roof. We needto remove it.
Or the idea of we can only afford to make our set this high and this deep. We could use a matte painting, but that's a stagnate shot. If we increase the set with CGI we can move the camera.

If you really want to see good CGI work, don't look at Sci-fi shows, try TVmovies, look for period settings. This is where the best effects can be found. Or to be precise this is where the best effects go unnoticed.


Having said all that.
CGI is a tool. It is and should be a way of telling a story, not just a wayto make the viewer go ohhh arrrr. The new Star Trek movie being a case in point. Very pretty, but so full of plot holes, you could use the script to strain your pasta.

--- In [hidden email], "Mark Davies" <aonq79@...> wrote: