Model Work and CGI

I think it requires more genuine artistry to create miniatures, and matte paintings.  Computer artwork requires more technical skill, and less inspiration.  The orignal design work is done by someone on paper in the traditional way and then finished by someone with keyboard and computer savvy skills; more a technical achievement than artistry.

Rick

--- On Mon, 15/6/09, Mario Butter <[hidden email]> wrote:

From: Mario Butter <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [SHADO] Re: Model Work and CGI
To: [hidden email]
Date: Monday, 15 June, 2009, 4:26 PM











   
           
           


     
Anyone can sit at a computer AND MAKE COMMENTS LIKE THIS.



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.



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.



On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 9:26 AM,

jbillmeyer@sbcgloba l.net<rhino36@hotmail. com> wrote:

> Anyone can sit at a computer A model builder is an artist



--

Mario



http://mario. silent-tower. org/


 

     

   
   
       
         
       
       








       


       
       


     

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

This is a major flaw in the way CGI is used; we too frequently have too many supposed camera calisthenics that take you out of the story because you know it had to be done in a computer, and could not have been done in reality.  Altering existing shots is the best way to use CGI.  The Millenium Godzilla films (1999-2004) used traditional suitmation techniques but were enhanced with CGI, and the sequences mosting look stunning, and believable.

Rick

--- On Mon, 15/6/09, john_nhojuk <[hidden email]> wrote:

From: john_nhojuk <[hidden email]>
Subject: [SHADO] Re: Model Work and CGI
To: [hidden email]
Date: Monday, 15 June, 2009, 7:44 PM











   
           
           


     
CGI is very good for compositing shots, enhancing shots, rescuing shots etc, when the basic elements have been captured in the real world, including miniatures. It is now rare to see very obvious technical faults in a film with a reasonable budget as CGI has made correcting faults affordable when once the only option might have been a reshoot.



CGI is far, far less successful when the starting point is a blank computerscreen. Sometimes this is because the difficulty of creating a particular realistic shot is insurmountable altogether, but also because the last 10% of work necessary for the best possible result can take far more time (and therefore cost) than the first 90%.



A further problem is that directors are able to achieve in CGI what the audience, on a gut level, knows would be impossible to shoot in the real world. This problem is likely to get worse as younger directors have more experience of playing video games than they do of shooting miniatures or stunts in the real world.



One of Derek Meddings principles was to avoid shooting miniatures from angles which would be unlikely to be used if such a real full-sized vehicle wasbeing filmed. Over time, fewer directors are going to even have the basic knowledge to make those decisions, let alone the inclination.



Regards

John




 

     

   
   
       
         
       
       








       


       
       


     

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

I remember watching a special about how ST-TNG was made, it was a combination of models and CGI.

Bruce
----- Original Message -----
From: Mario Butter
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: [SHADO] Re: Model Work and CGI





Anyone can sit at a computer AND MAKE COMMENTS LIKE THIS.

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.

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.

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 9:26 AM,
[hidden email]<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Anyone can sit at a computer A model builder is an artist

--
Mario

http://mario.silent-tower.org/





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

Then again, there are lots of artists that use graphic tablets to draw
their art which is then captured directly by the computer, pressure
sensitivity and all. I know plenty of "genuine artists" who work
directly with computers who would be deeply offended by your comment.

And much of their art is indistinguishable from that done on more
traditional materials.

The computer is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. Some work better
with that tool than with others, and other artists work better with
more traditional tools.

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 3:08 PM, richard
curzon<[hidden email]> wrote:
> I think it requires more genuine artistry to create miniatures, and matte
> paintings.  Computer artwork requires more technical skill, and less
> inspiration.  The orignal design work is done by someone on paper in the
> traditional way and then finished by someone with keyboard and computer
> savvy skills; more a technical achievement than artistry.

--
Mario

http://mario.silent-tower.org/