Signed Copy of Shane Rimmer Book

If interested in models, how they are made, filmed for TV and the movies. I
remember watching behind the scenes of the Star Trek movies and TV shows.
It was real interesting how many hours they spend on a model for a 5 second
film sequence.  They also show how the film it to circumvent the effects of
gravity on the exploding parts

There is also this story, when making Star Trek 3, search for spock, the
model makers hated the enterprise and were glad to blow it up.

Some years ago, I was walking through Rockefeller Center here in NYC, and
went to trekkie nirvana :)  They were selling off items from Star Trek that
the studio collected from the original series to the last movie made (sans
the last)  When I saw the model used for the blown up enterprise, just shook
my head.

Bruce

Isn't CGI an  inexpensive way to shoot a sene that is hard to shoot other wise. Like how many times can you blowup a building or a spaceship for the best effect or best angle.
I recall an episode of UFO where Skyone was about to shoot down a UFO and saw the wires on Skyone and the UFO for a few seconds.
I would rather not half to worry about that in post. And if you look at Star Wars on analog system you could see the computer effects of some of the ships (shadows).
David

(Sent from my iPod)
Pray, Live Long & Prosper

On Nov 19, 2010, at 12:58 PM, "John R. Ellis" <[hidden email]> wrote:

I don't think I would use CGI and inexpensive in the same sentence.  Perhaps CGI might be the only way to shoot a scene, but a movie using CGI is using a very expensive process.

Bruce
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: wonnut
  To: [hidden email]
  Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2010 7:51 AM
  Subject: Re: [SHADO] UFO 2012 !


   
  Isn't CGI an inexpensive way to shoot a sene that is hard to shoot other wise. Like how many times can you blowup a building or a spaceship for the best effect or best angle.
  I recall an episode of UFO where Skyone was about to shoot down a UFO and saw the wires on Skyone and the UFO for a few seconds.
  I would rather not half to worry about that in post. And if you look at Star Wars on analog system you could see the computer effects of some of the ships (shadows).
  David

  (Sent from my iPod)
  Pray, Live Long & Prosper

  On Nov 19, 2010, at 12:58 PM, "John R. Ellis" <[hidden email]> wrote:

  > Hey Rob,
  >
  > Note that Matt Gratzner has been a great miniature FX Supervisor
  > since the mid 90's...and has owned his own highly lauded miniature FX
  > shop. I admire this man and his work and that is the only reason I
  > hold out any hope for this movie to be something we'll enjoy. That
  > they are taking their time is also a good sign (not rushing to get it
  > in the theatres). I am quite sure Gratzner doesn't want another
  > Thunderbirds movie fiasco.
  >
  > The industry miniature FX skills are all still there...at this
  > juncture anyway. CGI is a great tool but overused by lazy Producers
  > and Directors. I know, I've done enough of it over the years and am
  > just about burned out. I've done a lot of miniatures over the years
  > too, but the last time was in about 2005 (which is a pity).
  >
  > The "fix-it-all-in-Post-Production-with-CGI" attitude is a sign of
  > lazy talentless hack filmmakers that should be selling tires at
  > Sears...IMHO ;-)
  >
  > Bestest,
  >
  > John Ellis
  >
  > http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0254918/
  >
  > http://homepage.mac.com/twonky/LSFX/John_Ellis_Bio.html
  >
  > On Nov 19, 2010, at 8:03 AM, Hemmings, Rob K. wrote:
  >
  >> Agreed.
  >>
  >> Ridley Scott didn't do bad with only 14/28 million for Blade
  >> Runner. :o)
  >> (well, as long as you view the seminal Directors Cut version, rather
  >> than the dumbbed-down original release.)
  >>
  >> Little models, painted scenery, but you can't tell that in the film -
  >> those Blade Runner scenes look more realistic than any made using CGI
  >> and costing megabucks, as in more recent films (which others have
  >> already mentioned.)
  >>
  >> One (rhet.) question though: Are there still the skills out there to
  >> do stuff like this based on models?..
  >>
  >> Best,
  >> --
  >> Rob
  >>
  >>
  >>> -----Original Message-----
  >>> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
  >> Behalf Of
  >>> Marc Martin
  >>> Sent: 18 November 2010 03:08
  >>> To: [hidden email]
  >>> Subject: Re: [SHADO] UFO 2012 !
  >>>
  >>>> Marc, and anyone else who might be interested I also had a look
  >> at the
  >>>> IMDB site for the up coming UFO film and beside the date change
  >> I also
  >>>> noticed the supposed budget for the film. Only 95 million dollars.
  >>>> That sort of on the low side in this day for a Sci-Fi film. The
  >> cast
  >>>> will take a good deal of that leaving very little for anything
  >> in the
  >>>> way of FX work or extras. Anybody think they can do a good film on
  >>>> this kind of money?
  >>>
  >>> I think earlier articles had the budget at $130 million. Who knows
  >>> what's correct, or even if this film will ever be made?
  >>>
  >>> Frankly, I see a limited budget as a potential good thing. The
  >> original
  >>> series did NOT have an infinite amount of money at their disposal,
  >> and
  >>> some of the episodes were pretty low budget.
  >>>
  >>> Marc
  >>>
  >>>
  >>> ------------------------------------
  >>>
  >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
  >>>
  >>>
  >>>
  >>
  >
  >
  >
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >
  >
  >
  > ------------------------------------
  >
  > Yahoo! Groups Links
  >
  >
  >


 

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

CGI (or just plain CG) is a tool for use in certain situations. If  
they had had it back in the day they would have used it to seamlessly  
remove the wires from the models in UFO and other Gerry Anderson  
productions. And any FX are expensive...especially since they want  
the work done faster and faster. CGI is just easier to figure the  
cost as it's people sitting in front of computers for x days instead  
of having all the people and materials and chaos needed to build  
things in the physical world.

In the best circumstances CGI is just another set of techniques that  
is available to help tell a story convincingly...alongside using  
miniatures, on-set tricks in the camera, green-screen photography and  
many many other options that are known to the seasoned Director and  
FX Director. I have planned the FX for a number of films. What  
happens in ALL films is the Visual FX Director goes through the  
shooting script and identifies which shots are actually needing  
effects. Then each shot is looked at conceptually as to HOW to best  
implement it to integrate flawlessly into the movie. Each and every  
shot is different, with different components and challenges in  
different combinations. For example, you might need to shoot part of  
a shot on location or on sets on a stage, with separate miniatures  
shot elsewhere then use CGI to knit the two together seamlessly and  
remove supports from the models and add atmospheric effects like dust  
or rain or fire or what have you.

CGI is just a tool...better for certain things than others. But it  
should never be used in place of other tools better suited to the  
particular task. Like using a hammer to try to install a screw...

Here's a brief clip of Iron Man director Jon Favreau explaining this  
a lot more eloquently than I have:

http://www.oscars.org./video/watch/ev_monsters_05_favreau.html

Bestest,

John Ellis

http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0254918/

http://homepage.mac.com/twonky/LSFX/John_Ellis_Bio.html


On Nov 20, 2010, at 7:38 AM, Bruce Sherman wrote:



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



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SHADO/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SHADO/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [hidden email]
    [hidden email]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [hidden email]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Models aren't cheap either. Some of the low-budget movies I've worked on had quite a bit of CG work because they had people willing to work for free so it was much cheaper than the alternatives... now that pretty much all low-budget movies shoot in some digital format so they don't need to pay for film scanning, if you don't mind waiting a few days for a shot to render on a home PC then it can save you a lot of money.

--- On Sat, 11/20/10, Bruce Sherman <[hidden email]> wrote:







 



 


   
     
     
      I don't think I would use CGI and inexpensive in the same sentence.  Perhaps CGI might be the only way to shoot a scene, but a movie using CGI is using a very expensive process.



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

Actually, wire removal is pretty much trivial these days. The last low-budget movie I edited there was a power cable running across the corner of one shot which no-one had noticed while shooting it, so I just loaded the shot into Fusion, clicked a few points for the wire removal tool and it was gone. For a model shot you'd probably just need to select the top and bottom of the wire and use trackers to follow them automatically.

--- On Sat, 11/20/10, wonnut <[hidden email]> wrote:

I recall an episode of UFO where Skyone was about to shoot down a UFO and saw the wires on Skyone and the UFO for a few seconds.

I would rather not half to worry about that in post.


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

It was only with the advent of high quality home video did people start
worrying about seeing the wires.  The best example I like to use was the
1950's version of War of the Worlds.  When I watched it on Laser disc, yes,
seeing the wires plain as day ruin the image of a floating alien intruder.

The same could be said when they released the puppet series, like
Thunderbirds, on DVD.

I am sure someone else could comment better then I can, but the breakthrough
movie of using CGI for stunt work, removing the wires was T2.  On the
extras, they showed the stunt double driving his motorcycle off the bridge
into the dry open sewer.  They showed the wire system to make it a safe
stunt, then the same scene with the wires removed.

Bruce
----- Original Message -----
From: "John R. Ellis" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2010 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: [SHADO] UFO 2012 !

T2, that was an actual stunt. I thought it was a CG stunt or blue screen stunt.  I find it hard to tell.  those would do well if UFO comes back.  when will we get to see it.
David









-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Sherman <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Sat, Nov 20, 2010 3:23 pm
Subject: Re: [SHADO] UFO 2012 !


 

It was only with the advent of high quality home video did people start
worrying about seeing the wires. The best example I like to use was the
1950's version of War of the Worlds. When I watched it on Laser disc, yes,
seeing the wires plain as day ruin the image of a floating alien intruder.

The same could be said when they released the puppet series, like
Thunderbirds, on DVD.

I am sure someone else could comment better then I can, but the breakthrough
movie of using CGI for stunt work, removing the wires was T2. On the
extras, they showed the stunt double driving his motorcycle off the bridge
into the dry open sewer. They showed the wire system to make it a safe
stunt, then the same scene with the wires removed.

Bruce
----- Original Message -----
From: "John R. Ellis" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2010 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: [SHADO] UFO 2012 !







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

Then shoot the scene with models & do some clean up (if neccessary) with graphics.

Matt

--- In [hidden email], wonnut <wonnut@...> wrote:
> I recall an episode of UFO where Skyone was about to shoot down a UFO and saw the wires on Skyone and the UFO for a few seconds.
> I would rather not half to worry about that in post. And if you look at Star Wars on analog system you could see the computer effects of some of the ships (shadows).
> David
>

The stunt I am talking about was filmed on site.  There were several guide wires and ropes, which were erased in post production.  When they released T2 in a special edition, there was more of how they created the movie, then the movie itself :)

All the buildings that were blew up or used, were not models.  The Cyberdyne building that blew up, was a real building that the owners wanted to knock down.  So the makers of the movie helped them take it down.

The ending part when they were in a foundry.  That also was a full size real site.  The owners of the foundry sold it to the Chinese and was going to be dismantled after the movie was made.

Bruce
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: [hidden email]
  To: [hidden email]
  Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2010 10:02 PM
  Subject: Re: [SHADO] UFO 2012 !


   

  T2, that was an actual stunt. I thought it was a CG stunt or blue screen stunt. I find it hard to tell. those would do well if UFO comes back. when will we get to see it.
  David

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Bruce Sherman <[hidden email]>
  To: [hidden email]
  Sent: Sat, Nov 20, 2010 3:23 pm
  Subject: Re: [SHADO] UFO 2012 !

  It was only with the advent of high quality home video did people start
  worrying about seeing the wires. The best example I like to use was the
  1950's version of War of the Worlds. When I watched it on Laser disc, yes,
  seeing the wires plain as day ruin the image of a floating alien intruder.

  The same could be said when they released the puppet series, like
  Thunderbirds, on DVD.

  I am sure someone else could comment better then I can, but the breakthrough
  movie of using CGI for stunt work, removing the wires was T2. On the
  extras, they showed the stunt double driving his motorcycle off the bridge
  into the dry open sewer. They showed the wire system to make it a safe
  stunt, then the same scene with the wires removed.

  Bruce
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "John R. Ellis" <[hidden email]>
  To: <[hidden email]>
  Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2010 1:17 PM
  Subject: Re: [SHADO] UFO 2012 !

  > CGI (or just plain CG) is a tool for use in certain situations. If
  > they had had it back in the day they would have used it to seamlessly
  > remove the wires from the models in UFO and other Gerry Anderson
  > productions. And any FX are expensive...especially since they want
  > the work done faster and faster. CGI is just easier to figure the
  > cost as it's people sitting in front of computers for x days instead
  > of having all the people and materials and chaos needed to build
  > things in the physical world.
  >
  > In the best circumstances CGI is just another set of techniques that
  > is available to help tell a story convincingly...alongside using
  > miniatures, on-set tricks in the camera, green-screen photography and
  > many many other options that are known to the seasoned Director and
  > FX Director. I have planned the FX for a number of films. What
  > happens in ALL films is the Visual FX Director goes through the
  > shooting script and identifies which shots are actually needing
  > effects. Then each shot is looked at conceptually as to HOW to best
  > implement it to integrate flawlessly into the movie. Each and every
  > shot is different, with different components and challenges in
  > different combinations. For example, you might need to shoot part of
  > a shot on location or on sets on a stage, with separate miniatures
  > shot elsewhere then use CGI to knit the two together seamlessly and
  > remove supports from the models and add atmospheric effects like dust
  > or rain or fire or what have you.
  >
  > CGI is just a tool...better for certain things than others. But it
  > should never be used in place of other tools better suited to the
  > particular task. Like using a hammer to try to install a screw...
  >
  > Here's a brief clip of Iron Man director Jon Favreau explaining this
  > a lot more eloquently than I have:
  >
  > http://www.oscars.org./video/watch/ev_monsters_05_favreau.html
  >
  > Bestest,
  >
  > John Ellis
  >
  > http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0254918/
  >
  > http://homepage.mac.com/twonky/LSFX/John_Ellis_Bio.html
  >
  >
  > On Nov 20, 2010, at 7:38 AM, Bruce Sherman wrote:
  >
  >> I don't think I would use CGI and inexpensive in the same sentence.
  >> Perhaps CGI might be the only way to shoot a scene, but a movie
  >> using CGI is using a very expensive process.
  >>
  >> Bruce
  >> ----- Original Message -----
  >> From: wonnut
  >> To: [hidden email]
  >> Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2010 7:51 AM
  >> Subject: Re: [SHADO] UFO 2012 !
  >>
  >> Isn't CGI an inexpensive way to shoot a sene that is hard to shoot
  >> other wise. Like how many times can you blowup a building or a
  >> spaceship for the best effect or best angle.
  >> I recall an episode of UFO where Skyone was about to shoot down a
  >> UFO and saw the wires on Skyone and the UFO for a few seconds.
  >> I would rather not half to worry about that in post. And if you
  >> look at Star Wars on analog system you could see the computer
  >> effects of some of the ships (shadows).
  >> David
  >>
  >> (Sent from my iPod)
  >> Pray, Live Long & Prosper
  >>
  >> On Nov 19, 2010, at 12:58 PM, "John R. Ellis"
  >> <[hidden email]> wrote:
  >>
  >> > Hey Rob,
  >> >
  >> > Note that Matt Gratzner has been a great miniature FX Supervisor
  >> > since the mid 90's...and has owned his own highly lauded
  >> miniature FX
  >> > shop. I admire this man and his work and that is the only reason I
  >> > hold out any hope for this movie to be something we'll enjoy. That
  >> > they are taking their time is also a good sign (not rushing to
  >> get it
  >> > in the theatres). I am quite sure Gratzner doesn't want another
  >> > Thunderbirds movie fiasco.
  >> >
  >> > The industry miniature FX skills are all still there...at this
  >> > juncture anyway. CGI is a great tool but overused by lazy Producers
  >> > and Directors. I know, I've done enough of it over the years and am
  >> > just about burned out. I've done a lot of miniatures over the years
  >> > too, but the last time was in about 2005 (which is a pity).
  >> >
  >> > The "fix-it-all-in-Post-Production-with-CGI" attitude is a sign of
  >> > lazy talentless hack filmmakers that should be selling tires at
  >> > Sears...IMHO ;-)
  >> >
  >> > Bestest,
  >> >
  >> > John Ellis
  >> >
  >> > http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0254918/
  >> >
  >> > http://homepage.mac.com/twonky/LSFX/John_Ellis_Bio.html
  >> >
  >> > On Nov 19, 2010, at 8:03 AM, Hemmings, Rob K. wrote:
  >> >
  >> >> Agreed.
  >> >>
  >> >> Ridley Scott didn't do bad with only 14/28 million for Blade
  >> >> Runner. :o)
  >> >> (well, as long as you view the seminal Directors Cut version,
  >> rather
  >> >> than the dumbbed-down original release.)
  >> >>
  >> >> Little models, painted scenery, but you can't tell that in the
  >> film -
  >> >> those Blade Runner scenes look more realistic than any made
  >> using CGI
  >> >> and costing megabucks, as in more recent films (which others have
  >> >> already mentioned.)
  >> >>
  >> >> One (rhet.) question though: Are there still the skills out
  >> there to
  >> >> do stuff like this based on models?..
  >> >>
  >> >> Best,
  >> >> --
  >> >> Rob
  >> >>
  >> >>
  >> >>> -----Original Message-----
  >> >>> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
  >> >> Behalf Of
  >> >>> Marc Martin
  >> >>> Sent: 18 November 2010 03:08
  >> >>> To: [hidden email]
  >> >>> Subject: Re: [SHADO] UFO 2012 !
  >> >>>
  >> >>>> Marc, and anyone else who might be interested I also had a look
  >> >> at the
  >> >>>> IMDB site for the up coming UFO film and beside the date change
  >> >> I also
  >> >>>> noticed the supposed budget for the film. Only 95 million
  >> dollars.
  >> >>>> That sort of on the low side in this day for a Sci-Fi film. The
  >> >> cast
  >> >>>> will take a good deal of that leaving very little for anything
  >> >> in the
  >> >>>> way of FX work or extras. Anybody think they can do a good
  >> film on
  >> >>>> this kind of money?
  >> >>>
  >> >>> I think earlier articles had the budget at $130 million. Who knows
  >> >>> what's correct, or even if this film will ever be made?
  >> >>>
  >> >>> Frankly, I see a limited budget as a potential good thing. The
  >> >> original
  >> >>> series did NOT have an infinite amount of money at their disposal,
  >> >> and
  >> >>> some of the episodes were pretty low budget.
  >> >>>
  >> >>> Marc
  >> >>>
  >> >>>
  >> >>> ------------------------------------
  >> >>>
  >> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
  >> >>>
  >> >>>
  >> >>>
  >> >>
  >> >
  >> >
  >> >
  >> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >> >
  >> >
  >> >
  >> > ------------------------------------
  >> >
  >> > Yahoo! Groups Links
  >> >
  >> >
  >> >
  >>
  >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >>
  >>
  >
  >
  >
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >
  >
  >
  > ------------------------------------
  >
  > Yahoo! Groups Links
  >
  >
  >
  >

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



 

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

I remember all that from the sepcial features.  The cast really got a kick out of watching the building go down.  It was way cool!
Yours,
Denise
--- In [hidden email], "Bruce Sherman" <brucesherman@...> wrote:
>
> The stunt I am talking about was filmed on site.  There were several guide wires and ropes, which were erased in post production.  When they released T2 in a special edition, there was more of how they created the movie, then the movie itself :)
>
> All the buildings that were blew up or used, were not models.  The Cyberdyne building that blew up, was a real building that the owners wanted to knock down.  So the makers of the movie helped them take it down.
>
> The ending part when they were in a foundry.  That also was a full size real site.  The owners of the foundry sold it to the Chinese and was going to be dismantled after the movie was made.
>
> Bruce

--- In [hidden email], wonnut <wonnut@...> wrote:
And if you look at Star Wars on analog system you could see the computer effects of some of the ships (shadows).
> David

They were not computer effects, the only computers used were very crude ones to handle the motion control rig for the cameras. The lines you see round some ships are called "garbage mattes" and were where various elements were composited together in a photographic process using a cumbersome device called an optical printer.

Miniatures are still used extensively today, and much effects work that is assumed to be CGI is not. Basically fire and water are still very problematic, so if you see any floods or explosions, chances are it's for real.

Rob