Register | Login | Search | Help | New Boards | Harassment Policy | Rules of the JC | TOS | Markup Codes
Post Reply | Active Topic Notification | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 - Previous | Next | Reload
Author Topic: Practical vs Digital...
elemental_fantasy  1204 posts
Registered: Mar '06
48502_Qui-Gon Jinn (524091)
Date Posted: 5/8 2:05pm Subject: Practical vs Digital...
"You know, I think someday your gonna probably be able to do everything you can do with models, your gonna be able to do in a computer, but were not there yet."

-Dennis Muren

That was back in 2002.
Are we there yet? It seems that CG models in films these days are often easier and actually less time consuming then practical models, with a much more broad range of control, especially with matching the plat elements. So why still build practical models for films? Miniatures is dying, but is it dead?

 
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
TrowaGP02a  2463 posts
Registered: Dec '04
7874_Gabe
Date Posted: 5/8 4:41pm Subject: Practical vs Digital...
Personal preference.

 

-----signature-----
blarg
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
DorkmanScott  13900 posts
Title: Manager Emeritus
 Registered: Mar '01
44356_Fan Films - Ryan vs Dorkman
Date Posted: 5/8 4:51pm Subject: Practical vs Digital...
Can =/= should.

 

-----signature-----
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
NateCaauwe  2304 posts
Registered: May '05
45236_5-25-77
Date Posted: 5/8 4:55pm Subject: Practical vs Digital...
DorkmanScott posted:
Can =/= should.

QFT.

 

-----signature-----
http://NateCow.com
http://twitter.com/NateCow
"Never ask a man what kind of computer he uses.
If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him?" -Tom Clancy
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Ryan_W  3447 posts
Title: Fan Films: Emmy-Winning Lightsaber Geek
 Registered: Aug '01
44357_Fan Films - Ryan vs Dorkman
Date Posted: 5/8 4:58pm Subject: Practical vs Digital...
NateCaauwe posted:
DorkmanScott posted:
Can =/= should.

QFT.

QFT.

 

-----signature-----
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
DorkmanScott  13900 posts
Title: Manager Emeritus
 Registered: Mar '01
44356_Fan Films - Ryan vs Dorkman
Date Posted: 5/8 5:05pm Subject: Practical vs Digital... - Date Edited: 5/8 5:07pm (1 edits total) Edited By: DorkmanScott
To clarify which direction I'm coming at that from, I think practical models will always have their place. Sure, you can develop shaders and digital models and tweak the lighting and make sure it self-occludes and doesn't self-intersect and yadda yadda...or you could build it. And shoot it. And get all of that for "free."

It's definitely approaching the point where you could probably do either one successfully, but in my opinion if it's feasible to do it by shooting something "real," that's almost always preferable to doing it digitally. If for no other reason than expediency -- you shoot it, it looks real because it is, and you can move on.

 

-----signature-----
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
TheMcguffin  316 posts
Registered: Sep '04
42256_C-3PO
Date Posted: 5/8 5:10pm Subject: Practical vs Digital...
Ryan_W posted:
NateCaauwe posted:
DorkmanScott posted:
Can =/= should.

QFT.

QFT.


QFT.

 
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
NateCaauwe  2304 posts
Registered: May '05
45236_5-25-77
Date Posted: 5/8 5:14pm Subject: Practical vs Digital...
DorkmanScott posted:
To clarify which direction I'm coming at that from, I think practical models will always have their place. Sure, you can develop shaders and digital models and tweak the lighting and make sure it self-occludes and doesn't self-intersect and yadda yadda...or you could build it. And shoot it. And get all of that for "free."

It's definitely approaching the point where you could probably do either one successfully, but in my opinion if it's feasible to do it by shooting something "real," that's almost always preferable to doing it digitally. If for no other reason than expediency -- you shoot it, it looks real because it is, and you can move on.


QF—well I was going to expound upon my original post and say just that, but then I remembered I have a butt-load of roto to do. Why I'm still on the forum, I do not know tongue

 

-----signature-----
http://NateCow.com
http://twitter.com/NateCow
"Never ask a man what kind of computer he uses.
If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him?" -Tom Clancy
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
tumblemoster  2405 posts
Registered: Dec '00
Date Posted: 5/8 5:14pm Subject: Practical vs Digital...
In my industry, Spiderman ushered in the "digital stunt man" and the fear that CG was going to replace stunt performers because it was safer and "cheaper". For a while there was a huge digital double rush, the results available in any mid 2000 action superhero film, beginning most visibly with Spiderman, but continuing to build insanity until the Matrix:Reloaded took it way to far with nearly half of the largest fight scene done entirely with digital doubles, including the main character! Hollywood has settled down now. As with all new technology there is always a push to use use use, and later the realization that just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD. In the case of stunt work, digital doubles finally landed squarely in the "use as last resort" pile because they often cost a lot more and never have the energy and visceral connection with the audience that real stunts have. As with any tool available, try to think like a penny pinching producer. Go with the cheapest and most effective method to get your shot.

 

-----signature-----
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Ryan_W  3447 posts
Title: Fan Films: Emmy-Winning Lightsaber Geek
 Registered: Aug '01
44357_Fan Films - Ryan vs Dorkman
Date Posted: 5/8 5:18pm Subject: Practical vs Digital...
tumblemoster posted:
In the case of stunt work, digital doubles finally landed squarely in the "use as last resort" pile because they often cost a lot more and never have the energy and visceral connection with the audience that real stunts have.

Tell that to G.I. Joe.

 

-----signature-----
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Robi-Wan  1428 posts
Registered: Oct '06
40330_Obi-Wan Kenobi
Date Posted: 5/8 5:19pm Subject: Practical vs Digital...
TheMcguffin posted:
Ryan_W posted:
NateCaauwe posted:
[quote=DorkmanScott]Can =/= should.

QFT.

QFT.


QFT.[/quote]

WTF.



Anyway, practical as far as you can possibly go with the time and budget you have. Films these days have too much unnecessary digital/CGI stuff in them.

 

-----signature-----
Registered May '06.
http://youtube.com/RobinHeiberg
http://soundclick.com/RobinHeiberg
http://facebook.com/Robin.Heiberg
Music doesn't need to be complex or complicated, as long as it sounds good.
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
BenMcEwan  740 posts
Registered: Jul '08
40312_Gumbaeki
Date Posted: 5/8 5:34pm Subject: Practical vs Digital...
To be honest, if you shoot something digital that could've been done for real, you're an idiot. Pretty much just throwing money and realism out the window..

 

-----signature-----
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
tumblemoster  2405 posts
Registered: Dec '00
Date Posted: 5/8 5:36pm Subject: Practical vs Digital... - Date Edited: 5/8 6:56pm (1 edits total) Edited By: tumblemoster
Ryan_W posted:
tumblemoster posted:
In the case of stunt work, digital doubles finally landed squarely in the "use as last resort" pile because they often cost a lot more and never have the energy and visceral connection with the audience that real stunts have.

Tell that to G.I. Joe.


There is also the practicality aspect to consider. It's probably cheaper to do the CG iron man suits diving down the street and through bus windows than doing it practically. I'd love to be the coordinator hired to do that shot for real though! Would be SO much fun to build.

EDIT: To expand on that statement, live practical action always looks better than a CG double. How many people can't tell that the sequence from the GI JOE trailer is CG? Hardly anyone, and knowing it's fake detracts from it's power and make suspension of disbelief harder. So sometimes you use a digital double because it IS more cost effective, but not as often as you'd think. Sometimes they're used just to use.

 

-----signature-----
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
elemental_fantasy  1204 posts
Registered: Mar '06
48502_Qui-Gon Jinn (524091)
Date Posted: 5/8 6:25pm Subject: Practical vs Digital...
thinking

 
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
TrowaGP02a  2463 posts
Registered: Dec '04
7874_Gabe
Date Posted: 5/8 7:11pm Subject: Practical vs Digital... - Date Edited: 5/8 7:17pm (3 edits total) Edited By: TrowaGP02a
Just showed the G.I. Joe trailer to my friends who are here. None of them are in the film industry what so ever.

When asked, "did you notice the CG guys?":

(these are the answers after they all stated the shot of the train was CG because of the "impossibility")
Two chicks said, "what other CG guys?"
One guy said, "wait...which part?"
The last girl just shook her head no.

The rest they assumed were done with wires and other trickery.

I would say that if it is cost effective in this day and age it should be done, if your goal is to make money. I would also say 95% of all filmmakers goals are to make money. The ratio of trained eyes to un-trained eyes in the theaters is huge and your average person is going to be "wow-ed" by the stuff.


EDIT:

hahaha, in defense of posting this one of my friends just said, "I knew the Eiffel tower was CG!"

EDIT2:

In the INT. shot of the train there's a guy in the back left that has no reaction to a guy shattering through it at all.

 

-----signature-----
blarg
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
VaporTrail  9950 posts
Registered: May '02
14913_Obi-Wan
Date Posted: 5/8 7:12pm Subject: Practical vs Digital...
Whereas my girlfriend still thinks the sand in A New Hope is digital.

 

-----signature-----
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 - Previous | Next | Reload
© 2009 IGN Entertainment, Inc (9.02.17.2300, IGNPRDAPPW64213) 0.140