elemental_fantasy posted:

---

"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?

---

PadawanNick posted:

---

One of my friends is a supervisor over at New Deal Studios.
Visit their website and browse through their behind the scenes segments to see just how much goes into their work.

Have fun.

---

PadawanNick posted:

---

The thing is that most of the "that was obviously CG" moments you see are crashed through production on very limited budgets and time lines.

---

NZPoe posted:

---

PadawanNick posted:

---

The thing is that most of the "that was obviously CG" moments you see are crashed through production on very limited budgets and time lines.

---

A SOLUTION might have been a smarter approach to the effect, combining good shoot, good planning, good balance of CG and practical/in front of camera elements plus research plus a bit of creative ingenuity.

THAT could be a solution to "that was obviously CG".

---

PadawanNick posted:

---

Yes ... well .... these things are all generally the exact opposite of limited budget and/or limited timeline.
Have fun.

---

elemental_fantasy posted:

---

Boter posted:

---

elemental_fantasy posted:

---

At top class, a cgi starship beats any practical starship.

---

Wrong. There's something about the Return of the Jedi space battle that is utterly astounding, because they used actual live models. The battle at the beginning of Revenge of the Sith, by counterpoint, does nothing for me.

---

Jedi's space battle was cool, but it really wasn't that great Boter. Not even close to astounding!

---