CGI and studio scale
- Thread starter ShowCraft
- Start date
RKW
Sr Member
A model produced by an effects company be it physical or virtual are both scratch built to resemble a design. A model replica produced using either the original kit components or by using the original digital files in the case of a virtual model can BOTH be refered to as studio reproductions and are both as accurate. Scale becomes irrelevant and the accuracy of the source material is the only important factor.
If you build a physical model to resemble a virtual reality ship using just reference pictures then it falls under scratch built or general modeling which is the same as if you replicated a physical model without using the correct components.
If you build a physical model to resemble a virtual reality ship using just reference pictures then it falls under scratch built or general modeling which is the same as if you replicated a physical model without using the correct components.
Bradleyfett
Sr Member
<div class='quotetop'>(Treadwell @ Oct 27 2006, 07:04 PM) [snapback]1346087[/snapback]</div>
Treadwell, I knew you'd step in with a common sense answer.
I don't know why people find this so hard to grasp; He's right- a STUDIO SCALE model is a reproduction of a previously existing studio miniature used in filming. Period.
I think the term itself is creating a mis-understanding:
'Studio Scale' refers not so much to a 'scale', as to a 'size'. Perhaps the term should actually be 'Studio Size'. Studio 'scale' isn't 1/24th, even though a lot of studio miniatures have been in that scale (X-wing, TIE, Viper, Ranger 3, Y-wing, etc.). Studio 'scale' isn't any other 'scale' either- it is what the size of the original miniature was. In fact, many studio miniatures didn't have a discernable scale at all- something else that some people just can't deal with. Examples of such have been the TOS Galactica Basestar, Rebel Blockade runner, Star Destroyer, etc.
If somebody wants to re-create the tiny falcon used in ESB on the back of the 6' Star Destroyer, that technically would be a studio scale model. On the other hand, if somebody wanted to build a 1/24th scale TIE bomber, it would not be a studio scale model, since the original miniature was much smaller.
Some gray areas have been created, mainly in the Battlestar Galactica genre: There are so-called 'studio scale' TNS Viper and Raptor models out there that are in 'scale' with the original studio models of the TOS Viper. However, these really aren't 'studio scale', since no PM/studio miniatures ever existed- they are just 1/24 models of the TNS Viper and Raptor. SS has come to mean simply 'bigger than a kit usually is', but that is not the original definition. It has also been used more as a marketing tool for things like the Raptor kits- a buyer sees 'studio scale' and instanty knows that it's a BIG model and in scale with previous BSG offerings that ARE studio scale (Like the TOS Viper). Jesse: I wonder how many people have asked you 'Is your kit cast from the original studio model?' I just saw somewhere on the web that a guy created a really nice TOS Viper over 2 feet long- its BIG, and its DETAILED, but it is NOT studio scale.
I get what Mark is trying to say- there is another gray area created when CG kit parts are used to used to build a ship in the computer. One could theoretically build a PM using those comparable pieces and maybe call it 'studio scale'. Still, that is a compromise of the definition of the term. For the purposes of forum discussions, I can see these kind of things being of interest to folks in the SS areas. Nobody should be kicked out of a particular forum for posting something like this that may be 'slightly OT', but one should understand the difference.
The only gray area I see that would still fit the original SS definition are maquettes- physical models that were created and then 'scanned' for CG. Perhaps they didn't appear on film, but they are just one-half degree removed. For the purposes of our hobby, I see those fitting in just fine.
It really shouldn't matter- nobody should feel slighted if the really nice model you create doesn't fit under the SS heading. That's just the way it is- either your model is studio scale (studio-SIZE) or it isn't- that's no reflection on the quality, size, or anything else. As far as the RPF goes, so what if you have to post your work in 'General Modeling'? I think some sub-categories might be a good idea.
I am considering building a 1/24th scale Landram to go with my SS Viper, but it will not be a Studio Scale model. I have already created a smaller-scale landram to display with my SS BSG Shuttle, but it is not Studio Scale. In fact, no model of the Landram would ever be studio scale- only a full-sized prop was used for the show. That's just how it is. For some reason, this doesn't bother me.
'Studio Scale' has a definition- stop trying to change the definition so as to include something that doesn't fit the definition. A Dolphin is not a fish, no matter how much it 'seems' like it should be. Create new categories, sub-categories, etc. if you must, but don't cloud the language.
Mark
Treadwell, I knew you'd step in with a common sense answer.
I don't know why people find this so hard to grasp; He's right- a STUDIO SCALE model is a reproduction of a previously existing studio miniature used in filming. Period.
I think the term itself is creating a mis-understanding:
'Studio Scale' refers not so much to a 'scale', as to a 'size'. Perhaps the term should actually be 'Studio Size'. Studio 'scale' isn't 1/24th, even though a lot of studio miniatures have been in that scale (X-wing, TIE, Viper, Ranger 3, Y-wing, etc.). Studio 'scale' isn't any other 'scale' either- it is what the size of the original miniature was. In fact, many studio miniatures didn't have a discernable scale at all- something else that some people just can't deal with. Examples of such have been the TOS Galactica Basestar, Rebel Blockade runner, Star Destroyer, etc.
If somebody wants to re-create the tiny falcon used in ESB on the back of the 6' Star Destroyer, that technically would be a studio scale model. On the other hand, if somebody wanted to build a 1/24th scale TIE bomber, it would not be a studio scale model, since the original miniature was much smaller.
Some gray areas have been created, mainly in the Battlestar Galactica genre: There are so-called 'studio scale' TNS Viper and Raptor models out there that are in 'scale' with the original studio models of the TOS Viper. However, these really aren't 'studio scale', since no PM/studio miniatures ever existed- they are just 1/24 models of the TNS Viper and Raptor. SS has come to mean simply 'bigger than a kit usually is', but that is not the original definition. It has also been used more as a marketing tool for things like the Raptor kits- a buyer sees 'studio scale' and instanty knows that it's a BIG model and in scale with previous BSG offerings that ARE studio scale (Like the TOS Viper). Jesse: I wonder how many people have asked you 'Is your kit cast from the original studio model?' I just saw somewhere on the web that a guy created a really nice TOS Viper over 2 feet long- its BIG, and its DETAILED, but it is NOT studio scale.
I get what Mark is trying to say- there is another gray area created when CG kit parts are used to used to build a ship in the computer. One could theoretically build a PM using those comparable pieces and maybe call it 'studio scale'. Still, that is a compromise of the definition of the term. For the purposes of forum discussions, I can see these kind of things being of interest to folks in the SS areas. Nobody should be kicked out of a particular forum for posting something like this that may be 'slightly OT', but one should understand the difference.
The only gray area I see that would still fit the original SS definition are maquettes- physical models that were created and then 'scanned' for CG. Perhaps they didn't appear on film, but they are just one-half degree removed. For the purposes of our hobby, I see those fitting in just fine.
It really shouldn't matter- nobody should feel slighted if the really nice model you create doesn't fit under the SS heading. That's just the way it is- either your model is studio scale (studio-SIZE) or it isn't- that's no reflection on the quality, size, or anything else. As far as the RPF goes, so what if you have to post your work in 'General Modeling'? I think some sub-categories might be a good idea.
I am considering building a 1/24th scale Landram to go with my SS Viper, but it will not be a Studio Scale model. I have already created a smaller-scale landram to display with my SS BSG Shuttle, but it is not Studio Scale. In fact, no model of the Landram would ever be studio scale- only a full-sized prop was used for the show. That's just how it is. For some reason, this doesn't bother me.
'Studio Scale' has a definition- stop trying to change the definition so as to include something that doesn't fit the definition. A Dolphin is not a fish, no matter how much it 'seems' like it should be. Create new categories, sub-categories, etc. if you must, but don't cloud the language.
Mark
star-art
Sr Member
Looks like this is a discussion who's time has come. I know I'm opposed to "redefining" anything (and not just in this context). That sort of trend has become really popular these days and the ramifications get pretty sticky. The term is the term and it means what it means -- it is what it is and it ain't nothin' else. 
RKW brings up a really good point that I had not considered. If someone gets hold of the digital files for a "virtual" studio miniature and builds a physical replica to those specs, that effort is far more accurate than someone building a model from scratch to "resemble" the studio CG model from available reference. That sort of effort seems to be much closer to a physical studio-scale replica than anything else.
Still, everything we build is a replica. And since 90%+ of models (as opposed to most props) are built to some sort of scale, the term "scale" still has relevance in the term "studio-scale."
I do like the term "studio-accurate" very much. Perhaps a physical model based on the digital files from a CG studio model can be termed a "studio-accurate" recreation. That would apply to REL's current project. If he were approximating, maybe that would put it in the General Modeling Forum. Since it is indeed "studio-accurate" maybe it really does belong in here, with the caveat that it not be labeled "studio-scale."
So, perhaps this forum remains "studio-scale" but special "studio-accurate" projects are also allowed?
RKW brings up a really good point that I had not considered. If someone gets hold of the digital files for a "virtual" studio miniature and builds a physical replica to those specs, that effort is far more accurate than someone building a model from scratch to "resemble" the studio CG model from available reference. That sort of effort seems to be much closer to a physical studio-scale replica than anything else.
Still, everything we build is a replica. And since 90%+ of models (as opposed to most props) are built to some sort of scale, the term "scale" still has relevance in the term "studio-scale."
I do like the term "studio-accurate" very much. Perhaps a physical model based on the digital files from a CG studio model can be termed a "studio-accurate" recreation. That would apply to REL's current project. If he were approximating, maybe that would put it in the General Modeling Forum. Since it is indeed "studio-accurate" maybe it really does belong in here, with the caveat that it not be labeled "studio-scale."
So, perhaps this forum remains "studio-scale" but special "studio-accurate" projects are also allowed?
ShowCraft
Sr Member
Hi Mark B, its been a while. Sorry I cant be with you guys this weekend. I miss the gang.
No one is trying to change the defination of studio scale. You know me well enough to believe that I'm just as fanatical about accuracy as the rest of us SS modelers. It was Ketzers complaint about REL's Enterprise not belonging in the studio scale forum that prompted me to ask the question "can a real model derived from CG be somehow eligible to be posted in the studio scale forum?" I think there should be exceptions, and appearently there are. The new Vipers got in because in a way they are kin to the OS models. REL's Ent.E was let (with a wink) through the velvet ropes into the sacred SS forum because it was constructed in the flavor of actual SS models. I also believe it was let in because the SS forum was becoming stale and needed a serious content boost.
Anyhoo... maybe the question should never been asked in the first place. I think I just wanted to start trouble
No one is trying to change the defination of studio scale. You know me well enough to believe that I'm just as fanatical about accuracy as the rest of us SS modelers. It was Ketzers complaint about REL's Enterprise not belonging in the studio scale forum that prompted me to ask the question "can a real model derived from CG be somehow eligible to be posted in the studio scale forum?" I think there should be exceptions, and appearently there are. The new Vipers got in because in a way they are kin to the OS models. REL's Ent.E was let (with a wink) through the velvet ropes into the sacred SS forum because it was constructed in the flavor of actual SS models. I also believe it was let in because the SS forum was becoming stale and needed a serious content boost.
Anyhoo... maybe the question should never been asked in the first place. I think I just wanted to start trouble
OK there are two debates going on here at the same time and perhaps we should concentrate only on one at a time for the same of reaching any concencous.
The first is - can a CGI model ever be considered a "studio scale model"?
The second is should there be a sub category of CGI models made into physical models on these forums?
My answer is No, and No.
A CGI is by definition not physical and therefore has no "real world" dimnensions as I think it was Tim (amongst others) who pointed out. Its reference measurements inside of the computer are irrelevent to the real world in as much as there was no real/physical model built from it. So physical models made from a CGI model are technically not studio scale models.
Should the physical models derived from CGI models get their own subcategory... I do not think so. I say this because I know that I have never confused a physical model of a CGI subject in a common "studio scale" with the replicas created as a "real" studio scale creation. I think its fairly clear to anyone who frequents these boards and is more then the casual browser fo these forums that the difference in these projects is pretty clear and pronounced. No offence to the CGI/physical producers out there but spending a couple of years pouring through the parts trees of every tank and battleship model ever produced adds a serious degree of difficulty to the task... back to the topic the LACK of confusion over the difference between SS replicas and CGI replicas tells me that separate categories are not needed. Indeed many of the same modelers dabble in both areas and have produced fantastic models that certainly make me ooow and Ahhh, and wish I had 1/2 of the talent needed for creating these literal "works of art". I think that there is enough common overlap of INTEREST in the various subject to NOT separate them, and enough general understanding of the hobby to know the differnece between the two types of modeling invovled.
OK putting the soapbox away
Jedi Dade
The first is - can a CGI model ever be considered a "studio scale model"?
The second is should there be a sub category of CGI models made into physical models on these forums?
My answer is No, and No.
A CGI is by definition not physical and therefore has no "real world" dimnensions as I think it was Tim (amongst others) who pointed out. Its reference measurements inside of the computer are irrelevent to the real world in as much as there was no real/physical model built from it. So physical models made from a CGI model are technically not studio scale models.
Should the physical models derived from CGI models get their own subcategory... I do not think so. I say this because I know that I have never confused a physical model of a CGI subject in a common "studio scale" with the replicas created as a "real" studio scale creation. I think its fairly clear to anyone who frequents these boards and is more then the casual browser fo these forums that the difference in these projects is pretty clear and pronounced. No offence to the CGI/physical producers out there but spending a couple of years pouring through the parts trees of every tank and battleship model ever produced adds a serious degree of difficulty to the task... back to the topic the LACK of confusion over the difference between SS replicas and CGI replicas tells me that separate categories are not needed. Indeed many of the same modelers dabble in both areas and have produced fantastic models that certainly make me ooow and Ahhh, and wish I had 1/2 of the talent needed for creating these literal "works of art". I think that there is enough common overlap of INTEREST in the various subject to NOT separate them, and enough general understanding of the hobby to know the differnece between the two types of modeling invovled.
OK putting the soapbox away
Jedi Dade
RKW
Sr Member
I would say that the term "Studio Scale" is being misused and was a badly thought up description in the first place. When people ask if it's studio scale what they're actually asking is if it's accurate to the studio miniature. The nature of being accurate means it's in scale to the studio model but it doesn't differentiate those models built using the original components or created from original molds. You can't keep clinging to the term "studio scale" when all future models will be CG making the scale aspect irrelevant.
<div class='quotetop'>(RKW @ Oct 27 2006, 04:04 PM) [snapback]1346170[/snapback]</div>
Exactly. If studio scale means the actual size of the studio model, then the only thing that'll be in this section will be fighters, as most people won't make models over 10 feet long. My EE was made exactly like the studio model, the same materials and techniques and then cast in the same materials as a finished studio model. The D I'm going to make for Kurt will be 1/650 scale, it won't be as large as the 6' filming miniature, but they also made a 2' and 4' for the series, it'll be larger than the 2' one but still not the exact same size as any of the other 3 studio models.
But once again it'll be made exactly the way they were using the same techniques and materials, which in my mind makes it more of a studio model than based on it being the exact same size as one of the filming miniatures and made out of balsa wood.
Exactly. If studio scale means the actual size of the studio model, then the only thing that'll be in this section will be fighters, as most people won't make models over 10 feet long. My EE was made exactly like the studio model, the same materials and techniques and then cast in the same materials as a finished studio model. The D I'm going to make for Kurt will be 1/650 scale, it won't be as large as the 6' filming miniature, but they also made a 2' and 4' for the series, it'll be larger than the 2' one but still not the exact same size as any of the other 3 studio models.
But once again it'll be made exactly the way they were using the same techniques and materials, which in my mind makes it more of a studio model than based on it being the exact same size as one of the filming miniatures and made out of balsa wood.
DARKSIDE72
Sr Member
If it isn't a physical model built by a shop/studio then there is no way a CGI model can be a studio scale model. CGI isn't a physical model, just pixels on a wire frame in a PC program. That doesn't constitute as a real model IMO.
Any model built to replicate a CGI model should be classified in the "general modeling" forum,as it has no business in the SS forum.
Any model built to replicate a CGI model should be classified in the "general modeling" forum,as it has no business in the SS forum.
DARKSIDE72
Sr Member
That's a fact... :unsure
CG model building requires no less skill than physical model building. The creative and practical challenges are equally daunting; only the toolset is different.
While Studio Scale (I like Studio Size, too) has an association with an absolute, real-world measurement, it's true that measurements in CG are truly virtual, bordering on arbitrary... at least, they were....
The most recent developments in CG rendering technology are actually making real-world measurements precisely meaningful again. In fact, the future of CG model creation lies not in making 1/24th scale models or similar, but actually 1:1 scale - what the object would "actually" be if it were real. The latest virtual lights, cameras, etc., are beginning to replicate their real world counterparts so closely that a CG model only 1/24th in "virtual" size, will actually behave like an actual 1/24 real-world model - with all the same scale challenges facing practical models - when lit and photographed with equally physically accurate, virtual cameras. So instead, we're beginning to build models at "real world" 1:1 scale, and letting the light propogate in a physically-accurate way.
I'm on the development team for software which works in precisely this manner, and it is interesting to see the workflow adapting. I have a couple of CG versions of actual models, and under this new technology, if they're scaled larger or smaller than the source model, they "photograph" (render) differently. Just like the real models would.
_Mike
While Studio Scale (I like Studio Size, too) has an association with an absolute, real-world measurement, it's true that measurements in CG are truly virtual, bordering on arbitrary... at least, they were....
The most recent developments in CG rendering technology are actually making real-world measurements precisely meaningful again. In fact, the future of CG model creation lies not in making 1/24th scale models or similar, but actually 1:1 scale - what the object would "actually" be if it were real. The latest virtual lights, cameras, etc., are beginning to replicate their real world counterparts so closely that a CG model only 1/24th in "virtual" size, will actually behave like an actual 1/24 real-world model - with all the same scale challenges facing practical models - when lit and photographed with equally physically accurate, virtual cameras. So instead, we're beginning to build models at "real world" 1:1 scale, and letting the light propogate in a physically-accurate way.
I'm on the development team for software which works in precisely this manner, and it is interesting to see the workflow adapting. I have a couple of CG versions of actual models, and under this new technology, if they're scaled larger or smaller than the source model, they "photograph" (render) differently. Just like the real models would.
_Mike
DARKSIDE72
Sr Member
They still arent a real model... not even close.
I'm not sure which point you're making... the obvious one that something in the computer is different than something in your living room, or are you somehow suggesting that a modelmaker is only "legitmate" if he crafts it with his hands and an exacto knife instead of his hands and a mouse?
_Mike
<div class='quotetop'>(DARKSIDE72 @ Oct 27 2006, 08:38 PM) [snapback]1346325[/snapback]</div>
_Mike
<div class='quotetop'>(DARKSIDE72 @ Oct 27 2006, 08:38 PM) [snapback]1346325[/snapback]</div>
CaptCBoard
Well-Known Member
I don't know why some of you don't get this.
A CGI model has no physical reality-- period. There is simply nothing to replicate. Yes, you can make a model from a CG file, but it is then a physical representation-- not a replication --of what was made for the film. No matter what kind of argument is made, there are no behind-the-scenes photos of people building the original that can be used later as reference material. You can't go to an exhibit where the original model is in a completely different environment-- like a museum --and take your own photos. You can't sell the original in an auction for hundreds of thousands of dollars-- who is going to pay that much for a DISC?
Studio Scale is the correct name for any model built to the same scale as a filmed model. So what if its a tad confusing. Scale is the determining factor, not size. You can't figure out how big the 'real' thing would be by knowing the model was 11 feet long-- without knowing what the scale of the model is.
Models of objects modeled in CGI could be included in this forum if the name was simply changed to something like "Studio Scale and Studio Subject models". I prefer this forum to remain solely for Studio Scale myself, so give the rest, Studio Subject Models, its own forum. This can cover models built from CGI subjects and scratch-built and kit-built models, all non-SS.
The General Modeling forum is now a mix of non-SS models and discussion of techniques, questions on materials, etc. That forum could simply be for discussion of modeling in general and the new forum, "Scratch and Kit Movie Models" would cover everything outside the realm of Studio Scale.
I would also like to point out that the Studio Scale forum here is a spin-off of the props forum, since the original purpose of this site was Replica Props. I wasn't around when this forum was created, but I'm sure there was discussion about "why are we discussing models in a prop forum?" In the end, it really isn't important that models representing CGI subjects have their own home. Rename this forum to include them, but there is no reason to change the definition of Studio Scale. Studio Scale models are just models, like all the others, they just need more research to build accurately.
Scott
A CGI model has no physical reality-- period. There is simply nothing to replicate. Yes, you can make a model from a CG file, but it is then a physical representation-- not a replication --of what was made for the film. No matter what kind of argument is made, there are no behind-the-scenes photos of people building the original that can be used later as reference material. You can't go to an exhibit where the original model is in a completely different environment-- like a museum --and take your own photos. You can't sell the original in an auction for hundreds of thousands of dollars-- who is going to pay that much for a DISC?
Studio Scale is the correct name for any model built to the same scale as a filmed model. So what if its a tad confusing. Scale is the determining factor, not size. You can't figure out how big the 'real' thing would be by knowing the model was 11 feet long-- without knowing what the scale of the model is.
Models of objects modeled in CGI could be included in this forum if the name was simply changed to something like "Studio Scale and Studio Subject models". I prefer this forum to remain solely for Studio Scale myself, so give the rest, Studio Subject Models, its own forum. This can cover models built from CGI subjects and scratch-built and kit-built models, all non-SS.
The General Modeling forum is now a mix of non-SS models and discussion of techniques, questions on materials, etc. That forum could simply be for discussion of modeling in general and the new forum, "Scratch and Kit Movie Models" would cover everything outside the realm of Studio Scale.
I would also like to point out that the Studio Scale forum here is a spin-off of the props forum, since the original purpose of this site was Replica Props. I wasn't around when this forum was created, but I'm sure there was discussion about "why are we discussing models in a prop forum?" In the end, it really isn't important that models representing CGI subjects have their own home. Rename this forum to include them, but there is no reason to change the definition of Studio Scale. Studio Scale models are just models, like all the others, they just need more research to build accurately.
Scott
Things are getting so slow that we need to invent new things to fight about.
Mverta, your work on that X-wing last year was phenominal. And it's really great to hear you're involved with Maxwell. Anyone with even the slightest interest in CG Imaging should check out the gallery at this site;
http://www.maxwellrender.com/
As an architectural model maker this program makes my livelyhood look dismal. (Except for the fact people prefer to look as little condos before they pay for the big ones.)
I think we are in danger of overcatagorizing the hobby out of existance. There are already big groups of sci-fi modelers that don't interact because they stay in one forum or another. There are guys as Starship Modeler, Hobbytalk and CultTVman that don't even know about the RPF. There's just too much specialization and fragmentation as it is.
There is no need for a new section. And there is nothing wrong with showcasing your work in General Modeling. As of yet THE best work I have ever seen is still in the armor modeling hobby. (I've seen some 1/144th scale tank work that will blow your mind.)
Mverta, your work on that X-wing last year was phenominal. And it's really great to hear you're involved with Maxwell. Anyone with even the slightest interest in CG Imaging should check out the gallery at this site;
http://www.maxwellrender.com/
As an architectural model maker this program makes my livelyhood look dismal. (Except for the fact people prefer to look as little condos before they pay for the big ones.)
I think we are in danger of overcatagorizing the hobby out of existance. There are already big groups of sci-fi modelers that don't interact because they stay in one forum or another. There are guys as Starship Modeler, Hobbytalk and CultTVman that don't even know about the RPF. There's just too much specialization and fragmentation as it is.
There is no need for a new section. And there is nothing wrong with showcasing your work in General Modeling. As of yet THE best work I have ever seen is still in the armor modeling hobby. (I've seen some 1/144th scale tank work that will blow your mind.)
Even as a Visual Effects Supervisor/Director working primarily in CG, my first rule of production is still: Go to CG last. I will always try to solve my visual effects needs in-camera, with practical models and sets, before going to CG. In CG, we still spend a ridiculous amount of time trying to recreate things we get for free when we put something in front of a real camera and shoot it.
CG is just another tool, and people who are afraid of it eliminating the need for practical models altogether are being unnecessarily paranoid. It's the same argument I saw with sampled orchestras all over again: today, the sampled orchestras sound damn close to their real-world counterparts, yet virtually every major film still uses real musicians. No matter how close the synths sound, they don't feel the same. But there was a long time there of nearly hysterical hand-wringing about how musicians were going to become obsolete. It absolutely didn't happen. The art evolved. The smartest artists are the ones who know how to use their technology's strengths synergistically, instead of feeling they have to follow one school of thought over the other, in a dogmatically narrow-minded fashion.
As Phil Tippet says, "Horses for courses..." there's a time and place for each approach. Events like the closing of ILM's model shop certainly don't help the issue any, but then again, Lucas and Co. seem obsessed with issuing in a New World Order of plasticine, uninspiring visuals. Fortunately, there are still a majority of filmmakers who know the benefits of practical photography, and the benefits of CG imagery, without having a bias towards or against either.
We're somewhat far afield of the topic at this point, but there's an undercurrent running which betrays some deep level bias or resentment between "camps". All of it is unnecessary, and in any case, form follows function: A cooperative relationship between practical modelmaking and CG modelmaking must exist, because both techniques are necessary to achieve dramatically convincing visuals for the modern audience.
_Mike
CG is just another tool, and people who are afraid of it eliminating the need for practical models altogether are being unnecessarily paranoid. It's the same argument I saw with sampled orchestras all over again: today, the sampled orchestras sound damn close to their real-world counterparts, yet virtually every major film still uses real musicians. No matter how close the synths sound, they don't feel the same. But there was a long time there of nearly hysterical hand-wringing about how musicians were going to become obsolete. It absolutely didn't happen. The art evolved. The smartest artists are the ones who know how to use their technology's strengths synergistically, instead of feeling they have to follow one school of thought over the other, in a dogmatically narrow-minded fashion.
As Phil Tippet says, "Horses for courses..." there's a time and place for each approach. Events like the closing of ILM's model shop certainly don't help the issue any, but then again, Lucas and Co. seem obsessed with issuing in a New World Order of plasticine, uninspiring visuals. Fortunately, there are still a majority of filmmakers who know the benefits of practical photography, and the benefits of CG imagery, without having a bias towards or against either.
We're somewhat far afield of the topic at this point, but there's an undercurrent running which betrays some deep level bias or resentment between "camps". All of it is unnecessary, and in any case, form follows function: A cooperative relationship between practical modelmaking and CG modelmaking must exist, because both techniques are necessary to achieve dramatically convincing visuals for the modern audience.
_Mike
RKW
Sr Member
The studio model maker isn't interested if his model is 1:24 or 1:48. They build the model in a size suitable for the filming requirements.
It's interesting though that if a model maker hand builds a model from scratch using a design stored on the computer it can be classed as studio scale. Yet if that same computer design was set to be such a size and output directly to a CNC milling machine it's no longer classed as a studio scale model.
I guess the forum should be renamed to Old Skool
It's interesting though that if a model maker hand builds a model from scratch using a design stored on the computer it can be classed as studio scale. Yet if that same computer design was set to be such a size and output directly to a CNC milling machine it's no longer classed as a studio scale model.
I guess the forum should be renamed to Old Skool
Bradleyfett
Sr Member
<div class='quotetop'>(RKW @ Oct 28 2006, 08:52 AM) [snapback]1346406[/snapback]</div>
I don't understand your point?
If a physical studio model didn't exist in the first place (regardless of how the studio built it), then you can't build a 'studio scale replica'. If a physical studio model existed, then somebody scanned the whole thing, and produced a copy with a CNC setup, then it would still be a 'studio scale replica'.
It seems like you are trying to put words in our mouths by characterizing our arguements to mean 'a replica of any studio model that used cg or computer design is disqualified from being studio scale'. Nobody is saying that. It doesn't matter how is was build originally, if it existed in the real world and can be replicated as a physical object, then it's a studio scale replica.
There is one simple criteria for a model being a 'studio scale replica': did a physical studio model originally exist.
Yes, it is 'old school'. Yes, there will probably be a diminishing cache of subjects to replicate in the future because of all-CGI FX. So what? (People are still trying to replicate models used in movies from the 50s now some 60 years later, so I wouldn't worry about the number of subjects drying up soon.) I still don't understand how you can use these points to argue for the expansion of the definition of 'studio scale'. Anything else IS 'general modeling'- that's not a put down, just a fact. This isn't snobbery, non-inclusiveness, or descrimination- its just the way it is.
This is the same mentality that causes people to sue the Boy Scouts because they won't admit girls: Just because a group has become popular doesn't mean you have the right to be included if you don't fit the criteria.
Mark
I don't understand your point?
If a physical studio model didn't exist in the first place (regardless of how the studio built it), then you can't build a 'studio scale replica'. If a physical studio model existed, then somebody scanned the whole thing, and produced a copy with a CNC setup, then it would still be a 'studio scale replica'.
It seems like you are trying to put words in our mouths by characterizing our arguements to mean 'a replica of any studio model that used cg or computer design is disqualified from being studio scale'. Nobody is saying that. It doesn't matter how is was build originally, if it existed in the real world and can be replicated as a physical object, then it's a studio scale replica.
There is one simple criteria for a model being a 'studio scale replica': did a physical studio model originally exist.
Yes, it is 'old school'. Yes, there will probably be a diminishing cache of subjects to replicate in the future because of all-CGI FX. So what? (People are still trying to replicate models used in movies from the 50s now some 60 years later, so I wouldn't worry about the number of subjects drying up soon.) I still don't understand how you can use these points to argue for the expansion of the definition of 'studio scale'. Anything else IS 'general modeling'- that's not a put down, just a fact. This isn't snobbery, non-inclusiveness, or descrimination- its just the way it is.
This is the same mentality that causes people to sue the Boy Scouts because they won't admit girls: Just because a group has become popular doesn't mean you have the right to be included if you don't fit the criteria.
Mark
RKW
Sr Member
I got the impression that people were saying CG models were invalid even though the studio could output a physical model from it. We are in agreement if you accept that should someone else aquire the digital files and also output a physical model for themselves then it's still a studio scale model.
Similar threads
