Mycroft Holmes
Well-Known Member
You mean box scale is Studio Scale too? YEAH.
CGI and studio scale
- Thread starter ShowCraft
- Start date
EchoLeader
Sr Member
So if I stay on this thing and make a physical model of it, would it be Studio Scale? If not, let me know when I can get off.
Proposed Model
Proposed Model
We are getting closer and I think thats good you make a distinction that I make slightly differently so the statement of "No matter how I look at it" comes into play and I think it does matter how I look at it 
Here goes... The creation of an EXACT physical representation of a model that previously only existed as a CGI pixel set that was rendered on film, requires a strikingly similar skill set to the creation of an EXACT recreation of a physical studio model that was put on film. I think that the difference in saying that CGI has no real scale (which I agree with BTW) is not important enough to warrant seperating the two similar BUT different types of modeling into seperate categories. I'm not trying to convince you that CGI IS studio scale as much as that the difference between them is not a large enough difference (in my opinion) to warrant a separate category. In fact the mixing of the two is synergistic in that it seems people that scratchbuild tend to be interested in BOTH types of modeling. This being a very Niche hobby to begin with, the synergy created by grouping the talent inspires us and makes the community stronger. It's tempting to make a similar argument for the "general modeling forum" but I do agree that building a kit, even with heavy modifications, and this kind of wholesale scratchbuilding and kitbashing are too different types of modeling.
In hitting these forums from way back I have never once been confused about the difference between a physical creation of a CGI model and the totally separate task of creating a part for part recreation of a studio miniature... Believe me I have a TON of respect for the people that can do that. I've tried and do not have the patience and time to do it, but have "dabbled" in it enough to know I am not suited for that hard core parts hunting - even though I'm sure the reward of finding the perfect match must be extremely rewarding. I do however enjoy participating where I can in looking through the kits I have, and enjoy vicariously when others actually make a discovery. I also enjoy the ingenious sluething and reverse engineering that goes on in creating these masterpeices. I agree that a part for part recreation is different and significantly harder and time consuming, but other then the grand hunt for parts the actual kitbashing and scratching invovled to build the resulting model share skills with those that are attempting to build an exact real world replica of a CGI subject.
Yes its a subtle difference, and one that many may not think is valid, but hey - its an opinion, and one that I think I have given fairly solid reasoning for - but feel free to diagree
Again I want to impress that I VERY MUCH respect and value opinions and perhaps even more importantly the contributions of the amny members of these forums, and my statements are NOT intended to be disrespectful to anyone, just trying to explain why I have the POV I do...
Jedi Dade
Here goes... The creation of an EXACT physical representation of a model that previously only existed as a CGI pixel set that was rendered on film, requires a strikingly similar skill set to the creation of an EXACT recreation of a physical studio model that was put on film. I think that the difference in saying that CGI has no real scale (which I agree with BTW) is not important enough to warrant seperating the two similar BUT different types of modeling into seperate categories. I'm not trying to convince you that CGI IS studio scale as much as that the difference between them is not a large enough difference (in my opinion) to warrant a separate category. In fact the mixing of the two is synergistic in that it seems people that scratchbuild tend to be interested in BOTH types of modeling. This being a very Niche hobby to begin with, the synergy created by grouping the talent inspires us and makes the community stronger. It's tempting to make a similar argument for the "general modeling forum" but I do agree that building a kit, even with heavy modifications, and this kind of wholesale scratchbuilding and kitbashing are too different types of modeling.
In hitting these forums from way back I have never once been confused about the difference between a physical creation of a CGI model and the totally separate task of creating a part for part recreation of a studio miniature... Believe me I have a TON of respect for the people that can do that. I've tried and do not have the patience and time to do it, but have "dabbled" in it enough to know I am not suited for that hard core parts hunting - even though I'm sure the reward of finding the perfect match must be extremely rewarding. I do however enjoy participating where I can in looking through the kits I have, and enjoy vicariously when others actually make a discovery. I also enjoy the ingenious sluething and reverse engineering that goes on in creating these masterpeices. I agree that a part for part recreation is different and significantly harder and time consuming, but other then the grand hunt for parts the actual kitbashing and scratching invovled to build the resulting model share skills with those that are attempting to build an exact real world replica of a CGI subject.
Yes its a subtle difference, and one that many may not think is valid, but hey - its an opinion, and one that I think I have given fairly solid reasoning for - but feel free to diagree
Again I want to impress that I VERY MUCH respect and value opinions and perhaps even more importantly the contributions of the amny members of these forums, and my statements are NOT intended to be disrespectful to anyone, just trying to explain why I have the POV I do...
Jedi Dade
CaptCBoard
Well-Known Member
Here it is in a nutshell:
Take the word SCALE out of the discussion and you have the following designations--
Replica of physical studio model.
Replica of CGI studio model.
Now you have two categories that are almost completely the same, with only their origin as the difference. In the construction of either of these there is no difference between a model built to represent what was built physically or what was seen only as a CGI image. Both are scratchbuilt/kitbashed replicas of studio subjects and the scale of the replica is of no importance.
And that is where this discussion must come to the conclusion that if it is important to specify that the scale of the model must be the same as what was built for a film, then no model that does not match this criteria can qualify as Studio Scale. You are claiming the scale is not important. If it was not important, then the forum would be called something else, like Studio FX Modeling. But it is not called something else. It is called what it is called for a very good reason. You don't like the reason, which is your choice. I have nothing against CGI based models, except to say they don't belong in the Studio Scale forum.
What you want to do is akin to including the care and feeding of Poodles in a forum devoted to the care and feeding of Golden Retrievers just because it takes similar efforts to raise them. Yes, they are both dogs, their owners love them and they are great companions. They are similar in most respects, but where they are different is why they have separate forums.
And to completely hit the nail on the head, lets take a look at a situation that could exist should CGI based models be included...
Lets say someone builds a duplicate of the Borg cube from ST:TNG. It was a physical model built for the show and it was filmed and appeared onscreen. The duplicate is almost impossible to detail correctly as the thing was covered with entire sprues of model parts, layers and layers of them, but it was a specific size, which this duplicate matches. The finished model looks almost identical to the one built for the series-- it is a rich confusion of layered sprues and shapes that so fools the eye it would be hard to tell the difference.
At the same time, someone else builds a model of the Borg cube that appeared in ST:Voyager. This was a CGI model toward the end of production. The builder chooses to build the model at a size that winds up being about 1/3 the size of the one built for ST:TNG. By your definition, both are Studio Scale models. By your definition, a model 1/6 the size would be Studio Scale. By your definition, a model two times larger than what was built for the show, would be Studio Scale simply because its origin was CGI.
If we were to accept this, then the following would have to be true: A replica of a physical studio model built to any scale would also have to be included as Studio Scale, since 'scale' is not important. In this case, we have a forum called Studio Scale Modeling, but there really would be no reason to separate those models from the ones in General Modeling since scale is no longer the primary factor. Even studio-subject kits would qualify.
Perhaps the real problem here is the way the term 'Studio Scale Modeling' is perceived. It really should be 'Studio-Scale Modeling'. Being a hyphenate would more directly imply the models are supposed to be the same size as the originals. It could be misinterpreted as 'Studio Scale Modeling', where the interpretation leans more toward "Scale Modeling", meaning models of studio subjects built to a high degree of accuracy and requiring skills and techniques far beyond those of mortal men-- scratchbuilding attempted by only the most stout of heart. Yes, it could mean that.
But it doesn't.
Scott (Sorry for the big nutshell...)
CaptCBoard@AOL.com
Take the word SCALE out of the discussion and you have the following designations--
Replica of physical studio model.
Replica of CGI studio model.
Now you have two categories that are almost completely the same, with only their origin as the difference. In the construction of either of these there is no difference between a model built to represent what was built physically or what was seen only as a CGI image. Both are scratchbuilt/kitbashed replicas of studio subjects and the scale of the replica is of no importance.
And that is where this discussion must come to the conclusion that if it is important to specify that the scale of the model must be the same as what was built for a film, then no model that does not match this criteria can qualify as Studio Scale. You are claiming the scale is not important. If it was not important, then the forum would be called something else, like Studio FX Modeling. But it is not called something else. It is called what it is called for a very good reason. You don't like the reason, which is your choice. I have nothing against CGI based models, except to say they don't belong in the Studio Scale forum.
What you want to do is akin to including the care and feeding of Poodles in a forum devoted to the care and feeding of Golden Retrievers just because it takes similar efforts to raise them. Yes, they are both dogs, their owners love them and they are great companions. They are similar in most respects, but where they are different is why they have separate forums.
And to completely hit the nail on the head, lets take a look at a situation that could exist should CGI based models be included...
Lets say someone builds a duplicate of the Borg cube from ST:TNG. It was a physical model built for the show and it was filmed and appeared onscreen. The duplicate is almost impossible to detail correctly as the thing was covered with entire sprues of model parts, layers and layers of them, but it was a specific size, which this duplicate matches. The finished model looks almost identical to the one built for the series-- it is a rich confusion of layered sprues and shapes that so fools the eye it would be hard to tell the difference.
At the same time, someone else builds a model of the Borg cube that appeared in ST:Voyager. This was a CGI model toward the end of production. The builder chooses to build the model at a size that winds up being about 1/3 the size of the one built for ST:TNG. By your definition, both are Studio Scale models. By your definition, a model 1/6 the size would be Studio Scale. By your definition, a model two times larger than what was built for the show, would be Studio Scale simply because its origin was CGI.
If we were to accept this, then the following would have to be true: A replica of a physical studio model built to any scale would also have to be included as Studio Scale, since 'scale' is not important. In this case, we have a forum called Studio Scale Modeling, but there really would be no reason to separate those models from the ones in General Modeling since scale is no longer the primary factor. Even studio-subject kits would qualify.
Perhaps the real problem here is the way the term 'Studio Scale Modeling' is perceived. It really should be 'Studio-Scale Modeling'. Being a hyphenate would more directly imply the models are supposed to be the same size as the originals. It could be misinterpreted as 'Studio Scale Modeling', where the interpretation leans more toward "Scale Modeling", meaning models of studio subjects built to a high degree of accuracy and requiring skills and techniques far beyond those of mortal men-- scratchbuilding attempted by only the most stout of heart. Yes, it could mean that.
But it doesn't.
Scott (Sorry for the big nutshell...)
CaptCBoard@AOL.com
RKW
Sr Member
<div class='quotetop'>(CaptCBoard @ Nov 8 2006, 03:21 AM) [snapback]1353109[/snapback]</div>
Well this is interesting because by the definition of 'Studio Scale' modelling from many here the first example shouldn't be eligible for entry because it is only an approximation of a physical modelling using none of the correct parts. So 'SCALE' is not the determining factor for entry as has been mentioned before you could make the thing out of butter and still be to 'SCALE'. By producing a model using original components or using a casting off an original then the model is by nature to 'SCALE'. The irony is that in your second example the model produced from a CGI file and say output to the same 'SCALE' as say the TNG miniature will actually be 100% accurate compared to the first exampe but still not eligible for 'Studio Scale' modelling.
Fascinating discussion.
Well this is interesting because by the definition of 'Studio Scale' modelling from many here the first example shouldn't be eligible for entry because it is only an approximation of a physical modelling using none of the correct parts. So 'SCALE' is not the determining factor for entry as has been mentioned before you could make the thing out of butter and still be to 'SCALE'. By producing a model using original components or using a casting off an original then the model is by nature to 'SCALE'. The irony is that in your second example the model produced from a CGI file and say output to the same 'SCALE' as say the TNG miniature will actually be 100% accurate compared to the first exampe but still not eligible for 'Studio Scale' modelling.
Fascinating discussion.
star-art
Sr Member
We're still discussing this????????
Scott is absolutely right. SCALE is *everything* in Studio-Scale. That's what this "niche" of the hobby is all about. Take that out and you have no niche. Anything else is scratchbuilding. If that's the case, then anything goes.
This horse is dead. Everyone please put away your clubs. . .
Scott is absolutely right. SCALE is *everything* in Studio-Scale. That's what this "niche" of the hobby is all about. Take that out and you have no niche. Anything else is scratchbuilding. If that's the case, then anything goes.
This horse is dead. Everyone please put away your clubs. . .
Alrighty then, studio scale means a reproduction the same size of the studio model, even if it's made from butter, if you take the name of this forum literally.
So as a result, I request my threads be moved to General modeling until I can make the studio scale Ent D from toothpicks.
So as a result, I request my threads be moved to General modeling until I can make the studio scale Ent D from toothpicks.
Bradleyfett
Sr Member
If you won't let me play in your clubhouse then I'm going to take my toysl and go home.
M
M
Scott,
OK I see that we understand each other at least. and in one of my previous posts I did say that the forum could have been more appropriately named - using the perspective that "I" tend to use. And Yes your poodle analogy is correct I do think that the place to take care of them both is a Kennel with the same logic that Poodle care places and Golden retriever care palces are not very prevalent but I can open my phone book and find 10 kennels locally I would say that the two topics belong together for the same reasons - they both discuss almost the entirely same types of topics.
I do think that you took the analogy a little too far though when you say that the studio replica of a subject that had a "real" model should have scale removed. My argument for the lack of scale was to ignore it from the perspective of CGI models only since they have no "real" scale the replica of the studio miniature definitely has scale.
Your example of the Borg cube is interesting though. If indeed two replicas were created, one being a part for part matchup of the original TNG cube (god help the builder), and the other a replica of the CGI cube I'd expect them to be in seperate threads and I don't think I would be confused by which was which... but the construction techniques used to create the cube would most likely be strikingly similar, and thus topical to each other and anyone interested in building either type.
Either way I'm still coming to these boards and will be reading in all of the modeling forums - I just hope that they are not divided up needlessly.
... Yes Coby the horse was still twitching a bit...
Jedi Dade
OK I see that we understand each other at least. and in one of my previous posts I did say that the forum could have been more appropriately named - using the perspective that "I" tend to use. And Yes your poodle analogy is correct I do think that the place to take care of them both is a Kennel
with the same logic that Poodle care places and Golden retriever care palces are not very prevalent but I can open my phone book and find 10 kennels locally I would say that the two topics belong together for the same reasons - they both discuss almost the entirely same types of topics.I do think that you took the analogy a little too far though when you say that the studio replica of a subject that had a "real" model should have scale removed. My argument for the lack of scale was to ignore it from the perspective of CGI models only since they have no "real" scale the replica of the studio miniature definitely has scale.
Your example of the Borg cube is interesting though. If indeed two replicas were created, one being a part for part matchup of the original TNG cube (god help the builder), and the other a replica of the CGI cube I'd expect them to be in seperate threads and I don't think I would be confused by which was which... but the construction techniques used to create the cube would most likely be strikingly similar, and thus topical to each other and anyone interested in building either type.
Either way I'm still coming to these boards and will be reading in all of the modeling forums - I just hope that they are not divided up needlessly.
... Yes Coby the horse was still twitching a bit...
Jedi Dade
<div class='quotetop'>(Bradleyfett @ Nov 8 2006, 12:10 PM) [snapback]1353406[/snapback]</div>
That's how you might see it. But I concede if it's not actually studio scale then it doesn't belong here, not a big deal really. I originally put my project here because it was made and manufactured exactly like a studio model, my mistake.
I'm amazed this thread went to 6 pages over something so trivial and how anal some people can be.
That's how you might see it. But I concede if it's not actually studio scale then it doesn't belong here, not a big deal really. I originally put my project here because it was made and manufactured exactly like a studio model, my mistake.
I'm amazed this thread went to 6 pages over something so trivial and how anal some people can be.
Bradleyfett
Sr Member
Seems to me the solution is to break up the 'General Modeling' forum into 'Scratch and Kit-bashed Models', and 'Kit Modeling', rather than sub-divide the SS forum into categories that don't actually fall under the definition of SS.
But in the interest of just keeping the categories as they are now:
I think the real genesis for these gray areas to be accepted into the SS forum is the desire of some who do more involved projects to not be lumped into the general modeling population. For the modeler tackling a large model, or one from scratch (or both), he sees himself having more to talk about with those who are doing SS models. Nothing wrong with that; it still does not nessessarily make his model studio scale, but I don't see what the problem is with him 'playing' in the SS forum. A common sense approach would be to just label his thread with a 'slightly off-topic', or similar phrase. No harm, no foul, and that way everyone understands the difference between a studio scale project and one that is not, but is 'related' reading.
However, the poster should understand that a moderator could at any time deem the thread to be more appropriate in 'General Modeling' at any time, especially if the thread begins to stray from the subject matter that initally connected it with the SS genre.
There will always be cross-overs from one category to the other, and I think that isn't a big deal if something 'slips by' the strict definitions of SS, Scratch, etc. A perfect example is the TNS SS Viper- it certainly is 'kin' to the TOS SS Viper for several reasons, even if it is not 'technically' a SS subject. Then there is the 'SS' Raptor- now you are getting a little bit more removed from the spirit of the SS definition, but it could still stay here by virtue of its (1/24th scale)connection to the aforementioned Vipers . I still don't think they should be called 'studio scale', but for the purposes of the dicussion board, I don't see why it can't stay. But one more degree removed, say a 1/24th scale Landram, and that really does belong in General Modeling.
Lets just use some common sense.
Mark
But in the interest of just keeping the categories as they are now:
I think the real genesis for these gray areas to be accepted into the SS forum is the desire of some who do more involved projects to not be lumped into the general modeling population. For the modeler tackling a large model, or one from scratch (or both), he sees himself having more to talk about with those who are doing SS models. Nothing wrong with that; it still does not nessessarily make his model studio scale, but I don't see what the problem is with him 'playing' in the SS forum. A common sense approach would be to just label his thread with a 'slightly off-topic', or similar phrase. No harm, no foul, and that way everyone understands the difference between a studio scale project and one that is not, but is 'related' reading.
However, the poster should understand that a moderator could at any time deem the thread to be more appropriate in 'General Modeling' at any time, especially if the thread begins to stray from the subject matter that initally connected it with the SS genre.
There will always be cross-overs from one category to the other, and I think that isn't a big deal if something 'slips by' the strict definitions of SS, Scratch, etc. A perfect example is the TNS SS Viper- it certainly is 'kin' to the TOS SS Viper for several reasons, even if it is not 'technically' a SS subject. Then there is the 'SS' Raptor- now you are getting a little bit more removed from the spirit of the SS definition, but it could still stay here by virtue of its (1/24th scale)connection to the aforementioned Vipers . I still don't think they should be called 'studio scale', but for the purposes of the dicussion board, I don't see why it can't stay. But one more degree removed, say a 1/24th scale Landram, and that really does belong in General Modeling.
Lets just use some common sense.
Mark
Pretty much I agree with everything you said. The viper MKII and the raptor are technically NOT studio scale models under a strict definition, but I see no harm in leaving them in te SS forum due to the intent to build a replica accurate to the studio CGI model and the fact that the skill required to create them are comparable to those used to make true SS replicas. I was never confused as to the genesis of either of those models, and never confused them as a part for part replica, but very much enjoyed reading about them, and seeing the build-ups.
Jedi Dade
Jedi Dade
drusselmeyer
Master Member
The solution is very simple:
"Studio Scale Modeling" and there is "Virtual Modeling"
A real model remains a real model over time while virtual model loses its value as a model over time.
Phoenican, Egyptian, and Roman models thousands of years old still hold their value. They stand alone. Virtual models require a patron technology to justify their existence.
Can anyone name a virtual model that does not have to be remade for a sequel just because of changing technology?
A real studio scale may need to be repaired or rebuilt, but it generally survives.
Those studio scale models that survive can be used until they fall apart. Virtual models cannot.
They ARE different. BTW all virtual models are 1/1 scale.
Does this mean they are not any good? No. A virtual model can used immediately upon completion without camera, studio, or crew.
They can can be converted directly into physical models with the right software, but they are not themselves physical models.
There is one other important point about scale. Virtual models may be created in a scale -but always life size, and they are randomly adapted to fit within any specific image. In the cases, where they are made into physical models, they become "non scale" models. This is not really applicable in a Studio Scale forum is it?
Personally, as a hobby I prefer a model rather than a shiny disc to display.
The basic difference between a Scale modeler and a Virtual modeler is that the Scale modeler throws away the graphics and keeps the plastic model and the Virtual modeler throws away the plastic and keeps the graphic model.
"Grandpa, did you make models when you were a kid?" "Sure did, but we didn't have it as easy as you kids do now. We had to made our own primitives from sourcecode!"
:lol
"Studio Scale Modeling" and there is "Virtual Modeling"
A real model remains a real model over time while virtual model loses its value as a model over time.
Phoenican, Egyptian, and Roman models thousands of years old still hold their value. They stand alone. Virtual models require a patron technology to justify their existence.
Can anyone name a virtual model that does not have to be remade for a sequel just because of changing technology?
A real studio scale may need to be repaired or rebuilt, but it generally survives.
Those studio scale models that survive can be used until they fall apart. Virtual models cannot.
They ARE different. BTW all virtual models are 1/1 scale.
Does this mean they are not any good? No. A virtual model can used immediately upon completion without camera, studio, or crew.
They can can be converted directly into physical models with the right software, but they are not themselves physical models.
There is one other important point about scale. Virtual models may be created in a scale -but always life size, and they are randomly adapted to fit within any specific image. In the cases, where they are made into physical models, they become "non scale" models. This is not really applicable in a Studio Scale forum is it?
Personally, as a hobby I prefer a model rather than a shiny disc to display.
The basic difference between a Scale modeler and a Virtual modeler is that the Scale modeler throws away the graphics and keeps the plastic model and the Virtual modeler throws away the plastic and keeps the graphic model.
"Grandpa, did you make models when you were a kid?" "Sure did, but we didn't have it as easy as you kids do now. We had to made our own primitives from sourcecode!"
:lol
Last edited:
Similar threads
