CGI and studio scale

[ShowCraft]

I'm curious to know if there has been a final determination by the board mods and members as to weather a physical model derived from what previously only existed as CG renderings can be considered studio scale.

Are there any rules or standards such as size or type of construction?
Does the first builder of a particular subject automaticaly determin that the size of his finished model is now the official studio scale size of that subject?

Example - What if I'm the first to turn out what I consider to be a studio scale Battlestar Pegasus and its oh say... a hefty 6 feet long and its constructed just like previous filming miniatures with an armature and electronics and a really tediously molded fiberglass body. That sure sounds like a studio scale model to me. But on the other hand, what if I make the model somewhat smaller and make it out of something simple like foam or wood. On the outside it looks fine, but it doesnÂ’t have the fancy innards. Would the latter be considered a studio scale model and postable in the studio scale section of this site or better off in the general modeling forum?

With most sci-fi space ships from now on existing only in cyberspace, how can I/we determin what will be considered studio scale?

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

Great Question Jim. BTW, I owe you a call and long catch up conversation

My take on this, and being a CG and physical model maker , I feel the norms are already established. Most Fighters we have seen in Star Wars, Galactica, etc. are all 1/24 or close enough to it. So the easy way to set up a norm would be to make a physical model from a CG model conform to established norms. So a studio scale SAAB Hammer Head would be 1/24 scale to be in this forum. The TOS Galactica was 76" long and I think that made it 1/350 scale? So the new CG Galactica ships could be made to that as a corresponding scale.

I know we were trying to keep them ( CG Galactica ships ) to a scale when doing the mini series. I don't remember what the final out come was but the CG TOS shuttle and Gemini freighter Don and I did were done 1:1 with the original minis. The kit parts used to detail the CG Galactica were taken from examples seen on the TOS Galactica and made to any size to fit areas for detailing. This makes a problem in using the kits that made the beautiful Minis of TOS Galactica to detail a physical interpretation of the CG Galactica.

My feeling, make it BIG and it's studio scale Does anyone remember how big the Roger Young was? And who can for get the Valley Forge from Silent Running at 18' long was it? :eek


Jim, drop me an e-mail with your contact numbers please The cancer treatments are almost done and I'm feeling a little more human now so we can talk a bit :love



Mark

 

[cobywan]

I think the CG stuff should be booted. The essential aspect of SS modeling is tracking down the same materials and parts that the original studio miniatures were made of.

Anything else is scratch building.

That's just sticking to a strict definition and not a slant against CG reference building. (Anyone who is following my current project will understand why.)

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

That brings a good point up. We used real kit parts to model the details for the CG Galactica. That would make it a very grey area since we used real kit parts, digitally recreated them, and detailed the CG models with them.

Second point, these new ships are hitting a note with people. They like them. There needs to be a place for them now that this is the norm. Take a look at all the scratch built Star Wars models from Eps 1-3.
If we jettison them as you have suggested, then where do we go when people are done replicating the real stuff. This is the new age of SS modeling. I think we need to standardize it and embrace it.

Mark

 

[Hand Solo]

I think the problem would be best solved by having a " CG Modeling Forum " specifically for this issue.

Probably as a child forum under general modelling....

 

[star-art]

Put simply, there is no "studio-scale" for anything built solely in CG. Anyone who attempts to set a "standard" for what "studio-scale" means for a CG model is going to end up in a debate with everyone else. Everyone is pretty much going to have their own idea about what is appropriate.

Take REL's magnificent E-E project. It's not studio-scale. Now, if it were about 8-feet long and built to recreate the ST:FC model, then it would be. But it's a scaled recreation of the Nemesis model.

Do I think something that special should be in the General Modeling Forum? Not really. Maybe there needs to be a third forum for stuff like this, or allow it in here but make people identify projects that are not true recreations of an actual, physical studio miniature.

 

[Hand Solo]

<div class='quotetop'></div>

Maybe there needs to be a third forum for stuff like this... [/b]

Agreed. And REL's project IS magnificent.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

Yes Richard is quite the artist

Yes, a separate forum for CG to physical modeling would be better then a sub category under general modeling because it is the new standard for SFX.

But the real question still is, what makes a CG model, when detailed like the physical models use to be, with REAL kits that have been digitally re created for the purpose of keeping with the model making style of yester year, not a replica ala CGI?
When Don and I did the two ships for the new Galactica series we did just that, the real ones were not available so we made digital ones using the same dims and materials ala digital technology. That makes it a digital replica BUT, you can use it to ID parts and gather dims to re create the original one.
This is where I see a problem of separation of digital technology and physical modeling. It becomes an elitist mentality.



Fire at will :angel


Mark

 

[cobywan]

I think a section for model building that is split up would be a great idea.

Scratch building

Studio Scale

Kit modeling

The Nu Galactica mesh does have model kit based greeblies. But none are in scale to each other. (It's actually very easy to change scale in CG. So making a SS Nu Galactica is still impossible.)

Unless we just standardize the definintion by size and scale. All fighters 1/24th scale and above are SS.

Any larger craft longer that 36" is SS.

I don't really agree with either but fits more with the concensus.

I really belive that SS should be a super hard core niche of model making. There are certainly some masterworks of model making that don't, and won't ever, have the SS label.

I think things have organized themselves quite nicely on this forum so far.

 

[Commander Max]

<div class='quotetop'></div>

I think things have organized themselves quite nicely on this forum so far.[/b]

I agree, I've seen other boards divide up the model sections. It only resulted in dead sections.
I would say keep it simple, and the RPF has.

As far as CG vs. PM, I would consider CG models the same as PM. CG models(although virtual) still have dimension. And in some cases were derived from PMs(3d scanning and/or digitizing). I would say if the model appeared on screen and someone made a (big)PM of it, what would it matter if it was CG or not.

As to the SS argument, this is a hard one. Take the Falcon wasn't there about 4 different models all in different scales. The smallest about 2", (don't hold me to this, I'm just trying to make a point.) and it appeared on screen. I'm assuming that any size model can qualify for SS, as long as it is a 1:1 recreation of an actual filming miniature.

 

[Deleted]

CGI stuff cannot be built "studio scale" and should not be listed here.
Maybe a "scratch-built, non studio scale" forum would be good?

I had a similar problem on yourprops.com, which basically is for life-sized items (props, costumes and studio scale models) only.
Since there are some really great scratch-builts out there that are not studio scale, we added a section called "scaled scratch-built"
There are not a lot of items there, but the few that were listed had a lot of work put into.

Tim

 

[Commander Max]

<div class='quotetop'></div>

CGI stuff cannot be built "studio scale" and should not be listed here.
Maybe a "scratch-built, non studio scale" forum would be good?[/b]

Wow Tim, thats an ignorant statement.
You know very little about 3-D modeling.
CG models can be any scale, they have dimensions.
To find the true scale you would have to ask the CG modeler.
A lot of the models we see are in a scale that is in the SS class.
What about the PM's that are built for the artists? Aren't those SS miniatures?
Besides, I'm not talking about renderings. But the models placed in the renderings. Which is the same thing as a PM on celluloid.
(If I had a copy of the Nemesis Enterprise-E CG model, would that be considered re-casting? :confused (No, I don't have a copy, wish I did.))

If we were to use the strict criteria of a SS model. Then only exact reproductions of SS should be allowed.
This means that if you want to post your SS ESB Star Destroyer it had better be 8' long, or forget it.
To use a very strict criteria would be silly, and what is a true SS anyway? There are as many answers to that question as there are SPFX movies.

 

[CaptCBoard]

After giving this considerable thought...

Studio Scale is simply a reproduction of a film-used model (or prop) that is built to the same dimensions (and, hopefully, detail) as the original. To add anything else to the definition would go more toward creating sub-categories and I don't think anyone wants to do that. But, physical models built from CG sources are going to become more and more prevalent-- its unavoidable since fewer and fewer physical FX models are being built.

Of course, we are going to run into hybrids, too. Physical models that are CG-enhanced. My answer to that is if a physical model is involved, then a Studio Scale copy is possible. Whether or not it has any kit-parts or other found physical items used in its design is irrevelant. If it did, then find them. If it has CG details, make them. It will still be a Studio Scale model.

So, now we come to a 'model' that was created solely through CGI. The intent of such an object is to exist on film as a full-sized object. But, the question at hand is what to designate a model someone might build of a CGI design. It can't be Studio Scale as there was no physical model on film. If there was a physical maquette used, like for scanning, unless it appears in the final film it can't be counted. If it were, it would be a Studio Scale replica of a scanning maquette.

I would suggest that we adopt "Sidgy" or "Siggy" which would be the closest ways to pronounce CGI as a word. This way one designates a physical model, while "CGI" still refers to the 3D model. There is no way to confuse the two, but they share the same roots. (I prefer Sidgy, in case there's a poll...)

As an alternative, the model could be called a "Didgy", as in digital.

You could also go with CyPhy, for CyberPhysical-- pronounced SciFi.

In any case, I would not use the term 'scale' (no "Didgy Scale"). The scale to which something is built in this instance is irrevelant as it is the choice of the modeler.

Scott

 

[Deleted]

<div class='quotetop'>(Atemylunch @ Oct 27 2006, 08:01 AM) [snapback]1345802[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>

CGI stuff cannot be built "studio scale" and should not be listed here.
Maybe a "scratch-built, non studio scale" forum would be good?[/b]

Wow Tim, thats an ignorant statement.
You know very little about 3-D modeling.
CG models can be any scale, they have dimensions.
To find the true scale you would have to ask the CG modeler.
A lot of the models we see are in a scale that is in the SS class.
What about the PM's that are built for the artists? Aren't those SS miniatures?
Besides, I'm not talking about renderings. But the models placed in the renderings. Which is the same thing as a PM on celluloid.
(If I had a copy of the Nemesis Enterprise-E CG model, would that be considered re-casting? :confused (No, I don't have a copy, wish I did.))

If we were to use the strict criteria of a SS model. Then only exact reproductions of SS should be allowed.
This means that if you want to post your SS ESB Star Destroyer it had better be 8' long, or forget it.
To use a very strict criteria would be silly, and what is a true SS anyway? There are as many answers to that question as there are SPFX movies.
[/b][/quote]

I do know a little about CG modelling. http://TimKetzer.com

CG models do have "dimensions", like 100 units, cm, or inches long in the program, but they still do not "exist". When I build a CG model I don't pay any attention to how "big" the model is. It can be rescaled easily to fit into whatever scene/set-up it has to fit into.

Funny that you mention the Enterprise E model. I just got a CG version of it, and we are considering having it milled and vacuumformed in studio scale, 100 inches long.

Tim

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

To defend Tim, not that he needs it but Tim is WELL acquainted with CGI and PM's.
Hope you like the image maps on the saucer Tim. I did those for DD :angel

Anyways, if an all CG model was made say with made up details like the Babylon 5 ships then you have my vote on scratch build per CG source. But, like in the Star Wars SE Eps 4,5 and well, the CG models are based on the PM ones so does this mean they can't be used for reference? Same with NEW Galactica, certain models were made with ph kit parts like the real world ones ala CG, No scanning here. We built them all by human hand, micrometer and mouse Certain one like the Colonial Movers, Gemini and TOS Shuttle were all built studio scale like their predecessors with the same kit parts ala CGI. The Galactica used them too BUT scaled to different sizes as needed. Maybe this is a Sidgy Phidgy ( sorry Scott I think I messed that up )
but its basis in not all made up. I'm trying to drive home the bow some are making to the PM's and the real kit parts for details. We did that for a reason. To keep a look and feel that was established while Moore and Eike killed it with all the politics and blame so and so. :angry Sorry, I still like the feel of the TOS series vs. the NEW one. All the dysfunctional family units in the show. Moore and Eike must of been abused as kids. :angel

Anyways, no attacks here folks. Tim was making him opinion known. No need to lash at him like that. This is just a discussion on how we find a home for these creations. Some of the builds I've seen of CG to PM are beautiful and deserve to be show cased.

Lets roll the dice and take a poll on how and where and approach the mods with it to see if they will bite.

Tim, when you coming to the US? Let me know when your around at Franks. It's been a long time.


Mark

 

[konar]

Great models that go beyond the ordinary commercially-available kits... pretty pictures... interesting discussions... just find a way to make it work because that is why people come here to this community. Most of us don't care about the symantics, I'd guess. We just want more content.

 

[Commander Max]

It wasn't my intention to come across as attacking anybody. I'm just posing an argument. (Sorry about that Tim).
There is a great deal of source material to draw from. But with Hollywood going more and more to CG. Our SS definition may have to change.
With the ability to create a PM directly out of the computer. I do think the SS definition is going to get blurry.
I've been arguing for CGSS models, because I think we have to face the reality that these are going(have?) replaced traditional models. When it comes to CG vs. RM, RM wins every time. I have heard experts talking about the "Happy Surprises" that come from RM. I still think CG has a way to go. It's great stuff, looks great but still not quite right. I do prefer looking at a model then a picture. If I want a picture, I'll take a screen grab.

I propose that CG models be placed in the General Modeling section, and leave it up to the moderators as to what goes where.

I for one think the SS miniatures are deserving of this section, and it's definitions be confined to PM that appeared on screen(big and small). This may even need to be defined by year.

To pose another question, if a model is only 1/4-1/2 build and finished by CG, is it still considered SS?

 

[REL]

I think Tim had a good idea making a scratchbuilt section, and since studio models are becoming a thing of the past and more and more of the new stuff will be made from CG renders this will probably come up more often.

As for my ship being in the studio section, I didn't really think about it when I posted it here. It doesn't really matter to me one way or the other.

Now a 100" Ent E is something I would really like to see, even though I hate that ship now LOL.

 

[Treadwell]

There isn't anything blurry about it. A Studio Scale replica model is one that's the same size as a physical model used in a production. That simple. While SS modelers are typically quite skilled, that is not implied in the definition. If someone made a TOS Enterprise out of papier mache that was 11 ft. long, that would be a SS model.

Yes, CG means there will be fewer and fewer new subjects to tackle. Them's the breaks. That doesn't change the definition of the term.

 

[ShowCraft]

Let me jump back in here and say I donÂ’t like the idea of a new category. The RPF is formatted just fine the way it is. However, I believe it maybe time to take the defination of what a studio scale model is and tweek it a bit.

Current defination - Studio Scale Modeling Forum
This forum is designed for the discussion of screen used or replica studio scale models. By that we mean models that match the size and scale of minatures created during filming. Also on topic would be kitbashing, scratchbuilding, discovering original parts and and other tips in relation to the replication of studio scale models.


Perhaps a side bar to the above defination that would include "physical models derived from CG subjects that are constructed in the accepted fashion of studio scale models."

This way the purity of the studio scale forum remains intact, but for contents sake, the occasional posting of some well crafted "studio type" models can be added for everyone to enjoy. More content = happy readers.