# Physical models vs. CGI



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Physical models vs. CGI: When can we expect to see Sci-Fi titles become significantly easier and faster to produce then was the case in the past?


*Considering how all F/X seem to be CGI these days, shouldn't it be easier, cheaper and quicker to produce Sci-Fi episodes then ever before?*

Shouldn't BSG be able to churn out more episodes the TOS Trek did in 1968?

Is is just that we have just now gotten to the point where CGI is believable and doable with zero physical special effects and it is too soon to be immediately reaping the benefits of quicker and lower cost production?

How long before advancements in computer technology make Sci-Fi shows tremendously cheaper and quicker to produce then was the case in the past?



Anyome feel free to comment, but especially is there anyone here, like nx01Rob, in the industry who can comment on this?


----------



## hell_fighter_8 (Oct 4, 2005)

*Physical vs CG*

As a fan I feel that CG is relied on too much. The CG models still look very fake to me. They are very good and are only to get better very quickly but its not there yet. Thats one of the reasons I didn't like the recent 3 star wars movies, too much CG. The older stuff, not matter how poor it was, looked real because it was real. The CG's look to shiny, almost liquid though the detail that they have is truely amazing, TOS trek for example.

In other asspects of film maker, the CG's are not there yet. One of the things I do have movie experience with if fire. Today CG fire still looks very very fake and costs more to do the actual fire but is much safer. That why movies like Ladder 49, Backdraft, and The Towering Inferno (didn't have much of a choice) all used live fire. Now it did get touched up with some CG but most of what you are seeing is real.


----------



## Flux Chiller (May 2, 2005)

Agree. CGI isn;t there yet. I always grimace at the BSG scene where they bring the Vipers home and they kind of bounce into the docking port. 

Check out the opening pan of the real model in the Battlerstar Galactica motion picture and it is deeply impressive in my opinion.


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

I strongly disagree... BUT... there are many poorly executed CG shots. CG, like traditional FX, simply needs to be done well. The industry seems to tend to put lots of effects in, when I would prefer to see fewer.. but done WELL! CG spacecraft CAN be done superbly... but often are not. I do CG for a living, and I've worked with some lighters that could work magic... but it often requires a great deal of itteration before the shot gets there. The first 10 or 15 takes get the shot to the point where it looks good enough to use, but in the hands of a good lighter, and directed by someone with an eye towards true quality willing to give it another 10 or 15 takes... the shot can reach perfection. I'm affraid budgets often do not allow for this... but if it's a priority, perfection can be achieved with astounding results.

So my point is... CG is not the problem, people are. The same goes for scripts!


----------



## norge71 (Apr 13, 2004)

CG excells in some areas but not all. I agree that the nearly all CG look for the Star Wars prequels was a serious detractor, but those were mainly scenes where actors were involved. I felt the space scenes looked great. But then there are movies like I, Robot where the robots generally looked fantastic interacting with the actors. 

As far as television it all depends on your budget. Galactica only does 20 episodes a year because that's all they're asked for (it's only 13 next year). Show's like Stargate and Battlestar though are certainly pushing the boundaries of CG/actor interaction. Definately for the better too. They're able to get away with a lot more than they used to thanks to CG. Check out the new Season 2 for Atlantis on DVD. There are some great commentaries on several of the episodes. For the episode Siege Part 3, the director comments on the nearly 1/2 episode long amount of CG used for the battles and everything and how much easier it made his job.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^That's my question.

How far away are we from having CG actually make producing Sci-fi less expensive and less time consuming then old fashioned f/x?

With all the CG technology there seems to be these days it still seems to take the f/x people longer to produce effects then it did a decade ago.

Have we, or when will we, reach a tipping point where CG will trully make Sci-Fi as easy to produce as conventional productions?

Theoretically, since non-sci-fi shows like Cop dramas and the like have to spend a lot of time setting up and shooting in the "real world" there should come a time when shows like Battlestar Galactica and Stargate take less time or money to produce then "real world" dramas that don't have a lot of external CG special effects shots like space battles and the like. If not less time it should eventually at least be cheaper.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

drewid142 said:


> I strongly disagree... BUT... there are many poorly executed CG shots. CG, like traditional FX, simply needs to be done well. The industry seems to tend to put lots of effects in, when I would prefer to see fewer.. but done WELL! CG spacecraft CAN be done superbly... but often are not. I do CG for a living, and I've worked with some lighters that could work magic... but it often requires a great deal of itteration before the shot gets there. The first 10 or 15 takes get the shot to the point where it looks good enough to use, but in the hands of a good lighter, and directed by someone with an eye towards true quality willing to give it another 10 or 15 takes... the shot can reach perfection. I'm affraid budgets often do not allow for this... but if it's a priority, perfection can be achieved with astounding results.


So is this part of the reason that with all the advances in CGI technology the work still seems to take just as long and be more expensive?

Namely, has human nature wasted away the advances in technology?

I.E. is it a function of human nature to take as long as you have to get something done, done?

I.E. if you can only do six takes it takes six takes. But if you are allowed to do 15 takes you do it in 14 to 16 takes?

Isn't it human nature to expand the work to fill the time you have?

If one concentrated and worked attentively and carefully, could the sixth take often be done as well as the twelth? And how much better is that 15th take then the 12th? Especially if everyone involved had been doing their best on the 12th without the knowledge or thought they still had another three takes to get it right?

None of these may be the case. 
Perhaps it is the case that you need those extra 10-15 takes because computer power is such that you can only deal with one or two elements per take - like lighting and texture mapping.

You were a little unclear as to why the extra takes were necessary, if they were computationally necessary to add elements that current computer power won't let you add all at once - for instance.

I'm just trying to brainstorm and understand as to why with all the CGI advances and computer power advances CGI still hasn't lived up to it's advertised potential.

It seems close from everything I've read and seen, but what else remains specifically to bring us to the level that we've been approaching for years but haven't yet gotten to.


----------



## DX-SFX (Jan 24, 2004)

When something becomes easy, it loses it's value.

Getting something to look like a video game is easy. It's the last 5% of realism that takes 50% of the time. I don't know about anyone else but I'm always aware that I'm watching a movie or TV show. When I see obviously fake CGI stunts, I'm completely unmoved whereas if a real stunt man is doing something, even allowing for safety wires being removed, I still feel like some effort has gone into providing me with the entertainment.

CGI's big advantage is that things can be changed easily or modified where models would need a reshoot, however, it is true that models shots can often still be produced cheaper. Unfortunately it means that producers would have to leave the warmth and comfort of their office and the coffee machine.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I'm convinced that CGI *can be* done at a level of realism equal to using scale models.
Otherwise I doubt ILM would have closed down their scale modeling division.

I've also seen *proof* of what can be done with CGI in the form that NX01Rob did on the Enterprise series' season four.

However, that level of sophistication has been the exception and is not yet the norm.

How long before it becomes the norm and not the exception? And what are the factors involved?


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

Nice Rant. Why so many takes? Well, really perfectly lit shots usually include perfectly placed specular flashes, shadows, spill, fill, and all sorts of subtle lighting effects that you see in real time when lighting a real scene, but that often require intensive rendering in order to see the results. When you see a CG shot that looks fake, it is often because the lighting has not been done well, although texturing, geometry, and a host of other things contribute to mediocrity just as effectively. The kinds of effects you get when you layer on pearlescence, specular variation, material qualities and their interaction with complex lighting that also must reveal itself to the camera at just the desired moment... these are the things that require many take to get perfect. It is not because the artist is mediocre in their approach that it takes a lot of takes.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

drewid142 said:


> Nice Rant. Why so many takes? Well, really perfectly lit shots usually include perfectly placed specular flashes, shadows, spill, fill, and all sorts of subtle lighting effects that you see in real time when lighting a real scene, but that often require intensive rendering in order to see the results. When you see a CG shot that looks fake, it is often because the lighting has not been done well, although texturing, geometry, and a host of other things contribute to mediocrity just as effectively. The kinds of effects you get when you layer on pearlescence, specular variation, material qualities and their interaction with complex lighting that also must reveal itself to the camera at just the desired moment... these are the things that require many take to get perfect. It is not because the artist is mediocre in their approach that it takes a lot of takes.


So it's because you lack the computing ability/power to do all the effects at once and it requires multiple takes - or more accurately layers.

That's what I was asking. Thank you.

Earlier you made it sound as if you were simply redoing or tweeking the same thing over and over, as a director often does when doing multiple standard film takes. I've never read a CGI effects person describe adding another level of detail as doing extra "takes." A "take" implies you do the whole thing over again from scratch - not an added level of detail.

Now that you've clarified what you meant your statements make a lot more sense then they originally did.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

I do CGI for a living, and "takes" are actually called "passes." CG renders can be broken up into several passes, which can be added together in many different ways in a compositing program. These different passes can be combined in different ways to give different results in the final image. For instance, you can make a light be green instead of red, or give the side of the ship more fill lighting. 

In my opinion, CG models CAN look as good or BETTER than phsycial models. It just takes a lot of work, and alot of time. Sadly, some of these shots have to be delievered on a tight deadline, and can't be brought to the level of perfection that they need to be.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Understandible.

So will increased computing power eventually allow better performance to occur with less and less time?

Is the learning curve and skill sets needed to do this work change drastically as computing power improves?


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

I stand corrected on my terminology. I've never gotten to work on a film project. I directed all the cinematics for 2 James Bond games for Electronic Arts. I had a lead lighting guy that was some kind of god... he could give the art director exactly what he asked for very quickly... but the volume of shots we had to do meant we had to have lots of people working on lots of shots, so the lead would coach the juniors, who would take much longer and many more "passes" to get things good enough.

More compute power decreases the time to wait to see a shot. We had a "render farm" of 30 machines that would spit out sequences pretty quickly, but seeing a still image does not tell you how the light moves and changes throughout the shot, so rendering out full quality passes takes time and money. 

Real-time rendering, which means that the computer can render frames at a rate good enough to watch the lighting dynamically is still a ways off. There are fantastic real time renderering software, but they typically use different algorithms that do not deliver the full quality needed for the highest quality.


----------



## fiercegaming (Jul 21, 2004)

hell_fighter_8 said:


> As a fan I feel that CG is relied on too much. The CG models still look very fake to me. They are very good and are only to get better very quickly but its not there yet. Thats one of the reasons I didn't like the recent 3 star wars movies, too much CG. The older stuff, not matter how poor it was, looked real because it was real. The CG's look to shiny, almost liquid though the detail that they have is truely amazing, TOS trek for example.
> 
> In other asspects of film maker, the CG's are not there yet. One of the things I do have movie experience with if fire. Today CG fire still looks very very fake and costs more to do the actual fire but is much safer. That why movies like Ladder 49, Backdraft, and The Towering Inferno (didn't have much of a choice) all used live fire. Now it did get touched up with some CG but most of what you are seeing is real.



I agree with you. CG can be very realistic, it depends on who is working on it. For example star trek 1 "dir cut" CG didn't look to bad to me, very nice. However CG most of the times looks down right horrible and very very crisp and to fake looking. You look at all movies shot with models with no computer docktering such as Star Trek 2...you are buying that that ship is really out there. If you need an extreme close up you build a large section "mock up" of the smaller scale ship. It gets to be a lot of work but its worth it to the very end. I think Star trek 1-6 looks better then the most recent cg out there and that was done over 20 years ago. Sick with what works until you can duplicate that, I guess is what I think.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

So I guess we'll probably have to wait a few years for there to be enough computer power to reduce the now needed computer farms and multiple passes to anything near a straightforward, almost real time endeavor.

At least CGI is becoming easier and easier to do at the Hollywood level where they can afford such hardware. Maybe it at least won't be so long until those at the F/X house level can crank out HD quality effects at a reasonable pace.

Hopefully that might soon allow networks like sci-fi.com to lower their budgets and production times so that we aren't waiting over a month for the second half of a season to begin or much much longer as shows like BSGalactica take almost 5 months off for summer breaks.  

There are already only two more episodes left in this year's season and I just know I'm going to be climbing the walls having to wait until September, muchless if they take until January of 2008 as they first announced!:drunk:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I think we're there, already, Chuck. Just look at all the crappy movies that Sci-Fi Channel is churning out.  Just as with the crappy model work we've seen over the years on some of the lower budget movies, we've now got CGI done the same way.

As to your essential question, we have several years ago reached the point where quality effects are simpler and cheaper to produce according to everything I've read on the subject. We've seen this in the greater quantity of special effects that would have been prohibitively expensive (when looking at the fx budget numbers you have to take inflation into account and you'll see the huge difference in cost per second of effects).

My impression from what I've read and from playing on the computer with Paint Shop Pro and other programs is that the quality of the production (sufficient time and talented labor spent) is the main factor. I think most of the fellows who do these effects for the big companies have an excellent, artistic eye (just like their modeling forebears) and are technically proficient but sometimes aren't given enough leadership nor input to put on the final polish. 

More than anything, just like the quality of the scripts, there has got to be good "proofreading" of those effects. If it's like what I do at times, I'll be so into getting some details just right that I can't look at it objectively any more--not able to see the forest for the trees so to speak. I've come back and looked at some things later and found that, though I may have gotten the details right, I'd lost the essential "realness" of the image.

You've got to look at the talent "bell curve" as well. Only a very small percentage of folks are able to handle this sort of work and by the time you get to the cheesy stuff (BSG excepted, IMHO) they're churning out on cable, you've got some of the less capable or less experienced fellows getting in over their heads and not really realizing just how unrealistic their stuff is.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Speaking as a freelance motion graphics guy ... it's mostly about time. Render time, simulation time (for fluids and particles), but most importantly, polishing time. Often, there simply isn't enough time to take another run at it to fix something or polish the look.
The other thing is having a staff that has the eye and attention to detail to polish the look before going to final render, I suppose.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

fiercegaming said:


> . . . You look at all movies shot with models with no computer doctering such as Star Trek 2...you are buying that that ship is really out there. If you need an extreme close up you build a large section "mock up" of the smaller scale ship. . . . Stick with what works until you can duplicate that, I guess is what I think.


I think I'm with you on your philosophy here. I love models but don't have a problem with the relatively new medium of CGI. Whether you're using physical models or CGI, in the end, you're still attempting to trick the eye by manipulating screen images in some manner.

The work on those films you've mentioned is incredible and shows what a good eye those fellows had.

Theoretically, it should be possible to do exactly the same thing with CGI and even better. It often doesn't happen though.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

I do this for a living too.

One thing you guys have to realize is that even though the _tools_ may be different, the way films are made hasn't changed much. There's still a ton of red tape, politics, and the money-vs-time equation to deal with. And don't think that because the models are virtual that there are only computers making these things. There are _artists_ behind the scenes, just as there were when physical models were king. Those artists need enough time to make their virtual models good too. And they get salaries and benefits just like model masters do. And CG quality is also subject to the same budget and time constraints as real models. Dont think that just because you see some bad CG that its because the programs and artists that make it must suck. That is your personal bais showing. There has been a MASSIVE amount of really lame physical modeling and filming done in the past.... it all comes down to time and money. If you have the _money_ you can hire the best artists and buy the best software. If you have the _time_ you can really tweak out every detail until everything looks perfect.

Unfotunately, those circumstances are rare and therefore so are the instances where the CG is perfect. Which is exactly how it has always been.

The thing CG affords us is the ability to go places and do things that physical models could never allow. And the truth is there is a LOT more CG out there that you realize. That's because a lot of it is _so_ good, you can't tell its not real. Its easy to pick it out when its science fiction, but when its something more down to earth mixed in with live action... well sometimes you can't tell at all.


----------



## SPINDRIFT62 (May 29, 2006)

Flux Chiller said:


> Agree. CGI isn;t there yet. I always grimace at the BSG scene where they bring the Vipers home and they kind of bounce into the docking port.
> 
> Check out the opening pan of the real model in the Battlerstar Galactica motion picture and it is deeply impressive in my opinion.


I also agree. in order to get more realism to a CG ship one must build the real one 1st and scan it for every true light reflections and shadows to make it more believable. Just my opinion.


----------



## origAurora buyer (Jan 12, 1999)

Old school in me talking....

It always bothered me that the NX-01 was never a physical model. I love CGI...but I still think a combination of both would serve to provide a stronger product.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Flux Chiller said:


> Agree. CGI isn;t there yet. I always grimace at the BSG scene where they bring the Vipers home and they kind of bounce into the docking port.


OK, so... You're saying that the Viper should do... what, exactly? They're coming in FAST in Zero Gravity. That's why they call them combat landings, after all. They're going to hit an object w/more mass than they have and bounce if there's no gravity to hold them down. You can easily make out the verniers as the pilots "push" their fighter on to the deck in the flight pods each time they show those combat landing scenes. So, to me, they're quite realistic. 



> Check out the opening pan of the real model in the Battlerstar Galactica motion picture and it is deeply impressive in my opinion.


They've done a pretty darned good job of doing the same w/the CGI Big G on numerous occasions. She definitely doesn't move like a fighter!


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

origAurora buyer said:


> Old school in me talking....
> 
> It always bothered me that the NX-01 was never a physical model. I love CGI...but I still think a combination of both would serve to provide a stronger product.


Agreed here, most definitely! I love both physical and CGI models, but think that in a great many shots that we'd be better served by using a combination of the two. Shows like TNS BSG do a much better job of showing a large, lumbering ship than even the most recent Star Wars movies.


----------



## DX-SFX (Jan 24, 2004)

I equate the CGI V models debate to the drum machine V real drummer argument. One may be technically perfect but it lacks soul. Real life has a million tiny random imperfections that have to be there or it looks and sounds false.

BTW Lucas uses a lot more models than he lets on. He provides digital services so he's keen to push digital technology.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Griffworks said:


> Agreed here, most definitely! I love both physical and CGI models, but think that in a great many shots that we'd be better served by using a combination of the two. Shows like TNS BSG do a much better job of showing a large, lumbering ship than even the most recent Star Wars movies.



I think _Starship Troopers_ has some of the best effects ever and it was, IIRC, a combo of CGI and models.


----------



## Storvick (Jan 21, 2003)

not to get too far off topic but look at Lord of the Rings and Narnia. (most of the battle shots were CGI but a lot of people thought they paid a ton of extras for those shots.) In the big battles with the Orcs, only 50 of the Orcs where actors the other 75,000 of the Orcs where CGI.


----------



## Flux Chiller (May 2, 2005)

Griffworks said:


> OK, so... You're saying that the Viper should do... what, exactly? They're coming in FAST in Zero Gravity. That's why they call them combat landings, after all. They're going to hit an object w/more mass than they have and bounce if there's no gravity to hold them down. You can easily make out the verniers as the pilots "push" their fighter on to the deck in the flight pods each time they show those combat landing scenes. So, to me, they're quite realistic.
> 
> 
> They've done a pretty darned good job of doing the same w/the CGI Big G on numerous occasions. She definitely doesn't move like a fighter!



I agree with a lot of your comments. What's unfortunate I think is that it looks great once, but they re-use the same shot over and over again, and I always spot the bouncing ship and think why doesn't he try a different approach?! (mind you the original BSG had nothing but stock footage so I shouldn't complain!!). As a TV series, BSG is very very impressive. Galactica has good mass to it, that is certainly a positive vs the Ent-E flying around like a tie fighter, but it's nowhere near as good as the huge filming miniature from the original. Mind you, not much is in this world. These are just my opinions, anyway. In general, the CGI on this show is a winner.


----------



## Squall67584 (Feb 20, 2006)

Storvick said:


> not to get too far off topic but look at Lord of the Rings and Narnia. (most of the battle shots were CGI but a lot of people thought they paid a ton of extras for those shots.) In the big battles with the Orcs, only 50 of the Orcs where actors the other 75,000 of the Orcs where CGI.


I thought the Lord of the Rings trilogy used CGI rather well, especially for the moments that you mention. Of course, once you put the movies on your TV set, the CGI moments can become more apparant. A moment like this happens in the Two Towers when Legolas hops onto the back of a horse in full stride. It looks rather blurry and too fluid of a motion.

As for Sci-Fi models, I lean more towards real models, but I'm sure I've seen CGI that looked indistinguishable (mainly more recent TV shows). However, the new Star Wars movies had a strange look to them that gave away the CGI factor. Maybe it was because things looked _too_ perfect and crisp.


----------



## Bridger (May 21, 2004)

I hate it whene there are errors on the ship the Akira-class the Saber-class and the Steamrunner-class are well done but in Call to Arms there are tow Galaxy-class ship and both are labeld with NCC-1701-D and in the other episodes there are so many brave ships but nearly none of them has a registry i hope when they are remastering DS9 they will correct that


----------



## beeblebrox (Jul 30, 2003)

Bridger said:


> I hate it whene there are errors on the ship the Akira-class the Saber-class and the Steamrunner-class are well done but in Call to Arms there are tow Galaxy-class ship and both are labeld with NCC-1701-D and in the other episodes there are so many brave ships but nearly none of them has a registry i hope when they are remastering DS9 they will correct that


That kinda made my puzzler hurt. Throw in a period once in a while. Kay? :thumbsup:


----------



## Bridger (May 21, 2004)

Do not understand me wrong i don´t have anything again CGI but all enemy ships where better done than the good guys as a good example look at the Defiant and her deflector


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Bridger said:


> I hate it whene there are errors on the ship the Akira-class the Saber-class and the Steamrunner-class are well done but in Call to Arms there are tow Galaxy-class ship and both are labeld with NCC-1701-D and in the other episodes there are so many brave ships but nearly none of them has a registry i hope when they are remastering DS9 they will correct that


Something to keep in mind is that when these shots were made, the FX folks weren't expecting fans to pause, enhance and peruse their work so intently. DVD sets for TNG hadn't even been released when this episode was produced, let alone sets for DS9. When you pause these on a VCR, you get an unreadable blur, after all. 

'Sides, the CGI Galaxy-class models in your screen grab are great. Other than the ship name I don't see any problems. 

And yes, some punctuation in your writing makes it much easier for other folks to read what you've got to say w/o the reader being forced to resort to using a Universal Translator.


----------



## Bridger (May 21, 2004)

The ships in the screenshot are great but i think it is mutch easier to chainge the name on a cgi ship than on one of the studio models and they did nearly every time and there is something i can not understand normaly Michael Okuda is very attentive it is good to know that he will lead the remastering


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Bridger said:


> The ships in the screenshot are great.
> 
> But i think it is much easier to ...[change] the name on a cgi ship than on one of the studio models.
> 
> ...


Can't have such an abomination! That would be a "slippery slope!" :tongue:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Griffworks said:


> Something to keep in mind is that when these shots were made, the FX folks weren't expecting fans to pause, enhance and peruse their work so intently.


 

Really? Re-think it for a second. You don't think they knew? 

How much miniscule technical stuff had Trek fans already bitched about by that time having to do with TOS and TNG, Jeff?

Even before VCR's, for that matter?

When you consider that answer I think you'll agree that they had to know we'd eventually catch it.



But heck, maybe they realized that Trek fans of today, like always, need stuff to pick at! Maybe it's in our blood?



Look at all the thousands of minute details that have been brought up about The Original Series Trek long before anybody brought Deep Space 9 onto the little screen! 

Many of which inconsistences were found by people who bought and went through hundreds apon hundreds of tiny filmclips from Lincoln Enterprises with a fine tooth comb to find! 



Yet with all of those complaints about technical mess ups and blatant inconsistencies that people have been making - literally for decades - there are a lot of people who almost seem to want to burn CBS at the stake for trying to correct some of the most blatant ones.

Darned if you do, darned if you don't.

Go figure. 

And yes, to get back to the thread's subject more directly, if those scene's were done in all CGI ( I don't know if they were or were not, many of DS9's battle scenes were a combination; and sometimes they were CGI overlays of filmclips of actual physical models - the attack scence in which a ton of K'Tingas were involved is one example; just because the scene uses CGI doesn't mean everything in the scene is a computer generated model)...

anyway... if those scene's were done in ALL CGI it would be easier to correct. Not at all easy, just easier. 

But if it wasn't worth the time and effort to do it that way the first time, I doubt it will suddenly be worth it to fix it now. As I said, maybe on top of the added expense and time they realized we're the kind of fans that will always want to have something to nit-pick about and notice that the average viewer would not notice. Otherwise how would we distinquish ourselves as fans? :lol:


For those reasons maybe nobody should be holding their breaths waiting for DS9 en-masse battle scences to be updated with new registry numbers.

What the heck. Go ahead. The worst that can happen is that you'll pass out, then you'll start breathing again anyway. :tongue:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Griffworks said:


> And yes, some punctuation in your writing makes it much easier for other folks to read what you've got to say w/o the reader being forced to resort to using a Universal Translator.


I've had the very same problem(on my side as well as theirs') when I once spent a long period of time trying to converse with someone who only spoke and read Russian.

Based on the patterns of the phrases I'm guessing that Bridger is using some form of "Universal Translator." Unfortunately though, our 21st Century UT's don't yet compare with 24th Century versions.

This one seems to be doing a reasonably good job, though.
If he is going through the trouble of using such translation software - or if English is his second language - I sincerely congratulate him on the effort.

Even if I don't agree that there is a need to fix some of the things he seems to think need fixing, we're all fans here.

And there is no need for us to agree in order to be fans and have fun, and share ideas.

Welcome to the forum Bridger! :wave:


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I've had the very same problem(on my side as well as theirs') when I once spent a long period of time trying to converse with someone who only spoke and read Russian.
> 
> Based on the patterns of the phrases I'm guessing that Bridger is using some form of "Universal Translator." Unfortunately though, our 21st Century UT's don't yet compare with 24th Century versions.
> 
> ...


*Bridger* is from Austria, thus English most likely is indeed his second language. However, my post above was simply to try to get him to understand the importance of punctuation in the English language - just as I know it's very important in the German language, as well as Russian and Spanish. I would think it even more important when considering the gulf between languages to keep misunderstandings from occuring. 


> And there is no need for us to agree in order to be fans and have fun, and share ideas.


Uh... Sure. And I never said he can't have an opinion different from mine, yours or anyone elses. What I thought we were doing is having a discussion. 


> Welcome to the forum Bridger! :wave:


Not sure if you realize this, but *Bridger* has been registered here since May of 2004. He's also been posting semi-regularly since the Fall, at least as far back as my memory goes.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Griffworks said:


> Uh... Sure. And I never said he can't have an opinion different from mine, yours or anyone elses. What I thought we were doing is having a discussion.


I wasn't really referring to what you were saying at that point. I was just assuring Bridger that while I don't think that the remastering he is talking about is likely, that doesn't mean I don't value what he is saying.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Griffworks said:


> Not sure if you realize this, but *Bridger* has been registered here since May of 2004. He's also been posting semi-regularly since the Fall, at least as far back as my memory goes.


Sorry, but I didn't know that Jeff. Right around the fall the only internet access I had in my part of New Orleans was via piggybacking off an internet cafe a little less then a block away. I lost that connection back then and only recently have been able to reconnect at home.

Since then I only had internet access at work and not enough time to do much else then check and answer a few emails. I very rarely got a lot of time to follow the forum more then to rarely skim the topics/posts.

I've just recently been able to get re-connected to the internet at home. Though it is actually physically less then a block away local phone service(landwise & DSL) in my area stops right at the corner of my block. 

Talk about frustrating!

I've only recently been able to find out the problem with my wireless connection and re-piggyback via the local internet cafe.

There are still huge parts of New Orleans without phone or cable service, and not everyone can get Satelitte service either due to the way the houses are built so close together.

While in my area - and most of the rest of the city - they are totally rewiring and upgrading everything from cable, telephone, etc to fiber optic, god only knows when that will be finished.

We're talking about re-doing infrastructure for an area with 110,000 homes in it! A lot of the re-wiring etc can't be done until other infrastructure like sewerage, is redone.

So I have not been on a lot until recently.

But I can't complain. I'm one of the lucky ones. There are still countless people who won't have many basic services(like landline telephones) for probably another couple of years.

While New Orleans is safe and open to business in all of the older areas where tourists want to go, we're no where near back on our feet in the other 60-70% of the city.

Most of the crime you read about occurs in the most devastated parts of the city, where maybe 20% or less of the residents have returned to rebuild and gangs are fighting over turf as former criminals have been swept away and new ones fight to take their place as new "rubble-lords."

There are the occassional exceptions where crime occurs occassionally in high profile areas but that's extremely rare. It's mostly criminals killing criminals in order to see who will reign supreme in mostly abandoned, rat-infested neighborhoods.

In some parts of the city if you were to imagine the English language signs are in Arabic, you would almost swear you were in the outskirts of Lebanon.

I'm fortunate that I live in one of the older parts of the New Orleans that didn't flood and am only inconvienced by not being able to get internet without piggy backing off of a nearby neighbor.

I didn't know Bridger had been posting for that long. Sorry for assuming he was a newbie, but welcome nonetheless.


----------



## DX-SFX (Jan 24, 2004)

> How much miniscule technical stuff had Trek fans already bitched about by that time having to do with TOS and TNG,


It's also true that less than one pecent of the audience is bothered by such details. There are limits to how much effort is going to be put in by a film company to make purely circumstantial detail satisfy the "nerds". It won't make a substantial difference to the number of stations the series sells to. Most interiors just have to look like they fit to satisfy the bulk of the audience. There will always come a point when someone in Production says we've spent enough time (and thus money) reconciling any issues.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

DX-SFX said:


> It's also true that less than one pecent of the audience is bothered by such details. There are limits to how much effort is going to be put in by a film company to make purely circumstantial detail satisfy the "nerds". It won't make a substantial difference to the number of stations the series sells to. Most interiors just have to look like they fit to satisfy the bulk of the audience. There will always come a point when someone in Production says we've spent enough time (and thus money) reconciling any issues.


Agreed.


----------



## Bridger (May 21, 2004)

I´m totally sorry that my english is so bad but i was mutch better when i was in school but currently i am trying to make my general qualification for university entrance which means that i am learning again. 

And Thank you for your welcome


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Bridger said:


> I´m totally sorry that my english is so bad but i was mutch better when i was in school but currently i am trying to make my general qualification for university entrance which means that i am learning again.
> 
> And Thank you for your welcome


No need for apologies. I think the effort you are making is incredible. There must be some Trek forums in your native language you could be posting on.

Hopefully your being here will widen our discussions and help you improve your English both at the same time.

Live long and prosper!


----------



## Bridger (May 21, 2004)

What surprise me everything is that when i read a text english or watch something in english like my Star Trek DVDs i understand everything


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I can only understand English. So you are way ahead of me. But from what I understand from correspondance with others who have grown up with another language as their first the problem is probably that you just haven't come to think in English yet.

While you understand it, the subject/verb placement and emphasis is probably very different from what you are used to.

Eventually, (I am told, I don't know from experience) you will get to the point where you know English well enough to* think in* English rather than having to try and *translate to* English.

At that point it will be a lot easier to write and speak English, but it will take time.


----------



## Bridger (May 21, 2004)

Yes you are totally wright but i think the problem is that our teachers in Austria (the old generation) don´t learn the english like it is spoken and in fact my english teacher is very very crazy and unable to teatch

So now i am tierd and i go sleeping because in Austria it is now 02:58 AM so good night


----------



## spacecraft guy (Aug 16, 2003)

The last time that I talked to the folks at Kerner Optical (originally the ILM Model Shop) a few weeks ago, they said that they were very busy - which I thought was great news.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

spacecraft guy said:


> The last time that I talked to the folks at Kerner Optical (originally the ILM Model Shop) a few weeks ago, they said that they were very busy - which I thought was great news.


I don't think I know anyone there. 

So since they had been a physical modeling department of a company that did both CGI and physical modeling;

does that mean they have, or are working on, adding a CGI division so they can become a full-services F/X studio?

I wish all of them the best of luck and hope they can continue to keep physical modeling alive and well in the industry. :thumbsup:


----------



## scifieric (May 9, 2005)

I'm sorry I'm late to the party but there are a couple of things to consider.

1) What a "real" image looks like is changing as we speak. Very, VERY quickly anything with film grain will be thought of as a "fake" image.

2) It is possible to mimic the look of film with considerable effort. This is on top of the amout of time it takes to render an image.

People are taking the majority of their photographs with digital media and includes all artifacts associated with the medium. Probably sooner rather than later, some clever producer will start mimicing THOSE problems in CGI and make things look "real" instead of the film grain associated with better quality film images. (Just my opinion.)

_*Gratuitous plug of own work*_









I worked for years (off and on) to figure out how to create that image and your average studio doesn't have that long to develop a "look". I'm hoping from the responses I've gathered so far that the above image looks as if it was made with "real" film but it is all CGI including rather heavy post processing but I try not to do so much that I obscure the image.

Hopefully that sort of attention will be paid to upcoming movies and shows.


----------



## DX-SFX (Jan 24, 2004)

I disagree with that in part. A photo of a model taken on film and a photo taken of the same model on a digital camera can look identical. They should. Only the capture medium is different. It's the object itself rendered in the computer that looks wrong. They look dead flat and the way different colours change shade with increases or decreases of light as you go into shadow or illuminated areas just looks wrong. It's not a case of the program just adding black to the mix for shadow or white for a lighter look. CGI rendered ship generally look like airbrushed artwork. Similarly reflections will show up the subtlest of surface imperfections which need to be there if you want to make something look like it exists in the real world. The CG models which look the best seem to be those ones built as a real model and scanned.

I'm more of the opinion that the current generation of movie goers put up with images that look like a computer game because they're used to seeing computer game images. The audience is very sophisticated and even moreso nowadays and even non nerdy types will tell you if a shot looks unconvincing. They may not be able to tell you why but they will know.

I'd be interested to see someone do a CGI clone of 2001 FX shots and then compare the two and see which looks more real.

CG can allow shots to be done that were near impossible before but that relates more to composition and camera moves and the ability to combine and synchronise lots of elements that would be difficult to achieve on film.

Again personally, I felt LOTR looked "painted". I concede that CGI made the film possible and maybe that fantasy painting look suited that subject but in a non fantasy enviroment, I don't believe it looks credible. And just for once can we have a CGI battle that doesn't extend to the horizon with more than a bazillion combatants? Less is sometimes more.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

DX-SFX said:


> Less is sometimes more.


Sadly this lesson appears to be lost on contemporary mainstream filmmakers. Hard to blame them really, given the audience they're forced to pander to.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Right now, I think that it's possible to do perfectly convincing CG, but it takes an eye to see when it is working or not. Not everyone has that eye, nor the talent (or time/budget) to know how to fix everything that doesn't work.

So with the right CG modelers, texture artists, lighting experts and compositors, I think that the miniature shots in 2001 can be matched.


----------



## scifieric (May 9, 2005)

DX-SFX said:


> I disagree with that in part. A photo of a model taken on film and a photo taken of the same model on a digital camera can look identical. They should. Only the capture medium is different.


Yes, and that medium is exactly what I'm talking about. For a purely digital medium, there is no such thing as film grain. That's what I was talking about.

When all TV shows and all movies are captured digitally and all photographs are captured digitally, adding film grain to a CGI model will look fake.


----------



## DX-SFX (Jan 24, 2004)

scifieric said:


> When all TV shows and all movies are captured digitally and all photographs are captured digitally, adding film grain to a CGI model will look fake.


Again I partly disagree. Poor CG images are disguised by added film grain because it muddies the visual waters in the same way that poor CG is often disguised by adding digital camera shake. The Antonov in the last but one Bond movie being a prime example. The contrast is between a real model shot digitally and and one built in a computer. Without post image processing to get a film look, one will still look more real than the other. The addition of film grain just adds a net curtain in front of the image.



> So with the right CG modelers, texture artists, lighting experts and compositors, I think that the miniature shots in 2001 can be matched.


Only matched? And by the best of best computer people?


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

DX-SFX said:


> Only matched? And by the best of best computer people?


Well, if matching them is the goal, I believe they can achieve it. And as you probably know, when using CG, matching reality can be more difficult than surpassing it.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

scifieric said:


> I'm sorry I'm late to the party but there are a couple of things to consider.
> 
> 1) What a "real" image looks like is changing as we speak. Very, VERY quickly anything with film grain will be thought of as a "fake" image.


Hmm... not sure why you would say that. Until very recently everything was filmed. Not just Sci-Fi effects, but documentaries as well.

Most of what we saw on film was not faked, nor contained special effects.

How film would therefore somehow seem "fake" all of a sudden I cannot explain.

True, digital recording will eventually replace film virtually entirely.

But I see no reason to think people will come to see film grain(when they see it from old recordings probably converted over at a high enough res to maintain the grain) as indicative of something "fake."

Just as today we look at old black & white silent films and it becomes obvious that they were using a different technology, we nonetheless don't think of those Keystone Cops films as being "fake."

As a matter of fact, there used to be an old silent performer/stunt man(can't remember his name now) that used to perform incredible climbs and stunts barehanded and without safety gear that you would want to believe was fake - but were in fact quite real.

Just because these movies, etc were filmed doesn't make them look at all unreal, it is just apparent that older technologies(even older film technologies) were used to create them.




scifieric said:


> 2) It is possible to mimic the look of film with considerable effort. This is on top of the amout of time it takes to render an image.


I think that will soon become unnecessary.

From what I've seen unless the filming was done poorly to begin with, intentionally made grainy in some shots for artistic purposes, or someone is looking at a multi-generational copy, in most cases if the video was shot properly on 35mm or higher film the grain can be removed even at resolutions way beyond 1920 x 1080 HD resolution. 

Most of the shots that had the most grain on TOS Trek were the F/X shots. And I believe most of those will be eventually replaced at a level most people will be happy with. These shots were NOT done poorly. They were cutting edge for their time, but the external f/x often ended up grainy due to the limits of that day's technology, limits which TOS Trek constantly tested and expanded. But there was only so much they could do in the mid-60's.

From what I've seen I don't think they will have any problem making all of the grain, scratches and dust previous seen on the interior scences go away 100%, because those scenes were done with excellent lighting and more conventional processes then the F/X shots.

People forget that the F/X for Star Trek was groundbreaking stuff at the time, they had to do things like flood the miniatures with a tremendous amount of light but then take shots from ridiculously far away to get a good depth of field. The processes and camera technology and techniques developed and used on Star Wars and even Battlestar Galactica were a decade away.

Having said that, once the external f/x shots are replaced the rest of the interior filming could probably have any hint of dirt, scratches and grain totally removed - probably well enough to be shown on the big screen muchless in HD - without any noticable "grain."

Again though, let's remember too the limitations of "digital."

You can get HD to look decent on a screen as big 6 feet by 9 feet -

Seems huge, and for a TV it is.

However you can get film to look great on screens more than 100 feet wide!

Not to many people remember seeing movies on screens that big as these gigantic cineplexs, some with screens as small as 24 feet wide, have seemed to almost completely taken over.

So don't completely count out film.

Maybe Hollywood has a digital way to record at a resolution equivalent of 140mm film. 

My greatest criticism of the new HD standard is that it doesn't go far enough. To be the equivalent of 140mm film in resolution it would probably have to be 50 times the resolution of Standard Definition - instead of five times.

Again, that is just a guesstimate. Plus most people don't need an image sharp enough to project on a 100+ foot wide screen.

But my two points are that if the filming is done properly you will never see the grain - so why mimick it?

And secondly, I don't believe any digital format available for consumer viewing(again, maybe Hollywood has a digital format that is equivalent to 140mm film that they step down in order to make HD resolution) - including HD - is anywhere near as sharp as film.

So for the big screen we'll probably see film used for awhile, and TV shows and everything else will be directly digitally recorded.

P.S. Any film tech nerds here know of any Hollywood professional digital formats that rival 140mm? If so what is the resolution? etc?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

DX-SFX said:


> Again personally, I felt LOTR looked "painted". I concede that CGI made the film possible and maybe that fantasy painting look suited that subject but in a non fantasy enviroment, I don't believe it looks credible. And just for once can we have a CGI battle that doesn't extend to the horizon with more than a bazillion combatants? Less is sometimes more.


LOTR?????

Can I buy a vowel please?

You kids AYFA's!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Carson Dyle said:


> Sadly this lesson appears to be lost on contemporary mainstream filmmakers. Hard to blame them really, given the audience they're forced to pander to.


I know what you mean. I just saw a promo for a movie in which the heroine is a one-legged-stripper who is given and automatic machine gun to replace her missing leg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know there are 100's of thousands of people who just can't wait to plunk down $7 to see that!


----------



## beeblebrox (Jul 30, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> As a matter of fact, there used to be an old silent performer/stunt man(can't remember his name now) that used to perform incredible climbs and stunts barehanded and without safety gear that you would want to believe was fake - but were in fact quite real.


Harold Lloyd. :thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

scifieric said:


> Yes, and that medium is exactly what I'm talking about. For a purely digital medium, there is no such thing as film grain. That's what I was talking about.


Both mediums have this problem. In film it is called grain, in digital it is called pixelation.

I believe you are basing a lot of your statements on film grain on re-broadcasts of multi-generational copies of old TV special f/x's.

Film work done in the 35mm or higher format, with the right lighting and filmed by professionals, is capable of producing superior, totally grain free video at resolutions exceeding HD digital quality.

If the filming was done correctly, you'll never see film grain *unless the film-maker wants you to* for some artistic or plot purpose.

Just as you can set your digital camera on a low enough resolution to see pixelation; someone recording a Television show digitally can intentionally make the scene look pixelatted or, VERY commonly, make the digital video look choppy in order to give it a more documentary or broadcast from the far reaches of the world/solar system/galaxy look.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

scifieric said:


> Yes, and that medium is exactly what I'm talking about. For a purely digital medium, there is no such thing as film grain. That's what I was talking about.
> 
> When all TV shows and all movies are captured digitally and all photographs are captured digitally, adding film grain to a CGI model will look fake.


No, it will not look fake. 

It will look like the video was taken with a film camera by people who screwed up either in film choice or camera settings.

But I believe there will soon be no reason to add grain to CGI. Unless the CGI in question is crappy.

I'm assuming you got into adding grain to CGI as a way of matching old TOS series scenes.

But once CBS finishes cleaning up the series to HD with new external effects there will be no noticable grain in the new version.

So there will be less and less reason to even consider adding grain to CGI, other then for artistic/nostalgic purposes or to cover poor quality.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

beeblebrox said:


> Harold Lloyd. :thumbsup:


That's the exact film scene I was thinking of!!!!

Thanks a million!

Believe it or not, even though the above picture is from a reel of film,

It was not faked!


----------



## beeblebrox (Jul 30, 2003)

Actually one of his hands is fake. Seriously.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

But he is up there without a tether.

Gotta give the guy credit!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

scifieric said:


> _*Gratuitous plug of own work*_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


BTWay, before I forget, great work! I think you should get rid of the revisionist heavy lines in the secondary hull and nacelles. Their source is a totally re-imagined "restoration" done by someone on the original 11-foot miniature that sits in the Smithsonian. They never existed on the model even years apon years after the series ended.

But aside from that it's still great work! :thumbsup:


----------



## DX-SFX (Jan 24, 2004)

> Film work done in the 35mm or higher format, with the right lighting and filmed by professionals, is capable of producing superior, totally grain free video at resolutions exceeding HD digital quality.


Any medium who's grain of pixel size is finer than the output resolution does this. The numerical value of each pixel on the output image represents an average value for the area that pixel covers. The maximum resolution of detail of the outputted image is limited to the size and number of the pixels that make up that image. If you're arguing that undigitised film can resolve more detail than most digital movie cameras because of their (still) restrictive pixel count, then that is true but not for much longer. Grain is still apparent on film though. Those who own dedicated film scanners can easily see the grain inherent in film. If the film grain is finer than the output pixel grid, you can't see the grain because the output image doesn't resolve that level of detail. The same is true of high resolution digital images if output is coarser than the source.

The other artifacts that could cause confusion with pixelation is the blocking up you get as a consequence of digital compression but that's a different issue.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I think that's what I just said.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

DX-SFX said:


> Any medium who's grain of pixel size is finer than the output resolution does this. The numerical value of each pixel on the output image represents an average value for the area that pixel covers. The maximum resolution of detail of the outputted image is limited to the size and number of the pixels that make up that image. If you're arguing that undigitised film can resolve more detail than most digital movie cameras because of their (still) restrictive pixel count, then that is true but not for much longer. Grain is still apparent on film though.


It can be, if you scan at a high enough resolution, or for some reason the artist chose to use a high grain film for artistic purposes. All I'm saying is that 35mm can give you 2 to 3 times more resolution then HD before reaching that point.

70mm and 140mm(what many if not most motion pictures are filmed in) can give you even higher resolution.

All this being said, I look forward to the day when everything can be digitally filmed at that resolution.

But for home use, seeing as it's taken over a decade to agree to improve broadcast TV to a HD max resolution of 1900 x 1080, that will be a problem reserved for people doing feature films and not ours.


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> It can be, if you scan at a high enough resolution, or for some reason the artist chose to use a high grain film for artistic purposes. All I'm saying is that 35mm can give you 2 to 3 times more resolution then HD before reaching that point.
> 
> 70mm and 140mm(what many if not most motion pictures are filmed in) can give you even higher resolution.


Most pictures are shot in 35mm. I can only think of one feature film in the last 30 years that was shot in 70mm (FAR AND AWAY, not counting parts of BRAINSCAN and LITTLE BUDDAH). And I have never heard of 140mm film. If you're talking about IMAX, that is 70mm run horizontally.


----------



## scifieric (May 9, 2005)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> BTWay, before I forget, great work! I think you should get rid of the revisionist heavy lines in the secondary hull and nacelles. Their source is a totally re-imagined "restoration" done by someone on the original 11-foot miniature that sits in the Smithsonian. They never existed on the model even years apon years after the series ended.
> 
> But aside from that it's still great work! :thumbsup:


Thanks!

Actually, I took the idea from staring at the Christie's auction shots of the TMP Enterprise. I'm hoping that in the final render that you can't even see them.

I am old enough that I saw the Original Enterprise with her original paint job at the Smithsonian when they first hung it over the doorway. Man, that was a real thrill. I still have a couple of the polaroids I took that day. I should dig them out. What a treat.

The only reason I put any "virtually invisible" detail on her at all is that my renders for years look like the CGI work being put out by CBS now. The ship didn't look "real" and I think it was because of the plastic look of "too perfect" renders ... if you know what I mean.

Thanks Chuck_P.R.!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

BEBruns said:


> Most pictures are shot in 35mm. I can only think of on feature film in the last 30 years that was shot in 70mm (FAR AND AWAY, not counting parts of BRAINSCAN and LITTLE BUDDAH). And I have never heard of 140mm film. If you're talking about IMAX, that is 70mm run horizontally.


Hmmm... I'm pretty anal about watching credits, and know I've seen many movies that claim to have been shot in 70mm and thought that most had switched. 

Perhaps parts of most are shot that way, as you pointed out with Brainscan and Little Buddah, but not all of the movie, and as a result the movies' credits mention using 70mm technology without mentioning not all of it is filmed that way?

I'm also pretty certain I had seen some claim to have been shot on 140mm film during the closing credits. Perhaps I'm totally wrong about that, it would not be the first time.

I find it very hard to believe that few major motion pictures are shot on 70mm though. Though again, I've been wrong more then a couple of times in my life. 

Along the same lines, does anyone have an answer as to whether or not Hollywood has a digital format that is equivalent to 70mm film or higher, and if so what that raw resolution is?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

beeblebrox said:


> Actually one of his hands is fake. Seriously.


Didn't he wear a latex glove on the one hand that was mangled in the explosion from the bomb that he thought was a fake? He lost a couple of fingers didn't he?


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Hmmm... I'm pretty anal about watching credits, and know I've seen many movies that claim to have been shot in 70mm and thought that most had switched.
> 
> Perhaps parts of most are shot that way, as you pointed out with Brainscan and Little Buddah, but not all of the movie, and as a result the movies' credits mention using 70mm technology without mentioning not all of it is filmed that way?
> 
> ...


I found this on IMDb's trivia page for THE NEW WORLD:

_"Although it was ultimately determined to be fiscally unfeasible to shoot the entire film on 65mm film stock, this has the distinction of being the first feature film in nine years to shoot on 65mm stock for non-visual effects shots. The last film to shoot in 65mm was Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet (1996), which remains (as of 2005) the last feature to be entirely shot on 65mm."_

I'd forgotten about HAMLET. As far as I know, HAMLET and FAR AND AWAY are the only two dramatic feature films since the '70s completely shot on 65mm (70mm). 

And just to clarify, 65mm refers to the negative. The actual prints are on 70mm, the extra 10 mm used for the soundtrack.


----------



## beeblebrox (Jul 30, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Didn't he wear a latex glove on the one hand that was mangled in the explosion from the bomb that he thought was a fake? He lost a couple of fingers didn't he?


Yes, he was missing some fingers and wore a prosthetic. Hadn't heard the bomb story though.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

beeblebrox said:


> Yes, he was missing some fingers and wore a prosthetic. Hadn't heard the bomb story though.


Yeah, I think it was on TCM. He was holding what he and the photographer thought was a prop bomb--the stereotypical small round shell with a fuse coming out of it. It turned out that the bomb was real and when it blew up, he wound up in the hospital with a mangled hand. 

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/database/lloyd_h.html

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0011144/


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

I decided to try an experiment with a "set" I had constructed for a project I'm working on. The mountains in the background are a separately rendered image. This was rendered with one distant light and ambient lighting. The Ant-aliasing, Object accuracy, and shadow accuracy was set at the lowest settings:










I then re-rendered it with the light, skylight, indirect lighting, and full ray tracing. Anti-aliasing, object accuracy, and shadow accuracy are set at the highest settings:










The first image took 6 seconds to render. The second one took 6 1/4 minutes.

You may also notice that the objects look too clean and smooth. Unfortunately, I can't take a hammer and steel wool to it and give it a black wash. To increase the realism, I have to sculpt or paint in every nick, scratch and smudge. I was able to create this in about 1 to 1 1/2 hours. It will take at least 2 or 3 times that long to age and weather it.

This is the main issue with CGI. Getting something to look pretty real is easy. It takes a lot more time to make it look photo-real.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Oh, yeah. Color maps, bump maps, reflection maps, specular maps ... modeling is just the beginning. Texturing is what makes it real. And a little dirty.

... and of course, using photos as texture maps helps. Some guys think they can get away with procedurals alone. Nuh-uh.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

BEBruns said:


> I found this on IMDb's trivia page for THE NEW WORLD:
> 
> _"Although it was ultimately determined to be fiscally unfeasible to shoot the entire film on 65mm film stock, this has the distinction of being the first feature film in nine years to shoot on 65mm stock for non-visual effects shots. The last film to shoot in 65mm was Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet (1996), which remains (as of 2005) the last feature to be entirely shot on 65mm."_
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for the info! Guess the references to being filmed on 70mm can be misleading. 

However, I think what we both said about film of 35mm and over being able to produce resolutions many times a max HD res of 1900 x 1080 without having to show grain still stands...



Chuck_P.R. said:


> Film work done in the 35mm or higher format, with the right lighting and filmed by professionals, is capable of producing superior, totally grain free video at resolutions exceeding HD digital quality.





DX-SFX said:


> Any medium who's grain of pixel size is finer than the output resolution does this.


True, even with the best lighting and finest grain film you could eventually get to see grain(just as you could eventually see square pixels in even the highest digital image) if you were scanning a still from that film at a ridiculously high resolution.

My only point is that HD digital resolution is a res that is only a fraction of the resolution required to see grain on properly lighted and filmed scenes - unless you are looking at a poor or multi-generational copy - or unless the original film maker intentionally wanted you to see the grain for artistic reasons.


Does anyone know of any professional digital format that is being used in Hollywood that exceeds the 1900 x 1080 format?

It's hard for me to imagine that they video record in the exact same resolution that they end up broadcasting in. 

At least one would want a little overkill for editing purposes, unforseen needed tight shots and pans, etc...


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Chuck_P.R. said:



> Does anyone know of any professional digital format that is being used in Hollywood that exceeds the 1900 x 1080 format?


This one (2K)?
http://www.siliconimaging.com/DigitalCinema/SI_2K_key_features.html 
Apparently, 4K is still in the works, as is 5K with the RED camera.

Sorry, can't point to a Cinefex article or something for actual usage info.


----------

