Greetings!

Welcome to Scifi-Meshes.com! Click one of these buttons to join in on the fun.

3DStar Destroyer Avenger (Greeble-for-Greeble) YES IT'S BACK

2»

Posts

  • stonkystonky350 Posts: 489Member
    Jedilaw wrote: »
    To quote Vader: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

    :)

    I didn't make it to the exhibit...but one of the other rpf members did:
    https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=dbaca...A56763B4B6!113

    They're NEF files, so you'll have to convert them. You can get a freeware converter here:
    http://www.neftojpg.com/
    ...or install the applicable photoshop plugin if that's your cup of tea.
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1804256 Posts: 11,034Member
    Tallguy wrote: »
    I don't recall Vader ever saying that.

    Episode 3, after Palpatine told him he killed Padme. ;)
  • TallguyTallguy350 Posts: 467Member
    Episode 3, after Palpatine told him he killed Padme. ;)
    Doesn't ring a bell.
    Bill "Tallguy" Thomas All I ask is a tall ship...
    Various Work: U.S.S. Constellation - Matt Jefferies Concept Shuttle
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1804256 Posts: 11,034Member

    It's crappy quality, but that's the scene. The part in question is just after 3:40.
  • Wishbone_AshWishbone_Ash325 Posts: 250Member
    Noooooooooooooo!
  • TallguyTallguy350 Posts: 467Member

    It's crappy quality, but that's the scene. The part in question is just after 3:40.

    I'm sorry, I still have no idea what you're talking about. Weird, huh?

    Help us JediLaw, you're our only hope!
    Bill "Tallguy" Thomas All I ask is a tall ship...
    Various Work: U.S.S. Constellation - Matt Jefferies Concept Shuttle
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1804256 Posts: 11,034Member
    Sorry Bill, you earned this:

    :fishslap: :fishslap: :fishslap: :fishslap: :fishslap:
  • stonkystonky350 Posts: 489Member
    Nope, I don't remember that scene either - weird. :)
  • Wishbone_AshWishbone_Ash325 Posts: 250Member
    Funny how at the time I kind of enjoyed the SW Prequels but now I can see them for what they are - the dribbling inbred offspring of a great trilogy.
  • anystaranystar0 Posts: 0Member
    Funny how at the time I kind of enjoyed the SW Prequels but now I can see them for what they are - the dribbling inbred offspring of a great trilogy.
    i kinda wish they didnt exist, i dont hate them exactly, but i loved the original 3 much more before the new 3 were made.
    i cant even ever figure out WHY, my reasons always change each time i sit and think about it! lol
  • aylaa12aylaa120 Posts: 0Member
    this is great work here the greebles are right on the money
  • fractalspongefractalsponge254 Posts: 1,088Member
    If there is an art-problem with the prequels, it's that greebled things are hard to get right in 3d, even for ILM. You need more detail on a cgi model compared to a real one to get the same feel of complexity, and I still haven't quite figured out why. This is absolutely not to say that Wayne's ISD isn't going to look great, but it does seem to be true.

    Maybe it's that we can pick out small imperfections in the physical materials, or conversely that we're very sensitive to the geometrically perfect lines you see in cgi models. Who knows?
  • WizWiz28 Posts: 0Member
    That's absolutely true, I encountered that very problem just recently when doing a recreation of the Executor hangar, I copied the bloody details as closely as possible (from the reference material I had), however it looked nowhere near as good as the physical model (and painting)... So I gave up and had a few glasses of wine, went back to it, got some (hic...) imperfections in there and it helped, but still doesn't look as good... Bah humbug...
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1804256 Posts: 11,034Member
    Yeah, this is where CGI is still limited in ways that physical models never were. If you look at the opening battle in Episode III (yes, Bill, I know you don't know what I'm talking about) they had what, 40+ CGI models in that scene. (probably more than that) Even if they rendered it in multiple passes, they still had to keep the greebles down to make the animation not take 8 years to render, even though I'm sure ILM uses top of the line render farms. In contrast, you can pile all the detail you want on a physical model and you just film it and it's there, no worries about render times. Plus, as Wiz said, there are those "imperfections" and other little nuances that are hard to recreate in CGI. But, as we know, George loves his CGI and likely fails to see the limitations because of all of the other things he can do with it.

    Personally, I like the prequel trilogy just fine. Of course, it will never be as good as the originals but that's to be expected. I like the prequel films even though I see them for what they are: an attempt to get more money. Plus, SW is really all that Georges has besides Indiana Jones. What I wish he'd do is stop messing with the original films. Just let it go!! I've been thinking about getting the original movies on DVD, even though the quality isn't supposed to be as good, just because those are the films I grew up watching. What he has out now is not the original trilogy.
  • TALON_UKTALON_UK2 Posts: 0Member
    Too true. I think it is just that we as consumers are so over exposed to cgi now that even an unsavvy cinemagoer can easily spot cgi from physical effects, we're still not quite at that point where it is so perfect that you can't tell the difference, other than through clever editing or other tricks of the trade.

    Look at any classic pre-cgi effects movie, and if it was done well in the first place it still stands up well today, the original Star Wars movies, Bladerunner, Alien, Aliens etc. All their effects shots still nail it today in this HD world. Then look at the Star Wars prequels, they already look dated, heck the Matrix sequels looked dated almost before they came out the cg was that ropey. Even the most recent cgi fest blockbusters, as good as they look, and enjoyable as they are, you can clearly see the cg seams.
  • TallguyTallguy350 Posts: 467Member
    Since we're waiting for greebles... I loved an article about the Avengers that mentioned that so many people were making "we're just not there yet" comments about the Hulk that no one noticed that there was a 100% CG Scarlett Johansson standing right next to him.

    Kind of in the same vein, I don't think there was anything in Dark Knight Rises that called attention to itself as an effect other than something at the end of the movie.

    Arguing against myself, Prometheus was pretty, but didn't QUITE sell as real for me.
    Bill "Tallguy" Thomas All I ask is a tall ship...
    Various Work: U.S.S. Constellation - Matt Jefferies Concept Shuttle
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1804256 Posts: 11,034Member
    Wait, so are you saying Scarlett Johansson isn't real, she's been CGI all of these years?! :p

    See, the problem is people think they're clever. They KNOW the Hulk is CGI, so they bash him based entirely on that knowledge. However, slip in something that isn't an obvious CGI addition and see how clever they really are. ;) I'll be honest, I could tell with older movies but this stuff has gotten really realistic looking in the past few years. I'll agree, not much of anything in The Dark Knight Rises really screamed "CGI" to me.
  • TALON_UKTALON_UK2 Posts: 0Member
    Tallguy wrote: »
    Since we're waiting for greebles... I loved an article about the Avengers that mentioned that so many people were making "we're just not there yet" comments about the Hulk that no one noticed that there was a 100% CG Scarlett Johansson standing right next to him.

    Well there is a perfect example of those editing tricks and slight of hand I was mentioning. Have a cgi Scarlett Johansson overshadowed by an obviously cg Hulk and you're obviously going to be distracted and drawn to the big bright green guy. Personally I didn't fall for it, nobody has an arse that perfect, she had to be cgi.



    :p

    [EDIT:] Damn, Evil just beat me to it.

    :lol:
  • Wishbone_AshWishbone_Ash325 Posts: 250Member
    TALON_UK wrote: »

    Look at any classic pre-cgi effects movie, and if it was done well in the first place it still stands up well today, the original Star Wars movies, Bladerunner, Alien, Aliens etc. All their effects shots still nail it today in this HD world. Even the most recent cgi fest blockbusters, as good as they look, and enjoyable as they are, you can clearly see the cg seams.

    I'll have to disagree with some of your points there - its now much harder to see where the live action ends and the CG/composite begins than it ever was to see where opticals had been used in films of the past. Much harder. Almost impossible in some of the more recent films. Even for experts.

    I'd have to say that even as much as I love the old films you've mentioned - seriously, not all the shots hold up. There is more than a handful of seriously dodgy composites in Aliens (though I do credit James Cameron with leaving as much as he could possibly get away entirely untouched on the new blu ray transfer, essentially leaving the film intact, warts and all) but you can see wires, you can see the telltale spike in grain levels on optical composites, and you can see flickering matte lines around objects. That film holds up well in general because they avoided the kinds of shots that would give the game away as much as they could.

    Alien still holds up well because it was all done, really, the very very old fashioned way they would have used in the 1950's - they hardly used any optical composites, they didn't even use motion control cameras - it was all cleverly done but there are some dodgy bits like the Alien being kicked out of the airlock and being very obviously quite a stocky stuntman in a rubber suit dangling from cables.
  • SeverusSeverus401 Posts: 254Member
    I'll have to disagree with some of your points there - its now much harder to see where the live action ends and the CG/composite begins than it ever was to see where opticals had been used in films of the past. Much harder. Almost impossible in some of the more recent films. Even for experts.

    I'd have to say that even as much as I love the old films you've mentioned - seriously, not all the shots hold up. There is more than a handful of seriously dodgy composites in Aliens (though I do credit James Cameron with leaving as much as he could possibly get away entirely untouched on the new blu ray transfer, essentially leaving the film intact, warts and all) but you can see wires, you can see the telltale spike in grain levels on optical composites, and you can see flickering matte lines around objects. That film holds up well in general because they avoided the kinds of shots that would give the game away as much as they could.

    Alien still holds up well because it was all done, really, the very very old fashioned way they would have used in the 1950's - they hardly used any optical composites, they didn't even use motion control cameras - it was all cleverly done but there are some dodgy bits like the Alien being kicked out of the airlock and being very obviously quite a stocky stuntman in a rubber suit dangling from cables.

    Yeah, well, you know, that's just like uh, your opinion man...

    I'd say presentation has a lot to with whether or not a CGI effect looks believable. Oddly enough what looks ok in the theater often times looks very obvious on the smaller screen at home. I'll see your stuntman dangling from cables and raise you any jumping jedi or swinging spiderman from the newer pictures... And don't even get me started on transformers... I'll grant you the newer effects can be placed into a movie better (lack of matte lines etc) but I still think a CGI set is obviously a CGI set. Take that scene in Attack of the Stiff Disjointed Clones, when Obi meets up with his friend at the diner, poor Ewan didn't know what to do with himself. So yeah some aspects of the new effects are superior to old ways, but they lack the physical presence you can only get with a physical set or model.

    And Wayne, you could stop all this by posting a new pic, or an old one, I wouldn't know the difference! wait... what?
  • TALON_UKTALON_UK2 Posts: 0Member
    Yeah, what I'd say is that sure, compositing is obviously much improved since things went digital, but I think we're talking more about the actual content than the compositing, though that's obviously a factor. Cgi is usually quite noticeable, where it works most seamlessly is when it is employed to remove stuff, or to subtly change a scene, Forrest Gump was a great example of this, with plenty of cg effects you'd never know where there. When it is bold and in your face it is rarely hard to tell cg from physical effects.

    The original Star Wars trilogy still holds up pretty well, was checking them out for reference purposes when building that Imperial Hangar. The blu ray of Jedi shows a few shortcomings in the matte lines between the matte painting and the live action plates for the Death Star II hangar shots when you look at still screenshots (surprised they didn't do some blending work there with all the other tinkering they've been doing), but when actually just watching it it still more than holds up.
  • anystaranystar0 Posts: 0Member
    its now much harder to see where the live action ends and the CG/composite begins than it ever was to see where opticals had been used in films of the past. Much harder. Almost impossible in some of the more recent films. Even for experts.

    i can tell.

    actually a hobby of mine if collecting fx films from the 50s to around the 70s. its fun to watch and try to dissect the creativity they used to bring thing back to life in those days. even when its so obviously fake it is punching you in the eyeballs, its still enjoyable. whether cg or practical, as long as the consumer "wants to believe" then it will succeed, no matter how many mats, or wires, or texture errors may be seen.

    and i'd like to second the "lets get back to topic" proposition :devil:
  • Wishbone_AshWishbone_Ash325 Posts: 250Member
    Oh well, call it a different viewpoint, different expectations etc. Any film with a good enough story will suck you in and you won't be paying attention to either good or bad effects work.

    Anyway back to the Avenger...
Sign In or Register to comment.