space ship model for a current video

not sure what that has to do with making footage.

_________________
[Blue] SI 2k "Godzilla" SI 2k mini "Mothra" [green] Canon Mk II 5d "Mechazilla" Canon 550d "Gamera"
www.blastandboom.com low cost high end HD cameras.

Nothing. I'm saying I was on another website and they had a picture where they took the source picture that you use as and avatar and they put it between the legs of Marla Maples as she does a cartwheel. I saw said picture and said Exclamation

WTF

and thought it was humorous. If I had been on a random website and had seen this

in between the legs of Ivanka Trump as she does back handsprings, I would say Exclamation

WTF

Someone took a picture of CyberCrypt and put it between the legs of Ivanka Trump while she's doing back handsprings. WTF?

Alas, not everything has to do with "making footage". Sometimes they just have to do with red and blue monkey. Dont forget that; it's a life lesson.

Confused

LOL! That pic of the monkey coming out of Marla Maples is funny as hell!!

I thought so. red and blue monkey doesnt think so. Crying or Very sad

I came to this forum because I like to make sci fi movies and im looking to find ways to do it for cheap.
I loved stu' s book and thought this would be a good idea.
If you have ever worked on a so called "real" set you would realize just how important it is to find another way to make movies. Between the insane costs and single track thinking in terms of work flow this was to be a breath of much needed air.

Its not that i dont have a sense of humor I just feel its not needed here. The internet is full of dumb stuff so i really like it when i can talk with people about both ideas and methods for doing something i love with out the chatter of getting side tracked into silly or goofy humor. IF by joining this forum and this is a common line, then i have made a serious mistake in coming here. I have only this year started reading or posting in forums for this reason.
Im not saying you cant get goofy just for the love of pete try to not do it here.
I find on reduser its hard enough to sort out info on the camera you need from the static so i was hoping this forum would be more professional in nature.
Ive worked as a film artist for the last seven years and I want to make the next two years unique and move into making shorts or features of my own or for the close friends in this arena. If some one here has or has no experience in so called "real" fim making but conduct themselves and asks or try interesting things that is the person i want to talk to. ive been reading several threads here for idea and really like what i see. Sadly a number of then dwindle off into chatter and loss focus on what their point was. I hope thats not the fate for all the threads.

if needed start a "goofing off" thread to allow for this kind of posting with out interfering with the rebel film work.
At no point do i think some one did this with any other intent then as harmless fun, I just feel strongly as i stated above that to get this kind of work done we need to stay on point and leave the silly stuff out. Its like being in a class of people who are serious and studying vs a the one with paper airplanes, cel phones ringing and total mayhem.
I thought that i should state this up front so that we as a forum can decide which future this will have.
i m sorry if i seem like im going off but i wanted to state up front how i feel this forum should be conducted. In no way was the joke that serious a matter its just that i would like to see more on your ideas and less taco pics.

thank you and again sorry for going off.

_________________
[Blue] SI 2k "Godzilla" SI 2k mini "Mothra" [green] Canon Mk II 5d "Mechazilla" Canon 550d "Gamera"
www.blastandboom.com low cost high end HD cameras.

also if anyone is looking for a great space ship model site this one is tops.
http://www.starshipmodeler.com/
like this....
http://www.starshipmodeler.com/other/bp_skimmer.htm
http://www.starshipmodeler.com/other/jd_lycan.htm
[/url]

_________________
[Blue] SI 2k "Godzilla" SI 2k mini "Mothra" [green] Canon Mk II 5d "Mechazilla" Canon 550d "Gamera"
www.blastandboom.com low cost high end HD cameras.

Hey Monkey. Want to say that I really respect your post about seriousness; however I think you may be calling people out over something that has no remedy.

This forum is full of serious people, and I consider Gage among the most so, and among those whose posts, advice, and opinions I respect most (though we diverge on several of them). This kind of filmmaking is full of creative people and people who come from a 'renegade' mindset. Add to that the fact that this forum is a small community and thus one where people are likely to start forming feelings of rapport with one another, and there's likely to be some fun and games; and yes, some chiding. It happens when a community starts to build.

The good news is that because there are so many dedicated folks on this forum, such silliness is unlikely to get out of hand and is all but bound to not derail the important subjects to which the forum is focused. The other bit of good news is that knowing you prefer to keep things business I think most of the folks here will be respectful of that. I think this is a pretty mature crowd. On top of which you've added quite a bit to the forum and nobody wants to see you get miffed and leave.

I do understand where you're coming from. I trash most joke emails, cutesy pictures, chain letters, and surveys. I like my internet time to be for exploring things that have some meaning to me and not getting lost in the seemingly endless mire of crap floating around the web. But joking amongst members of an online community is about as likely to stop as joking with co-workers around the office. We're all about building an alternative to the traditional method of filmmaking, but I for one think that the light hearted camaraderie is healthy and necessary to it.

Anyhow, once again, I totally respect the boundaries you want to keep. And, man, thanks for the great posts. Please keep them up.

	Quote:
	Its not that i dont have a sense of humor I just feel its not needed here. Im not saying you cant get goofy just for the love of pete try to not do it here. If needed start a "goofing off" thread to allow for this kind of posting with out interfering with the rebel film work.

LOL. Wow. You're a piece of work. Consider your posts ignored from now on. Just so we are clear, are these guidelines that you are laying out for threads that you start, threads that you are participating in or your new guidelines for the whole forum? Just so we're clear. I want to be crystal clear of the way you are running things.

	Quote:
	IF by joining this forum and this is a common line, then i have made a serious mistake in coming here.

I would never presume to say who is and who is not welcome anywhere but my own home, but it is entirely possible you are in the wrong place. I think you belong here and I have enjoyed learning from you, but it wont affect my life in the least if you disappear tomorrow. I hope you stick around, I just hope you lighten the fuck up. However it sounds more like you need to start your own forum where you actually have some authority to make rules.

Regarding the photo. It's a stupid photo. It has nothing to do with anything beyond what I said in the above posts. Here's the thing, though: there are a couple ways to respond to it. You have have a fucking sense of humor and say "heh. funny." And then continue with your sharing of projects. There would be no hiccup at all. Things would continue and it would be no big deal. You could even just ignore it if you dont find it funny. Again, no big deal. Instead, you have attempted to assert some sort of ownership and then think you can tell other members what they can and cant post. Who do you think you are? And you have turned what could have been a single, lighthearted post into an EIGHT post discussion on the matter. Way to keep your thread in order.

No big deal. You've just shown me what kind of person you are and that you are one I dont care to deal with, help, or take interest in.

Good luck with your projects, and dont worry, I wont bother reading any of your threads.

	red and blue monkey wrote:
	also if anyone is looking for a great space ship model site this one is tops. http://www.starshipmodeler.com/ like this.... http://www.starshipmodeler.com/other/bp_skimmer.htm http://www.starshipmodeler.com/other/jd_lycan.htm [/url]

Hey Monkey,

Stay on target... stay on target...

Nowadays making a physical model of a spaceship seems like such an expensive way of doing things.
CG is not great at organic stuff, and struggles with complex ambient lighting. But spaceships and CG are made for each other.
A million poly model, a ray traced lightsource, a bit of motion blur , radiosity, five lens flares and a smidgin of bloom gives you a very photorealistic spaceship.

Physical models, aside from the glue, the paint, the yoghurt containers are still going to face the challenge of... depth of field, motion control and so on.

I am pretty certain that two days polygoneering plus 10 mins per frame rendering, would give something that looks way better. And was cheaper to boot.

The CG model can also be filmed from arbitrary distances, and it's trivial to add local lightsources.

So much as I admire the modelmaker's craft... I'd be tempted to go to the dark side.

C.

	Carniphage wrote:
	I am pretty certain that two days polygoneering plus 10 mins per frame rendering, would give something that looks way better. And was cheaper to boot.

I disagree completely. I'd say as a rule of thumb cgi in amateur films looks horrible. I apologize for my choice of words, but I figure it's no use treading lightly on the subject. Agreed, there are those who can make it work, but usually it ends up looking like something out of Babylon 5. Acceptable, but by no means realistic, not to mention in most cases CGI tends to be entirely without charm and sterile. Even when model effects don't look 100% realistic, they've a real sense of stuff actually being there. Hell, when most feature films these days still have absolutely atrocious cgi, I consider it quite a stretch to say that one can do better in a few days.

By all means, prove me wrong with links.

Then again, I am generally very much against the use of CGI in most cases. It's a rare filmmaker who knows what to do with all this newfangled computar techmonology.

Also, I'd have to echo Gage's sentiments on the picture (which I found funny in all of it's randomness, as here I was thinking Gage is gonna come along with some spectacular insight on the subject at hand...and instead there's a picture of a glock holding monkey coming out from between a bikini girl's legs. I laughed.). It's not a big deal unless one intentionally makes it into one. I for one have loved Monkey's posts here and they've been a huge inspiration to do something along the same lines, but I'm very hesitant when people take out the "INTERNETS ARE SERIOUS BIZNESS"-card. Couple of funny pics ain't gonna do no harm here, but arguing over them is a sure way to spoil the overall good spirit one finds here. And yet here I participated in and threw in my 2 cents on the subject. D'oh!

Anyways, I hope Monkey continues posting pics, I really wanna see how the cargoship will turn out!

_________________
-Len

Hey Monkey --

You belong here. Lots of different personalities here, that's all.

**

Your space ships are gorgeous, and I suggest that the reason they are is (a) they look great in a long shot and (b) they have the detail for medium shots, if not close-ups. A camera tracking past these models will definitely express three-dimensionality in a way so much digital animation never does. Len is right and I think this echoes the DVRG. Stu points out that such creations as THE LAST BIRTHDAY CARD's helicopter are effective because each shot is relatively brief. With a model like the one in this thread, that kind of camoflage editing isn't absolutely necessary.

There's certainly a place for digital animation, but three dimensional physical models, miniatures, haven't been obsoleted at all.

-- Paul

I used to be much more into CGI when Phantom menace came out and was so until LOTR. I was so shocked by how great the models looked and using the digital compositing to blend the two together. Ironically I went back and reread my phantom menace Cinefex and realized i had suffered from red car syndrome. [That’s where you get a red car and suddenly every car you see seems to be red.] There had been a ton of model work there too. I’m not against CGI its just that model making is much more personal, in CGI I find its like modelling with gloves on. I also have come to really love the transformation quality. For instance the escape pod in star wars is a paint can, but once built up and shot right its a space ship fleeing to a desert world.
where as in the new trilogy they became more and more video game like in moves and look. I know there 2k super detailed but they don’t cut it. This was something i was worried about, was it just a nostalgia that made the models more interesting? I’ve asked every person I’ve met who have seen the movies their opinion and gotten the same answer. CGI is alienating audiences.
Think of it as airbrush art vs. oil paints. There’s nothing wrong with both of them but imagine if every thing was airbrush art....
I’m not against some one else doing CGI I’m just not into it any more, and I’m finding more filmmakers here in Vancouver interested in this idea. I get a lot of long "HMMMMMMMMMMMM" when I show stuff.
Ok so the short answer is that its a subjective thing to a current degree, but its not a accident that the new Indy is CGI and really sucked. I think it was a large part of the problem. Before for instance they could do crazy stunts but where bound by things like laws of physics. .

As for technique here’s my take on it.

First is too easy for camera moves and that’s a bad thing. The harder you have to fight the image the better the result. If it’s too easy I think that comes across in the footage.
Watch ROTJ vs. “revenge of the sith” opening. One is a battle the other is a video game.
By that I mean take the scene where lando tells akbar that they should engage the capital ships at close range. it cuts then to a wide shot of the two fleets going at it like ships of the line and then a series of shots of pilots being wasted. The sense of dread and peril is increased by these choices. Where as ROTS one silly threat after another comes at them like video game levels, no peril and the shots don’t add up.
And in terms of the battles space you know where you are. This fleet is here that fleet is here this is happening here and over there that is happening. You can use disorientation only so long before the audience turns off. They may not do it consciously but they will do it. Sadly for some reason CGI adds to this.
I think its part of the difficulty in planning the shots, you can’t go back too many times so it was more thought out; instead it’s become dense imagery with out a reason.
Art like constraints or that it has to fight against them. Think of modern art in the first half of the 20th century. You had very skill artists who could draw and paint with classical backgrounds hitting a wall; they felt constrained by subject and technique. Out of that most of the best work in the modern period emerges. You also get the epic battle that most art claims but doesn’t do in that a art movement fought to the death one of the greatest evils in human history, expressionism and Dadaism Vs fascists. While that’s a bit of a stretch in terms of what where talking about I think its worth reflecting on. A more current and relevant example would be the spy kids movies which I thought used CGI in a great way. He made it part of a cartoon world, so the look matched and because of the choices he made in forcing constraints had to out think the problems facing those movies. He found out that if you took less money you got more control. I would highly recommend the spy kids 2 commentaries as one of the most inspiring I’ve ever heard.
Or the movie Antz where the camera team was told they had to imagine a camera crew shooting the movie and to not violate the distance a crane could move, yes there are a few WOWO shots but 95 percent are as if there was a camera team there. Watch a Pixar movie and you will see the same result. Uses of the free camera are few and far and thus have more effect.

Second it’s easy with CGI to get 90 percent, there’s that last 10 percent that costs millions. And sadly most audiences dismiss it once the initial thrill of the movie is gone and it is judged on other merits. Blade runner will out live transformers.

Third I can do most of this in my garage….sorry I love being able to do that. I look at a model shot and you own it in a way CGI never could. I love using smoke and getting in there on the model its fun in a way sitting at a computer drinking cokes all day never is.

Fourth CGI for creature is a must; I’ve worked in creature design and dealt with the nightmare of trying to get it to work. [I was the weird plant puppet in the second season of “andromeda” episode "Heart for Falsehood Framed"] And there’s no going back once that Belrog comes on screen. But remember that it’s in a model environment. To quote Alan Funke the right pieces melded together digitally.
And on that note in a thousand years I wouldn’t wish optical compositing on anyone, which is a non issue, no one goes oh I wish I could do this optically.

Fifth, motion control when you price it against CGI at the feature level is not that costly any more, for you and me it is. But it’s not as far away as before and there are more and more units around as well, for repeat shots product shots FX. Were starting to have some good results shooting incamera as the post tool we have are amazing. But on that note ive come to understand why multipass motion control is used and cant wait to try it.

Sixth, with models you can in a sense have a bad model shot and it will be ok, CGI cant get away with bad work any more, it has to be bleeding edge. By this think ‘Team America” or Alien. I’m personally after a sort of heavy metal comic look. [This graphic magazine if you’re not familiar.] In that it would have a knowable style in the way say a frank miller, Ken Steacy or Eisner image would. There are CGI artists who do this such as Pascal Blanche but for me it’s also the medium that is part of the choice.

But don’t stop doing your work in CGI if that’s what works for you. I’m just after something else that’s all. And please post shots of ships or other work I think a CGI rendering thread would rock. I still do it, just not very well, and i use animatics to work out shots.

_________________
[Blue] SI 2k "Godzilla" SI 2k mini "Mothra" [green] Canon Mk II 5d "Mechazilla" Canon 550d "Gamera"
www.blastandboom.com low cost high end HD cameras.

The horses-for-courses approach used in Phantom Menace and LOTR is a great one if you can swing it. CG and models have one thing in common: they're at their best when they're not alone.

If you want to get inspired by some good CG spaceship work, check out this blog: http://glazy.blogspot.com/

-Stu

_________________
The DV Rebel's Guide

	Stu wrote:
	The horses-for-courses approach used in Phantom Menace and LOTR is a great one if you can swing it. CG and models have one thing in common: they're at their best when they're not alone. If you want to get inspired by some good CG spaceship work, check out this blog: http://glazy.blogspot.com/ -Stu

sorry what does horses for courses mean?

_________________
[Blue] SI 2k "Godzilla" SI 2k mini "Mothra" [green] Canon Mk II 5d "Mechazilla" Canon 550d "Gamera"
www.blastandboom.com low cost high end HD cameras.

It means that some horses run better on certain courses, not so well on others. So in this context it means that the filmmakers chose models or CG or a combination based on what they felt would work best for a given shot.

I've enjoyed reading this thread, for the most part. I like that you're doing some really interesting work and I REALLY like that you've thought about the why of it and fit it into your personal worldview.

Well done.

Arthur

_________________
sockstories.blip.tv