CGI vs models?

I personally feel that CGI gives much more freedom to the artist and it works better for creating living organic beings than traditional models. Its also easier and cheaper to use and its more comfortable than real life models. Thats why it allows you to do more with the money you invested. So I think CGI is great but models will also continue to be used.

I personally feel that CGI gives much more freedom to the artist and it works better for creating living organic beings than traditional models. Its also easier and cheaper to use and its more comfortable than real life models. Thats why it allows you to do more with the money you invested. So I think CGI is great but models will also continue to be used.

hyksiu

[QUOTE="hyksiu"]

I personally feel that CGI gives much more freedom to the artist and it works better for creating living organic beings than traditional models. Its also easier and cheaper to use and its more comfortable than real life models. Thats why it allows you to do more with the money you invested. So I think CGI is great but models will also continue to be used.

reach3

I think with enough time and resources, a CGI model can look utterly real and blow any physical model out of the water. For example, the CGI in Prometheus didn't even look like CGI. The only way I could tell is by realizing that it would be impossible to achieve some of the effects with real models and because I read before hand that CGI would be used on certain scenes.

I think with enough time and resources, a CGI model can look utterly real and blow any physical model out of the water. For example, the CGI in Prometheus didn't even look like CGI. The only way I could tell is by realizing that it would be impossible to achieve some of the effects with real models and because I read before hand that CGI would be used on certain scenes.

BluRayHiDef

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

I think with enough time and resources, a CGI model can look utterly real and blow any physical model out of the water. For example, the CGI in Prometheus didn't even look like CGI. The only way I could tell is by realizing that it would be impossible to achieve some of the effects with real models and because I read before hand that CGI would be used on certain scenes.

Pirate700

[spoiler] The scene at the end in which the giant face-hugger attacks and infects the Engineer/ Space Jockey did not look like CGI. The face-hugger looked utterly real. What made the fact that it was CGI obvious is common sense; there's no physical model in the world that could move as fluidly as the face-hugger moved, so it must have been CGI. The same goes for the scene at the beginning in which the Engineer/ Space Jockey consumes the black liquid and dies. [/spoiler]

Models usually look far more realistic as it's a real object and as such automatically does the million-and-one things that real objects do, like have the correct brightness, contrast, tint, shading, shadowing, etc etc. CGI can look good if you spend millions on it, and even then only if you don't try to stretch that budget too far. But for the most part, even in many very high budget productions, it looks completely fake. The physics of moving objects are totally wrong, it often is brighter, dimmer, more or less reflective, has terrible shading and shadowing, odd computer-generated coloration, and just doesn't look like it's sharing the same space as the objects around it.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

I think with enough time and resources, a CGI model can look utterly real and blow any physical model out of the water. For example, the CGI in Prometheus didn't even look like CGI. The only way I could tell is by realizing that it would be impossible to achieve some of the effects with real models and because I read before hand that CGI would be used on certain scenes.

BluRayHiDef

[spoiler] The scene at the end in which the giant face-hugger attacks and infects the Engineer/ Space Jockey did not look like CGI. The face-hugger looked utterly real. What made the fact that it was CGI obvious is common sense; there's no physical model in the world that could move as fluidly as the face-hugger moved, so it must have been CGI. The same goes for the scene at the beginning in which the Engineer/ Space Jockey consumes the black liquid and dies. [/spoiler]

Models usually look far more realistic as it's a real object and as such automatically does the million-and-one things that real objects do, like have the correct brightness, contrast, tint, shading, shadowing, etc etc. CGI can look good if you spend millions on it, and even then only if you don't try to stretch that budget too far. But for the most part, even in many very high budget productions, it looks completely fake. The physics of moving objects are totally wrong, it often is brighter, dimmer, more or less reflective, has terrible shading and shadowing, odd computer-generated coloration, and just doesn't look like it's sharing the same space as the objects around it.

Jackc8

Models usually look far more realistic as it's a real object and as such automatically does the million-and-one things that real objects do, like have the correct brightness, contrast, tint, shading, shadowing, etc etc. CGI can look good if you spend millions on it, and even then only if you don't try to stretch that budget too far. But for the most part, even in many very high budget productions, it looks completely fake. The physics of moving objects are totally wrong, it often is brighter, dimmer, more or less reflective, has terrible shading and shadowing, odd computer-generated coloration, and just doesn't look like it's sharing the same space as the objects around it.

Jackc8

Tell that to Transformers.

(CLICK TO ENLARGE)

My only comment is that CGI has come a long way since its heydays & it will eventually start to improve & excel slowly before outdating the use of models. I believe "models" or "sculptures" will be used in the future to get a visual reference & detail but CGI will make it completely obsolete in the end.

When? Who knows.... Advancement & investment in technology will tell but it has been quite amazing thus far since I 1st laid eyes on Gollum in Lord of the Rings.

The reality of CGI...... I believe is in the eye of the beholder. If you believe it to be true, it will truly be mesmerizing & will keep you immerse in the picture. If you observe it with the utmost truth ("reality"/ over analyzing), you will lose the movie in its entirety.

Regardless, it is a movie. Enjoy it for what it is. An escapement from reality for 2 hours or so before heading back to the daily grind (if you have one).....

[QUOTE="Jackc8"]

Models usually look far more realistic as it's a real object and as such automatically does the million-and-one things that real objects do, like have the correct brightness, contrast, tint, shading, shadowing, etc etc. CGI can look good if you spend millions on it, and even then only if you don't try to stretch that budget too far. But for the most part, even in many very high budget productions, it looks completely fake. The physics of moving objects are totally wrong, it often is brighter, dimmer, more or less reflective, has terrible shading and shadowing, odd computer-generated coloration, and just doesn't look like it's sharing the same space as the objects around it.

BluRayHiDef

Tell that to Transformers.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="Jackc8"]

Models usually look far more realistic as it's a real object and as such automatically does the million-and-one things that real objects do, like have the correct brightness, contrast, tint, shading, shadowing, etc etc. CGI can look good if you spend millions on it, and even then only if you don't try to stretch that budget too far. But for the most part, even in many very high budget productions, it looks completely fake. The physics of moving objects are totally wrong, it often is brighter, dimmer, more or less reflective, has terrible shading and shadowing, odd computer-generated coloration, and just doesn't look like it's sharing the same space as the objects around it.

Pirate700

Tell that to Transformers.

Click on the image to view it at its maximum size. There is nothing that looks fake about it. It looks utterly real. It looks like real metal with actual scratches and upon which light is realistically reflected. What looks fake about it? Really?

I find if CGI is used too much it can be really annoying. Like the remake of Alice in Wonderland, waaaaay too much CGI in that flick. Even the non-moving horses were CGI, it was just overkill. Also in the LOTR trilogy I can really appreciate their balance. Things that needed CGI (Orthanc, Lothorien, Nazgul) were done appropriately. When they could get awa with it they just used models (Orcs, Horses).

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

Tell that to Transformers.

BluRayHiDef

Click on the image to view it at its maximum size. There is nothing that looks fake about it. It looks utterly real. It looks like real metal with actual scratches and upon which light is realistically reflected. What looks fake about it? Really?

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]That looks real to you? Really?

Pirate700

Click on the image to view it at its maximum size. There is nothing that looks fake about it. It looks utterly real. It looks like real metal with actual scratches and upon which light is realistically reflected. What looks fake about it? Really?

To each their own. I strenously disagree. Maybe your TV sucks.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

Click on the image to view it at its maximum size. There is nothing that looks fake about it. It looks utterly real. It looks like real metal with actual scratches and upon which light is realistically reflected. What looks fake about it? Really?

BluRayHiDef

To each their own. I strenously disagree. Maybe your TV sucks.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]I did enlarge it and I'm viewing it on a 42" screen. It looks like blatantly like CG. It does not look real at all.

Pirate700

To each their own. I strenously disagree. Maybe your TV sucks.

You don't even have eyes. You're a skeleton with empty sockets.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

To each their own. I strenously disagree. Maybe your TV sucks.

BluRayHiDef

You don't even have eyes. You're a skeleton with empty sockets.

cgi still needs some time to show it's true face imo.from what we've seen so far my vote goes to models.and i hope some directors never give up using actual models no matter how much CGI improves.(hint: guillermo del toro)

cgi still needs some time to show it's true face imo.from what we've seen so far my vote goes to models.and i hope some directors never give up using actual models no matter how much CGI improves.(hint: guillermo del toro)

VaguelyTagged

Sometimes you need models. For example, you can't do a live-action Transformers films without CGI.

A good example of the use of models is Terminator 1 and 2. A lot of films resort to using CGI straight away which can lead to some lazy film making, and if the money isn't their to back it up it sticks out like a sore thumb. I general think films that use models or in camera special effects are general more creative and edited better.

I can't help but people who are against CGI are clinging onto the past. It's obviously the best new direction to take in films and already has been for a while.

It really depends on the situation.