I've seen shots of vehicles that were obviously toys, and, quite honestly, they looked pretty silly. I've asked about making miniatures, so I would like to know how big a spaceship should be. Say, if it was to be as big as a bus, how long should the model be?
A man walks into a lawyers office, “I’ve seen on TV that trials can
take only two or three days. I have a breach of contract issue. How
long does a trial take?”
I do not believe there is a one-size-fits-all answer to your question.
Maybe quarter scale? Perhaps you could get away with one fifth.
Depending on the needs of the movie you might need to go one half
scale - you might need a few different sizes.
A man walks into a lawyers office, “I’ve seen on TV that trials can
take only two or three days. I have a breach of contract issue. How
long does a trial take?”
Give me some money and I'll tell you.
Quote:
I do not believe there is a one-size-fits-all answer to your question.
Maybe quarter scale? Perhaps you could get away with one fifth.
Depending on the needs of the movie you might need to go one half
scale - you might need a few different sizes.
I agree. But to film a model approaching a space station or landing on a planet's surface would require a model that's only a few feet long. At least, that's what my research tells me.
Bigger models for actors would, of course, be far larger. But I didn't read anything about a model spaceship having to be as big as a quarter scale, never mind half scale. But you're the expert, not me.
I'm looking to film something as realistic as the model used by Brian Johnson in Space: 1999.
I think we're talking at cross purposes - my research involved miniatures for the small screen, like TV or YouTube; I think Directorik was referring to the big screen.
I'm looking to film something as realistic as the model used by Brian Johnson in Space: 1999.
Then find out how big that model was and build yours the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspiring Mogul
I think we're talking at cross purposes - my research involved miniatures for the small screen, like TV or YouTube; I think Directorik was referring to the big screen.
Rik, am I right?
Nope.
The original "Battlestar Galactica" was around 14 feet. And that
was for TV.
BTW: the "Hawk" was only 30 inches. The "Superswift" was five
and a half feet. And the "Daria" was 12 feet. There were three
"Eagle" ships, the largest was five feet, the smallest six inches.
I got this from an old "Starlog" issue about Martin Bower. You
should contact him. He build the "Orion" for 2001 - 3 feet BTW
How many screen seconds do you think the model will be seen?
Principle: Typically, the more time an audience has to scrutinize it the bigger it should be.
Practicality: Depends upon the production budget.
If you're making a $10k feature and the model is going to be on screen for 0.5seconds/15 internet frames then I wouldn't allocate a whole lotta expense to it.
If you're making a $100k feature and the model is still going to be on screen for 0.5seconds/15 internet frames then I still wouldn't allocate a whole lotta expense to it - but you can afford to spend more money on it.
More money = A) more detail - or - B) bigger model).
A lot more money = A + B!
Now, as the screen seconds start accumulating the level of detail needs to increase in proportion.
There is no set industry standard or ratio that you may be looking for, like on airplane models.
I watched the directors cut of JCameron's ALIENS the other month, the miniatures of that squatty tank rolling across the landscape looked like sh!t, but looked fine in the theater.
The models GLucas used for the Death Star in Episode IV look like sh!t now, but looked fine in the theater.
Feature film miniatures tend to be pretty big in order to maximize the camera's depth of field. If only part of the thing is in focus it tends to give the impression of being smaller than it's supposed to be.
If it has to interact with practical elements such as water, smoke, fire, dust, etc. which are difficult to miniaturize. Though this is less of an issue now, since most of that is done with CGI these days.
Is perceived speed an issue? For a spaceship, nobody is used to seeing one move so it's irrelevant. For a car, our brains our used to a certain speed and reaction to gravity. To make wind, speed, and physics in general look like you need to overcrank the camera on set proportional to the scale of the model.
Example, you're shooting a car drive by in miniature. The car is 1:4 scale of a 16 foot long car, making it 4 feet long. To make the physics look right on camera, you need to shoot it at 4 times the target FPS, so if the rest of the movie is in 24 fps, then you neef to shoot in 96fps for best effect.
That said, the highest FPS you can get out of a sub $15k camera at even 720p is 60fps, 2.5 times faster than 24fps. So ideally, any miniatures would be a 1:2.5 scale. A perceived 16 foot car would need to be 6'5" for best effect.
I did a lot of research into shooting miniatures for a quick car chase (watch here) we released last year. After the research, we decided to go CG. Found some young CG guys wanting to work with someone who could provide quality live footage they could work with for their reel, and teamed up with them. Decent results, it's not totally Michael Bay but one time through looks ok haha.
Is "pretty good" what you as a producer want to present to the
paying public?
You're right, that looks pretty good. You might be able to get away
with a very small, inexpensive space ship model. Shooting it better
than that clip might make a big difference.
Goodness knows that I'm always in favor of practical effects. But when budget is a concern, I don't understand why you don't go with a CG model. It can be made for less, and you only have to build one to be used for all your shots. That one model can be blown up (multiple times if need be,) it can be re-sized and reused for multiple shots, you can change the color...
If I had a million dollar budget, I'd go practical effects all day long. But since I don't, (and I imagine most others on this site don't as well...) there are just too many benefits to using CG for it to be overlooked...
Last edited by LasVegasIRA; 04-08-2012 at 11:20 AM.
You're right, as usual. I want to be "good", not "pretty good". But, again, what looks bad on the big screen would not necessarily look bad on TV or a computer screen. Again, this traveltube from Space: 1999 looks good, and I'm willing to be it's no bigger than HO scale.I'll defer to your expertise, but doesn't the HO train shot look good on a computer screen or even TV? I'm asking because, as I've said all along, I have poor eyesight - I watch movies for their stories, not their visual effects.
LasVegasIRA, CGI is not as good as miniatures, but, of course, I'll consider CGI if it has better quality.
You're right, as usual. I want to be "good", not "pretty good". But, again, what looks bad on the big screen would not necessarily look bad on TV or a computer screen. Again, this traveltube from Space: 1999 looks good, and I'm willing to be it's no bigger than HO scale.I'll defer to your expertise, but doesn't the HO train shot look good on a computer screen or even TV? I'm asking because, as I've said all along, I have poor eyesight - I watch movies for their stories, not their visual effects.
LasVegasIRA, CGI is not as good as miniatures, but, of course, I'll consider CGI if it has better quality.
That's a debate there. Creating photorealistic CGI is a hard task that is best kept to the professionals, however the results can be amazing. For my feature next year, I'm using 80% CGI over my miniature shots.
You're right, as usual. I want to be "good", not "pretty good". But, again, what looks bad on the big screen would not necessarily look bad on TV or a computer screen. Again, this traveltube from Space: 1999 looks good, and I'm willing to be it's no bigger than HO scale.I'll defer to your expertise, but doesn't the HO train shot look good on a computer screen or even TV? I'm asking because, as I've said all along, I have poor eyesight - I watch movies for their stories, not their visual effects.
LasVegasIRA, CGI is not as good as miniatures, but, of course, I'll consider CGI if it has better quality.
With that, my question has to be, how good are you expecting everything to look anyway? You say you're making this for TV or computer, and it's going to be done low budget. Are you expecting to make something that's going to look like James Cameron developed it? Because you won't have the budget for that.
I would simply try to make a good story with representations of a spaceship that will do the job of getting the point across.
BTW, I hope I'm not coming across sounding negative toward your idea. I think a low budget sci fi story sounds like a really cool idea. I'm simply trying to suggest a way for you to get the most bang for your buck, and CG models will help you to do that.
Also, everything I've seen and read about CG models tell me that it's not so much the model itself that makes it look realistic, it's what you use to texture it and how you light it in virtual 3d space.
For a good example of this, look at this tutorial done by Video CoPilot. The CG sub model doesn't look very real outside of the rendered final product, but by lighting everything correctly within the project, it looks great. The model is show at 12:59 in the video.
Hybrid Mode
