Miniatures vs. C.G.I.?

[Quiller]

Sorry to go on about remakes, but the upcoming Battle of Britain film got me thinking about special effects. It will undoubtedly be full of Computer Generated Images of Spitfires and Hurricanes, but which is better?

Miniature models have a solid look and are really there, but CGI only exists in a computer, and usually looks light and faded.

The miniatures in 633 Squadron I loved, and they were apparently, 48/1 scale, which is pretty tiny.

Who prefers what, miniatures or CGI?

[djdave]

Interesting question.

I agree that CGI can look a bit "computery". A good example is Spiderman, where our webslinging hero didn't look natural as he bounced around New York's skyline.

However, a good example of where it looks good is the Jurassic Park dinosaurs.

As for the use of CGI vs minatures, can't Studios use both technologies? In other words, for far away shots and/or where there are dozens of aircraft use CGI, but build miniatures - and then use computers to tweak them if they don't look quite right - for close ups?

Can't see anything wrong with combining the best of the techniques available.

I've been watching Battlestar Galactica on Sky Three on Freeview. The spacecraft in that look fantastic, but I don't know how they've been done.

[DB7]

I thought the air attack in Pearl Harbour looked fairly realistic until they cut to close-ups of the ship explosions - then it looked like a very expensive computer game simulation.

What they may well do is film one Spitfire in the air then overlay it until it appears like a squadron is airborne.

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by DB7 I thought the air attack in Pearl Harbour looked fairly realistic until they cut to close-ups of the ship explosions - then it looked like a very expensive computer game simulation.

Explosions and fires are always very difficult to get right with miniatures or model shots. Most of them still look like they were done by the supermarionation team - if they look that good.

What they may well do is film one Spitfire in the air then overlay it until it appears like a squadron is airborne.

Will they then all be shot down at the same time? :rolleyes:

Steve

[Quiller]

Originally Posted by Steve Crook Will they then all be shot down at the same time? :rolleyes: Steve

Yeah, Tom Cruise will shoot them down singlehandedly, just before he goes down in a blaze of slow-mo glory. Christ, I can hardly wait... honest.

The Jurassic Park dinosaurs do look great, but they had like two years to work on them. Now films are rushed out in under six months, and CGI looks like it's getting worse. Everything's blurred, blink and you miss it. A few frames, instead of fluid movement.

I forgot to mention the guy that made the best miniatures in movie history: Derek Meddings.

That guy was a genius, and when he blew something up, it rarely looked like a miniature.

I can't be sure, but I'm sure he used to use salt, or sand, for splashing water!

The Spy Who Loved Me - the tanker in the film. Some shots it's real, but most shots it's one of Medding's miniatures. When it blew up, you couldn't tell the difference. At the premiere, the captain of the oil tanker they used asked them which other tanker they used for the finale. It even had him fooled!

Goldeneye was his last film, and there's a stunning mountain-rage base that doesn't exist at all. It's a combination of miniature and matte work. Absolutely beautiful to see.

I love the colour of his explosions. I don't know how he did it, but they always looked just like the real thing.

He's the guy responsible for the miniatures in the first Batman film, which are some of his best. The Batwing still looks cool, the way it moves, especially in the silhouette of the moon, and when the factory blows up, it's just perfect. His eye for detail was unbelievable.

I think miniatures should be used more today, instead of CGI. The bigger the miniature, the more realistic it looks. A 6ft spitfire would look pretty real compared to something done on a computer, and like DB7 suggests, film it against green screen, and you can have hundreds of spitfires whilst just filming one.

God I'd love to make a low-budget battle of britain film. It would shit on anything Hollywood could churn out. I'd have the first 15 minutes on the ground, a flight briefing before they fly out on a mission. Introduce the main characters, then the rest of the film would be one entire flight mission from start to finish. I don't think anything like that has been done. Completely against the usual conventions of films, where you have scenes where they save the budget. This would be in the air for ninety solid minutes.

[DB7]

Originally Posted by Steve Crook Will they then all be shot down at the same time? :rolleyes: Steve

Well yes, by all accounts Pearl Harbor used only 3 Zero's. I suppose you film them for hours going through manoeuvres then overlay the scenes so that it looks like the sky is full of planes. There's over 100 airworthy Spitfires knockin about and they only need 20 odd to match the amount used during the filming of Battle of Britain. (and there were the odd Hurricane during WWII)

[Quiller]

60% Hurricanes, 40% Spitfires during WWII.

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by Quiller I love the colour of his explosions. I don't know how he did it, but they always looked just like the real thing.

Nowadays they always seem to add loads of petrol or have a gas pipe feeding it as well - they can't seem to believe that an explosion can take place without flames 40 feet high. Explosions can, and often do, take place without a fireball.

But of course Hollywood divorced from reality ages ago. Now they just have to try to make bigger special effects than the last film.

Steve

[Wolfgang]

I think CGI always looks fake even when it looks good because it does not reflect real light like proper objects do, and your eyes detect these subtle differences. That is why puppetry and miniatures always look more real when they are clearly not. I am sure if they combined both disciplines they could have best of both worlds - but by doing that you would effectively double up on special effects and cost!

[Quiller]

Steve, those modern petrol explosions - they're so horrible. I love to see old british colour films where they blew stuff up for real. All the explosions - I think - used an element of black powder, so they have that black/orange contrast that just looks so cool. A lot of the early Bond films have some wicked explosions in them. And the colour of the flames in Zulu, amazing. They used petroleum jelly and used to paint it on to the set before setting fire to it.

Wolfgang, the flying scene in Indiana Jones and The Last Crusdade. Some of the really cool shots were miniatures, and they looked more impressive than anything CGI can do now.

I think Sink The Bismarck! had some cool ship miniatures. It's been a while since I've seen it, but I remember I was thoroughly impressed by the special effects.

[DB7]

Originally Posted by Wolfgang I think CGI always looks fake even when it looks good because it does not reflect real light like proper objects do, and your eyes detect these subtle differences. That is why puppetry and miniatures always look more real when they are clearly not.

That reminds me, I was watching The Trollenberg Terror on Actionmax the other night and the ending involved the RAF fire-bombing a research station beset with aliens. Made me smile as the flames were clearly not much bigger than those from a fag lighter.

[Wolfgang]

I watch Superman documentary today, and some actor from those Kirk Allen serials says he still get complaints about how they become 'animated cartoons' when Superman flies. There are some parallels there because CGI is still just animation (even if it is much more sophisticated) and all they have done with films like Spiderman and this new Superman film is go back to that technique. You can show Superman doing stuff you could never film in live action, but it still carries that air of disappointment in that what you are watching is not in anyway real.

[djdave]

Originally Posted by Quiller I forgot to mention the guy that made the best miniatures in movie history: Derek Meddings. That guy was a genius

Meddings did a lot of stuff for Gerry Anderson's Century 21 programmes. His best work was with UFO: what a cool collection of spaceships, plus Barry Gray's wonderful music.

[spinalman]

Originally Posted by Quiller Sorry to go on about remakes, but the upcoming Battle of Britain film got me thinking about special effects. It will undoubtedly be full of Computer Generated Images of Spitfires and Hurricanes, but which is better? Miniature models have a solid look and are really there, but CGI only exists in a computer, and usually looks light and faded. The miniatures in 633 Squadron I loved, and they were apparently, 48/1 scale, which is pretty tiny. Who prefers what, miniatures or CGI?

Question is will it be Hollywood or Europe that does the CGI?
I have to say I have been sorely disappointed with a lot of CGI I have seen created on this side of the pond.
I recall the "oh how cheesy" CGI in the opening of Enemy at the Gates, and the early episodes of Band of Brothers (was that a UK production?)

Why is it that computer designers/animators get the movement of aircraft slightly wrong? (then again, perhaps they get it spot on and I have assumed that bit was live action!)

[Quiller]

DB7, I've been meaning to catch that film on Actionmax. Love the title.

Wolfgang, good points. It is just animation. I used to like CGI to some degree, but lately I've started loathing it. It's supposed to look photo-realistic, but it just doesn't look so good lately.

Dave, far too young to have seen UFO! I saw a few episodes of Stingray as a kid and loved it! The miniatures rocked. Was it Thunderbirds that had the line: "Anything can happen in the next five seconds?" - or Stingray? Either way, classic all the way.

Paul, god, you're right. If it's Europe, it'll be even worse. I never even thought about that. The reason is that a lot of smaller indie FX companies are brought in to get the CGI done in a shorter space of time. So there'll be dozens of smaller companies working on specific scenes. The level of 'quality' is never consistent because of this. But saying that, Industrial Light and Magic produce some pretty fake looking CGI. James Cameron's Digital Domain used to be a good one. I don't know whether they still do FX. But remember the plane effects at the end of True Lies? Most of that was CGI, way back in the mid-nineties, and it looked very cool. They even put dirt on the plane for realism, and added the right touches.