Sci Fi: Model vs CGI 18 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

Stark98

I would die without GF

138,935 XP

25th March 2005

0 Uploads

13,416 Posts

0 Threads

#1 8 years ago

Hey guys,

after watching a lot sci fi movies, i saw the difference between models and cgi.

Actually i came to the conclusion that i love models more, because it seems realistic. CGI is easier in fleets and to make, but still it looks cheesy in some way.

What is your opinion?




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#2 8 years ago

Model or a CGI - I don't care either way. As long as it looks good, I'm fine with either. Altough, I've never payed much attention to the difference between the two. Perhaps you could post some pictures for comparison?




Stark98

I would die without GF

138,935 XP

25th March 2005

0 Uploads

13,416 Posts

0 Threads

#3 8 years ago

mmh difficult to show it. Look at the galaxy class in generations and these are the voyages..

But if we look at battlestar galactica, i say, cgi is the best. Same counts for the new star trek movie, cgi is better. But in some ways, cgi isn't.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,278 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,016 Posts

7 Threads

#4 8 years ago
Sovereign001;5426686 But if we look at battlestar galactica, i say, cgi is the best. Same counts for the new star trek movie, cgi is better. But in some ways, cgi isn't.

BG is what I was thinking when I saw the title. Good CGI is better for sci-fi ships in my opinion.

I like the style of the models of older series or movies though. A good model is certainly better than bad CGI.




Flash525

The Carbon Comrade

50 XP

14th July 2004

0 Uploads

15,103 Posts

0 Threads

#5 8 years ago

I think it depends on the budget that said studio have. If they've got the money and resources, then CGI wins every time, however, if they're lacking in that department, it could be more beneficial to use an actual Model.




Stark98

I would die without GF

138,935 XP

25th March 2005

0 Uploads

13,416 Posts

0 Threads

#6 8 years ago

yeah in some ways.

here is the sulaco from aliens, a top notch action film

ship.jpg

an old movie, i think it looks great.

this is avatar, state of the art movie

a cgi scene from the beginning, imo, it looks like a cutscene from a computergame.

spaceship-avatar.jpg

cgi looks great in lots of movies, like star wars revenge of the sith(the battle above coruscant) or other movies, but in some movies, it looks like a game.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#7 8 years ago

Sovereign001;5426686mmh difficult to show it. Look at the galaxy class in generations and these are the voyages..[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Sovereign001;5426839]cgi looks great in lots of movies, like star wars revenge of the sith(the battle above coruscant) or other movies, but in some movies, it looks like a game.

Maybe it's done like that on purpose. It's only the matter of time before games and movies become one (V'ger must merge with it's creator =p), so this could be a step in that direction. Or not. In any case, I don't care. I certainly won't lose any sleep over it. =p




Stark98

I would die without GF

138,935 XP

25th March 2005

0 Uploads

13,416 Posts

0 Threads

#8 8 years ago

tha link keeps loading!




Mihail VIP Member

President of Novistrana

50 XP

19th January 2003

0 Uploads

15,509 Posts

0 Threads

#9 8 years ago

Static models are fine, when used for exactly that, static shots, when needing movement to further the imagination of the viewers mind, CGI is without a doubt the best way to go.




Kilobyte

What does the Fox say?

69,060 XP

23rd November 2002

0 Uploads

6,468 Posts

0 Threads

#10 8 years ago

I believe that statement is also too generalized.

I don't think lifting a CGI X-Wing out of a swamp on Dagobah would have been quite as impressive.

CGI is good for fast moving, barely seen objects. However, physical models are better for slower moving objects. As a physical model generally has more detail.




  • 1
  • 2