archived-videos Star Destroyer Practical Effects Test Shot

Kemotherapy360

Kemotherapy360

This is an effects test shot I've been tinkering with for the past few weeks. It was created shooting stills of a toy Star Destroyer and Blockade Runner. Enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKUorLJJlVA

Most space ship related VFX I see nowadays are completely CGI. I wanna show everyone that model are not dead yet! Let me know what you all think.
 
Upvote 0
Kemotherapy360 said:
This is an effects test shot I've been tinkering with for the past few weeks. It was created shooting stills of a toy Star Destroyer and Blockade Runner. Enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKUorLJJlVA

Most space ship related VFX I see nowadays are completely CGI. I wanna show everyone that model are not dead yet! Let me know what you all think.
Click to expand...

Personally, I prefer this look more. However, the logistics behind moving the camera, and finding modelers nowadays are enormous. Back in the 80's modeling for film was a thing. Not so much anymore. If you do find someone who does it, it'll run you alot more money than it did back then. And it wasn't cheap back then either.
 
Excellent. I love it. I've worked in visual effects for over 20 years and have some pretty strong feelings on this topic. Although the previous poster is correct in terms of the attractive price point & practicality of CG, to me models & makeup appliances will always be more convincing. I can go on about this all day. Ultimately, I like your approach because you used models where appropriate and digital compositing to polish it off.
 
_Rok_ said:
Excellent. I love it. I've worked in visual effects for over 20 years and have some pretty strong feelings on this topic. Although the previous poster is correct in terms of the attractive price point & practicality of CG, to me models & makeup appliances will always be more convincing. I can go on about this all day. Ultimately, I like your approach because you used models where appropriate and digital compositing to polish it off.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
The audience knows the events they are seeing in a movie aren't really happening. That star destroyer? Alien? The car chase in Bullitt? They all have one thing in common: they all actually existed. Someone did something and someone else filmed it. On the other hand, everybody knows CGI is entirely the product of a computer process, and as a result, isn't afforded the credibility that we assign to real things. Practical effects are real things, but CGI just looks sorta like real things. Don't get me wrong CGI can be awesome, but as the price point for CGI falls you will see a resurgence of good old fashioned practical effects.

Again, I loved your shot.
 
Last edited:
jrusso said:
Personally, I prefer this look more. However, the logistics behind moving the camera, and finding modelers nowadays are enormous. Back in the 80's modeling for film was a thing. Not so much anymore. If you do find someone who does it, it'll run you alot more money than it did back then. And it wasn't cheap back then either.
Click to expand...

Thanks!

Is practical really more expensive? I've heard it the other way around that CG is more expensive, which makes sense because to render out even just decent looking CG requires A LOT of computer power.

However I do understand practical sets and effects cost a lot of money. So which one is it?
 
I like it. The models look good. As do the guns they are firing. One thing I will say however, is that, if I were to see this in a film, I wouldn't be convinced by the explosion at the end. It doesn't look like a "space explosion", if you know what I mean. That could use some work.

Good stuff though!



As an aside; I wonder if 'Independence Day 2' will use practical effects? I hope so. The exploding White House was awesome.
 
mad_hatter said:
I like it. The models look good. As do the guns they are firing. One thing I will say however, is that, if I were to see this in a film, I wouldn't be convinced by the explosion at the end. It doesn't look like a "space explosion", if you know what I mean. That could use some work.

Good stuff though!



As an aside; I wonder if 'Independence Day 2' will use practical effects? I hope so. The exploding White House was awesome.
Click to expand...

Thanks!

Are you referring to the smoke at the end of the explosion?
 
Kemotherapy360 said:
Thanks!

Are you referring to the smoke at the end of the explosion?
Click to expand...

No, no. The whole explosion. It's not just you, it's a common mistake in older Sci-Fi (see HERE). For example, you can't have fire in space. I prefer it when explosions are depicted as a bright light and a shockwave. It's probably still not accurate, but it's preferable to an "earthly" explosion.

It's a simple thing that most viewers probably wouldn't care about. I just don't like it myself.
 
mad_hatter said:
No, no. The whole explosion. It's not just you, it's a common mistake in older Sci-Fi (see HERE). For example, you can't have fire in space. I prefer it when explosions are depicted as a bright light and a shockwave. It's probably still not accurate, but it's preferable to an "earthly" explosion.

It's a simple thing that most viewers probably wouldn't care about. I just don't like it myself.
Click to expand...

Ah yes I see. Found a video through the link you posted a saw a fire in zero g. That would look awesome!
 
good point mad_hatter, i also prefer the shockwave/light combo, but overall, an awesome test! as a viewer i much prefer seeing practical fx, so keep up the good stuff
 
samwagner1000 said:
good point mad_hatter, i also prefer the shockwave/light combo, but overall, an awesome test! as a viewer i much prefer seeing practical fx, so keep up the good stuff
Click to expand...

Thanks!

Which sci-fi shows/movies use the shockwave/light combo? I've seen it used for nuclear detonations in space but what other examples are there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top