It looks very realistic and better than the newer movies.
>>752008Not vfx. They built one whole-ass ship in real life and used masks to copy it 4 or 5 times on screen in the editing process
>>752008Real miniatures, you then film that miniature.You then manually cut out that shot in film and stick it onto film and reproject and rerecord.In older versions the cutting wasn't as tidy as modern releases so in older scifi like BSG 1978 and Buck Rogers you sometimes see artifacts showing this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EX1_0qa41HI
>>752030Notice how all the backgrounds in the original footage is plain black to mask the outlines.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fmzVTY8kWYNow compare it to modern upgraded and enhanced versions.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WndUtSd7Fz8
>>752009>>752018>>752030Pretty sure he's talking about the George Lucas "It's never done" Special Editions.That shit is 3d renders straight up.But.... there is an air of truth to the physical models. They're 3d scans of the actual models used. Most likely taken a bit further in Max on some SGI workstations or some shit.
>>752035That depends on the version as there has been a few releases over the years.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_changes_in_Star_Wars_re-releasesWe know it was all done (or at least most of it) by Industrial light and magic. Looking at the time period and ILM. They probably used Maya, 3D studio max and C4D, probably some early use of blender as well to do 3D modelling. With texture and other art assets produced by MODO foundry. Then this was composited with Nuke foundry / Natron.In behind the scene footage in the release you can see several of these programs open on computers in the background.
>>752008Isn't the software, looks better to you because of the way it moves and the way it is framed. The fighter sequences in OG star wars was based around archive footage of realworld aircombat during WW2. The people making the special edition prob went back to this kind of source material when they designed the new shots.In subsequent star wars movie the fights takes on this kinda game cutscene amusement park ride that goes for spectacle.Completely lost is the tension and subtle interplay of crafts trying to kill and not be killed.The expose camerawork is also a lot more conservative in SE, The exterior shots looks like they've could've been filmedfrom a third craft which lends to the credibility of what we're looking at. In the prequels the camera moves in close and around the crafts and thru debris/clouds of fighters unrestricted and it's clear it'sa massless/dimensionless CGI camera that is our viewpoint into the world, very weak cinematic language to it.
>>752051You see... your post would've been more believable if you had written "BLENDER" instead, anon.
>>752059Its no secret that ilm uses maya on a lot of their productions. From the 90s and on. They do have proprietary shit aswell of course.
>>752008They used Unity to make VFX and then rendered them in Sketchfab's 3D viewer.
>>752064The film in question is from the late seventies.
>>752064It's no secret that this is a shitpost and that this film used real life props.
>>752068Yet the 3d we're talking about is mid-90s to early 2000's.
>>752068>>752069They are talking about the SE that came out when starwars returned to worldwide theaters leading up to the release of the Phantom Menace in 1999.Lucas infamously added a lot of CGI sequences to retouch the originals.
>>752079I might add that the extra x-wing sequences during take off and approach on the Deathstar does look good and are one of the few sequences that indeed was a big improvement over the original footage.
They’re miniatures on a dolly inside a box. If you can get ahold of a special edition VHS and it explains how they did it in the 70s and what they updated in the 90s, too.
>>752008You mean for the 1997 special editions? This was still in the days dominated by SGI boxes and the new CG elements were modeled in Alias and Form-Z, animated in PowerAnimator(for mechanical stuff like spaceships) and SoftImage|3D(for character animation), rendering was done in PhotoRealistic RenderMan(the old Reyes-based version). Some stuff was also done in Electric Image Animation System (EIAS) which had both an excellent surfacing system and renderer at the time. >>7520153D Studio Max was nowhere VFX production-ready during the 1995/1996/1997 production cycle of the SpecialFX edition.I even had to buy a 3rd party renderer when the first version of 3D Studio MAX came out, because the scanline renderer wasn't very good at first, to put it mildly.
>>752008Is this picture 3d models or real miniatures?
>>752216>>752218 Those are CGI, @ 8min 44s if the timestamp doesn't work https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvbrVFP_f0w&t=8m44s
>>752219No wait those actually are the miniatures, enlarged Op's image.
3DSW general?So went through and watched all 9. Prequels have 'a look' but it's consistent. Keep hearing how old it looks blah blah blah. Anyway now I want prequels re-rendered with proper lighting and all the new shit that has come out over the last 2 decades. How difficult? TPM is probably a lost cause, so much compositing of random stuff just to get it out the door.AotC probably could get some scenes fixed but then would be (jar)jarring when old meets new.RotS is maybe the one that would yield the best result.Also wtf if you're going to add fucking Maclunky at least fix the special edition stuff. Just spend the fucking money Lucas and digitally recreate the Solo shot first scene and selectively overlay just so you don't get that speed up bs. I'm willing to accept it, at the very least make it good.
>>752230Don't remake or retouch anything, Let them rest in peace anon. Star Wars is now finally over.How are you supposed to go forward from here if the Disney movies are to be treated like canon?Answer: You can't. Once you've established that you have space magic that can reach across stars, resurrect the dead and conjure entire fleets of crewed starships out of ground there are no longer any stakes. Anything and everything is now possible.You've dialed the stupidity meter past 11, the knob has snapped,fallen off and rolled in underneath the machine where you can no longer reach it. Let Star Wars die as swiftly a death as at all possible, that is the only dignity that remains for someone who's already soiled themselves.
>yfw this is also a practical model
>>752240E1 is 50/50 practical cant render out bad design.
>>752240I'm willing to bet that's actually just concept art anon.
>>752240The prequels have a lot of miniatures and practical stuff. People back in the day used to believe it was ALL cg.
>>752463Yeah a lot of people don't realize that most of the cgi stuff was bg extension, droid army,pod race, and gungens, fucking all the gungen shit. It's just that when it's cgi it sticks out like really sticks out.If they just relit the creatures like watto, sebulba, and gungens. I bet it would look really good.
>>752230A lot of the shit on the prequels that look like CGI are actually real props.The one that surprised me the most was the Jedi council room.
>>752524>>752577this is why you can't treat the average person's complaints about cgi seriously. they will literally look at real footage of a physical object and complain about how badly rendered it is. "cgi" has simply become the default thing you complain about when you can't articulate the actual reason you don't like a movie. what people were reacting to with the prequels was actually that the art direction was inspired by golden age sf cinema instead of the original trilogy nostalgia that the fans expected. they didn't like the style but weren't visually literate enough to even identify it as a style, so they assumed it was a technical defect.
>>752035Lucas went full shitty CG with Episode 2. Episode 1 had more model actions than the first three movies together, that's the reason episode 1 aged way better than the other two movies.
>>752593Lucas couldn't even get color theory straight in episode 2 and three.
>>752618What the fuck does that have to do with the OT "Remasters"?
>>752618Starship Troopers aged way better than Star Wars because of the high amount of practical effects. It's still extremley servicable for a 90s mid budget flick
>>752593>people were actually complaining about art directionSaw the film first day, every single person was complaining about one thing. After a few weeks it moved onto the kid. Not the art direction, the fans all saw the fucking trailer and knew it wasn't nostalgia JJ Abrams bait.
>>752700Actually episode 1 looked the most like Episode 1. Jarring were the full CG parts like the ground battle. Though nothing looked as bad as the entireness of episode 2.
>>752715eh looked the most like the original movies, of course.
>>752626Unfair to compare a hack like Georgo Lucas to a genius like Paul Verhoeven. What made the original Star Wars so great has very little to do with Lucas. Watch the leaked scenes from the infamous original cut of 'A New Hope' and you'll understand what kind of film star wars could've been if left to Lucas.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-j4P4Ch-EwBreakthrough special effects in a flick saved from a hot mess into a serviceable film the cutting room is what made Star Wars a phenomena back in the 70's.Widely considered the best Starwars movie 'The Empire Strikes Back' is also the one that Lucas had the least hand in bringing about.Star Wars turned out amazing because of the contribution of the great team assembled by Lucas, not because of his artistic input.Starship Troopers on the other hand was made at the very end of the practical effects era by seasoned talent who had perfected their craft across many productions.It was made just as cheaper CGI started to replace the bulk of FX shots in movies, why people even at the time believed a lot of the thing they saw in it to be CGI.A lot of absolute technical mastery of practical effects is on display in that one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYZtHd8TizQ&
>>752718>a genius like Paul Verhoeven>gets completely wrong what Starship Troopers is about>movie ends up being red-pilling anywayswew
>>752715I enjoyed it a lot. Then again, I have no taste and I enjoy even the trashiest low budget b movies I can find.
>>752626Maybe.But Starship troopers also has far less impressive shots and SFX. In costume, sets, and FX.>>752043>In subsequent star wars movie the fights takes on this kinda game cutscene amusement park Its kinda hilarious when its the exact opposite. Great effort was made to copy longer one take action shots used in movies like Star Wars or The Matrix. Or even Asian Kong Fu movies like Kung Fu Hustle or Shaolin Socker.But with the lack of innovation in Hollywood, the better SFX shots fell behind what could be done realtime.Its still notable that mocap action scenes in games tend to be a tenfold worse than actual gameplay, or more custom animated sequences.
>>752042in the 90s, blender didn't existILM would have used alias wavefront/powerranimator back then, until it turned into mayaprobably some 3ds maxfor the post 2005 updates, C4D, MODO, nuke may have been used
What about this scene? I don't think they could do it with miniatures.
Looks like CGI to me.
>>754133They used this lens with miniatures.
>>753432Blender did exist in the 90's for IRIX machines. They have the old versions up for download still.
>>753432Alias/PA, Softimage|3D (with RenderMan) and Electric Image to be precise. A lot of modeling at ILM was done in Form-Z.ILM didn't do the switch to Maya until work on the second prequel movie began. 3D Studio Max hardly saw any use in VFX in the 90s. You could count the big budget movies using 3D Studio Max by the year 2000 on two hands. By 2005 you already needed another six pairs. :)>>754133>>754134These are miniatures, anon. Some of the tunnel shots used a snorkel lens, others had splittable sets.The tunnel entrance is a model as well, part of the large surface set built at ILM.
>>754182Blender's renderer was nowhere production-ready in its SGI days, or at least not up to the task of doing VFX work, like then industry standards RenderMan or Mental Ray. It's predecessor Traces was however used quite a lot for motion graphics by some European studios. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CdA_NMw7lc
>>754133>>754134In this clip around the 2:25 mark you can catch a bit of how the final assault of the 2nd deathstar was made.Towards the end you can see a behind the scenes of the final explosion as they exit the tunnel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfcI_SVTGVA&list=PLT7nIRvn2o76aWg4CoARKEiNiqgnQIzPU&index=17And here's some pre-production shots of how it's planned out before shooting the special effects.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrxEuqyNvHM
>>754133>>754134Typical dumbass Millennial comment
>>752626>>752945Phil Tippett is a pioneer. For SST bug CG it was all in matching the lighting of the maquette's he'd bring to the sets and replicating it
>>754133>>754134How come even modern CGI doesn't look as realistic as this?
>>754336Can't beat real objects getting hit by real light. Having space scenes also helps. Natural sets are a pain in miniatures. Same goes for scenes with water or fire, unless you go really up in scale.
>>752718I would say Independence Day was maybe even the more impressive movie regarding practical effects.
>>755004Oh man that giant white house miniature filming down to get that look, fucking brilliant.
you're all wrongthe real answer is it's old and grainy and you brain fills in the missing detail with what looks good to you
>>755162Thanks for that deep insight.