imperialscum said:
WedgeCyan said:
imperialscum said:
WedgeCyan said:
imperialscum said:
But for example AT-AT motion and interaction with environment looks quite fake to me because the dynamics of the model is completely different from the dynamics of the thing that it tries to model.
You're right. Stop-motion AT-ATs are so unrealistic compared to all those real-life 20-story mechanical walking tanks.
What a childish reply. I was simply stating the physics... If you make a model of something that does not exist in real life and your model does not perform/match in terms of physics, then you can't use an excuse as lame as "the thing I modelled does not exist in real life" to justify its bad performance.
Are we really criticizing physics in a discussion of Star Wars? Ships banking in space is certifiably bunk, but it doesn't bother me in the slightest.
In addition, I think AT-ATs are a little more realistic in their movement than, say, a tauntaun, simply due to them being mechanical in nature. They are mechanical, and look so as well.
And now we get back to the original argument. While practical models may visually look more real, but CGI has a huge advantage over miniature models when it comes to motion. You can simply apply a complex dynamics simulator behind the CGI model.
It really depends on individual circumstance. For instance, filming moving miniatures at high speed often produces a realistic look, as there are real physics in action. Then it's just a matter of playing the footage at a slower speed which introduces "weightiness". Of course, that doesn't apply for stop-motion.
While CG can have complex dynamics simulated, all too often that doesn't actually happen, resulting in stiff, unnatural animation. Kind of like that Stormtrooper sitting on the dewback. CG is ultimately more versatile in that regard, but it's not always easier.