1:31 - Such a triumphant shot that went great with the majestic cue from John Williams that gives the feeling of the tide of the battle is starting to turn.
So this I can explain: When you do photography of models, you're using spot lights to illuminate them which push light out from a single point, like a big * shape, all out from that point. When you do CG of a 3D model in space, you tend towards replicating sunlight which is so far away that the lines of light are all parallel. As a result, the two have an extremely different appearance, because as humans we aren't used to seeing light move in straight lines like this, especially not in our atmosphere where the pressure waves mess with light on large objects. Note you'll notice the miniatures are darker than the CG models -- and the gradient between light and shadow on the 3D models is really sharp, like a light to dark whereas on the miniatures they're much softer. This gradient line is called the terminator and a n easy way to remember it is in Startrek the Voyage home, they "cross the terminator" from day time to night time through the sunset or sunrise when flying over the Earth -- referring to the same principle. You can see it on the Star Destroyer topside hull where the light and dark sides are very different on the CG models, but less tonally different on the miniatures. You can also see it on the the rounded rebel transports: the 3D has a narrower terminator and the miniature has a wider softer one. To get this effect of parallel beams of light vs divergent beams of light with miniatures, you'd either need to use a fresnel lens, or an enormous parabolic reflector which to my knowledge was kind of a pain in the ass to do back then. But yeah, the "it feels more real" is based on your expectation of objects you see on Earth. Someone who lived in space who mainly experienced very parallel would say the opposite and say Earth light feels weird or fake to them. I think given Starwars went for a "WWI dogfights in space" kinda vibe, I think I personally prefer the look of the miniatures since its more readable and less extreme so you can have a much easier sense of what shapes are on screen and what's happening. Its certainly easier for us to process, because we're used to Earth -- and miniatures have a charm that 3D special effects very rarely do. I hope this has been helpful, and thank-you for your comment. Its very interesting to me, as someone who has an interest in stuff like this to see what other people think and it was a good sanity check, since I feel the same way. Take care.
The fact you can splice together a film from 1983 and another from 2015 and they look like the same film, is a testament to the absolute skill and artistry of the special effects team on Return of the Jedi, considering their technology limitations
Cool edits appreciate the work but you are editing parts of the battle of Scarif from Rogue One into the Battle of Endor which are completely different parts of the Galactic Civil War...One is the very beginning and the other is the very end!
Unfortunately for me digital models of the ships (especially star destroyers) do not look as good as real models they used in original movies. They just don’t match. Here it’s very apparent
1:31 - Such a triumphant shot that went great with the majestic cue from John Williams that gives the feeling of the tide of the battle is starting to turn.
I like that 'Rogue One' showed how dangerous the Y-Wing is and why the Rebels still used them.
"Alternative Cut" with Rogue One scenes?
MC-75s we’re at the battle of endor perhaps
It's always clips of different movies lol
I love that brown guy thats a xwing pilot thats first seen here hes a beast at the stick 👌🏾 " Thats all you got ?? COME ON !!" Yes !
I can't help but feel like the effects in ROTJ look real while the effects in Rogue one don't. Anyone else feel the same?
So this I can explain: When you do photography of models, you're using spot lights to illuminate them which push light out from a single point, like a big * shape, all out from that point. When you do CG of a 3D model in space, you tend towards replicating sunlight which is so far away that the lines of light are all parallel.
As a result, the two have an extremely different appearance, because as humans we aren't used to seeing light move in straight lines like this, especially not in our atmosphere where the pressure waves mess with light on large objects.
Note you'll notice the miniatures are darker than the CG models -- and the gradient between light and shadow on the 3D models is really sharp, like a light to dark whereas on the miniatures they're much softer. This gradient line is called the terminator and a n easy way to remember it is in Startrek the Voyage home, they "cross the terminator" from day time to night time through the sunset or sunrise when flying over the Earth -- referring to the same principle.
You can see it on the Star Destroyer topside hull where the light and dark sides are very different on the CG models, but less tonally different on the miniatures. You can also see it on the the rounded rebel transports: the 3D has a narrower terminator and the miniature has a wider softer one.
To get this effect of parallel beams of light vs divergent beams of light with miniatures, you'd either need to use a fresnel lens, or an enormous parabolic reflector which to my knowledge was kind of a pain in the ass to do back then.
But yeah, the "it feels more real" is based on your expectation of objects you see on Earth. Someone who lived in space who mainly experienced very parallel would say the opposite and say Earth light feels weird or fake to them.
I think given Starwars went for a "WWI dogfights in space" kinda vibe, I think I personally prefer the look of the miniatures since its more readable and less extreme so you can have a much easier sense of what shapes are on screen and what's happening. Its certainly easier for us to process, because we're used to Earth -- and miniatures have a charm that 3D special effects very rarely do.
I hope this has been helpful, and thank-you for your comment. Its very interesting to me, as someone who has an interest in stuff like this to see what other people think and it was a good sanity check, since I feel the same way.
Take care.
The fact you can splice together a film from 1983 and another from 2015 and they look like the same film, is a testament to the absolute skill and artistry of the special effects team on Return of the Jedi, considering their technology limitations
Absolutely well done!! Exciting to watch!!! 👏👏👏
Best space battle in cinema history and you just made it better.
Awesome improvement
I love at 131 you can see the death star slowly turning towards endor
never noticed that before. so subtle, but cool.
Cool edits appreciate the work but you are editing parts of the battle of Scarif from Rogue One into the Battle of Endor which are completely different parts of the Galactic Civil War...One is the very beginning and the other is the very end!
How come Rogue One scenes are in this ?
Unfortunately for me digital models of the ships (especially star destroyers) do not look as good as real models they used in original movies. They just don’t match. Here it’s very apparent
You must be kidding, no way real models can be a better look (lightning, scale, etc) than digitals who virtually exist in one space
@@Doc_Jaeger in season 1 of the mandalorian they used the real model of Razor Crest in space scenes. It looked awesome
@@kirillvanko2046 yes, real models with so much digital post processing will be almost good as fully digital models, 99,9% identifically
I I believe this is true
0:27
Nice try, bro.