Discussion:
2001:aso 41'' Discovery from Moebius Models.
Add Reply
s***@hotmail.com
2017-05-01 08:20:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Something SK fans have been looking for since about...1968! Licensed, and from a company known for accurate research on the vintage studio models. Pricey and some 600 parts, but huge:



$150 as a pre-order: http://tinyurl.com/mem6hpl

The Orion shuttle and Moonbus will also be reissued in late 2017 from the same company.

Steve
kelpzoidzl
2017-05-02 22:54:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
This is pretty awesome. Looks like a lot of detail work to finish it.

Are you going to get one?
s***@hotmail.com
2017-05-03 03:34:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kelpzoidzl
This is pretty awesome. Looks like a lot of detail work to finish it.
Are you going to get one?
I may not be able to build it immediately, since I don't currently have the area to display it, but will definitely be getting one. I'll probably end-up building the subsections; keeping them stored in the box.

Steve
kelpzoidzl
2017-05-04 05:16:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I want one for sure. I wonder if it uses glue. It's easy to screw up glue. Also wonder what the best paint for it would be?

Btw have you seen all the trailers and production videos for Dr. Bills new film? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2345759/

Looks like a record beaker to me.
s***@hotmail.com
2017-05-04 06:18:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kelpzoidzl
I want one for sure. I wonder if it uses glue. It's easy to screw up glue. Also wonder what the best paint for it would be?
Moebius models are usually glue kits and, with the original Discovery model destroyed, it's impossible to get a paint chip reference. The base coat of the Discovery is probably at least a few shades darker than what appears on the screen, as contrast increases with every film duplication. Film miniatures were usually given a paint scheme with this in mind.
Post by kelpzoidzl
Btw have you seen all the trailers and production videos for Dr. Bills new film? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2345759/
Looks like a record beaker to me.
Universal's plan is to re-boot/re-franchise their famous monsters. Too much of a CGI-fest, IMO.

Steve
kelpzoidzl
2017-05-04 21:38:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I'm going to have to justify this purchase in my mind before I can pull the trigger. I want to see some photos of it finished. I would consider an unopened box a collectir item as well.

The imagery in the windows will have to accurate. Be nice if there could be a battery powered LED gif behind the window.

-----


It looks like The Mummy was shot on real film initially. The extended trailers and production videos show some incredible camera equipment. It will have to be very entertaining to be a great film, otherwise it will just be another CGI noisy jumble.
s***@hotmail.com
2017-05-04 23:39:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kelpzoidzl
The imagery in the windows will have to accurate. Be nice if there could be a battery powered LED gif behind the window.
There was a garage resin kit of the 2001:aso EVA pod, which allowed for LED lighting and overlays. This builder did a superb job:


Post by kelpzoidzl
It looks like The Mummy was shot on real film initially. The extended trailers and production videos show some incredible camera equipment.
Cruise's background in extreme stunts also led to zero-G filming:

http://www.slashfilm.com/the-mummy-airplane-sequence/

Steve
kelpzoidzl
2017-05-06 00:38:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Lately, I have really been souring on digital filmmaking. For me, It's at the point of almost being unable to watch anything done fully digital.

Because I liked the trippy 2002 "The Ring," I rented on Amazon "Rings" from a few months ago, despite the universally terrible, horrid reviews. The film does totally suck in most every way, but the worst thing about it is that it was shot with the Arri Alexa, mostly in low light. So, not only is the film lousy, the look of the film compared to the look of the original, which had a dark greenish, drab colored, look but was shot on film and there is a drastic difference.

Not everything shot digitally is a terrible movie, but the look of fully digital for me, makes me sad that soon, younger film audiences won't even know the difference. At least the basis of the Mummy is shot on film apparently.

The only film I am really looking forward to is the upcoming "Dunkirk," made by Christopher Nolan.

I watched about 20 minutes of the remake of Ben Hur. It was unwatchable. I am becoming allergic to the digital look. Digital looks plastic.

I hope more filmmakers rebel and demand to use film. I don't see a time where digital will ever look as good as film. The visual experience is primary.
s***@hotmail.com
2017-05-06 02:32:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kelpzoidzl
The film does totally suck in most every way, but the worst thing about it is that it was shot with the Arri Alexa, mostly in low light. So, not only is the film lousy, the look of the film compared to the look of the original, which had a dark greenish, drab colored, look but was shot on film and there is a drastic difference.
That greenish/desaturated look is usually done at the digital intermediate stage, or it can be accomplished with timing lights in a film-based workflow. Likewise, a digital grade can produce the super-saturated images seen in "Upstream Color," which you had mentioned back in 2013 as being shot on a DSLR.

Some movies imaged on the Alexa or RED look almost indistinguishable from film, then others use a gain or shutter setting which produces that smeary, HD video look. That's either a choice, or the director/DP can't tell; much like how some can't even tell the difference between film and television.

A director like Michael Mann doesn't care about video artifacts as long as he gets as much detail out of night photography as he can. A director like Ang Lee was obviously smitten by the possibilities of high-resolution digital imaging, even if it felt tawdry.

I did go to see "Billy Lynn" a second time in order to turn off my brain about the 120fps hype. It still felt like a live HD video broadcast shown on the biggest and sharpest HDTV screen ever.
Post by kelpzoidzl
Not everything shot digitally is a terrible movie, but the look of fully digital for me, makes me sad that soon, younger film audiences won't even know the difference. At least the basis of the Mummy is shot on film apparently.
IMDB says it was imaged on 35mm. Of course, much of that will be processed through the CGI wringer.
Post by kelpzoidzl
The only film I am really looking forward to is the upcoming "Dunkirk," made by Christopher Nolan.
I saw the extended "Dunkirk" IMAX preview reel before "Rogue One". The aerial footage was amazing. Thankfully, our legit-sized IMAX screen can still project film, and another screen near me can still project 70mm (as does the TIFF).
Post by kelpzoidzl
I hope more filmmakers rebel and demand to use film. I don't see a time where digital will ever look as good as film. The visual experience is primary.
We have IMAX laser here, and it still does not approximate the look and feel of IMAX film. Unfortunately, the post-"Avatar" 3D wave was the final death knell for film imaging and projection.

I definitely prefer the look of movies which are imaged on film. I don't care so much if they're finished on film, or projected digitally, but film is still superior imaging on a legacy format.

Regards,

Steve
kelpzoidzl
2017-05-08 05:44:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Heres a short journal article from 2015 pushng the idea of a return to film.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10509208.2015.1097495?scroll=top&needAccess=true&journalCode=gqrf20

I know software converters claim to match various film stocks ---not really.

The best movie film stocks are being discontinued. I see that as a future real market. Imagine not being able to use the film stock SK used for EWS.

AGFA where are you?
kelpzoidzl
2017-05-08 05:56:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Come to think of it, real film manufacturing shouid be producing better motion picture film rather then discontinuing their best.

Old story: Two shoe salesmen are talking, one says, "I just got back from a primitive island where I tried to sell the natives shoes. It was terrible! NO ONE WEARS SHOES!"

The other salesman had a different attitude says, "I'm going! NO ONE WEARS SHOES! Make a fortune!"
Loading...