Most photorealistic CGI spaceship

[Freak]

^ It in the qoute.

[aemann]

There's a phenomena called the "Uncanny Valley". It's that funny feeling you get when you see something that's realistic enough to be convincing, but you know it's not, and it creates a curious feeling. It's associated with robotics too - a very realistic android makes people feel uncomfortable, but a thing that looks like a robot doesn't.

[juanxer]

(That thing was said to happen a lot when viewing the "Polar Express" movie. "Beowulf" should be interesting to see if they have managed to overcome the phenomenon)

[juanxer]

Originally Posted by ray243

When I mean photorealistic CGI, I do not mean realistic.

I mean, is there ANY ship that may look impossible to be a real spaceship, BUT you can see that it is as real as a 1 to 1 scale MODEL.

Perhaps, again, the MarkII Vipers? They are just this bit of toylike at 1:1 scale that they work very well as CGI. And the "Firefly" series' Serenity, I think.

When it's about BIG ships, such as the Icarus or the Pegasus, what I think makes me believe in them the most is the kind of moves they do, if these seem consistent with their supposed masses. Plus seeing some metallic materials here and there, as all-matte surfaces are too "scifi scale model"-ish a thing. Supernova's Nightingale wasn't that bad, even if it's not a favorite of mine.

Seeing about just the opposite of credible, I'd cite Star Trek Insurrection's Enterprise. I don't think it worked at all. And the all-CGI fleet ships of "Star Wars - Revenge of the Sith" were a bit too colourful and painterly, I guess, to accept them as photoreal.

Any other ideas?

[aemann]

Here's a Wiki piece about Uncanny Valley:
Uncanny Valley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For my money, the most realistic looking spacecraft and space activity I can recall seeing is in "2001: A Space Odyssey". No CGI there at all, just miniatures. I think it's the slowness of everything - everything moves as if it were weightless (which it correct), and they look like they have mass and inertia - something modern representations either neglect or reject.
Also, the 'look' of things. Since when did spacecraft have weathering? It's simple - no weather in space, therefore no weathering! Take a look at the ISS - the first portions that were orbited 6 or 7 years ago look as pristine as the day they were made. No rust, no oily streaks, no buildup of crud. Unless we're expecting future spacecraft to be made from cast iron and powered by diesel engines, this won't happen. I think we've actually unwittingly created a false expectation of how things will look and now have to try and fight against this

[Andrew March]

Originally Posted by aemann

Since when did spacecraft have weathering?

Have you looked at the space shuttle recently?

Of course ships in space have weathering, Particulate matter impacts all the time and causes discolouration, granted it's exagerated in most science fiction but it's definately there.

http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/img/sts-115_61.jpg

Have a look at that picture to see my point. The shuttle is more weathered than the launch pad, and that's saying something when you consider what that pad goes through, what with floridian weather and the shuttle take off.

And no the international space station doesn't look as pristine as it did when it went up there. The panels are buckled in places, there's a lot os scorching from micro impacts and in places it looks filthy.

[aemann]

But the Shuttle re-enters the atmosphere ballistically, so has to endure the heating and therefore gets discoloured. Plus it stands out on the pad in all weathers. But those are atmospheric effects - I'm talking about representations of spacecraft which are either supposed to operate entirely in space, or have shielding - the purpose of which is to prevent anything coming into contact with the surface.
Space station - agreed, it may look a bit grotty close up, but from the distances we normally see it, it looks clean. But lets have a look:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/.../s114e7245.jpg
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/...11-373-001.jpg
No evidence of weathering there. Lots of complicated bits, crumpled foil, pipes and cables - all as you would expect, but no weathering. But notice how realistic it looks! I wonder what would happen if no images of the ISS existed, but we gave a description and drawings of it to a range of CGI artists, and asked them to show how they thought it would look. I'm willing to bet the CGI would look nothing like the photos of the real thing. Why? Because we've created a false expectation of how things in space would look, and now we're not sure what 'real' looks like any more.

[Andrew March]

We must be looking at different pictures, because I can see evidence on those two pictures of weathering nearly everywhere. There's discolouration, scorch marking, dents, everything you'd expect from something that's been stuck in space being bombarded with bits of matter and solar radiation.

I grant you that hollywood exagerates the effect in a lot of movies, but it does happen for real.

[aemann]

I've just put out a call for more info to some folks who've "been there, done that, got the spacesuit". I'll pass on whatever they say.
I suppose the slight yellowing could be caused by the continual dumping of "human liquid waste products" out of a vent... it has to go somewhere!

[Freak]

^ I would have thorugh that they brought that back to Earth. after all you don't want to go out for a spcaewalk and get hit in the face by some **** that has been flushed out the shuttle or ISS.