View Full Version : Ship Identification
Can someone tell me what kind of ship is in this movie?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8A6N2z6-EXM
Torplexed
02-06-10, 10:26 PM
If you are speaking of the destroyer, the German destroyer in the movie was named Z-49. The 'real' Z-49 was authorized in 1942 and laid down in 1943. Damaged by Allied bombing, she was never completed and was broken up on the stocks.
The Z-49 as in the movie U-571 was portrayed by an ex-USN ARS rescue and salvage ship built during WWII. She is most likely still operational in the Turkish Navy.
http://media.shipspotting.com/uploads/thumbs/rw/181625_800/Ship+Photo+Z49++ANSCHLUSS.jpg
How could it still be in operation if it was blown up at the end?
Torplexed
02-07-10, 11:42 AM
How could it still be in operation if it was blown up at the end?
I'm fairly certain from the look of that explosion that it was CGI. Much cheaper than buying a ship and blowing it up.
ETR3(SS)
02-07-10, 11:44 AM
Special Effects.:yeah:
The effects are too good to be CGI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxQEwOqKZvI
Besides they had the money to build a real U-Boat, not buy it.
Raptor1
02-07-10, 11:52 AM
The effects are too good to be CGI
As a person who both messed with CGI and has seen it's effects from people who actually know what they're doing, I'll have to disagree with you.
The ships don's match either, I found it to be a 1936B destroyer.
Raptor1
02-07-10, 11:55 AM
The ships don's match either, I found it to be a 1936B destroyer.
The real one (Which, again, was never completed), not the one in the movie as none of these exist today (Or have existed when it was filmed).
EDIT: Whoops, that's not even right since she was supposed to be of the unbuilt 1936C class.
Torplexed
02-07-10, 12:03 PM
The real one (Which, again, was never completed), not the one in the movie as none of these exist today (Or have existed when it was filmed).
EDIT: Whoops, that's not even right since she was supposed to be of the unbuilt 1936C class.
Exactly. If you compare photos or drawings the ship in the movie hardly resembles any WW2 era German destroyer built or unbuilt. The lines are all wrong.
The effects are too good to be CGI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxQEwOqKZvI
Besides they had the money to build a real U-Boat, not buy it.
I think you are underestimating what can be done with CGI. :O:
Here's one example what an "average Joe" can do today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXJg8cnsP1k
Tho, I'm pretty sure that in this case, the explosion is real. In *shivers* Pearl Harbor, some of the explosions were done by laying out charges on the decks of the ships, but naturally they werent destructive charges, just something to give a fireball. Also, IIRC, from behind the scenes, they had the charges on scaffolding or soemthing like that to keep the actualy contact of the explosion to minimum with the ship's deck.
I think you are underestimating what can be done with CGI. :O:
The biggest problem with modern CGI technology is the generated textures, they look too smooth, not random like real life.
The biggest problem with modern CGI technology is the generated textures, they look too smooth, not random like real life.
Randomness can be adjusted by the artist easily. Especially with FumeFX, given you have a biiiig render farm, you can put the resolution very high and you get a very random explosion with lots of small details and stuff, resulting to a very real looking explosion/smoke/fire.
There will always be a gap between real and CGI though and we will be able to tell the difference.
Another thing is frame rate.
CGI will have a high frame rate and actual filming of explosions is more limited.
Raptor1
02-07-10, 12:59 PM
Saying 'always' is not a very good proposition...
There will always be a gap between real and CGI though and we will be able to tell the difference.
But will that knowing be "A-ha! I see there isnt enough wisp in the smoke for it to be real" or will it be "I dont think they'd really blow that thing up, so it must be CGI"?
Another thing is frame rate.
CGI will have a high frame rate and actual filming of explosions is more limited.
This is something that can be simulated in CGI. :yep:
Torplexed
02-07-10, 03:17 PM
I finally tracked this ship down. She isn't in the Turkish navy, but the Bulgarian one. Not US ex-Navy as I thought, but the former Italian Navy tug Proteo (Anteo Class) and she was transferred into the Bulgarian Navy under the same name in 2004 where she still serves. The move U-571 was released in 2000, so she apparently wasn't destroyed in the filming.
The Bulgarian tug Proteo moored at Varna in 2008.
http://media.shipspotting.com/uploads/thumbs/rw/731319_800/Ship+Photo+PROTEO.JPG
Proteo as she appeared in the movie with the fake gun turrets. The movie was filmed in Malta in 1999, and that's the Pinto 4 wharf inside Valletta.
http://media.shipspotting.com/uploads/thumbs/rw/181623_800/Ship+Photo+Z49++ANSCHLUSS.jpg
The ships don't match
The one "as it was filmed" has only two guns
CGI will have a high frame rate and actual filming of explosions is more limited.That depends on the type of camera the explosion is being captured on. Super Slow Motion cameras have an extremely high frame rate (10,000 FPS), allowing very fine detail to be captured in real time. The real problem is in the rendering of a 10,000FPS CGI image.
The ships don't match
The one "as it was filmed" has only two gunsI think you will find that the long shots of the ship have been doctored with CGI as well to give the ship more gun turrents than it actually did. The Z-49 was indeed the Proteo.
Where's the first smoke stack?
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.