View Single Post
Old June 29 2009, 10:23 AM   #187
3D Master
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

Gary Sebben wrote: View Post
Look, I know this is important to you. You wrote a lot about it and you're name is "3D Master" so I assume CG is a hobby or even a job of yours. But we pretty much answered which were which.
Except that what you got wasn't the models, but the pictures with the lowest resolution. Which just happens to be mostly the models.

CG is obvious in its cartooniness and often very easy to pick out.
So is every model work since Star Wars, as I've rather pointed out.

Now, I HAVE seen CG that is pretty darn good with proper lighting, texturing, and focal depth, but not often. It makes me thing that modelers thing the can improve on reality when that really just makes things look off.
Yes, that's what I said, however, model work is no different. What then needs changing is the way Special Effects people create (most notably space based) special effects; NOT say that CGI can't look anything but fake.

And no, I don't find the last picture convincing. The particle effects look cheap. The runabout looks like its standing still. Both it and the E are in focus while the nacelle is not. And the ship just looks overly detailed from this distance.
In case you hadn't noticed, but the nacelle is in focus, it's however blurred by motion blur. It's in motion, tumbling on end, and rather fast too. Which means that indeed, the runabout is ACTUALLY hanging still. Besides which, I didn't say anything about the runabout or particle effects, what I said was, that the the Galaxy Class looks like a physical real object, a model - more a genuine ship - and it does.

The best pic in this whole lot is the #7, the model. Its got great light and shadow, great tonal range. The focal depth is great. Closer details are sharp, details further away gently become softer.
The model is as flat as you can get. The shadows and light are completely contrary to light sources, making it look completely out of place, as well as having no depth.

And they didn't need a lot of software and training to try to simulate what they remember what reality should look like, they just let the lens do the work.
If only the average model-using SFX people of the past few decades had a lot of training to remember what reality should look like - and the producers to never tell them otherwise - we would actually have good SFX still. Like TOS, shots would be composed lit, and motion brought in, to highlight the fact that the ship is a three dimensional object. They haven't in decades. Besides which; done right, the CGI folks will also let the lens do the work. It's just that they're lens will be a virtual one, not a physical one in a camera.

Last edited by 3D Master; June 29 2009 at 10:34 AM.
3D Master is offline   Reply With Quote