View Single Post
Old June 30 2009, 09:56 AM   #190
3D Master
Rear Admiral
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

Gary Sebben wrote: View Post
3D Master wrote: View Post
Except that what you got wasn't the models, but the pictures with the lowest resolution. Which just happens to be mostly the models.
Whatever, dude. Don't tell me how I knew one from another. I explained to you what tipped me off. You're ignoring my response in order to not come off as a doof. You're failing.
No, you're ignoring my response, because I already explained that you're little detail concept is flawed. First, you called one CGI image a model shot or better CGI when it is in fact just a low quality CGI, and another CGI shot didn't have any details because they were blurred out by motion blur.

In case you hadn't noticed, but the nacelle is in focus, it's however blurred by motion blur.
It doesn't look like motion blur. It looks like a full on Gaussian blur. If you have to tell me its a motion blur then its not very good.
Or you barely gave it a glanse, saw something blurry and claimed it was out of focus, or you don't even know what motion blur is. The fact that the nacelle is motion blurred is easy to see, as the far away parts are blurred more than the parts closer to the middle of the picture/Runabout. It's tumbling around an axis and the axis is close to the middle, as a result the far side is moving faster in relationship to the camera than the middle part is. It's easy to see unless you glanse at it only a moment.

what I said was, that the the Galaxy Class looks like a physical real object, a model - more a genuine ship - and it does.
It doesn't, for the reasons that I already addressed about the actual model in the previous post..
No, you haven't. You have not discussed a single CGI model.

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.
That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But saying the opposite of what I said is not really making a point. It's just being a contrarian.
No, being contrarion is just saying the opposite without any explanation. I actually explained to you why it is flat and out of place.

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.
Doesn't explain why all you're CG shots completely lack any depth of field.
Except that the better ones don't lack that depth of field; in fact the better ones have better depth of field than the model shots.
3D Master is offline   Reply With Quote