View Single Post
Old November 26 2009, 12:18 AM   #344
3D Master
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

jefferiestubes8 wrote: View Post
3D Master wrote: View Post
Instead, they need to work to make the ships look REAL, as in 3D objects, not flat cartoon drawings. And this is done with lighting.
3D Master it is a TV show. The producers and CG artists take some creative license to it can show us well on NTSC TV which only works within a limited dynamic range.
Uh...

1. I wasn't talking about any TV show, I'm talking about SFX in general. Movies, tv shows, it doesn't matter; you got a show with space ships, they all light them too brightly, which bleeds out depth, which reduces it to a 2D cartoon. And this is true for BOTH CGI as well as model work. It's just that a Model is a genuine 3D object, so even if you overlight it, you still keep the 3D. However, even so, TOS original SFX made the Enterprise look like a genuine object. It was lit and made to move to higlight the depth of the model, to fool your eyes/brain into rendering it as a genuine object. TNG on the other hand, looks flat in comparison.

2. We're talking about re-making the show for HD here, not NTSC.

3. As TOS having more real 3D objects as ships as opposed TNG shows, dynamic range, and bad TV standards has got NOTHING to do with it. In fact, to properly light a ship to highlight it's 3 dimensional properties, you need LESS light. More light bleeds out shadows, and shadows are a heavy indicator of 3D features. Thus, it takes LESS dynamic range to properly make an object (whether CGI or model) look like a genuine 3-dimensional object, than it takes for brightly lit, bleed all depth out, look how shiny and cool, but 2D and cartoony lighting of an object.

If you even have to wonder if a show's producers must have perfect science check out the posts on this thread
“Defying Gravity" 13-episode ABC sci-fi astronaut space series
with how many things are not scientifically accurate.

Scientific accuracy and a science fiction TV show do not go hand in hand. It is entertainment. When you make a $250 million film like Star Trek XI you would expect the visuals to look much better lit though than a TV series.


1. nowhere did I speak about scientific accuracy. We are talking about SFX.

2. Budget matters not when it comes to properly lighting a ship. In fact, with models improperly brightly lighting the ship requires massive lamps burning away electricity. In CGI, it also matters very little. Time-constraints on the other hand, have an impact. In CGI, it's just fiddling with software dials and setting the proper lighsources. The more time you have, the more different settings you can try out and re-render the scene, the better the result you get.

3. I watched Defying Gravity. And the scientific inaccuracies were first little things that made me frown, but I could get past. But they got bigger, and more, and more; we get the scientists at the classic, and disgusting, superiority complex, "The normal folks can't deal with it, as opposed to us serious race, so we hide it with a conspiracy, look how magnificent we are... ugh." Then when it finally turned into "you must have faith, even though the objects are trying to, and previously have succeeded in killing us" I quit watching. I didn't even finish the episode. No, no faith. No "trust the figments of your imaginations, your gods and what not," that is disgusting. To boot, they are scientists, performing a scientific mission. They're not supposed have faith, they're supposed to be logical and following the scientific method. Something that's trying to kill you isn't something to have faith in, it's something to ignore if not outright destroy. Defying Gravity started interesting and then degenerated into a bad, bad, bad show.
3D Master is offline   Reply With Quote