View Single Post
Old August 24 2012, 04:56 AM   #37
Christopher's Avatar
Re: Perfect example of what they SHOULD have done with the TNG-R FX

Dick_Valentine wrote: View Post
ITT old people moan about CGI....and how it was better in the olden days when models were used...
Come on. Not all CGI is created equal. Nobody here is saying "models are better than CGI." They're saying that the CGI in that particular clip is clearly not on the same level of quality that the remastered, recomposited, HD version of the original photography is likely to be. A professional CGI artist like Doug Drexler or Mojo, with sufficient software, time, and budget, could certainly create effects that were better-looking that the model shots created for "Yesterday's Enterprise." But whoever made that YouTube video did not.

I think the YT clip is getting unnecessary scorn.
Chris, the poster (who also posts here you know, so be nice) is just a fan who makes stuff like this in his spare time, he's not a visual artist who is paid to make that stuff full time.
And since he's just using his computer not some special computer design one like CGI guys would use, I don't think he does a bad job at all
All good points. But I don't think we're criticizing the video itself; it's fine for what it is, an amateur exercise paying tribute to a favorite sequence. What we're criticizing is the original poster's allegation that the video represents a template for how TNG Remastered should be done and that it's in some way fundamentally superior to the original. As I said, I don't even see how it materially differs from the original in action or composition, aside from the aspect ratio.

look through the rest of the videos to see some of the great work he comes up with, certainly a million times better than anything anyone here could come up with and a lot better than the grainy, blurry, static model shots you'd get pre-HD
Maybe it is a generational thing, but I don't think a clear image of a computer construct of middling resolution and detail is better than a grainy photograph of a genuine object that actually, physically exists. Grain is not always a bad thing.

And yes, I am a little disappointed they didn't do a proper job on TNG HD.
Define "proper." The purpose of these exercises has never been to do a Lucas-style alteration, but rather to perform a restoration, to come as close as possible to the original work in maximum possible quality. TOS-R only replaced the original footage with CGI because the original film elements no longer existed and thus there was no way to remaster the FX shots, only to recreate them digitally.

So I think it's a little solipsistic to use the word "proper" to mean "what I would've preferred." Personally I agree that it would've been nice to see some of the ponderous, limited FX shots of early TNG (or major errors like the too-big Stargazer in "The Battle") replaced or rethought. But just because they chose to go in a different direction than I would've, that doesn't make my opinions more "proper" than theirs.
Written Worlds -- Christopher L. Bennett's blog and webpage
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote