FAULTY - the two worst TOS remastering mistakes

I can live without the enhanced special effect, I'd just want to digitally add Grace Lee Whitney's head to all those nameless yeomen that served Kirk coffee and PADDS in seasons 2 & 3.

 

This was the angle I was thinking of. I couldn't find it at Memory Alpha as they seem to be replacing a lot of the original studio model shots with remastered versions.



And damn it, photobucket will only let me get the url for the thumbnail, I uploaded a 500-something by 480. The larger version when displayed puts it in that stupid scroll frame and I get a javascript void url instead.

 

It certainly is! There is something seriously wrong with that saucer in the second, especially the saucer rim.

 

I've always loved this sequence seen rarely. The ship comes right at you and really conveys a sense of size and mass. Love it!

 

Yes, it looks most unusual. But so do the glossy reflections that make the hull look like it's made of plastic and you wonder where the light comes from (in contrast the illumination of the original shot is diffuse - made me never wonder about the light source and contributed to the illusion of just being there).

Sometimes "less" actually yields "more" but try telling this to the CGI artists.

Bob

 

I'm glad this hasn't turned into a general "I hate all CGI effects" grouch-fest. And I've heard many people make exactly that statement. Yet I can guarantee that hundreds of CGI and digitally composited effects have slipped under their radars, and they never knew it.

I like many of the new digital effects for TOS, especially the "scene extensions" (aka "matte paintings"). I just don't like most of them in context because they don't match the rest of the show. And there's more to matching up the new work with the old than a "noise" or faux film grain filter.

Many artists have made an effort to "grunge" up their textures and apply other weathering to their renderings. This helps greatly in minimizing the ultra-clean look that CGI is notorious for. But one can still go another step further.

Older cameras and technology have certain artifacts that we have become accustomed to seeing. While engineers have been busting their butts to eliminate such artifacts (dirt, grain, scratches, lens distortions, compound lens flares and "bokeh," etc.), computer artists have been busting their butts to emulate it. It's crazy. The Blu-ray or collector's edition DVD of Pixar's WALL•E has an excellent supplement on this subject titled "The Imperfect Lens."

One "artifact" of real locations (as opposed to studios) is the quality of the light—too strong highlights, too deep blacks, etc. Field DPs fix these problems with diffusers and reflectors, but they never completely eliminate that distinctive quality of real outdoor lighting. Likewise, the look of outdoor lighting is rarely recreated in the studio. CGI is another matter entirely. If the artist is willing to make the image less-than-perfect, they may find the key to shots that look more "realistic" to the audience.

Photo-realism may not be the key, however. TOS has a very stage-like feel to it—the sets that look like stage flats, the theatrically colored and patterned lights, and often a very stage-like "blocking" of the actors. The diffuse, "non-directional" light in most of the miniature shots thus matched the theatrical look of the live action.

From the posts I've read, it is obvious that many members here are either production professionals, or are serious hobbyists. If you wish to tinker with 3D rendering and animation, but don't know where to start, take a look at Blender, an open source "free" 3D animation package. There are abundant tutorials and animations on-line. And Blender is easily the peer of many commercial packages costing thousands (plural) of dollars.

POST SCRIPT—Whether or not a digital image or effect flies may not be the fault of the artists who created it. I know of many instances, some from personal experience, where a micro-managing director or producer "knows better" than the artist who has been doing the work for a long time. A director should at least give his artists enough elbow room to demonstrate their point-of-view. If time and money are tight, and the director is unwilling to trust his artists even a little, then good artists might still turn out crap.

 

That's one I actually don't care for (if it's the one I think it is), because it looks to me like a zoom
on the model, instead of an actual movement of the camera, which would give a better illusion
of depth.

lt's too bad forum software doesn't automatically resize images over certain dimensions.

 

This is a case where the original is tough to compete with. They should have taken another pass at it.

 

The cgi version looks bland and uninspired. It does indeed look like a plastic model.

 

This is the only shot that literally pisses me off. When I was six or seven, that invisible beam seemed incredibly cool and futuristic. An ability to cut without a visible flame or beam.

Sometimes they killed the viewer imagination part of the show.

 

I think its more an issue with how the model is lit than an issue with the model itself. The CBS-D team seemed to over saturate the lighting in many of the space scenes.

 

I have a beautiful Enterprise 3d model (which I did not build), and I think even I can light it better than that cgi one above. But then again, I don't call myself an artist.

 

I think you mean "overexpose," but that's not it either. The original shot is lit from the side, while the CGI is lit from above and behind. Angle of incidence equals angle of reflectance, so the CGI lighting is literally bouncing straight into the camera like a tennis serve. That in itself is not necessarily a bad thing, but in this case it robs the model of scale.

I believe 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY was the first movie to use "kit bashing" as a means to detail miniatures. The riot of "nurnies" break up the light and give the eye something to fix on for a sense of scale. The "windows" on the Enterprise were added for this reason. (One could otherwise argue how unlikely it would be to find actual windows on a starship, no matter what exotic materials and force fields they might have.) Since the Enterprise can't be nurnied, the artists should have turned to specular mapping.

"Specularity" is the term for glossiness. A high specularity with very little diffusion suggests a hard surface that is extremely smooth, like a billiard ball. Lower the specularity a bit and diffuse (spread out) the spot of light and the billiard ball becomes a plastic ball with a faintly rough surface. And so on down the line until there is no gloss at all for surfaces such as cloth, or matte finish paint.

The specularity of a model does not need to be uniform. In the example below, the Orion III shuttle from 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, there is a specular spot on the starboard wing from lighting very similar to the CGI Enterprise shot. First of all, there is a color map giving the model lighter and darker panels. In this case, the very same texture map was applied to the specular channel. Thus the lighter and darker panels give the wing more or less "gloss."



The specularity map can be different from the color map and still make a visible difference. Naturally, the specular effects will show only when catching the light. So specularity is easiest to see with movement.

But the original Enterprise model is smooth!

So it is. Perhaps futuristic construction techniques will produce hull plating that is seamlessly smooth, thus making a starship look deceptively small or "unreal" (like CGI) even to the naked eye. But some concession must be made to 20th century audiences expecting certain cues—such as windows, or a "swish" as the ship flashes by.

 

Go for it! In the professional world, CGI artists usually specialize, just as live action production people do. There are specialists who build models, "rig" models, texture models, light scenes, animate objects and cameras and so on. While one artist may do more than one job, it is common for bigger productions to have specialists at each stage of the "pipeline."

While it may be hard to nail down any one "most important" artist, lighting is certainly high on that list. How one lights a scene may depend on the rendering engine used. CGI artists can actually do many things real world DPs cannot do—such as apply "negative" lighting.

If CGI lighting directors have so much control, why don't more CGI shots look better?

"Better" is a subjective term, and lighting is an art. Older rendering engines may require the lighting director to know more about the physical behavior of light and demand more work to emulate it. Newer rendering engines may emulate the behavior of light more realistically, and thus require the artist to unlearn old habits and learn how real world DPs do their lighting. Andrew Price mentions this in his excellent "Introduction to the Cycles Rendering Engine." (I recommend all of Andrew's tutorial videos, even if one is not using Blender.)

 

I concur. Interesting, though, that the artist used the Airfix model kit and not the superior Aurora model kit as reference. The erroneous square windows of the Airfix model kit (in contrast to the correct slim windows of the Aurora one) are quite a give-away (first thing I corrected on my Airfix model...)

Bob

 

The Orion III and other models are available from the 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY 3D Modeling Archive.

http://www.2001-3d-archive.info

 

What's with the checkerboard pattern?

 

Spock threw a tantrum the last time Kirk beat him at 3D chess, and broke the board. So now they're going to suit up and play a game out on the hull. (Kirk would be advised to double-check his magnetic soles before going topside. It's not wise to upset Vulcans or Wookiees.)

 

At least that's an explanation.

Now, can these large CGI displays of the Enterprise please stop? My stomach feels very upset again.

Bob