When a thread reaches this stage of logic, it's probably time for folks in the thread to step away from the keyboard, remember you're all just discussing entertainment and come back in a less vitriolic frame of mind. A number of lines in this thread are bouncing around just under the trolling/flaming line. You've been on this board long enough to know where it is so keep it friendly and don't cross it, because I don't want to have to step in again.
Gep, I think the bridge structure is a fairly faithful reworking of the refit's architecture. The dome being a little more bulbous gives it a little TOS flavor;
That looks more credible, to my eye, than most of the stuff you have been defending in the abrams pic. And it is prettier.
Really? Even with the too-even specular highlight and the unnaturally even shading along the side of the nacelle and pylon?
APPEARS to cast light, because the light falls in the appropriate area. But it isn't luminous in the way a genuine light source is. Again, to see an exaggerated example of crappy lights on a cg ship, check the shots in NEM right before the viewscreen gets shot away. Back top of saucer, and it is, again, like out of focus mailing labels for windows, no sense of actual light source. The spills of lights on the TMP ship aren't actually caused by the installed lights, but by off-camera ones; but they are all of a piece in style, so they look right. Getting a little esoteric here, but WTH: In reality on occasion you can see 'fake' looking windows, where they are flat and dead. It is probably a matter of window treatment plus atmospheric effect, but it looks wrong, even if it is actual. When you're doing a film, you're going for what looks expected to some degree, as well as credible, so non-luminous unlights hurt the illusion.
I'm not making a study of this stuff, so I can't speak to that; it is almost totally instinct. May also come from my being color-blind, which makes me see things a little differently (apparently you can see through camouflage easier when you're colorblind, which is why my types wind up walking point.) Okay, I blew the image up and outside of the low detailing, yeah, I see something like you say. But it didn't jump out at me as bad, which makes it special.
Then what's your metric for determining what is and isn't luminous in a "genuine" way? If it's not the luminosity and it's not the exposure and it's not whether it casts light on something, then what is it? By the way, as someone who does work with CG objects, the illumination on the Abramsprise from the windows looks like Final Gather-type rays cast from the incandescent geometry. As far as is possible for a virtual environment, that would make it real, actual illumination.
They probably get the point already, but remember, most of this antipathy comes from some of us being hounded and/or warned out of the ABRAMS forum, which has serious bias in its moderation. So now when it repeats itself in other areas, where the folks who have run of that board start attacking again outside of their safety zone, it is more likely for the folks being attacked to dig in, since we are reluctantly in Picard (fall back) mode. On that other board, I've seen the same folks warned (often me) and the same folks not warned, for posting equally vitriolic remarks, and it seriously pisses me off, because apparently it has more to do with off-board 'tudes than actual post content. If it spreads here, then you'll probably lose more posting with informed content.
Quality of light. (how's that for arbitrary and vague.) Whether that is done via radiosity or some practical fashion, if it doesn't look right, it doesn't look right. You can wreck a comp with real objects by messing with it (like DS9 T&T ship shots, which look like CG because they've taken the contrast out -- especially odd given DS9 had less fill in its space stuff than TNG, a deliberate choice by Legato up front), so it isn't exclusively a CG issue, but it comes up a lot more often.
And there you go again deliberately miss-representing what I've said. Nowhere, EVER did say ANYTHING about modern VFX techniques. Quite the contrary, I've spoke praise about monster effects, and effects when on the ground and interacting with humans. I've said dinosaurs (of Jurassic Park) look great. This rather the EXACT OPPOSITE of loathing modern VFX techniques, but we'll just once again claim the exact opposite of what I've been saying. I've also said that we've had this flat, 2D, cartoony look for ships, all the way back since Star Wars in 1977. Ever since ol' George told his VFX designers, that they didn't have to create realistic lighting, and just show the ships nicely bright and fully visible because it was only a fantasy movie, we've been stuck with completely wrongly lit space ships that bleed out all depth from them. THAT is VERY OLD VFX, once AGAIN showing that new VFX, has NOTHING to do with it. In fact I've been sayig these two things, again, and again, and again, and again, again, again,againagainagian,andagain. But you know, keep deliberately miss representing what I said. In fact, I've said, and I believe it is this thread it was in, or one with the same subject, when I brought up the pictures of models versus (fan-made) CGI, and asked if you could identify which were models and which were CGI that CGI is capable of producing far more impressive starships in movies than models ever could. The problem of course is, that we're still stuck with Star Wars' "show the cool, brightly light them" pradigm, which produces the opposite. But again, got NOTHING to do with modern VFX; it's that space ship paradigm that's the problem. But you know, keep deliberately miss-representing what I said, it's fun, since moderators don't bother with such, especially not when you have them on your side. Now here we go, here we've got something that is a lot better than virtually all movie and TV show effects toward implying this is an actual 3D object. 1. The ship isn't brightly lit. There parts you can barely see in the dark, thus you have actual shadows working (even though some of them are rather wrong, over all they are much better to imply that this is an actual object.) 2. The composition of the picture and implied moved of the ship is also great. The saucer close and looming, with motion blur to the left, with the stardrive in the back and the angle to partially cover and partially highlight the neck, all are shown to enhance the the idea that this is an actual object, a real 3D ship. The main problems are the following: 1. The contrast is far too sharp, most notably between lit and unlit sections. Unlit sections are instantly unlit having their own color, while the colored lights are very bright yet have no effect on the material around them. 2. Too smooth shadows and materials, but this could be a computer power issue. Real material and thus shadows and light that falls on it has texture to it. 3. Ooh, how shiny and reflective it all looks! This seems to be a style that is in favor ever since Doom3 did it. In that game, even skin, dark skin even, reflecting light like it was surrounded by water, or was made up of polished to reflection stone or something. Look around your house, very little surface area actually reflects. And if something reflects, it does so only slightly. Only mirrors and naked metal may reflect quite high, and that's only may, it only happens at certain angles. A starship that has a coat of pain on it, should look like it is reflecting light like a mirror nearly everywhere. (This in fact, is part of the texture part. Light doesn't reflect nice and smooth and easy, because a material isn't nice and smooth and easy.) But at the end of the line, the things that this picture did right, does a lot more to show this as having 3-dimensions, than the bad things detract from it.
Well... I'm glad that most modern CG-work (in movies anyway) doesn't look nearly as crappy as that straight-out-of-Lightwave render I posted.
I don't like the "Here comes the police" quality of the nacelles and bussard collectors, and it's still overall too light, but it's getting there.
The nacelles do actually look like they're some clear material with bulbs behind them, though, which is an interesting effect. How're the grilles set up? I must admit, this has gotten me curious to see what our resident, err, CG experts would have to say about a couple of recent renders of my (still unsurfaced or textured) Soyuz-class redesign. (Click for bigness.)
I guess this fooled you both. It's not my work. http://www.scifi-meshes.com/forums/physical-modelling/68713-1701-d-art-asylum.html Actually quite impressive that such a relatively cheap model can look so good, isn't it?
That would explain why the grilles were so convincing. I'm glad I didn't comment on how obvious the bump map was. I love the trick he used to get the window pass.
You know, I half expected it. But although impressive, it isn't surprising. This is the perfect example of what I've been saying. Physical models or CGI, whether it gets to look like an actual model, is ALL about the lighting. You can make a cheap toy look amazing and like an object with weight, and you make a massive and expensive model look like a cheap toy and flat as a board. And with the CGI it is no different. Lighting, lighting, lighting is the whole kit and kaboodle. Where CGI can be truly superior as opposed to a physical model is the freedom of movement. Especially since the right movement can add more to the feel of a real object. This is because of how the brain functions. Unlike popular myth, if you lose an eye, you do not lose depth perception. With two eyes, your brain generates 3D information by taking two pictuers of the same scene/object at different angels. 3D information is distilled from the differences. This can be done the same way with one by moving your head. Multiple pictures of the same scene/object at different angels is created, and the brain does the same thing with those. This can be mimicked by proper movement of an object on a flat screen. If the object (and/or camera) moves in multiple plains so pieces of the object move in front of other pieces of the object, allowing your brain to start doing the same thing. In TOS they did this absolutely masterfully. If you ever look at an episode again, notice how whever the camera is behind the ship, and the ship moves forward, it doesn't just move forward, but it's also slightly at an angle, moving in that direction, and top of it the camera moves slightly as well. The result is exactly this effect, and it makes the ship look extremely real and a genuine object having three dimensions.
3D Master wrote http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3619558&postcount=363 http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3620015&postcount=365 http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3618307&postcount=346 3D Master since this is a thread talking about remastering TNG and redoing its visual effects including all exterior ship shots which would have to fit within the running time of each original shot for sound purposes (music & sound effects) it would look a lot like TOS-R as the budget would not be anywhere near Star Trek XI. I think from the above selected quotes we can all understand that in your opinion you do not like any Star Trek effects on DS9, TNG, VOY, ENT in general. A TNG-R would look a lot like ENT effects since they are the most technologically advanced. Since Eden FX has won Emmy Award for their visual effects on Voyager's series finale, "Endgame", and the Enterprise episodes "Broken Bow" and "Countdown" the awards speak for themselves as to the quality of work the visual effects done in CGI by them. I hereby will no longer reply to your posts of the quality of potential visual effects created for a TNG-R in this thread. It is no longer enjoyable to debate a topic related to a TNG-R project. Perhaps 3D Master you should start a thread in General Trek or Science Fiction & Fantasy entitled: "Model work of the 25 years has been every bit as bad as the CGI who's with me?!" to discuss this since you have a generalized one-sided view of visual effects that most all of us are happy with. The costs to create the effects on Star Trek XI was huge.
:sighs: :slams head on table: :slams head some more on table: For the one hundred thousandth time: BUDGET HAS GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How often do I have to repeat this same ffing line? Budget means nothing, because the SFX, models or CGI, were the exact same bad PARADIGM - do I need to repeat this word another billion times - as back in 1977 of unrealistic lighting, light it brightly, show the thing fully lit as if it's standing next to you in the sun and away with the zappers. TOS, the original series, the original effects, managed to produce more real 3D looking genuine ship object, on what was THEN a shoestring budget, then the massive budget of Trek XI. Let me repeat the following for an even greater number than the budget thing: IT'S THE LIGHTING! THE LIGHTING! And whether you go with unrealistic, light it brightly, show how cool, but as a result make it look flat, 2D and cartoony, or a realistic, understated, muted, no bright colors, and use of shadow and (in still images, implied) movement to show that this is an actual 3-dimensional object; will have NO impact on the budget. They did this right back in the 1960s for a TV show! And sure, Eden FX probably deserved the award, I have no doubt they were the best at it. But just because they were the best at it, doesn't mean it's good; it just means there was no one better. And the reason why, is because all other effects houses, are doing the exact same thing, namely producing stuff using the same PARADIGM (there's that word again) of unrealistic, brightly lit lighting George Lucas gave us when he told his effects house to not bother realistic lighting, just show it nice and brightly lit on the screen, because space ships aren't real, it's all fake. It's a PARADIGM problem, not a BUDGET problem. I've seen fan's and amateur image and video producers on their home computer create more realistic, genuine 3-dimensional object looking images and videos of space ships, than multi-million dollar movie productions, all because they used every trick in the book to make it look good, and thus and actual 3-dimensional object and thus realistic, not overlit lighting, as they didn't have the computer power to brute force their way through. As a result they produce far superior, genuine 3-dimensional-looking objects, as opposed to people with the budget, because the latter don't even try - they're stuck in overlit VFX paradigm.