RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,091
Posts: 5,399,252
Members: 24,735
Currently online: 433
Newest member: extremedalek

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek Seekers Cover Art
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Fan Film Axanar Kickstarter Success
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Two New Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Actor Wins Emmy
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Retro Watches
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

New DS9 eBook To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

Trek Ice Cube Maker and Shot Glasses
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

City on the Edge of Forever #3 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

TV Alert: Shatner TNG Documentary
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

Forbes Cast In Powers
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > The Next Generation

The Next Generation All Good Things come to an end...but not here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 26 2009, 12:17 AM   #166
Gep Malakai
Vice Admiral
 
Gep Malakai's Avatar
 
Send a message via AIM to Gep Malakai Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Gep Malakai
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

3D Master wrote: View Post
Modeler's on the net, aren't limited to that, so to illustrate, I'll put a couple of pictures here; and I'd like you to say which are models and which are CGI. Now, don't reason about it; especially if you know the models and look for differences in the CGI mesh used, you could reason it out, so you should just look at them a few moments, and then decide, model or CGI:
<snip>
Most of those in the middle are CGI, but I have to say, the majority of those look better than the miniature shots you posted.
__________________
"From the darkness you must fall, failed and weak, to darkness all."
-Kataris
Gep Malakai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2009, 12:25 AM   #167
3D Master
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

How about going one by one and saying which you all think are models and which you think is CGI. And then you can see if you're right when I give the definitive answer.
3D Master is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2009, 01:08 AM   #168
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

3D Master wrote: View Post
CGI could be better than model work, except that the CGI guys, under contract by producers and such, don't make it better.

CGI would allow one to do things a model wouldn't be allowed; like making ships meet each other NOT both straight up; meeting in every angle possible. Similarly the ships could move at every angle.

The problem with CGI is the problem that SF SFX have been plaguing since Star Wars; stylish, brightly lit, flashy, and thus extremely 2D pictures. They look like cartoons.
I think you've hit the nail on the head.

Even though I agree with you, I'll give your challenge a go.

1. CGI
2. Won't load for me
3. CGI
4. CGI
5. Model
6. CGI
7. Model
8. Model
9. Model
10. Model
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2009, 02:22 AM   #169
Gary Sebben
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: Waldo, FL
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

The CG renders are pretty obvious. They're the ones with way to much detail visible despite the distance of the lens. They do look like cartoons.
Gary Sebben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2009, 02:55 AM   #170
FalTorPan
Vice Admiral
 
FalTorPan's Avatar
 
Location: Out there... thataway.
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

Gary Sebben wrote: View Post
The CG renders are pretty obvious. They're the ones with way to much detail visible despite the distance of the lens. They do look like cartoons.
So... which ones are "obviously" CGI?
__________________
Watch ASTRONUTS! Visit Trekplace! Check out my personal website!
FalTorPan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2009, 04:23 AM   #171
Gary Sebben
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: Waldo, FL
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

FalTorPan wrote: View Post
Gary Sebben wrote: View Post
The CG renders are pretty obvious. They're the ones with way to much detail visible despite the distance of the lens. They do look like cartoons.
So... which ones are "obviously" CGI?
The "obviously" CG are 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9. The rest are either better CGI or models. Some of them are tougher to spot than others, but mostly because all these scenes were touched up in a computer with some CG elements added to each as well. #5 in particular is a pretty famous model shot pasted on to a horrible corel photo paint cloud texture.
Gary Sebben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 27 2009, 12:55 AM   #172
RAMA
Vice Admiral
 
RAMA's Avatar
 
Location: NJ, USA
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

This is a silly argument...CGI bad because they have to be lit to be seen on screen?

A good CGI model can look as detailed as the real thing, and the dynamics of movement from CGI work makes the medium superior to motion control. ST 09s ships are by far the best, most solid and realistic ships I have ever seen in space FX.

RAMA
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan
RAMA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 27 2009, 01:01 AM   #173
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

RAMA wrote: View Post
This is a silly argument...CGI bad because they have to be lit to be seen on screen?

A good CGI model can look as detailed as the real thing, and the dynamics of movement from CGI work makes the medium superior to motion control. ST 09s ships are by far the best, most solid and realistic ships I have ever seen in space FX.

RAMA
Then you need to see more movies.

Just based on the trailer, that stuff in your trekflick doesn't begin to compare with SOLARIS ship CG, or any number of miniature-based shows ranging from SPACE COWBOYS to EVENT HORIZON or 2001, 2010 ... hell, I don't need to give you the list.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 27 2009, 04:46 AM   #174
RAMA
Vice Admiral
 
RAMA's Avatar
 
Location: NJ, USA
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

trevanian wrote: View Post
RAMA wrote: View Post
This is a silly argument...CGI bad because they have to be lit to be seen on screen?

A good CGI model can look as detailed as the real thing, and the dynamics of movement from CGI work makes the medium superior to motion control. ST 09s ships are by far the best, most solid and realistic ships I have ever seen in space FX.

RAMA
Then you need to see more movies.

Just based on the trailer, that stuff in your trekflick doesn't begin to compare with SOLARIS ship CG, or any number of miniature-based shows ranging from SPACE COWBOYS to EVENT HORIZON or 2001, 2010 ... hell, I don't need to give you the list.
I've seen them all...and several of those don't have CGI btw...but the ST 09 movie surpasses any CGI ships ever, including the previous best, Solaris.

RAMA
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan
RAMA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 27 2009, 05:07 AM   #175
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

RAMA wrote: View Post
trevanian wrote: View Post
RAMA wrote: View Post
This is a silly argument...CGI bad because they have to be lit to be seen on screen?

A good CGI model can look as detailed as the real thing, and the dynamics of movement from CGI work makes the medium superior to motion control. ST 09s ships are by far the best, most solid and realistic ships I have ever seen in space FX.

RAMA
Then you need to see more movies.

Just based on the trailer, that stuff in your trekflick doesn't begin to compare with SOLARIS ship CG, or any number of miniature-based shows ranging from SPACE COWBOYS to EVENT HORIZON or 2001, 2010 ... hell, I don't need to give you the list.
I've seen them all...and several of those don't have CGI btw...but the ST 09 movie surpasses any CGI ships ever, including the previous best, Solaris.

RAMA
Then you may have seen them without WATCHING.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 27 2009, 05:24 AM   #176
RAMA
Vice Admiral
 
RAMA's Avatar
 
Location: NJ, USA
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

trevanian wrote: View Post
RAMA wrote: View Post
trevanian wrote: View Post

Then you need to see more movies.

Just based on the trailer, that stuff in your trekflick doesn't begin to compare with SOLARIS ship CG, or any number of miniature-based shows ranging from SPACE COWBOYS to EVENT HORIZON or 2001, 2010 ... hell, I don't need to give you the list.
I've seen them all...and several of those don't have CGI btw...but the ST 09 movie surpasses any CGI ships ever, including the previous best, Solaris.

RAMA
Then you may have seen them without WATCHING.
..And you haven't watched it at all therefore your opinion isn't really that meaningful to me.

RAMA
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan
RAMA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 27 2009, 05:34 AM   #177
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

RAMA wrote: View Post
trevanian wrote: View Post
RAMA wrote: View Post

I've seen them all...and several of those don't have CGI btw...but the ST 09 movie surpasses any CGI ships ever, including the previous best, Solaris.

RAMA
Then you may have seen them without WATCHING.
..And you haven't watched it at all therefore your opinion isn't really that meaningful to me.

RAMA
I've seen that built on earth shot and the close shots in the trailer plenty of times ... and they always suck. though the KELVIN stuff looked pretty good.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 28 2009, 12:50 AM   #178
Maxwell Everett
Commodore
 
Maxwell Everett's Avatar
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

5 & 7 are the 6ft. model and 10 is the 4ft. model introduced in season 3. The rest are CGI of varying quality.
__________________
"Shake off all the fears & servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion." -Thomas Jefferson
Maxwell Everett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 28 2009, 02:40 PM   #179
3D Master
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

Okay, time for the solution.

With every CGI shot before, I cut away any credits and then had ImageShack shrink them down to a forum-manageable 640x480 frame. We're now going to give links to the full-size and unaltered versions.


1. CGI:
Model by Ralph Schoberth.
Image (or as many artists put it, check it out: Scene and LIGHTING) by Blumenkohl.


2. CGI:
Model by Itruinedmylife.
Image by Darkness.


3. CGI:
Image by IRLM


4. CGI:
Enterprise model by Dave Clark.
Spacedock model by LilPigBoy.
Image by Nate Howe.


5. Model:
A promotional shot on top of a background. Don't know who made it.


6. CGI:
Model by Dave Clark.
Image by Darkness-Gfx.


7. Model:
A promotional shot.


8. CGI:
Model by Nico.
Image by Reality Overdrive.


9. CGI:
Galaxy Class and Drydock models: Nico Weigand.
Image by Deks.


10. Model:
A promotional shot put on a background don't know by who.


Now let's examine the answers of the ones who got it right, or mostly right. First: Maxwell Everett; you know the 6ft model from 4ft model; which tells me you know the models so if it isn't one of the model it must be CGI. As one might notice, this is rather reasoning, and not so much just looking at a picture and saying this seems real enough to me it is a model. Nothing wrong with it, but to someone who has this intimate knowledge of the models, the test is a rather wasted effort.

Now for Gary Sebben's answer; you're wrong. You've said the CGI has details that the models don't, and that number 8 is either a model or better CGI because of that. The number of details in those images, however, has got nothing to do with models versus CGI, but all witth the quality/resolution of the base picture.

The model shots are all ancient, scans of promotional shots, or internet promotional shots, of SFX created on video tape at no more than 480 lines. To boot, they've been blown up since, blurring details more. Number 8, if you follow the link above, and check the properties, you will find that the picture only has 560 vertical pixels (and thus lines), and the ship is only a small part of the image to boot. The other CGI shots, are all high resolution and even extremely high resolution at their base, or are over the entire size of the picture. (I went looking, but couldn't find a full-size 1920x1080 screen shot of the E-D from the Generations Blu-Ray release, but I couldn't find one. If I had, you would have seen a model shot with every bit as much detail as the high-res CGI shots.)

Further, the CGI shots don't all have details. Check out 3, and follow the link where the full-size makes it more obvious, this CGI shot has no real detail. Any detail is blurred out using motion blur, as the ship is in motion. It is in fact the first picture in a sequence of four depicting a classic beauty pass before going into warp from the show. I think IRLM even rendered it into a video, but I don't have it on my harddrive and couldn't fine it quickly, so I'm not sure.

The reason why this third picture seems more crisp, some lines more defined is because its base picture is a higher resolution that the model shots and CGI 8.

Which gets us to picture 10. It is indeed the 4ft model; but the lighting of it is horrible. It's nearly all white, colors and depth are removed because of it; at it only still looks like an object because it was on object. However, the 4ft model in this picture looks a 7 inch toy.

Which gets us to number 6. This picture is a classic, in fact, exaggerated example of what I'm talking about. (Well, exaggerated, the new ST movie and some of the SW prequels might have a few moments that are that garrish.) Make no mistake; it is a stunningly beautiful image, but not very realistic. Someone mentioned "cartoony", I would rather say; it's a painting. This picture is not meant to look like a realistic depiction of an object. The brightness is incredibly high, the contrast massive, and it's heavily over saturated. As a result, the ship, the object in the foreground, seems to blend in with, or rather flow into the objects in the background. It is almost as if it is a painting made by a painter that let it all blend together in a single layer. If you can remember the painting of the Galaxy Class in Picard's ready room, it almost looks like that.

So, illustrate how much of an impact lighting has, I artificially lowered brightness, contrast, and saturation in this picture. Keep in mind; to get the effect fully would require a fully rerendering of the picture, I just adjusted a few levers in photoshop, result is some other problems (for example a light on a saucer that outshines a star);


Original Full size Altered Full Size

As you can see, for a little fiddling with some levers, the difference is striking, especially if you put the two full size versions side by side and switch between them. The depth is much more pronounced, the ship seems much more separate from the background, and shadows aren't overpowered by both the light from the star and the light from the ship.

Another example of how much lighting effects any model; this one done by the artist himself as he made two versions:


Blue Full Size Red Full Size

All he did was change the color of the source light, of the stars, and difference is immediate. With the first picture, light from the Starbase, light from the ship, and light from the star, are essentially the same: blue-white. As a result, the light-sources blend together and diminish depth. Change the color of the star to red, and the color of the starship and starbase contrast. Parts that before were illuminated by its own light seemed less present because the light from the star is the same color - it's less obvious that something is lighted from the right side of the left - and to your brain interpreting the information it makes it more difficult to determine where, how big, what angel, how far away an object is. Change the primary source color, and that changes.

I think this very well illustrates, just how important the lighting of a scene is. The lighting is the most important of all. The brighter the light, the more details and depth is bled out, brightness and saturation similarly. Even different color lights will have an effect. Light a model - physical or CGI - wrong and it will look flat, 2D, not like an actual object. Light a model - physical or CGI - wrong, and it will have topography and look like an actual object.

There are two more things that are important to create the illusion of three dimensions, and thus make any object in a scene seem more real, like an actual object of a size it should be. Although not quite as important as the lighting, they are up there:

1. Composition; in other words, the placing of other objects. Other objects of varying size placed in relation to each other will give your eyes and brain something to latch onto, and will help define each other.

2. Motion: we create 3D images in our mind, because of our two eyes picking up light coming from objects from different angles. The mind then calculates size and shape and depth from the differences. Lose an eye, and your depth perception is diminished but not gone. Move your head and the mind can the same thing with the different angles from different positions. Move an object in an otherwise 2D image, and the same result occurs, especially when light and shadows highlight different parts of an object. TOS sfx creators were masters at this; notice how the ship never stays in one spot, or moves in only one dimension; it always moves forward, but at an angle, and often slightly moves around its own axis. Result is light and shadow moving across different parts of the ship, different parts of the ship moving in front of other parts; and the illusion of an actual 3D solid object in front of you.

And it's all Star Wars and George Lucas fault. When George told the SFX guys: "It's space ships, it isn't real, you don't need to bother with lighting that much to make it look real. Just make sure it's bright and visible," SFX of space scenes went down the crapper. Physical models or CGI, we've been stuck with flat looking space scenes and ships ever since.

Which brings us to la piece de resistance:


Full Size
Galaxy Class model by Ralph Schoberth.
Runabout model by T. Slanitz.
Image by Blumenkohl.

This rather illustrates all the points in one. Lighting, composition, only motion is missing, and imagine if it were moving. Tell me the galaxy class in this picture doesn't look like a solid object to you, and I don't believe you.
3D Master is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 29 2009, 05:02 AM   #180
Gary Sebben
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: Waldo, FL
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

Look, I know this is important to you. You wrote a lot about it and you're name is "3D Master" so I assume CG is a hobby or even a job of yours. But we pretty much answered which were which. CG is obvious in its cartooniness and often very easy to pick out. Now, I HAVE seen CG that is pretty darn good with proper lighting, texturing, and focal depth, but not often. It makes me thing that modelers thing the can improve on reality when that really just makes things look off.

And no, I don't find the last picture convincing. The particle effects look cheap. The runabout looks like its standing still. Both it and the E are in focus while the nacelle is not. And the ship just looks overly detailed from this distance.

The best pic in this whole lot is the #7, the model. Its got great light and shadow, great tonal range. The focal depth is great. Closer details are sharp, details further away gently become softer. And they didn't need a lot of software and training to try to simulate what they remember what reality should look like, they just let the lens do the work.
Gary Sebben is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
remastered

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:39 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.