Star Trek TNG Remastered?

[RAMA]

The only CGI models we have seen of the E-D so far, from 3 different sources looks better than the physical models. That's all I care about...and that's what we should see for the remastering. If they could be done on the scale of ST 09, that would have been amazing but probably out of place, so I am happy with ENT, HD quality.

RAMA

[trevanian]

'Better' because they are more painterly, or better because they look less like a physical object?

[RAMA]

trevanian wrote:

---

'Better' because they are more painterly, or better because they look less like a physical object?

Mainly because of the reason I stated before: They retain the grace and lines of the 6ft model yet have the detail of the 4ft model. The superior resolution over the existing footage is a given. Add to that a greater range of shots and motion and you have a superior product for the remastering.

RAMA

[trevanian]

RAMA wrote:

---

Mainly because of the reason I stated before: They retain the grace and lines of the 6ft model yet have the detail of the 4ft model. The superior resolution over the existing footage is a given. Add to that a greater range of shots and motion and you have a superior product for the remastering.

RAMA

Isn't the grace (such as it is, or isn't) of the big -D due mainly to the fact that it doesn't have the bulbously obvious detail of the 4fter?

And I'm REALLY not getting the resolution issue, since you haven't got a medium that comes remotely close to 35mm resolution for this cg work you speak of.

[RAMA]

trevanian wrote:

---

Isn't the grace (such as it is, or isn't) of the big -D due mainly to the fact that it doesn't have the bulbously obvious detail of the 4fter?

And I'm REALLY not getting the resolution issue, since you haven't got a medium that comes remotely close to 35mm resolution for this cg work you speak of.

The point IS in CGI you don't NEED the exaggerated detail that loses the lines from the larger model...they look seemlessly integrated.

RAMA

[Gep Malakai]

3D Master wrote:

---

7. Model:
A promotional shot.

Okay, that was the only one I got wrong--I thought it was CGI.

[3D Master]

Gary Sebben wrote:

---

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.

Except that what you got wasn't the models, but the pictures with the lowest resolution. Which just happens to be mostly the models.

CG is obvious in its cartooniness and often very easy to pick out.

So is every model work since Star Wars, as I've rather pointed 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.

Yes, that's what I said, however, model work is no different. What then needs changing is the way Special Effects people create (most notably space based) special effects; NOT say that CGI can't look anything but fake.

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.

In case you hadn't noticed, but the nacelle is in focus, it's however blurred by motion blur. It's in motion, tumbling on end, and rather fast too. Which means that indeed, the runabout is ACTUALLY hanging still. Besides which, I didn't say anything about the runabout or particle effects, what I said was, that the the Galaxy Class looks like a physical real object, a model - more a genuine ship - and it does.

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.

The model is as flat as you can get. The shadows and light are completely contrary to light sources, making it look completely out of place, as well as having no depth.

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.

If only the average model-using SFX people of the past few decades had a lot of training to remember what reality should look like - and the producers to never tell them otherwise - we would actually have good SFX still. Like TOS, shots would be composed lit, and motion brought in, to highlight the fact that the ship is a three dimensional object. They haven't in decades. Besides which; done right, the CGI folks will also let the lens do the work. It's just that they're lens will be a virtual one, not a physical one in a camera.

[trevanian]

The 'producers controlling lighting' thing was really prevalent on TNG early on. The quote I remember from Probert or Justman in an early STARLOG special was that the lighting on the -D will look realistic if the ship happens to be in a star system with 10 or 12 suns.

[Gary Sebben]

3D Master wrote:

---

Except that what you got wasn't the models, but the pictures with the lowest resolution. Which just happens to be mostly the models.

Whatever, dude. Don't tell me how I knew one from another. I explained to you what tipped me off. You're ignoring my response in order to not come off as a doof. You're failing.

In case you hadn't noticed, but the nacelle is in focus, it's however blurred by motion blur.

It doesn't look like motion blur. It looks like a full on Gaussian blur. If you have to tell me its a motion blur then its not very good.

[/QUOTE]what I said was, that the the Galaxy Class looks like a physical real object, a model - more a genuine ship - and it does.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't, for the reasons that I already addressed about the actual model in the previous post..

The model is as flat as you can get. The shadows and light are completely contrary to light sources, making it look completely out of place, as well as having no depth.

That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But saying the opposite of what I said is not really making a point. It's just being a contrarian.

done right, the CGI folks will also let the lens do the work. It's just that they're lens will be a virtual one, not a physical one in a camera.

Doesn't explain why all you're CG shots completely lack any depth of field.

[3D Master]

Gary Sebben wrote:

---

Whatever, dude. Don't tell me how I knew one from another. I explained to you what tipped me off. You're ignoring my response in order to not come off as a doof. You're failing.

No, you're ignoring my response, because I already explained that you're little detail concept is flawed. First, you called one CGI image a model shot or better CGI when it is in fact just a low quality CGI, and another CGI shot didn't have any details because they were blurred out by motion blur.

It doesn't look like motion blur. It looks like a full on Gaussian blur. If you have to tell me its a motion blur then its not very good.

Or you barely gave it a glanse, saw something blurry and claimed it was out of focus, or you don't even know what motion blur is. The fact that the nacelle is motion blurred is easy to see, as the far away parts are blurred more than the parts closer to the middle of the picture/Runabout. It's tumbling around an axis and the axis is close to the middle, as a result the far side is moving faster in relationship to the camera than the middle part is. It's easy to see unless you glanse at it only a moment.

It doesn't, for the reasons that I already addressed about the actual model in the previous post..

No, you haven't. You have not discussed a single CGI model.

That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But saying the opposite of what I said is not really making a point. It's just being a contrarian.

No, being contrarion is just saying the opposite without any explanation. I actually explained to you why it is flat and out of place.

Doesn't explain why all you're CG shots completely lack any depth of field.

Except that the better ones don't lack that depth of field; in fact the better ones have better depth of field than the model shots.

[jefferiestubes8]

3D Master wrote:

---

You have not discussed a single CGI model.

Would you and Gary Sebben please continue your debate about CGI models vs physical models here:
Computer-animated, or models on strings? on this other TNG thread. or in the Trek Art forum.

For any TNG remastering that would recreate and render any new CGI visual effects it would not be done by ILM but by CBS Digital, the same people who did the TOS-R.
Your discussion is not furthering the Star Trek TNG Remastered? thread.

[ST-One]

Gary Sebben wrote:

---

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.

Since you seem to be able to tell what's CG and what's miniature...

Can you tell what elements in this image are CG?

[trevanian]

ST-One wrote:

---

Since you seem to be able to tell what's CG and what's miniature...

Can you tell what elements in this image are CG?

I can, but that's only because I've seen the elements separately ... you can't really tell because the miniature elements have been so crapped on in the 2K that they might as well be whole cloth mediocre CG.

EDIT ADDON: oh yeah, was your post made just to tick off the poster before yours, who rightfully would like the thread to contain info about TNG ReMastered?

THAT is the real crime of it all ... people expect miniatures to not look great because after scanning at 2K and comping, they don't look any better than CG.

Do these shots at full 35mm rez and you'd see great miniatures and crappy cg ships

[Admiral Buzzkill]

In fact CG looks better than models now at any resolution. As one can see in the latest issue of Cinefex, the new Enterprise exists at a level of believable photorealistic detail that enables the "camera" POV to get much closer to the surface than was ever possible with the old models.

[trevanian]

Dennis wrote:

---

In fact CG looks better than models now at any resolution. As one can see in the latest issue of Cinefex, the new Enterprise exists at a level of believable photorealistic detail that enables the "camera" POV to get much closer to the surface than was ever possible with the old models.

This is the TNG forum, not a FanFiction thread.