RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,860
Posts: 5,221,472
Members: 24,232
Currently online: 565
Newest member: glasssplashback

TrekToday headlines

Takei To Receive Award
By: T'Bonz on Apr 23

Yelchin In New Comedy
By: T'Bonz on Apr 23

U.S. Rights For Pegg Comedy Secured
By: T'Bonz on Apr 23

Shatner: Aging and Work
By: T'Bonz on Apr 23

Kurtzman And Orci Go Solo
By: T'Bonz on Apr 22

Star Trek #32 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Apr 22

Voyager Bridge Via The Oculus Rift
By: T'Bonz on Apr 21

Miles Away Glyph Award Nominations
By: T'Bonz on Apr 21

Q Meets NuTrek Crew
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

Pine In Talks For Drama
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18


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 29 2009, 05:34 AM   #181
RAMA
Vice Admiral
 
RAMA's Avatar
 
Location: NJ, USA
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

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
__________________
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 29 2009, 05:44 AM   #182
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
trevanian's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

'Better' because they are more painterly, or better because they look less like a physical object?
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 29 2009, 05:49 AM   #183
RAMA
Vice Admiral
 
RAMA's Avatar
 
Location: NJ, USA
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

trevanian wrote: View Post
'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
__________________
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 29 2009, 06:07 AM   #184
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
trevanian's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

RAMA wrote: View Post
trevanian wrote: View Post
'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
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.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 29 2009, 06:52 AM   #185
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
'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
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
__________________
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 29 2009, 07:30 AM   #186
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

7. Model:
A promotional shot.
Okay, that was the only one I got wrong--I thought it was CGI.
__________________
"From the darkness you must fall, failed and weak, to darkness all."
-Kataris
Gep Malakai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 29 2009, 10:23 AM   #187
3D Master
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

Gary Sebben wrote: View Post
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.

Last edited by 3D Master; June 29 2009 at 10:34 AM.
3D Master is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 29 2009, 01:25 PM   #188
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
trevanian's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

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.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30 2009, 04:48 AM   #189
Gary Sebben
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: Waldo, FL
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

3D Master wrote: View Post
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.
Gary Sebben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30 2009, 09:56 AM   #190
3D Master
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

Gary Sebben wrote: View Post
3D Master wrote: View Post
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.
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.

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.
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.

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

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

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.
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.
3D Master is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30 2009, 03:22 PM   #191
jefferiestubes8
Commodore
 
Location: New York City
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

3D Master wrote: View Post
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.
jefferiestubes8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 3 2009, 08:23 PM   #192
ST-One
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
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.
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?

ST-One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 4 2009, 04:12 AM   #193
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
trevanian's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

ST-One 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.
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
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 4 2009, 05:19 AM   #194
Admiral Buzzkill
The Legend
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

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.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 4 2009, 01:03 PM   #195
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
trevanian's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

Dennis wrote: View Post
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.
trevanian 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 11:11 AM.

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