Star Trek TNG Remastered?

[TheSeeker]

^You beat me to it. I totally agree too. I wish they had never gone to the lumpy 4-footer in TNG.

[jefferiestubes8]

Lazarus wrote:

---

the CGI Enterprise-D from These Are The Voyages has the edge.

The question is though who would do the visual effects work? TOS-R was done by CBS Digital which is "in house".
TNG, VOY, ENT were all done by contracted visual effects houses whose reputation depends on whether they will get more work in the future from other clients.

While I would love them to license one of the 2 beautiful CGI models already created and one of them being from ILM for 1994's 'Generations' and the other for ENT "These Are the Voyages...". But most likely CBS Digital would start from scratch and build a new CGI model. [frowns].

There are two different Lightwave CG models of the Enterprise-D used in canon already. Why doesn't Paramount/CBS ever license CG models?!

[bullethead]

jefferiestubes8 wrote:

---

While I would love them to license one of the 2 beautiful CGI models already created and one of them being from ILM for 1994's 'Generations' and the other for ENT "These Are the Voyages...". But most likely CBS Digital would start from scratch and build a new CGI model. [frowns].

There are two different Lightwave CG models of the Enterprise-D used in canon already. Why doesn't Paramount/CBS ever license CG models?!

FX houses probably wouldn't use them anyway, since Paramount/CBS would probably make them pay some kind of licensing fee, which would cut the money they're getting for remastering the show, and using someone else's model doesn't give them the amount of control they could get if they built it themself.

[FalTorPan]

The "TATV" CGI 1701-D looked good overall, although its lifeboat hatches protruded too much from the surrounding hull.

[trevanian]

jefferiestubes8 wrote:

---

While I would love them to license one of the 2 beautiful CGI models already created and one of them being from ILM for 1994's 'Generations' and the other for ENT "These Are the Voyages...".

John Knoll's CG -d for GEN was only used in a very few shots, and wasn't designed for scrutiny, just to get the ship to warp and I think maybe for a couple of battle hits. Like the -e seen in warp and time travel shots in FC, that digital model, which was animated in Electric Image on macs, probably wasn't a be-all/end-all, nor was it intended as such.

For me, some of the windows on that TATV -d have got that 'cg shitty window light' look, so it looks like they'd need to render those elements on another pass to get the dynamic range right to sell the ship as credibly as a good miniature. Most folks don't bother rendering different aspects on separate passes to extend dynamic range, but it is really worth it in terms of credibility (even now, a decade later, look at the docbot in MATRIX ... that looks like a real object because you've got photorealistic highlights as well as good detail down into the shadows. Most CG fails for me because it sacrifices on one end or the other, usually the highlight end, hence, 'cg shitty window light.')

[Prologic9]

Ooo a thread talking about Enterprise models. I shall impart my wisdom as follows;

There have been a lot of great physical models built over the years, the Enterprise D was never one of them. The original model was little more than a hull with windows--very little detail. The 4ft model looks like lumpy paper mache. I know, they look great in fuzzy low resolution. Go figure.

If they ever did redo TNG's effects you can rest assured the virtual model builders would have the same resources that the TOS-R team were given to build their Enterprise. That is, unprecedented access to Paramount's archives, and the original shooting model itself.

Which is good because that TATV model was built in a week and looks like it. The model from Generations (the one that's 15 years old) is less detailed than ships you can get for Bridge Commander. They were built to suit their needs at the time and nothing more.

A lot of the flatness in TOS-R comes from them not wanting to stray too far from the flat original FX. If a TNG-R team took the same slavish approach, and there's no saying they would, they at least have a lot more room to play with visually.

I don't think TNG-Remastered will happen soon, but as time passes most aspects of the job will only become cheaper to do. Eventually the time will be right.

[FalTorPan]

trevanian wrote:

---

For me, some of the windows on that TATV -d have got that 'cg shitty window light' look, so it looks like they'd need to render those elements on another pass to get the dynamic range right to sell the ship as credibly as a good miniature.

I think the windows are an example of where both physical miniatures and CGI models failed to sell the reality of the Enterprise-D. "Frosted white rectangles" don't look like windows to me.

Prologic9 wrote:

---

There have been a lot of great physical models built over the years, the Enterprise D was never one of them. The original model was little more than a hull with windows--very little detail. The 4ft model looks like lumpy paper mache. I know, they look great in fuzzy low resolution. Go figure.

The six-footer remains the best depiction of the 1701-D. I'm not sure what additional detail would have done except to cause the miniature to deviate from Andrew Probert's design. If the windows could have little environments placed behind them, then the model would be about as close to perfect as any could be.

[trevanian]

FalTorPan wrote:

---

I think the windows are an example of where both physical miniatures and CGI models failed to sell the reality of the Enterprise-D. "Frosted white rectangles" don't look like windows to me.

Frosted white rectangles in this case at least have a physical presence, as opposed to out of focus mailing labels, which is the CG look. Look at NEM shots of the ship windows, especially the closeup of the back top before the viewscreen gets shot away ... just a fuzzy wash of white.

But yeah, I'll grant you slides or dioramas inside would have been an improvement, like what they did for the -e but didn't really get a chance to show off in FC.

[jefferiestubes8]

Prologic9 wrote:

---

If they ever did redo TNG's effects you can rest assured the virtual model builders would have the same resources that the TOS-R team were given to build their Enterprise. That is, unprecedented access to Paramount's archives, and the original shooting model itself.

It is highly unlikely the 6ft. Ent-D TNG model would be uncrated and put on a spinning stand to get 3-D scanned like some actors are for videogames to create a 3-D CGI model of their body and face.

that TATV model was built in a week and looks like it.

Source URL please Prologic9 where it is mentioned that Eden FX's Gabriel Köerner built a new LightWave model of Ent-D in a week.

[3D Master]

ST-One wrote:

---

Perhaps not better, but pretty damn close (even in this unfinished, untextured state this CG-model looks amazing):



The thread about this model can be found at Foundation3D.com: http://www.foundation3d.com/forums/s...ead.php?t=3875

Holy crap that's horrible. Flat and cartoony as they come.

Is this the same thread in which I explained why CGI these days looks so bad and flat and cartoony, versus model shots with pictures to show it? The lighting - just like models, ever since Star Wars (with the exception of the first few Star Trek movies) they are over lit.

They are created to fit this idea of an lovely lit by the sun in Earth atmosphere cool-looking ship zipping about in front of a starscape.

Instead, they need to work to make the ships look REAL, as in 3D objects, not flat cartoon drawings. And this is done with lighting.

[Butters]

Sometimes I just have to agree with the 3D guy.

[jefferiestubes8]

3D Master wrote:

---

Instead, they need to work to make the ships look REAL, as in 3D objects, not flat cartoon drawings. And this is done with lighting.

3D Master it is a TV show. The producers and CG artists take some creative license to it can show us well on NTSC TV which only works within a limited dynamic range.

If you even have to wonder if a show's producers must have perfect science check out the posts on this thread
“Defying Gravity" 13-episode ABC sci-fi astronaut space series
with how many things are not scientifically accurate.

Scientific accuracy and a science fiction TV show do not go hand in hand. It is entertainment. When you make a $250 million film like Star Trek XI you would expect the visuals to look much better lit though than a TV series.

[Gep Malakai]

trevanian wrote:

---

(even now, a decade later, look at the docbot in MATRIX ... that looks like a real object because you've got photorealistic highlights as well as good detail down into the shadows.

What? I'm staring to believe you're playing pranks on us with your opinions on good VFX work, because if you think this:



Looks like a "real object" then... I can't even imagine what you're thinking. It didn't even look real ten years ago, let alone now. It would make good modern TV CGI, but it still looks like CGI and certainly doesn't escape that painting-like appearance you've criticized so often elsewhere.*

*(This is the result I got when I Googled "Matrix docbot," so if that's not the model you're referring to, I apologize.)

[3D Master]

jefferiestubes8 wrote:

---

3D Master it is a TV show. The producers and CG artists take some creative license to it can show us well on NTSC TV which only works within a limited dynamic range.

Uh...

1. I wasn't talking about any TV show, I'm talking about SFX in general. Movies, tv shows, it doesn't matter; you got a show with space ships, they all light them too brightly, which bleeds out depth, which reduces it to a 2D cartoon. And this is true for BOTH CGI as well as model work. It's just that a Model is a genuine 3D object, so even if you overlight it, you still keep the 3D. However, even so, TOS original SFX made the Enterprise look like a genuine object. It was lit and made to move to higlight the depth of the model, to fool your eyes/brain into rendering it as a genuine object. TNG on the other hand, looks flat in comparison.

2. We're talking about re-making the show for HD here, not NTSC.

3. As TOS having more real 3D objects as ships as opposed TNG shows, dynamic range, and bad TV standards has got NOTHING to do with it. In fact, to properly light a ship to highlight it's 3 dimensional properties, you need LESS light. More light bleeds out shadows, and shadows are a heavy indicator of 3D features. Thus, it takes LESS dynamic range to properly make an object (whether CGI or model) look like a genuine 3-dimensional object, than it takes for brightly lit, bleed all depth out, look how shiny and cool, but 2D and cartoony lighting of an object.

If you even have to wonder if a show's producers must have perfect science check out the posts on this thread
“Defying Gravity" 13-episode ABC sci-fi astronaut space series
with how many things are not scientifically accurate.

Scientific accuracy and a science fiction TV show do not go hand in hand. It is entertainment. When you make a $250 million film like Star Trek XI you would expect the visuals to look much better lit though than a TV series.

1. nowhere did I speak about scientific accuracy. We are talking about SFX.

2. Budget matters not when it comes to properly lighting a ship. In fact, with models improperly brightly lighting the ship requires massive lamps burning away electricity. In CGI, it also matters very little. Time-constraints on the other hand, have an impact. In CGI, it's just fiddling with software dials and setting the proper lighsources. The more time you have, the more different settings you can try out and re-render the scene, the better the result you get.

3. I watched Defying Gravity. And the scientific inaccuracies were first little things that made me frown, but I could get past. But they got bigger, and more, and more; we get the scientists at the classic, and disgusting, superiority complex, "The normal folks can't deal with it, as opposed to us serious race, so we hide it with a conspiracy, look how magnificent we are... ugh." Then when it finally turned into "you must have faith, even though the objects are trying to, and previously have succeeded in killing us" I quit watching. I didn't even finish the episode. No, no faith. No "trust the figments of your imaginations, your gods and what not," that is disgusting. To boot, they are scientists, performing a scientific mission. They're not supposed have faith, they're supposed to be logical and following the scientific method. Something that's trying to kill you isn't something to have faith in, it's something to ignore if not outright destroy. Defying Gravity started interesting and then degenerated into a bad, bad, bad show.

[jefferiestubes8]

3D Master wrote:

---

1. I wasn't talking about any TV show, I'm talking about SFX in general.

2. We're talking about re-making the show for HD here, not NTSC.

Okay then back on topic. Re-doing the TNG visual effects for high definition would require using a CG model of the ENT-D as most of us will agree would be the most cost effective solution should TPTB decide to do any TNG-R of ANY episodes.

In fact, to properly light a ship to highlight it's 3 dimensional properties, you need LESS light. More light bleeds out shadows, and shadows are a heavy indicator of 3D features.

Why don't we compare the last Star Trek TV series visual effects CG model work?

2005 had "Enterprise" 4th season for around 2 million per 43 minutes.

Is the CG ship models and lighting up to your quality level that TNG-R would require? Specifically in ENT season 4.
For season 1 it has been mentioned in detail that in 2001-2002 the season 1 ENT visual effects were rendered in standard definition.
If CBS Digital did the work for a TNG-R Blu-ray we know it would not quite be up to the level of ENT or do you think CBS Digital would totally step up their game and deliver 2011 quality visual effects for a 1987 TV series?