RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,345
Posts: 5,445,084
Members: 24,966
Currently online: 565
Newest member: Borough 31

TrekToday headlines

Kruge Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Oct 30

Two Trek Actors In Green Room
By: T'Bonz on Oct 30

Trek UglyDolls First Look
By: T'Bonz on Oct 29

New Star Trek Select Action Figure
By: T'Bonz on Oct 29

Trek Actors In Elsa & Fred
By: T'Bonz on Oct 29

The Red Shirt Diaries #9
By: T'Bonz on Oct 28

Greenwood Cast In Truth
By: T'Bonz on Oct 28

Cumberbatch In Talks For Strange
By: T'Bonz on Oct 28

Two New Trek Bobble Heads
By: T'Bonz on Oct 27

Meaney On Playing Historical Figure Durant
By: T'Bonz on Oct 27


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 November 26 2009, 01:15 PM   #361
3D Master
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

ST-One wrote: View Post
3D Master wrote: View Post
ST-One wrote: View Post

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.


Can't you read?
Of course it looks flat and unrealistic. It's not a finished model.
It has no textures and/or no properly set-up surface/material settings.
I didn't bother to read. All I did was look, and you are you seriously trying to make a case for good 3D space ship, PROPERLY DEPICTED IN SPACE THAT LOOKS LIKE AN OBJECT, with an incomplete, flat, cartoony ship?





Oh, and here is a very good example of great looking modern CGI:

And you know WHY!? Because as it is on the ground, with people walking around, and our brains are entirely geared toward dealing with pictures of stuff on the earth with people around them, any wrong lighting would be instantly noticeable and HEAVILY noticeable, so they automatically went to correct it until they had THE LIGHTING RIGHT!

Hence why monsters, and dinosaurs and stuff that is walking around on the ground and interacting with people, have always looked so much better than ships in space. Because bad lighting of these, would become instantly visible and make it look worse than stop motion picture, so they spent their time on making the monster seamlessly blend into the picture.

The do not have to do this with Starships. Since we've never been in space, and our brains are not geared toward dealing with things in space, and partially fool it by lighting the ship as if it's on the ground; you're brain doesn't automally go: "Wrong, wrong, wrong, eh, false information." It isn't until you notice that old visual effects like TOS, the ships looked much more like actual large objects in comparison to new shots, that your brain shifts gears and you start to notice how bad it really is. For those of us who grew with the model shots of TOS, it's been a lot easier to notice. Me on the other hand I'm of the previous group, I grew up on TNG, and DS9 and thought, "Looks so good." It wasn't until later age when I went to rewatch TOS, that the ship felt more like an object. And it wasn't after watching more episodes of TOS, and comparing it to the newer SFX - at first I didn't want to believe it - that my brain slowly got more and more trained into noticing the differences. And that what previously made it look good, now makes it look flat.
3D Master is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2009, 01:30 PM   #362
ST-One
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

3D Master wrote: View Post
ST-One wrote: View Post
3D Master wrote: View Post

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


Can't you read?
Of course it looks flat and unrealistic. It's not a finished model.
It has no textures and/or no properly set-up surface/material settings.
I didn't bother to read. All I did was look, and you are you seriously trying to make a case for good 3D space ship, PROPERLY DEPICTED IN SPACE THAT LOOKS LIKE AN OBJECT, with an incomplete, flat, cartoony ship?

Stop your crusade against CGI, will you please?

And, when you talk about a 'good 3D space ship', do you mean a physical miniature or a 3D-model?

I just posted that picture of this model because it has (almost) all the details of the 6-foot miniature it only lacks some proper textures/materials to look really good.

3D Master wrote: View Post


Oh, and here is a very good example of great looking modern CGI:

And you know WHY!? Because as it is on the ground, with people walking around, and our brains are entirely geared toward dealing with pictures of stuff on the earth with people around them, any wrong lighting would be instantly noticeable and HEAVILY noticeable, so they automatically went to correct it until they had THE LIGHTING RIGHT!

Hence why monsters, and dinosaurs and stuff that is walking around on the ground and interacting with people, have always looked so much better than ships in space. Because bad lighting of these, would become instantly visible and make it look worse than stop motion picture, so they spent their time on making the monster seamlessly blend into the picture.

The do not have to do this with Starships. Since we've never been in space, and our brains are not geared toward dealing with things in space, and partially fool it by lighting the ship as if it's on the ground; you're brain doesn't automally go: "Wrong, wrong, wrong, eh, false information." It isn't until you notice that old visual effects like TOS, the ships looked much more like actual large objects in comparison to new shots, that your brain shifts gears and you start to notice how bad it really is. For those of us who grew with the model shots of TOS, it's been a lot easier to notice. Me on the other hand I'm of the previous group, I grew up on TNG, and DS9 and thought, "Looks so good." It wasn't until later age when I went to rewatch TOS, that the ship felt more like an object. And it wasn't after watching more episodes of TOS, and comparing it to the newer SFX - at first I didn't want to believe it - that my brain slowly got more and more trained into noticing the differences. And that what previously made it look good, now makes it look flat.
So, you want your space ships to look like obvious miniatures, like they often did in TOS and TNG and even DS9?
ST-One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2009, 04:04 PM   #363
3D Master
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

ST-One wrote: View Post
3D Master wrote: View Post
ST-One wrote: View Post



Can't you read?
Of course it looks flat and unrealistic. It's not a finished model.
It has no textures and/or no properly set-up surface/material settings.
I didn't bother to read. All I did was look, and you are you seriously trying to make a case for good 3D space ship, PROPERLY DEPICTED IN SPACE THAT LOOKS LIKE AN OBJECT, with an incomplete, flat, cartoony ship?

Stop your crusade against CGI, will you please?
What crusade against CGI!? Nowhere did I anywhere say that CGI is bad or wrong, anywhere. In fact, I've been saying that the model work of the 25 years has been every bit as bad as the CGI.

CGI is not the problem, nowhere did I say that it is. It's the way it (and model-work) has been used when it comes to depicting space ships. Most notably the bad lighting.

And, when you talk about a 'good 3D space ship', do you mean a physical miniature or a 3D-model?
A ship that actually looks like 3-dimensional genuine object. Not a flat cartoon.

I just posted that picture of this model because it has (almost) all the details of the 6-foot miniature it only lacks some proper textures/materials to look really good.
It will only look good, if they use good compositing; more specifically: the right lighting, proper camera movements, and movements of the ship. If you don't this right, it will look every bit as flat and cartoony as all the other ships we've seen flying around in visual effects over the past 20 to 25 years.

3D Master wrote: View Post
And you know WHY!? Because as it is on the ground, with people walking around, and our brains are entirely geared toward dealing with pictures of stuff on the earth with people around them, any wrong lighting would be instantly noticeable and HEAVILY noticeable, so they automatically went to correct it until they had THE LIGHTING RIGHT!

Hence why monsters, and dinosaurs and stuff that is walking around on the ground and interacting with people, have always looked so much better than ships in space. Because bad lighting of these, would become instantly visible and make it look worse than stop motion picture, so they spent their time on making the monster seamlessly blend into the picture.

The do not have to do this with Starships. Since we've never been in space, and our brains are not geared toward dealing with things in space, and partially fool it by lighting the ship as if it's on the ground; you're brain doesn't automally go: "Wrong, wrong, wrong, eh, false information." It isn't until you notice that old visual effects like TOS, the ships looked much more like actual large objects in comparison to new shots, that your brain shifts gears and you start to notice how bad it really is. For those of us who grew with the model shots of TOS, it's been a lot easier to notice. Me on the other hand I'm of the previous group, I grew up on TNG, and DS9 and thought, "Looks so good." It wasn't until later age when I went to rewatch TOS, that the ship felt more like an object. And it wasn't after watching more episodes of TOS, and comparing it to the newer SFX - at first I didn't want to believe it - that my brain slowly got more and more trained into noticing the differences. And that what previously made it look good, now makes it look flat.
So, you want your space ships to look like obvious miniatures, like they often did in TOS and TNG and even DS9?
:sighs:

You know what looks like an obvious miniature and toy? The only thing in the above link that looked remotely like an actual object; it was the shuttle in the cover picture of the trailer on the left side of the page. Watch that trailer, and watch it look like a toy.

And I considered it: BAD.
3D Master is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2009, 06:01 PM   #364
ST-One
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

3D Master wrote: View Post
What crusade against CGI!? Nowhere did I anywhere say that CGI is bad or wrong, anywhere. In fact, I've been saying that the model work of the 25 years has been every bit as bad as the CGI.

CGI is not the problem, nowhere did I say that it is. It's the way it (and model-work) has been used when it comes to depicting space ships. Most notably the bad lighting.

A ship that actually looks like 3-dimensional genuine object. Not a flat cartoon.

It will only look good, if they use good compositing; more specifically: the right lighting, proper camera movements, and movements of the ship. If you don't this right, it will look every bit as flat and cartoony as all the other ships we've seen flying around in visual effects over the past 20 to 25 years.
So, if the VFX-shots would look like this you'd get behind a remaking of the TNG-VFX using CGI?



3D Master wrote: View Post
You know what looks like an obvious miniature and toy? The only thing in the above link that looked remotely like an actual object; it was the shuttle in the cover picture of the trailer on the left side of the page. Watch that trailer, and watch it look like a toy.

And I considered it: BAD.
ST-One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2009, 07:35 PM   #365
3D Master
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

ST-One wrote: View Post
3D Master wrote: View Post
What crusade against CGI!? Nowhere did I anywhere say that CGI is bad or wrong, anywhere. In fact, I've been saying that the model work of the 25 years has been every bit as bad as the CGI.

CGI is not the problem, nowhere did I say that it is. It's the way it (and model-work) has been used when it comes to depicting space ships. Most notably the bad lighting.

A ship that actually looks like 3-dimensional genuine object. Not a flat cartoon.

It will only look good, if they use good compositing; more specifically: the right lighting, proper camera movements, and movements of the ship. If you don't this right, it will look every bit as flat and cartoony as all the other ships we've seen flying around in visual effects over the past 20 to 25 years.
So, if the VFX-shots would look like this you'd get behind a remaking of the TNG-VFX using CGI?

Nope. STXI was just more of what I was talking about it.
3D Master is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2009, 08:12 PM   #366
ST-One
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

3D Master wrote: View Post
ST-One wrote: View Post
3D Master wrote: View Post
What crusade against CGI!? Nowhere did I anywhere say that CGI is bad or wrong, anywhere. In fact, I've been saying that the model work of the 25 years has been every bit as bad as the CGI.

CGI is not the problem, nowhere did I say that it is. It's the way it (and model-work) has been used when it comes to depicting space ships. Most notably the bad lighting.

A ship that actually looks like 3-dimensional genuine object. Not a flat cartoon.

It will only look good, if they use good compositing; more specifically: the right lighting, proper camera movements, and movements of the ship. If you don't this right, it will look every bit as flat and cartoony as all the other ships we've seen flying around in visual effects over the past 20 to 25 years.
So, if the VFX-shots would look like this you'd get behind a remaking of the TNG-VFX using CGI?

Nope. STXI was just more of what I was talking about it.
Okay, then I have to conclude that you do not know what you are talking about.
ST-One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2009, 08:29 PM   #367
ST-One
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

Let's compare TMP to Star Trek







And now explain to me, please, why you think one is better than the other.
ST-One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2009, 08:51 PM   #368
3D Master
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

ST-One wrote: View Post
Let's compare TMP to Star Trek







And now explain to me, please, why you think one is better than the other.
Well, look at the above two, and look at the new ship. Notice those doors opening? Notice how they stick out from what would be their closed position? Dang, hadn't noticed that one did ya? That requires you to actually concentrate on the picture, and take an enormous amount of concentration, doesn't it? That's because there is nothing that allows you to judge depth by; it is flat. The same for the flying ship and the still ships inside. Where is the flying ship? Further back, more in front, somewhere in the middle. Once again, in order to figure that out, you practically have get a measurer and start measuring and do scientific calculations.

The second two pictures it's all about composition. The TMP has both the nacelles, and the station above; giving you a sense of depth. In the new one, there's nothing. Not even the shuttle craft in the new one allows for any idea of scale; the shuttle itself barely has anything that you can use to judge it's 3-dimensional nature either. It's too little though, it looks flat.
3D Master is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2009, 09:54 PM   #369
ST-One
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

3D Master wrote: View Post
ST-One wrote: View Post
Let's compare TMP to Star Trek







And now explain to me, please, why you think one is better than the other.
Well, look at the above two, and look at the new ship. Notice those doors opening? Notice how they stick out from what would be their closed position? Dang, hadn't noticed that one did ya? That requires you to actually concentrate on the picture, and take an enormous amount of concentration, doesn't it? That's because there is nothing that allows you to judge depth by; it is flat. The same for the flying ship and the still ships inside. Where is the flying ship? Further back, more in front, somewhere in the middle. Once again, in order to figure that out, you practically have get a measurer and start measuring and do scientific calculations.

The second two pictures it's all about composition. The TMP has both the nacelles, and the station above; giving you a sense of depth. In the new one, there's nothing. Not even the shuttle craft in the new one allows for any idea of scale; the shuttle itself barely has anything that you can use to judge it's 3-dimensional nature either. It's too little though, it looks flat.

What the devil are you talking about?
You are not making one shred of sense.
ST-One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2009, 09:57 PM   #370
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
Well, look at the above two, and look at the new ship. Notice those doors opening? Notice how they stick out from what would be their closed position? Dang, hadn't noticed that one did ya? That requires you to actually concentrate on the picture, and take an enormous amount of concentration, doesn't it? That's because there is nothing that allows you to judge depth by; it is flat.
You'd get much better reactions from people if you weren't so condescending and rude. I'm tempted to say more, but suffice to say I don't want an infraction thanks to your insufferable posts.
__________________
"From the darkness you must fall, failed and weak, to darkness all."
-Kataris
Gep Malakai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2009, 10:22 PM   #371
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

ST-One wrote: View Post
Let's compare TMP to Star Trek







And now explain to me, please, why you think one is better than the other.
Well for one, in the bottom image, the non-luminous quality of light coming from what I guess is the bridge exterior kills the shot right off. A dynamic range issue, which shouldn't have been an issue, since somebody said they did several different separate renders/passes to capture more of the range, yet the luminous tonalities are not luminous.

Enchiladas are ready, so I'll have to look at the top pair later.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2009, 10:28 PM   #372
3D Master
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

Gep Malakai wrote: View Post
3D Master wrote: View Post
Well, look at the above two, and look at the new ship. Notice those doors opening? Notice how they stick out from what would be their closed position? Dang, hadn't noticed that one did ya? That requires you to actually concentrate on the picture, and take an enormous amount of concentration, doesn't it? That's because there is nothing that allows you to judge depth by; it is flat.
You'd get much better reactions from people if you weren't so condescending and rude. I'm tempted to say more, but suffice to say I don't want an infraction thanks to your insufferable posts.
And you wouldn't get "insufferable posts" (given what I've been put through here, I'm sweet and nice), if you don't spend your time insulting them first. "I wonder why he's called 3D master when he hates 3D so much." Bullshit about "scientific accuracy" that comes out of someone's ass. Continuing annoying questions about effects houses and specific effects work, like that matters when I've said over and over again that it's the entire paradigm on SFX for space ships is made. And on, and on, and on.

I didn't start it, YOU people did.
3D Master is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2009, 10:35 PM   #373
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
I didn't start it, YOU people did.
So in other words, any time somebody disagrees with you or is just plain confused about your attitude we're "putting [you] through" something that deserves your incessant bile. Uh-huh.

trevanian wrote: View Post
Well for one, in the bottom image, the non-luminous quality of light coming from what I guess is the bridge exterior kills the shot right off.
Are you referring to the sensor dome on the top, which used to be the bridge in the original timeline? The new bridge is the little slot underneath.



At any rate, I'm unclear what you mean by "non-luminous quality," beyond there being no glow around the light source, and how that's supposed to relate to the dynamic range. The interior of the dome does look over-exposed, but that's probably realistic for a bright enough light source.
__________________
"From the darkness you must fall, failed and weak, to darkness all."
-Kataris

Last edited by Gep Malakai; November 26 2009 at 10:46 PM.
Gep Malakai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2009, 10:55 PM   #374
ST-One
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

trevanian wrote: View Post
ST-One wrote: View Post
Let's compare TMP to Star Trek







And now explain to me, please, why you think one is better than the other.
Well for one, in the bottom image, the non-luminous quality of light coming from what I guess is the bridge exterior kills the shot right off. A dynamic range issue, which shouldn't have been an issue, since somebody said they did several different separate renders/passes to capture more of the range, yet the luminous tonalities are not luminous.
Everything that should cast light on something, does so.
So, I don't see what you mean.
ST-One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2009, 11:04 PM   #375
3D Master
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

Gep Malakai wrote: View Post
3D Master wrote: View Post
I didn't start it, YOU people did.
So in other words, any time somebody disagrees with you or is just plain confused about your attitude we're "putting [you] through" something that deserves your incessant bile. Uh-huh.


When you write something like, "Why are you called 3D Master when you hate 3D?", is not being confused, it's being a dick.

And the same goes for deliberately spending your time trying to miss represent what someone wrote.
3D Master 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 08:01 PM.

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