RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,405
Posts: 5,505,936
Members: 25,127
Currently online: 612
Newest member: OneOfFour

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12


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 August 24 2012, 03:02 AM   #31
SoM
Commander
 
SoM's Avatar
 
Re: Perfect example of what they SHOULD have done with the TNG-R FX

Trekker4747 wrote: View Post
The -C was slightly smaller than the -D but not greatly so.

In that plan view, it doesn't look much smaller at all. Comparing saucer-to-saucer and the same with the secondary hulls, the C's slightly shorter and taller
SoM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2012, 03:18 AM   #32
Ugly Sweater
Trekker4747
 
Ugly Sweater's Avatar
 
Location: Kansas City
Re: Perfect example of what they SHOULD have done with the TNG-R FX

SoM wrote: View Post
Trekker4747 wrote: View Post
The -C was slightly smaller than the -D but not greatly so.

In that plan view, it doesn't look much smaller at all. Comparing saucer-to-saucer and the same with the secondary hulls, the C's slightly shorter and taller
Yeah, it's shorter. But technical specs put the -D at about 7 meters "taller." But we could probably argue both ships are the same height. The -C is about 100-meters shorter, and 167 meters narrower than the -D.

So overall volume has the -C as pretty "smaller" than the -D. There are a few establishing shots in the (unaltered) episode that also makes the size of the ships look very, very different though it could be argued the -C is "further away" from the camera and thus only looks smaller.

__________________
Just because it's futuristic doesn't mean it's practical.

Last edited by Ugly Sweater; August 24 2012 at 03:49 AM.
Ugly Sweater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2012, 03:22 AM   #33
Dick_Valentine
Commander
 
Location: Birmingham, UK (Not Alabama)
View Dick_Valentine's Twitter Profile
Re: Perfect example of what they SHOULD have done with the TNG-R FX

ITT old people moan about CGI....and how it was better in the olden days when models were used...

I think the YT clip is getting unnecessary scorn.
Chris, the poster (who also posts here you know, so be nice) is just a fan who makes stuff like this in his spare time, he's not a visual artist who is paid to make that stuff full time.
And since he's just using his computer not some special computer design one like CGI guys would use, I don't think he does a bad job at all, look through the rest of the videos to see some of the great work he comes up with, certainly a million times better than anything anyone here could come up with and a lot better than the grainy, blurry, static model shots you'd get pre-HD

CGI is such an easy target on here when in fact its as varied as model work.
The model work grace will only last until mid-season 3 is released because as soon as the episodes with the higher detail (and superior, imo ) 4 foot model come out people will go right ahead and begin bitching about that too.

It isn't CGI bad, model good, it's good Special Effects of both types vs bad special effects of both types.

And yes, I am a little disappointed they didn't do a proper job on TNG HD.
As good as the model shots will look, there's still only about 10 of them spread across the entire 7 years and I'm just sick of seeing the Enterprise fly past the camera in the same 2 ways each week.
CGI is just a more cost effective way to make sure the series doesn't have to solely rely on stock shots, or have space battles where the ships just sit still and fire their weapons, or have interesting alien ships instead of the same kitbash of the cargo ship with a water pistol stuck on it this week, or a cheaper way of getting a few new starfleet designs, etc etc

But I guess I'll just have to settle for the limited amount of "new stuff" with the remastering, like the explosion of the Oberth class, which was pretty cool (and already people are decrying as too OTT...can't win with some people)

It's the little things that keep me going...
__________________
I don't care what anyone thinks, when I hit the iceberg the iceberg sinks!
Dick_Valentine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2012, 03:43 AM   #34
mswood
Rear Admiral
 
mswood's Avatar
 
Location: 9th level of Hell
Re: Perfect example of what they SHOULD have done with the TNG-R FX

davejames
When ENT started having the NX-01 zipping around and doing barrel rolls like the Millennium Falcon, it bugged the hell out of me, and didn't look nearly as realistic.
When did the NX-01 ever done a barrel role? Now the Defiant certainly did harder, and sharper moves then the NX-01 did, and it's not actually that much bigger then the Defiant.
__________________
My fandom will SALT and BURN your fandom!
mswood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2012, 03:48 AM   #35
mswood
Rear Admiral
 
mswood's Avatar
 
Location: 9th level of Hell
Re: Perfect example of what they SHOULD have done with the TNG-R FX

Of course there is good CGI, but the poster was comparing the restored HD material to this you tube clip, and that isn't good CGI. No one is lashing out at the person who created the clip, just that clip is not in any way shape or form high quality CGI.

And while I also would like some changes in stock footage, I also don't trust CBS to actually use high quality CGI for fully realized ship space shots. So far, they haven't in any form.
__________________
My fandom will SALT and BURN your fandom!
mswood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2012, 03:55 AM   #36
Ugly Sweater
Trekker4747
 
Ugly Sweater's Avatar
 
Location: Kansas City
Re: Perfect example of what they SHOULD have done with the TNG-R FX

Dick_Valentine wrote: View Post
ITT old people moan about CGI....and how it was better in the olden days when models were used...

I think the YT clip is getting unnecessary scorn.
Chris, the poster (who also posts here you know, so be nice) is just a fan who makes stuff like this in his spare time, he's not a visual artist who is paid to make that stuff full time.
And since he's just using his computer not some special computer design one like CGI guys would use, I don't think he does a bad job at all, look through the rest of the videos to see some of the great work he comes up with, certainly a million times better than anything anyone here could come up with and a lot better than the grainy, blurry, static model shots you'd get pre-HD

CGI is such an easy target on here when in fact its as varied as model work.
The model work grace will only last until mid-season 3 is released because as soon as the episodes with the higher detail (and superior, imo ) 4 foot model come out people will go right ahead and begin bitching about that too.

It isn't CGI bad, model good, it's good Special Effects of both types vs bad special effects of both types.

And yes, I am a little disappointed they didn't do a proper job on TNG HD.
As good as the model shots will look, there's still only about 10 of them spread across the entire 7 years and I'm just sick of seeing the Enterprise fly past the camera in the same 2 ways each week.
CGI is just a more cost effective way to make sure the series doesn't have to solely rely on stock shots, or have space battles where the ships just sit still and fire their weapons, or have interesting alien ships instead of the same kitbash of the cargo ship with a water pistol stuck on it this week, or a cheaper way of getting a few new starfleet designs, etc etc

But I guess I'll just have to settle for the limited amount of "new stuff" with the remastering, like the explosion of the Oberth class, which was pretty cool (and already people are decrying as too OTT...can't win with some people)

It's the little things that keep me going...
Perhaps, maybe I mis-interpreted the intent of the OP but it seemed to imply the video was made as a "suggested replacement" for the effects in the original show.

Which the effects aren't good enough to be put in as replacement for the effects in the series. Given the limitations the animator apparently had with equipment, time, skill sure it's "good" but it's not better than the model effects used in the series.

Even the CGI effects used to recreate the Pegasus scenes in ENT weren't that good IMHO. (Neverminding the "mistakes" in it.) Because it too looked like CGI.

I can't help but have a special spot in my heart for the effects in TNG. It would be nice if some effects shots and such were replaced with CGI. I'd like to see the ship being presented consistently (getting rid of the horrendous 4-foot model's use.)

But it's not likely going to happen so, meh. What we've seen looks good so far and I think it is way to early to see what they're going to do down the road once we get into the more middled seasons where effects were more in use and where the old stuff won't hold-up or can be replaced with something better.
__________________
Just because it's futuristic doesn't mean it's practical.
Ugly Sweater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2012, 03:56 AM   #37
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Perfect example of what they SHOULD have done with the TNG-R FX

Dick_Valentine wrote: View Post
ITT old people moan about CGI....and how it was better in the olden days when models were used...
Come on. Not all CGI is created equal. Nobody here is saying "models are better than CGI." They're saying that the CGI in that particular clip is clearly not on the same level of quality that the remastered, recomposited, HD version of the original photography is likely to be. A professional CGI artist like Doug Drexler or Mojo, with sufficient software, time, and budget, could certainly create effects that were better-looking that the model shots created for "Yesterday's Enterprise." But whoever made that YouTube video did not.


I think the YT clip is getting unnecessary scorn.
Chris, the poster (who also posts here you know, so be nice) is just a fan who makes stuff like this in his spare time, he's not a visual artist who is paid to make that stuff full time.
And since he's just using his computer not some special computer design one like CGI guys would use, I don't think he does a bad job at all
All good points. But I don't think we're criticizing the video itself; it's fine for what it is, an amateur exercise paying tribute to a favorite sequence. What we're criticizing is the original poster's allegation that the video represents a template for how TNG Remastered should be done and that it's in some way fundamentally superior to the original. As I said, I don't even see how it materially differs from the original in action or composition, aside from the aspect ratio.


look through the rest of the videos to see some of the great work he comes up with, certainly a million times better than anything anyone here could come up with and a lot better than the grainy, blurry, static model shots you'd get pre-HD
Maybe it is a generational thing, but I don't think a clear image of a computer construct of middling resolution and detail is better than a grainy photograph of a genuine object that actually, physically exists. Grain is not always a bad thing.


And yes, I am a little disappointed they didn't do a proper job on TNG HD.
Define "proper." The purpose of these exercises has never been to do a Lucas-style alteration, but rather to perform a restoration, to come as close as possible to the original work in maximum possible quality. TOS-R only replaced the original footage with CGI because the original film elements no longer existed and thus there was no way to remaster the FX shots, only to recreate them digitally.

So I think it's a little solipsistic to use the word "proper" to mean "what I would've preferred." Personally I agree that it would've been nice to see some of the ponderous, limited FX shots of early TNG (or major errors like the too-big Stargazer in "The Battle") replaced or rethought. But just because they chose to go in a different direction than I would've, that doesn't make my opinions more "proper" than theirs.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 11/16/14 including annotations for "The Caress of a Butterfly's Wing" and overview for DTI: The Collectors

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2012, 09:55 AM   #38
Start Wreck
Fleet Captain
 
Start Wreck's Avatar
 
Re: Perfect example of what they SHOULD have done with the TNG-R FX

Dick_Valentine wrote: View Post
ITT old people moan about CGI....and how it was better in the olden days when models were used...
You should listen to them; old people have more refined taste.

I love good CGI. Star Trek '09 had fantastic effects. This YouTube video, while excellent for a fan creation, is not up to that standard, or the standard of physical models shot on film. And I should know, I make bad CGI myself.

I'm not old, though. Yet.
__________________
Fallen Star - My home-made sci-fi TV show
Start Wreck - My Star Trek spoof web comic
Doctor Who From The Start - A n00b does a blog
Start Wreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2012, 08:03 PM   #39
NewHorizon
Captain
 
Re: Perfect example of what they SHOULD have done with the TNG-R FX

And yes, I am a little disappointed they didn't do a proper job on TNG HD.
Proper in what context exactly?

The intention with this project from the outset was to 'restore' the original show in HD. That's exactly what they are doing, SFX elements and all! That IS the proper way to do this particular job. If it were a reimagining or a modern upgrade, then CGI would probably be the way to go.

Likewise, if TOSR had been a 'restoration' project in the truest sense, they would have pulled the Enterprise out of the Smithsonian, restored it and re-filmed all of the original shots with physical models...likewise the other ships used throughout the series. TOSR was a reimagining / update of the effects though, so that wasn't the case.

I prefer the approach taken with TNG and it looks outstanding.
NewHorizon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 25 2012, 03:07 AM   #40
RAMA
Vice Admiral
 
RAMA's Avatar
 
Location: NJ, USA
Re: Perfect example of what they SHOULD have done with the TNG-R FX

Ian Keldon wrote: View Post
Don't know why I can't get "embed" to work, so link will have to do:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9Kk2...eature=related

Completely respectful of the style of the original FX with improved dynamism and production value.

This guy picked a good one to "redo"...Love the Ent-C/D vs Klingon fight in "Yesterday's Enterprise" in concept, but it was WAY limited by what they could afford to do with the models.
I like the youtube video, its well integrated and I'd have loved to see more of this, but still, what we've seen so far is impressive.
__________________
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 August 25 2012, 09:34 PM   #41
Ian Keldon
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Perfect example of what they SHOULD have done with the TNG-R FX

Harvey wrote: View Post
So, let's get this straight...

-You want to crop the image to widescreen from it's original aspect ratio, ruining the composition of the shot.
Doesn't have to be widescreen...that just happens to be how that video was done.

-You want to replace the original model photography with mediocre-at-best computer generated visual effects -- effects that don't even bother to be any more visually dynamic than the originals.
On the contrary, the choreography is SIGNIFICANTLY improved over the original. More use of subtle motion and in multiple planes. Plus debris when the Klingon ship is destroyed.

And I was using this as a "proof of concept" video...of course the CBS team would be expected to put out a little better quality than that (though it's hardly "mediocre" at all).

Christopher wrote: View Post
As for that YouTube video, I don't see any material difference between the original shot choreography and this version.
davejames wrote: View Post
Um, I don't get it. Except for the ships being CG, it looked like the pretty much the exact same sequence.

Why go through all the trouble to make this if you're not going to at least come up with some cool new shots and choreography?

I will admit, though, the episode looks pretty damn good in widescreen.

The differences are subtle, but to my eye very clear. The motion of the ships is slightly more fluid and multi dimensional in the concept video. It's esp noticeable in the opening shot, and the "continual fire, all phasers" shot. Just enough change to make it more appealing visually. That and adding debris to the exploding Klingon ship.


JoeZhang wrote: View Post
Was the size difference between C and D as big as that video suggests? the scale looks entirely wrong, the D looks about 50 times the size of the C!
You're not accounting for the distance between the two ships in the scenes they're together in.

Last edited by Ian Keldon; August 25 2012 at 09:48 PM.
Ian Keldon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2012, 01:15 AM   #42
Dick_Valentine
Commander
 
Location: Birmingham, UK (Not Alabama)
View Dick_Valentine's Twitter Profile
Re: Perfect example of what they SHOULD have done with the TNG-R FX

You all got me on the use of the phrase "proper job", that was my British-ism really, I DID mean "preferred" but for some reason that phrase pops into my had easier than any others, so apologies for the confusion there.

I guess I was more annoyed at the criticisms of the YT clip itself, as I've been a subscriber of his for a long while and fan-created CGI like that really does brighten my day, whatever you may think of that. I wish there were more of it out there.
And tbh, I wish there was more original stuff instead of re-done stuff that we've already seen...

He's been re-doing famous scenes with CGI for a while now and I don't know what his intentions were with that clip but he's certainly been posting videos for much longer than the
TNG restoration project has been announced.
Initially it was just a training exercise for him to learn CGI and you can see how he has progressed over the years.

I probably shouldn't speak for him, he'll be over here soon enough to speak for himself, maybe I should go over to the art forum and lure him

I guess my attitude is slightly different to others on this, I'm used to the Doctor Who restoration team's efforts and they will make an occasional CGI remake of an episode to put on a DVD and the results are largely excellent.
Completely different kettle of fish though, as you can imagine from its set up Doctor Who doesn't have many exterior space scenes at all and even its most FX heavy episodes are usually reduced to Dalek Ray guns etc.
But when they do remaster an ep they put the CGI enhanced one right there next to the original episode, not a replacement, just an extra, if you will.
In an ideal world with unlimited budget, I'd have loved to have seen something like that, or maybe just pick one ep a season to really go to town on. Q Who for series 2, YE for series 3, etc.

But that's not to say the HD restoration isn't brilliant, it IS....
__________________
I don't care what anyone thinks, when I hit the iceberg the iceberg sinks!
Dick_Valentine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28 2012, 05:14 AM   #43
JJohnson
Captain
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Re: Perfect example of what they SHOULD have done with the TNG-R FX

Ian Keldon wrote: View Post
The announced "mission statement" for the remastering effort for TNG is to simply re-scan and re edit the original film elements exactly as originally presented, as opposed to rendering NEW scences and sequences as was done with TOS-R.

This is a missed opportunity, and the above video demonstrates how the FX could be substantially improved while remaining faithful to the tone and style of the show.
Agreed. I have utterly no problem with enhancing the FX to what they would have done had they the budget to do so. Give the alternate Enterprise-D a worthy battle scene! Give us alternate flyby shots and orbit shots! Get rid of the 47839174927145972 Excelsiors, Oberths, and Mirandas!
JJohnson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28 2012, 05:21 AM   #44
JJohnson
Captain
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Re: Perfect example of what they SHOULD have done with the TNG-R FX

Christopher wrote: View Post
Dick_Valentine wrote: View Post
ITT old people moan about CGI....and how it was better in the olden days when models were used...
Come on. Not all CGI is created equal. Nobody here is saying "models are better than CGI." They're saying that the CGI in that particular clip is clearly not on the same level of quality that the remastered, recomposited, HD version of the original photography is likely to be. A professional CGI artist like Doug Drexler or Mojo, with sufficient software, time, and budget, could certainly create effects that were better-looking that the model shots created for "Yesterday's Enterprise." But whoever made that YouTube video did not.


I think the YT clip is getting unnecessary scorn.
Chris, the poster (who also posts here you know, so be nice) is just a fan who makes stuff like this in his spare time, he's not a visual artist who is paid to make that stuff full time.
And since he's just using his computer not some special computer design one like CGI guys would use, I don't think he does a bad job at all
All good points. But I don't think we're criticizing the video itself; it's fine for what it is, an amateur exercise paying tribute to a favorite sequence. What we're criticizing is the original poster's allegation that the video represents a template for how TNG Remastered should be done and that it's in some way fundamentally superior to the original. As I said, I don't even see how it materially differs from the original in action or composition, aside from the aspect ratio.


look through the rest of the videos to see some of the great work he comes up with, certainly a million times better than anything anyone here could come up with and a lot better than the grainy, blurry, static model shots you'd get pre-HD
Maybe it is a generational thing, but I don't think a clear image of a computer construct of middling resolution and detail is better than a grainy photograph of a genuine object that actually, physically exists. Grain is not always a bad thing.


And yes, I am a little disappointed they didn't do a proper job on TNG HD.
Define "proper." The purpose of these exercises has never been to do a Lucas-style alteration, but rather to perform a restoration, to come as close as possible to the original work in maximum possible quality. TOS-R only replaced the original footage with CGI because the original film elements no longer existed and thus there was no way to remaster the FX shots, only to recreate them digitally.

So I think it's a little solipsistic to use the word "proper" to mean "what I would've preferred." Personally I agree that it would've been nice to see some of the ponderous, limited FX shots of early TNG (or major errors like the too-big Stargazer in "The Battle") replaced or rethought. But just because they chose to go in a different direction than I would've, that doesn't make my opinions more "proper" than theirs.
I took the original post to mean: "I wish they would change the shots up, using CGI, so that the ships move more dynamically and don't just sit there, as shown in this clip from Youtube." I never took it as "This is what it should look like, this kind of CGI." Of course I'd prefer better CGI, but it was a good alternate take on that one episode.
JJohnson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28 2012, 04:21 PM   #45
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Perfect example of what they SHOULD have done with the TNG-R FX

JJohnson wrote: View Post
I took the original post to mean: "I wish they would change the shots up, using CGI, so that the ships move more dynamically and don't just sit there, as shown in this clip from Youtube."
See, that's just it -- although I haven't seen "Yesterday's Enterprise" in a while, I honestly couldn't see any material difference in the movement or staging. What I saw in the CGI sequence didn't noticeably differ from what I remember of the original version. (I did lose interest and stop watching about halfway through, but I doubt there would've any sudden change in approach or style midway through the sequence.)
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 11/16/14 including annotations for "The Caress of a Butterfly's Wing" and overview for DTI: The Collectors

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

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 10:19 PM.

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