RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,664
Posts: 5,429,109
Members: 24,815
Currently online: 400
Newest member: AlphaZero


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, 01:22 AM   #346
3D Master
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

jefferiestubes8 wrote: View Post
3D Master wrote: View Post
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?
:sighs:

I don't care for 2011 quality visual effects, I don't even care for 2009 visual effects, I want 1980 TMP model level visual effects.

In other words: I want it to be LIT right, and made to move right, that it actually LOOKS like a real OBJECT. The year of the computer power, and resolution used matters not. It's the LIGHTING that's the problem. And this has nothing to do with the year it is made in. 1987 model work was completely lit wrong, and moved wrong as well, making it look heavily cartoony and 2D.

And lighting the models, CGI or actual objects, right, and moving them right (in multiple plains) has no impact on the budget, at least no significant impact. How often you redo it to get it right, how high the resolution and detail of the render, those will impact the budget.

Lighting the objects does not. You light the objects anyway, you put up light-sources anyway, you move the ship anyway, there's only a question of whether you do it wrong, or right. This requires a paradigm shift; instead of brightly lit in your face, "look how cool", and thus cartoony and 2D, not present looking visual effects (hearkening back to 1977 Star Wars), to much less bright lightning scheme that highlights the 3-dimensional, true object nature of the ship in space.
3D Master is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2009, 01:33 AM   #347
jefferiestubes8
Commodore
 
Location: New York City
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

3D Master wrote: View Post
I want it to be LIT right, and made to move right, that it actually LOOKS like a real OBJECT.

Memory Alpha mentions:
Eden FX is the visual effects house responsible for producing computer generated effects seen in Star Trek: Voyager's seventh season and all four seasons of Star Trek: Enterprise.
The company has won Emmy Award for their visual effects on Voyager's series finale, "Endgame", and the Enterprise episodes "Broken Bow" and "Countdown"
For easy reference a video of ENT work done by them:
http://www.edenfx.com/PROJECTS/Enterprise/index.html#3

3D Master what is your opinion on ENT CG ship models and lighting specifically in Enterprise season 4 where the company was doing the effects had at least the pilot to get the ships looking as good as they could in the time contraints since that was the last Star Trek TV series.

Last edited by jefferiestubes8; November 26 2009 at 01:49 AM.
jefferiestubes8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2009, 01:50 AM   #348
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?

One wonders why 3D Master has that name when he openly hates all things 3D.
__________________
"From the darkness you must fall, failed and weak, to darkness all."
-Kataris
Gep Malakai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2009, 02:14 AM   #349
3D Master
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

jefferiestubes8 wrote: View Post
3D Master wrote: View Post
I want it to be LIT right, and made to move right, that it actually LOOKS like a real OBJECT.

Memory Alpha mentions:
Eden FX is the visual effects house responsible for producing computer generated effects seen in Star Trek: Voyager's seventh season and all four seasons of Star Trek: Enterprise.
The company has won Emmy Award for their visual effects on Voyager's series finale, "Endgame", and the Enterprise episodes "Broken Bow" and "Countdown"
For easy reference a video of ENT work done by them:
http://www.edenfx.com/PROJECTS/Enterprise/index.html#3

3D Master what is your opinion on ENT CG ship models and lighting specifically in Enterprise season 4 where the company was doing the effects had at least the pilot to get the ships looking as good as they could in the time contraints since that was the last Star Trek TV series.
The same opinion of every other ship visual effect of the last 20-25 years: it's too brightly lit, flat and cartoony.

Gep Malakai wrote: View Post
One wonders why 3D Master has that name when he openly hates all things 3D.


I've been telling this whole time it's only 2D, and it's time we finally go back to 3D.

Could you please explain how that translate to hating 3D?
3D Master is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2009, 02:32 AM   #350
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: CG ENT-D model

Gep Malakai wrote: View Post
trevanian wrote: View Post
(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.
That's it, and I still think it looks terrific. There's very little whole-cloth CG that I can say this about (I'm very much in 3dmaster's corner on this subject, his posts look almost exactly like my thoughts), maybe the bug in MEN IN BLACK, but the docbot is still a quintessential example of how exploiting the full dynamic range is instrumental in making CG work properly (just as the hovercraft in the same film is an example of everything working wrong in CG.)
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2009, 03:27 AM   #351
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: CG ENT-D model

3D Master wrote: View Post
Could you please explain how that translate to hating 3D?
Everything done with 3D CGI you hate. Unequivocally. I don't know what you mean about all the stuff you hate being "2D," since CGI uses XYZ coordinates to generate a model; it's 3D graphics. That's what it's called.

trevanian wrote: View Post
That's it, and I still think it looks terrific.
Then I can only say I disagree.

ETA:

(just as the hovercraft in the same film is an example of everything working wrong in CG.)
Wasn't the Nebuchadnezzar a model? I recall a collector on another board owned one of the small screen-used ones, though for the life of me I can't find any info on it.

ETFA:

Ah ha. There's a page here by one of the film's model shop employees with a picture of the studio miniature.
__________________
"From the darkness you must fall, failed and weak, to darkness all."
-Kataris

Last edited by Gep Malakai; November 26 2009 at 03:38 AM.
Gep Malakai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2009, 07:11 AM   #352
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: CG ENT-D model

Gep Malakai wrote: View Post
3D Master wrote: View Post
Could you please explain how that translate to hating 3D?
Everything done with 3D CGI you hate. Unequivocally. I don't know what you mean about all the stuff you hate being "2D," since CGI uses XYZ coordinates to generate a model; it's 3D graphics. That's what it's called.

trevanian wrote: View Post
That's it, and I still think it looks terrific.
Then I can only say I disagree.

ETA:

(just as the hovercraft in the same film is an example of everything working wrong in CG.)
Wasn't the Nebuchadnezzar a model? I recall a collector on another board owned one of the small screen-used ones, though for the life of me I can't find any info on it.

ETFA:

Ah ha. There's a page here by one of the film's model shop employees with a picture of the studio miniature.
that is NOT a pic of a studio miniature, that is a pic of the CG model (and yeah, it looks better there than in the movie, just like it did in every mag that ran that same pic, such as SF & FANTASY MODELS.) EDIT ADDON: I just read the page and it is a reprint from that mag, so it makes sense that the same pic is shown.

The physical model mentioned was only (as the title implies) for the sentinel invasion, and it was just a small crosshatched hull piece, not anything like a full representation (about like building the window outside Picard's ready room full-size in relation to building a fullscale -d.) THAT image on the page you cite is of the CG Neb. There may well have been miniature nebs built for the sequels, but I don't know or care on that part of things.

I talked to damned near everybody on the first MATRIX on the fx end of things, and if there was even a decent sized study model, anything physical, it would have turned up in the ART OF book, too. No sir.

Last edited by trevanian; November 26 2009 at 07:27 AM.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2009, 08:48 AM   #353
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: CG ENT-D model

I know I've seen a really tiny model of an entire hovercraft that was supposedly screen used, posted over at The RPF. Wheather it was from the original or sequels is an open question.
__________________
"From the darkness you must fall, failed and weak, to darkness all."
-Kataris
Gep Malakai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2009, 09:02 AM   #354
ST-One
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
Re: CG ENT-D model

trevanian wrote: View Post
Gep Malakai wrote: View Post
trevanian wrote: View Post
(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.
That's it, and I still think it looks terrific. There's very little whole-cloth CG that I can say this about (I'm very much in 3dmaster's corner on this subject, his posts look almost exactly like my thoughts), maybe the bug in MEN IN BLACK, but the docbot is still a quintessential example of how exploiting the full dynamic range is instrumental in making CG work properly (just as the hovercraft in the same film is an example of everything working wrong in CG.)
Honestly?

ST-One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2009, 09:06 AM   #355
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
Klaitu wrote: View Post
With technology improving, maybe it's possible to create a CGI Enterprise-D that looks better than the model. I'm merely saying that hasn't happened yet.
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.



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


Last edited by ST-One; November 26 2009 at 09:17 AM.
ST-One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2009, 09:10 AM   #356
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: CG ENT-D model

ST-One wrote: View Post
Honestly?

What and/or where is this from?
__________________
"From the darkness you must fall, failed and weak, to darkness all."
-Kataris
Gep Malakai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2009, 09:39 AM   #357
ST-One
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
Re: CG ENT-D model

Gep Malakai wrote: View Post
ST-One wrote: View Post
Honestly?

What and/or where is this from?
It's anther horrible image of that 'docbot'.
ST-One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2009, 10:08 AM   #358
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: CG ENT-D model

Yeah, but it didn't look like that in the movie – somebody painted the extra red illumination and the yellow pipes all over it. What I meant was where this particular image file came from.
__________________
"From the darkness you must fall, failed and weak, to darkness all."
-Kataris
Gep Malakai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2009, 12:53 PM   #359
3D Master
Rear Admiral
 
Re: CG ENT-D model

Gep Malakai wrote: View Post
3D Master wrote: View Post
Could you please explain how that translate to hating 3D?
Everything done with 3D CGI you hate. Unequivocally. I don't know what you mean about all the stuff you hate being "2D," since CGI uses XYZ coordinates to generate a model; it's 3D graphics. That's what it's called.
:smashes head in table:

:smashes head in table some more:

And what have I been saying all this time? That through bad lighting it looks flat, 2D, and cartoony!

Unffing believable.
3D Master is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2009, 12:59 PM   #360
ST-One
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
Re: CG ENT-D model

Gep Malakai wrote: View Post
Yeah, but it didn't look like that in the movie – somebody painted the extra red illumination and the yellow pipes all over it. What I meant was where this particular image file came from.
Ah, no wonder it looked that bad.

I haven't seen the film in a while, but in that pic you linked to here it looks really good though.
ST-One 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 04:02 AM.

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