RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,266
Posts: 5,349,499
Members: 24,614
Currently online: 596
Newest member: robyn

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: His Way
By: Michelle on Jul 26

MicroWarriors Releases Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Ships Of The Line Design Contest
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Next Weekend: Shore Leave 36!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

True Trek History To Be Penned
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Insight Editions Announces Three Trek Books For 2015
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

To Be Takei Review by Spencer Blohm
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Mulgrew: Playing Red
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Hallmark 2015 Trek Ornaments
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Funko Mini Spock
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23


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 27 2009, 08:37 AM   #391
ST-One
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

Well... I'm glad that most modern CG-work (in movies anyway) doesn't look nearly as crappy as that straight-out-of-Lightwave render I posted.
ST-One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27 2009, 08:41 AM   #392
ST-One
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

Perhaps this...

ST-One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27 2009, 09:03 AM   #393
3D Master
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

ST-One wrote: View Post
Perhaps this...

I don't like the "Here comes the police" quality of the nacelles and bussard collectors, and it's still overall too light, but it's getting there.
3D Master is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27 2009, 09:19 AM   #394
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?

The nacelles do actually look like they're some clear material with bulbs behind them, though, which is an interesting effect. How're the grilles set up?

I must admit, this has gotten me curious to see what our resident, err, CG experts would have to say about a couple of recent renders of my (still unsurfaced or textured) Soyuz-class redesign.





(Click for bigness.)
__________________
"From the darkness you must fall, failed and weak, to darkness all."
-Kataris

Last edited by Gep Malakai; November 27 2009 at 09:30 AM.
Gep Malakai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27 2009, 09:30 AM   #395
ST-One
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

I guess this fooled you both.



It's not my work.
http://www.scifi-meshes.com/forums/p...rt-asylum.html









Actually quite impressive that such a relatively cheap model can look so good, isn't it?
ST-One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27 2009, 09:36 AM   #396
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?

That would explain why the grilles were so convincing. I'm glad I didn't comment on how obvious the bump map was.

I love the trick he used to get the window pass.
__________________
"From the darkness you must fall, failed and weak, to darkness all."
-Kataris
Gep Malakai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27 2009, 12:00 PM   #397
3D Master
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

ST-One wrote: View Post
I guess this fooled you both.



It's not my work.
http://www.scifi-meshes.com/forums/p...rt-asylum.html









Actually quite impressive that such a relatively cheap model can look so good, isn't it?
You know, I half expected it.

But although impressive, it isn't surprising. This is the perfect example of what I've been saying. Physical models or CGI, whether it gets to look like an actual model, is ALL about the lighting.

You can make a cheap toy look amazing and like an object with weight, and you make a massive and expensive model look like a cheap toy and flat as a board. And with the CGI it is no different.

Lighting, lighting, lighting is the whole kit and kaboodle.

Where CGI can be truly superior as opposed to a physical model is the freedom of movement. Especially since the right movement can add more to the feel of a real object.

This is because of how the brain functions. Unlike popular myth, if you lose an eye, you do not lose depth perception. With two eyes, your brain generates 3D information by taking two pictuers of the same scene/object at different angels. 3D information is distilled from the differences. This can be done the same way with one by moving your head. Multiple pictures of the same scene/object at different angels is created, and the brain does the same thing with those. This can be mimicked by proper movement of an object on a flat screen. If the object (and/or camera) moves in multiple plains so pieces of the object move in front of other pieces of the object, allowing your brain to start doing the same thing.

In TOS they did this absolutely masterfully. If you ever look at an episode again, notice how whever the camera is behind the ship, and the ship moves forward, it doesn't just move forward, but it's also slightly at an angle, moving in that direction, and top of it the camera moves slightly as well. The result is exactly this effect, and it makes the ship look extremely real and a genuine object having three dimensions.
3D Master is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27 2009, 12:08 PM   #398
ST-One
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

Gep Malakai wrote: View Post
The nacelles do actually look like they're some clear material with bulbs behind them, though, which is an interesting effect. How're the grilles set up?

I must admit, this has gotten me curious to see what our resident, err, CG experts would have to say about a couple of recent renders of my (still unsurfaced or textured) Soyuz-class redesign.





(Click for bigness.)
If the windows wouldn't kill the effect I'd say that it really looks like a real miniature.
ST-One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27 2009, 12:46 PM   #399
jefferiestubes8
Commodore
 
Location: New York City
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

3D Master wrote
I've been saying that the model work of the 25 years has been every bit as bad as the CGI.
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3619558&postcount=363

STXI was just more of what I was talking about it.
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?...&postcount=365

I don't even care for 2009 visual effects, I want 1980 TMP model level visual effects.
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?...&postcount=346

3D Master since this is a thread talking about remastering TNG and redoing its visual effects including all exterior ship shots which would have to fit within the running time of each original shot for sound purposes (music & sound effects) it would look a lot like TOS-R as the budget would not be anywhere near Star Trek XI.
I think from the above selected quotes we can all understand that in your opinion you do not like any Star Trek effects on DS9, TNG, VOY, ENT in general.
A TNG-R would look a lot like ENT effects since they are the most technologically advanced.
Since Eden FX has won Emmy Award for their visual effects on Voyager's series finale, "Endgame", and the Enterprise episodes "Broken Bow" and "Countdown" the awards speak for themselves as to the quality of work the visual effects done in CGI by them.

I hereby will no longer reply to your posts of the quality of potential visual effects created for a TNG-R in this thread. It is no longer enjoyable to debate a topic related to a TNG-R project.


Perhaps 3D Master you should start a thread in General Trek or Science Fiction & Fantasy entitled:
"Model work of the 25 years has been every bit as bad as the CGI who's with me?!" to discuss this since you have a generalized one-sided view of visual effects that most all of us are happy with.
The costs to create the effects on Star Trek XI was huge.
jefferiestubes8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27 2009, 01:22 PM   #400
3D Master
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

jefferiestubes8 wrote: View Post
3D Master since this is a thread talking about remastering TNG and redoing its visual effects including all exterior ship shots which would have to fit within the running time of each original shot for sound purposes (music & sound effects) it would look a lot like TOS-R as the budget would not be anywhere near Star Trek XI.
I think from the above selected quotes we can all understand that in your opinion you do not like any Star Trek effects on DS9, TNG, VOY, ENT in general.
A TNG-R would look a lot like ENT effects since they are the most technologically advanced.
Since Eden FX has won Emmy Award for their visual effects on Voyager's series finale, "Endgame", and the Enterprise episodes "Broken Bow" and "Countdown" the awards speak for themselves as to the quality of work the visual effects done in CGI by them.

"Model work of the 25 years has been every bit as bad as the CGI who's with me?!" to discuss this since you have a generalized one-sided view of visual effects that most all of us are happy with.
The costs to create the effects on Star Trek XI was huge.
:sighs:

:slams head on table:

:slams head some more on table:

For the one hundred thousandth time: BUDGET HAS GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How often do I have to repeat this same ffing line?

Budget means nothing, because the SFX, models or CGI, were the exact same bad PARADIGM - do I need to repeat this word another billion times - as back in 1977 of unrealistic lighting, light it brightly, show the thing fully lit as if it's standing next to you in the sun and away with the zappers.

TOS, the original series, the original effects, managed to produce more real 3D looking genuine ship object, on what was THEN a shoestring budget, then the massive budget of Trek XI.

Let me repeat the following for an even greater number than the budget thing: IT'S THE LIGHTING! THE LIGHTING!

And whether you go with unrealistic, light it brightly, show how cool, but as a result make it look flat, 2D and cartoony, or a realistic, understated, muted, no bright colors, and use of shadow and (in still images, implied) movement to show that this is an actual 3-dimensional object; will have NO impact on the budget.

They did this right back in the 1960s for a TV show!

And sure, Eden FX probably deserved the award, I have no doubt they were the best at it. But just because they were the best at it, doesn't mean it's good; it just means there was no one better. And the reason why, is because all other effects houses, are doing the exact same thing, namely producing stuff using the same PARADIGM (there's that word again) of unrealistic, brightly lit lighting George Lucas gave us when he told his effects house to not bother realistic lighting, just show it nice and brightly lit on the screen, because space ships aren't real, it's all fake.

It's a PARADIGM problem, not a BUDGET problem. I've seen fan's and amateur image and video producers on their home computer create more realistic, genuine 3-dimensional object looking images and videos of space ships, than multi-million dollar movie productions, all because they used every trick in the book to make it look good, and thus and actual 3-dimensional object and thus realistic, not overlit lighting, as they didn't have the computer power to brute force their way through. As a result they produce far superior, genuine 3-dimensional-looking objects, as opposed to people with the budget, because the latter don't even try - they're stuck in overlit VFX paradigm.
3D Master is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27 2009, 01:58 PM   #401
ST-One
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

So, lighting set-ups like these would find your approval?









While these wouldn't?



ST-One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27 2009, 03:25 PM   #402
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
trevanian's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

I really don't see how your examples speak to what he is saying at all; maybe you can reread them. Earth orbit stuff with fill light coming off the planet isn't an OVERlit scenario, and neither is a rear view of a ship moving away from the sun.

However, your Abrams examples are really good examples of the sort of mushiness I associate with problematic CG. The atmospheric crap may be there to hide imperfections, which is one excuse for the Emmerich GODZILLA being in rain as well; I'd figure ILM is well beyond that point, but there isn't any other ready example in mind for why so much of this flick is fuzzed up in space scenes (then again, not much justification for a large percentage of lens flares either, inside or outside the ship.)

Dark and murky isn't necessarily realistic, especially if your murk is tacked onto the vacuum of space (and it is still a vacuum unless your shots are going to be inside the ergosphere of the BH.)
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27 2009, 03:53 PM   #403
jefferiestubes8
Commodore
 
Location: New York City
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

trevanian wrote: View Post
Dark and murky isn't necessarily realistic, especially if your murk is tacked onto the vacuum of space (and it is still a vacuum unless your shots are going to be inside the ergosphere of the BH.)
I agree. vacuum of space would mean that in dead space there are no visible atmosphere-like particles to distort light.
Nebulas, and gaseous areas are a nother matter.
jefferiestubes8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27 2009, 05:40 PM   #404
ST-One
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

trevanian wrote: View Post
I really don't see how your examples speak to what he is saying at all; maybe you can reread them. Earth orbit stuff with fill light coming off the planet isn't an OVERlit scenario, and neither is a rear view of a ship moving away from the sun.
Yeah, well... interestingly neither of the TMP shots are realistic either. Or better - despite what you and 3DMaster say. Fill light cannot explain how the orbital office is so evenly lit, with the strongest lightsource coming from behind the camera (notice that the sun is supposed to be behind and above the station though - if we go by the terminator on the Earth).

The Enterprise may move away from the sun, as we can see in the orbit-leaving shot and the sequence where she passes Jupiter, but, oddly, the main lightsource is always on her left side.

So, in TMP as well as in Star Trek the effects teams gave us something nice to look at but not something realistic.

trevanian wrote: View Post
However, your Abrams examples are really good examples of the sort of mushiness I associate with problematic CG. The atmospheric crap may be there to hide imperfections,
What 'atmospheric crap'?
ST-One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 28 2009, 06:46 AM   #405
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
trevanian's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

ST-One wrote: View Post
trevanian wrote: View Post
I really don't see how your examples speak to what he is saying at all; maybe you can reread them. Earth orbit stuff with fill light coming off the planet isn't an OVERlit scenario, and neither is a rear view of a ship moving away from the sun.
Yeah, well... interestingly neither of the TMP shots are realistic either. Or better - despite what you and 3DMaster say. Fill light cannot explain how the orbital office is so evenly lit, with the strongest lightsource coming from behind the camera (notice that the sun is supposed to be behind and above the station though - if we go by the terminator on the Earth).

The Enterprise may move away from the sun, as we can see in the orbit-leaving shot and the sequence where she passes Jupiter, but, oddly, the main lightsource is always on her left side.

So, in TMP as well as in Star Trek the effects teams gave us something nice to look at but not something realistic.

trevanian wrote: View Post
However, your Abrams examples are really good examples of the sort of mushiness I associate with problematic CG. The atmospheric crap may be there to hide imperfections,
What 'atmospheric crap'?
Every bit of non-lensflare related distortion and diffusion that shows up in the Abrams space scenes ... the stuff that makes the TMP examples seem so sharp by comparison.
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 11:20 AM.

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