So, I made this.

[Professor Moriarty]

Thanks. I still think the Enterprise is coming out a little too green, but then I look at photos of the lovingly-restored studio miniature at the Smithsonian... yep, Scotty's booze ain't the only thing that's green! Still, I've adjusted the intensity of the color a bit in the final test video that's rendering now.


Frame grab from WIP #123

That's right--FINAL test video... the Enterprise is done. (Well, mostly. I still need to finish the hangar deck, but that won't be needed for several weeks and I'm itching to get started on the Constellation and the planet killer.)

 

[scifieric]

I have been waiting to see your final product for years! I hope you will share with us!

 

[Professor Moriarty]

You think you've been waiting for years. I started this project in 2002! High time I finished it.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

And... done.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

YouTube version (1080p)

There are a couple of minor tweaks needed that I’ve noted in this test video, but nothing significant (some texturing errors on the secondary hull ventral hatches, the ion pod light isn’t blinking, etc.). I also haven’t tackled the hangar deck yet, but frankly at this point I’m a bit exhausted and need to move on to something else. That “something else” is the ill-fated Starship Constellation, which I will base on an older version of the Constitution class. If you recall what the Enterprise looked like in “Where No Man Has Gone Before”, you’ll be pretty close to the mark.

 

[scifieric]

Very, VERY pretty!

 

[Professor Moriarty]

A small sneak peek.

I'm still struggling with how to properly post-process my 32 bit rendered images so that they don't look blotchy and dark in web formats (e.g., this JPEG). This image has a much wider dynamic range when I view it in Photoshop or Paint.NET, but I can't seem to get the hang of how to translate this into an image that looks the same when saved as a *.tiff or *.png or *.jpeg, even at 32 bit resolution. Example: the area in shadow on the port underside of the Constellation's saucer section. In a photo editor, I can clearly see the "NCC" in the registry as well as variations in the hull paneling IOR (even in shadow). But if I save this image to a web format (e.g., 32-bit JPEG) and then view the JPEG, I'm losing that detail and the whole image looks darker. Is this an issue with the gamma information being lost in translation?

 

[SCE2Aux]

Whilst this is definitely not an area where I know a lot about the theory behind image formats, there are a few things I could suggest. What sort of 32 bit format are you using? At work I like to use .exr (or .cxr if using corona renderer) and that usually doesn't give me any problems. Are you using Photoshop to save the images out, or something like Camera Raw? The only other thing I can think of is what colour profile do you use? All my professional work is outputted using the adobe98 profile via Camera Raw, but 3dsmax (and I assume a lot of other software) outputs images in the sRGB space.

 

[David cgc]

It sounds like a color profile issue, but I don’t know enough about working with HDR in distribution formats to say anything concrete. I’ve been putting it off because people (especially me) don’t really have HDR monitors yet, so there’s not much point in finishing in anything other than SDR.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

First question: I’m rendering to either a 32-bit TIFF or a multi-layered EXR that’s composited in Adobe After Effects. (The latter method allows for greater control over the finished image, since I can adjust individual channels like specularly, diffuse, etc.) But no matter which method I use, I’m able to get a good-looking image while I’m editing it. It’s when I save to an sRGB format (e.g., JPEG, PNG. etc.) that things go south.

So yes, it does sound like a color profile issue, but there is a lot of conflicting information out there on how to resolve this. And the annoying thing is, I don’t have an HDR monitor, either. I’m probably making a fundamental error somewhere in my pipeline, but I just don’t get why my monitor is capable of displaying a pleasing-looking image when I’m editing a TIFF in Paint.NET or an EXR in After Effects, but when I look at a finished image on the same monitor, everything looks like shite.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

Also FWIW I just noticed something else: The “sneak peek” JPEG that I posted above looks like the way I mastered it when I look at the image on my iPhone XR.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

OK, I think I figured it out. It seems to have been a multi-headed hydra of issues. The main problem was that Paint.NET (the editor I was using for still TIFF images) doesn't work so great when translating a 32-bit TIFF into a PNG or JPEG without really screwing up the gamma and color profile data. So, I buckled down and reacquainted myself with Photoshop, made sure my final output was converted correctly (and faithfully) to sRGB, and after doing some more online research, I've starting saving my JPEG images with the ICC color profile data embedded. Most browsers now support this, so I hope the test images below look better to everyone--they definitely do on the displays I have available. (Please let me know if something really looks off. I can tell you right now that Android doesn't do color management, and Firefox does it incorrectly according to this fella.) Thanks to @SCE2Aux and @David cgc for the helpful hints!

Blah blah blah. Let's see some pictures!

4K version | 10000 x 5625 version

4K version | 10000 x 5625 version

4K version | 10000 x 5625 version

4K version | 10000 x 5625 version

4K version | 10000 x 5625 version

That last one isn't a color profile issue; I may have gone overboard a bit on the blue-green accent lighting. But I like the image, so the kid stays in the picture.

UPDATE: It looks like trekbbs.com isn't displaying the 4K images correctly when you click the inline image. I could be wrong, but the site software seems to be blowing up the lower-resolution inline image instead of displaying the actual full-resolution file. So, I've edited this post to add direct links to the 4K originals, and for good measure I've also thrown in links to the 10000 x 5625 versions. That's the resolution at which all five images were rendered in OctaneRender.

 

[scifieric]

These look F'ing awesome!

 

[Professor Moriarty]

Thanks.

One other thing I'm just now noticing is that the trekbbs.com website software doesn't appear to be showing linked images correctly; it seems to be blowing up the lower-resolution inline image instead of showing the actual full-resolution image.

Although you can right-click the website-enlarged image to view the full-sized originals properly, I've edited the previous post to add direct links to the 4K-resolution files on my website. And just for good measure, the big full-size images are linked, too. All five of the images were originally rendered at 10000 x 5625 (that works out to about "27K"), so that's what you get if you click the second link.

 

[Redfern]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone apply a hexagonal "honeycomb" grid to the ventral illuminated dome. I LOVE it! Or the fact one can see hints of "innards" beneath the engine pylon "grilles". Just curious, what are those small, dark, uh, "nubs" encircling the dorsal surface of the primary hull? They intrigue me.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone apply a hexagonal "honeycomb" grid to the ventral illuminated dome. I LOVE it! Or the fact one can see hints of "innards" beneath the engine pylon "grilles". Just curious, what are those small, dark, uh, "nubs" encircling the dorsal surface of the primary hull? They intrigue me.

My head-fanon is that the "rust ring" on the upper surface of the saucer is really a bunch of hatches for escape pods. The nubs are hold-down clamps/explosive bolts for the hatches.

 

[Psion]

I love looking at those 10,000 x 5,5625 versions! And the coolest part is that resolution is worth it to see all the extra little details you've tucked away! This is just so much fun!

 

[Professor Moriarty]

My two best friends are bigger Star Trek nerds than I am. The three of us met each other almost thirty years ago (yes, it really has been that long!) at the premiere of Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. They have an entire room in their house devoted to Star Trek paraphernalia. One of them turns 55 next year. I made sure the Enterprise and Constellation are detailed enough that they can hold up under the close inspection that will be possible when I print a poster-sized image for his double-nickel.

One more image before bed.

"Happier Times" (direct link)

 

[scifieric]

That is beautiful!

 

[SCE2Aux]

It's stuff like this that makes me think that TOS was remastered too early. This is a fantastic take on the TOS Connies.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

You flatter me, sir.

The TOS remastered project definitely had its ups (“The Immunity Syndrome”, any episode with a Max Gabl matte) and downs (you know who you are), but I’m still glad CBS Digital did it. Also, please keep in mind that the CBS-D team was under enormous time and budget pressure to deliver 80 episodes in two years. The fact they delivered so much eye candy (admittedly of varying quality) on time and on budget is, quite frankly, astonishing.

All the stuff you see in here (@Donny and a few other pros notwithstanding) are being extruded one painful pixel at a time by amateurs who don’t just love Star Trek—we want to LIVE THERE. These are pure, undistilled labors of love, unsullied by such contemptible inartistic considerations such as “working on a budget” (my home workstation is probably on par with what senior graphics artists use and definitely parsecs ahead of what they had in 2007) and “meeting a deadline” (have I mentioned I’ve been working on this fucking project since 2002?!?!).

I rag on the TOS Remastered project as much as the next guy, but my Netflix history will tell you I have been watching a LOT of TOS lately. Not because I think I can “do better” (with a few isolated exceptions, I can’t), but because, damnit Jim, it’s still one hell of a show, and I still enjoy watching how the new visuals interlace with the classic live action. Credit where credit is due: CBS Digital kept the flame alive during one of the most bleak periods in Star Trek’s modern history. I’m glad it’s there.

At least until the VR remaster due in 2049.