My pleasure!
Although I think you are being kind of harsh with regard to your opinion of Foundation's work on ST:TMP. I have a lot of respect for Darren Dochterman as an artist -- and I think given the requirements of the project they did a darned good job of adding some polish to the film and trying to bring it up to Rober Wise's original intent.
I personally like Dochterman's Enterprise. You never really see it close up though, so I'm not sure what you are basing your opinion on. He's got pictures of it up on his site though. From what I have read, they had access to the actual shooting model from TMP, so I am sure it's as accurate as they could make it. I know that would have been Darren's approach. The guy has got tons of "Skillz" (as an artist) as we say...
Awww, sheesh.
I know you guys like to stick together and watch out for each other, so you'll have to excuse any rudeness you see coming off my remarks (it isn't my intent to offend or upset anyone), but as you said: Trek fans are a passionate bunch!
Where am I getting my images from? Doug Drexler's blog:
http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2009/07/18/1701-tmp-directors-cut/
Incidentally, the blog entry credits Sir Lee Stringer, Rob Bonchune, Jose Perez, Koji Kuramura, in addition to
Daren Dochterman, with the CG design.
The shots that Doug provides on that page aren't the most detailed in the world, but I think they serve their purpose...
The problems, for me, range from weak lighting (what about specular highlights, self-shadowing, etc.?) to low polygon counts (you can see, if you look closely, that the saucer is not circular), and, the real kicker, perhaps: low texture detail.
The real Enterprise model was stuffed with very fine lines, which aren't duplicated on the CG model (lots of faint black lines, in addition to the aztec panelling), as well as even more moderate lines and details which weren't duplicated. For instance, the three distinct "art deco" lines you see around the edge of the saucer were each comprised of individual bands of lines (four for the top and bottom art deco lines, and five for the middle line), and these are *clearly* visible, not only in HD, but on the original, grainy, fuzzy DE DVD (only in the original physical model shots, of course)!
Here is some pictorial evidence to what I speak.
This first shot is from Forgotten Trek itself. The aztec panelling detail is very clear and precise, which I don't get from the Drexler images:
http://www.ottens.co.uk/forgottentrek/images/TMP/ST_TMP%20Wiring%20Enterprise.jpg
Obviously, the lighting is exaggerated in that shot (with the rest of the ship being overexposed versus the somewhat shadowy and high-contrast saucer), but it helps strengthen exactly the detail I'm talking about. On the Foundation Imaging Enterprise, the panelling appeals more random and diffuse.
And here's a second shot, straight off the 2001 DVD. Like the last shot, I hope you can see it (if not, try copying and pasting):
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tmp/themotionpicture0415.jpg
See what I'm talking about? Faint black lines are quite visible in the trapezoidal block between the impulse engines (to be fair, the CG model *does* capture this), while the saucer's art deco lines are very obviously discrete blocks of lines, going 4 (top), 5 (middle), 4 (bottom). Once again, this is in standard DVD definition, straight from the DE itself! Yet it's not evident in any of the DE's CG ship shots!
* * *
While I can sympathise with your sentiments, I cannot share them. If the artists were really upholding the craftmanship of the original film, short of going back to practical models and effects, then they AT LEAST needed to TRULY TRY and bring the same level of detail to their CG Enterprise. I realise they only had a limited budget and they were just rendering for DVD, but the result doesn't jibe with what you said, in my opinion.
One of the joys of watching TMP is soaking in all that detail and appreciating the immense dedication that originally brought it to the screen. Whether you pick up on things consciously or subliminally, some part of your brain KNOWS such details are there, and knows that they're missing in the CG shots. The most egregious example of Foundation Imaging's seeming lack of concern over these critical details is in the "wingwalk" sequence. Once again, if you look on Doug Drexler's page, you'll see images (in this case, DVD captures) that show the saucer section up close, as the hexagonal blocks that V'Ger puts out are just beginning to form:
http://drexfiles.files.wordpress.co...otion-picture-directors-cut-7.jpg?w=655&h=368
If I may be so bold, I think that the Enterprise looks rather fake and cartoony there (as do some other people). By neglecting to adequately model the fine surface detail of the original model, they made that shot look particularly bad (and it's meant to be one of the KEY additions of the DE). If they'd have at least done the art deco saucer lines correctly, it would have made that shot look a lot more realistic and "fine-grained", so to speak, since the bands of lines dramatically strengthen the sense of scale, acting as a treat for seeing the saucer up-close, and suggesting a vast surface replete with intrigue.
The shot I have a "problem" with is the one where you can see all of V'Ger when it approaches Earth. First of all, it was never intended to be seen like that -- even Richard Taylor said that. The idea was to keep it's actual shape a mystery -- kind of like the Alien warrior in the first ALIEN movie. So, when they show it in the director's cut -- it loses all it's scale...and looks small. I think the choice of camera angle and lens was not a good one. I would have used more of a "keystone" effect with the lens showing it from the front approaching the camera -- the front large and menacing...trailing off to the back. But, I would have never shown it with Earth...unless the Earth was small in the frame. Maybe reverse the previous shot with camera facing the arse end of V'Ger large with the front trailing off towards Earth...? With Earth small in the frame. Something to make it look big and menacing...it just doesn't come off that way in the shot as it is...
Yes, this was also badly handled. The V'Ger craft loses all sense of mystery, beauty and danger with such a sloppy, matter-of-fact reveal. Apparently, there was some intellectual tussle behind-the-scenes (back in the day) about whether V'Ger should ever be shown, and the paintings that *were* done were significantly more foreboding. So, if they HAD to show it in the DE, they could -- and really should -- have gone back to the source, rather than cooking up something that, in my opinion, and that of various others, doesn't cut the mustard.
Anyway...
Trumbull did indeed spend years developing ShowScan (which was the 60fps process). In fact, the film Brainstorm, starring the late Natalie Wood and Christopher Walken, was planned and conceived as a vehicle for presenting the new process to moviegoers but because of not getting enough theaters onboard for ShowScan, Trumbull and MGM decided to go ahead and release the film in standard 70mm.
Anyway, we are WAY off topic...but I guess this beats "Are we there yet" and "We should close this topic"...etc...
Ah! Thread derailment is fun! Seriously, though, the original ShowScan technology -- especially in terms of how it was implemented in "Brainstorm" -- would be something to see. Great people are always limited by the constrained knowledge and dreary realities of their time.
