Star Trek TNG Remastered?

[CoveTom]

A good miniature shot should look real. A good CGI sequence should look real. Only our knowledge that there is no real starship should betray the effect and as amazing as the filming models were, there's not one shot of it in TNG that would stand up to either today's CGI standards or current viewer expectations.

No offense, but I call bullshit.

TNG's model work was fantastic in most cases, and extremely well done. I've watched many an episode over the years, and I think the visual effects hold up quite well. Sure, there's a lack of certain things, like the ability to show tons of ships when an armada is supposedly going into battle, but what is on the screen looks good.

Frankly, I find a great deal of the televised CGI work done in the later years to be quite wanting in comparison to TNG.

Sure, TNG's visual effects will need to be re-done if they want to do an HD release, simply because they were shot on videotape and don't have the resolution necessary to support HD. But I don't think viewers would otherwise have any problem with most of the visual effects from that series.

 

[trevanian]

A good miniature shot should look real. A good CGI sequence should look real. Only our knowledge that there is no real starship should betray the effect and as amazing as the filming models were, there's not one shot of it in TNG that would stand up to either today's CGI standards or current viewer expectations.

No offense, but I call bullshit.

TNG's model work was fantastic in most cases, and extremely well done. I've watched many an episode over the years, and I think the visual effects hold up quite well. Sure, there's a lack of certain things, like the ability to show tons of ships when an armada is supposedly going into battle, but what is on the screen looks good.

Frankly, I find a great deal of the televised CGI work done in the later years to be quite wanting in comparison to TNG.

Yeah, it's total bullshit. The level of TV effects work in the miniature arena during early to late 90s on DS9 and later TNG was very high indeed, and considerably more convincing than what followed during the rush to CG for dollar reasons and being able to do more shots at less credibility.

Then again, viewers today seem to like fake looking stuff more, as long as it is pretty enough. Cater to morons, redo the fx.

 

[Klaitu]

A good miniature shot should look real. A good CGI sequence should look real. Only our knowledge that there is no real starship should betray the effect and as amazing as the filming models were, there's not one shot of it in TNG that would stand up to either today's CGI standards or current viewer expectations.

No offense, but I call bullshit.

TNG's model work was fantastic in most cases, and extremely well done. I've watched many an episode over the years, and I think the visual effects hold up quite well. Sure, there's a lack of certain things, like the ability to show tons of ships when an armada is supposedly going into battle, but what is on the screen looks good.

Frankly, I find a great deal of the televised CGI work done in the later years to be quite wanting in comparison to TNG.

Yeah, it's total bullshit. The level of TV effects work in the miniature arena during early to late 90s on DS9 and later TNG was very high indeed, and considerably more convincing than what followed during the rush to CG for dollar reasons and being able to do more shots at less credibility.

Then again, viewers today seem to like fake looking stuff more, as long as it is pretty enough. Cater to morons, redo the fx.

I too agree. While models have production reasons why they are inferior (more expense, complicated shots, limited camera angles) a well done model shot is simply superior in every way to a CGI effect.

The best example of this is in Star Trek: Generations where for much of the movie, the Enterprise-D is a model.. and it looks absolutely amazing, particularly in the new blu-ray release.

TNG's problem, as mentioned above, is that the effects were edited in on video tape.. but at one point these would have had to be composited on film, and maybe that film is still available.. who knows? Heck, if the TOS prints are still around, there's gotta be TNG prints somewhere.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

TNG's problem, as mentioned above, is that the effects were edited in on video tape.. but at one point these would have had to be composited on film, and maybe that film is still available.. who knows? Heck, if the TOS prints are still around, there's gotta be TNG prints somewhere.

There are TNG original camera negatives as Okuda mentioned. They were composited on videotape at 480i resolution, not film.

Malcolm Orr mentions

they were able to find the exact scene they wanted from Menage a Trois for [re]scanning [the film to HD] for the finale of Enterprise, so presumably they are indexed in some way...

see this post as to why if TNG were given a remastered treatment for Blu-ray why all of the visual effects would probably be done as CGI.
This episode "Parallels" had to do some major compositing. Check this out about the difficulty in reconforming that episode from the original camera negative for the visual effects shot for a 5 seconds shot.

 

[Butters]

No offense, but I call bullshit.

TNG's model work was fantastic in most cases, and extremely well done. I've watched many an episode over the years, and I think the visual effects hold up quite well. Sure, there's a lack of certain things, like the ability to show tons of ships when an armada is supposedly going into battle, but what is on the screen looks good.

Frankly, I find a great deal of the televised CGI work done in the later years to be quite wanting in comparison to TNG.

Yeah, it's total bullshit. The level of TV effects work in the miniature arena during early to late 90s on DS9 and later TNG was very high indeed, and considerably more convincing than what followed during the rush to CG for dollar reasons and being able to do more shots at less credibility.

Then again, viewers today seem to like fake looking stuff more, as long as it is pretty enough. Cater to morons, redo the fx.

I too agree. While models have production reasons why they are inferior (more expense, complicated shots, limited camera angles) a well done model shot is simply superior in every way to a CGI effect.

The best example of this is in Star Trek: Generations where for much of the movie, the Enterprise-D is a model.. and it looks absolutely amazing, particularly in the new blu-ray release.

TNG's problem, as mentioned above, is that the effects were edited in on video tape.. but at one point these would have had to be composited on film, and maybe that film is still available.. who knows? Heck, if the TOS prints are still around, there's gotta be TNG prints somewhere.

Bullshit my arse.

So all CGI is inferior to all miniature. Now that is bullshit. Well done, some of the fx you've seen betrays its working and blatant miniatures are preferable to blatant cgi, but thats not a universal view. Personally, I'd take the primitively rendered yet respectably realistic motion of B5 over the immaculately detailed 3 point turning model composited alongside a ridiculously overscaled bird of prey anyday.

Crap FX have nothing to do with the Video tape.

 

[Dane_Whitman]

Generally I love what was done on TOS-R, but in some shots the Enterprise has a flat video game-ish look. Compared to some of the great model work that was done on TNG, CGI of that level will hurt the visuals of certain episodes rather than improve upon them. I mean, I don't see CGI-on-a-budget accomplish the sense of size shots like these create:

 

[Klaitu]

Yeah, it's total bullshit. The level of TV effects work in the miniature arena during early to late 90s on DS9 and later TNG was very high indeed, and considerably more convincing than what followed during the rush to CG for dollar reasons and being able to do more shots at less credibility.

Then again, viewers today seem to like fake looking stuff more, as long as it is pretty enough. Cater to morons, redo the fx.

I too agree. While models have production reasons why they are inferior (more expense, complicated shots, limited camera angles) a well done model shot is simply superior in every way to a CGI effect.

The best example of this is in Star Trek: Generations where for much of the movie, the Enterprise-D is a model.. and it looks absolutely amazing, particularly in the new blu-ray release.

TNG's problem, as mentioned above, is that the effects were edited in on video tape.. but at one point these would have had to be composited on film, and maybe that film is still available.. who knows? Heck, if the TOS prints are still around, there's gotta be TNG prints somewhere.

Bullshit my arse.

So all CGI is inferior to all miniature. Now that is bullshit. Well done, some of the fx you've seen betrays its working and blatant miniatures are preferable to blatant cgi, but thats not a universal view. Personally, I'd take the primitively rendered yet respectably realistic motion of B5 over the immaculately detailed 3 point turning model composited alongside a ridiculously overscaled bird of prey anyday.

Crap FX have nothing to do with the Video tape.

There are obviously model effects that are crap, and CGI effects that are excellent work as well. The reverse is also true.

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.

The B5 effects have their own problems, as do the TNG model effects. A discourse comparing the two would be useless as the technology for those effects is now obsolete.

My point was that in this age of CGI, many people underestimate how great models used to look. The real trick here is to create CGI that doesn't look like garbage.

That way you have the model detail of TNG with the motions lf B5, scale is preserved, and everyone wins.

 

[FalTorPan]

Generally I love what was done on TOS-R, but in some shots the Enterprise has a flat video game-ish look. Compared to some of the great model work that was done on TNG, CGI of that level will hurt the visuals of certain episodes rather than improve upon them. I mean, I don't see CGI-on-a-budget accomplish the sense of size shots like these create:

I like the lighting in those shots, but I hate that $#@%@#% model. To me its overly chunky detail screams "toy" rather than "starship."

 

[ST-One]

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/showthread.php?t=3875

 

[Lazarus]

Generally I love what was done on TOS-R, but in some shots the Enterprise has a flat video game-ish look. Compared to some of the great model work that was done on TNG, CGI of that level will hurt the visuals of certain episodes rather than improve upon them. I mean, I don't see CGI-on-a-budget accomplish the sense of size shots like these create:

As much as it pains me to say this, because for some reason I feel like I'm betraying The Next Generation (which did contain some outstanding model shots as well as some TRUELY SHOCKING ones!) I think the CGI Enterprise-D from These Are The Voyages has the edge.

Putting aside the trivial fact that the saucer's impulse engines are glowing, the CGI ship looks absolutely fantastic in my opinion.

 

[TheSeeker]

^You beat me to it. I totally agree too. I wish they had never gone to the lumpy 4-footer in TNG.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

CG ENT-D model

the CGI Enterprise-D from These Are The Voyages has the edge.

The question is though who would do the visual effects work? TOS-R was done by CBS Digital which is "in house".
TNG, VOY, ENT were all done by contracted visual effects houses whose reputation depends on whether they will get more work in the future from other clients.

While I would love them to license one of the 2 beautiful CGI models already created and one of them being from ILM for 1994's 'Generations' and the other for ENT "These Are the Voyages...". But most likely CBS Digital would start from scratch and build a new CGI model. [frowns].

There are two different Lightwave CG models of the Enterprise-D used in canon already. Why doesn't Paramount/CBS ever license CG models?!

 

[bullethead]

Re: CG ENT-D model

While I would love them to license one of the 2 beautiful CGI models already created and one of them being from ILM for 1994's 'Generations' and the other for ENT "These Are the Voyages...". But most likely CBS Digital would start from scratch and build a new CGI model. [frowns].

There are two different Lightwave CG models of the Enterprise-D used in canon already. Why doesn't Paramount/CBS ever license CG models?!

FX houses probably wouldn't use them anyway, since Paramount/CBS would probably make them pay some kind of licensing fee, which would cut the money they're getting for remastering the show, and using someone else's model doesn't give them the amount of control they could get if they built it themself.

 

[FalTorPan]

The "TATV" CGI 1701-D looked good overall, although its lifeboat hatches protruded too much from the surrounding hull.

 

[trevanian]

Re: CG ENT-D model

While I would love them to license one of the 2 beautiful CGI models already created and one of them being from ILM for 1994's 'Generations' and the other for ENT "These Are the Voyages...".

John Knoll's CG -d for GEN was only used in a very few shots, and wasn't designed for scrutiny, just to get the ship to warp and I think maybe for a couple of battle hits. Like the -e seen in warp and time travel shots in FC, that digital model, which was animated in Electric Image on macs, probably wasn't a be-all/end-all, nor was it intended as such.

For me, some of the windows on that TATV -d have got that 'cg shitty window light' look, so it looks like they'd need to render those elements on another pass to get the dynamic range right to sell the ship as credibly as a good miniature. Most folks don't bother rendering different aspects on separate passes to extend dynamic range, but it is really worth it in terms of credibility (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. Most CG fails for me because it sacrifices on one end or the other, usually the highlight end, hence, 'cg shitty window light.')

 

[Prologic9]

Ooo a thread talking about Enterprise models. I shall impart my wisdom as follows;

There have been a lot of great physical models built over the years, the Enterprise D was never one of them. The original model was little more than a hull with windows--very little detail. The 4ft model looks like lumpy paper mache. I know, they look great in fuzzy low resolution. Go figure.

If they ever did redo TNG's effects you can rest assured the virtual model builders would have the same resources that the TOS-R team were given to build their Enterprise. That is, unprecedented access to Paramount's archives, and the original shooting model itself.

Which is good because that TATV model was built in a week and looks like it. The model from Generations (the one that's 15 years old) is less detailed than ships you can get for Bridge Commander. They were built to suit their needs at the time and nothing more.

A lot of the flatness in TOS-R comes from them not wanting to stray too far from the flat original FX. If a TNG-R team took the same slavish approach, and there's no saying they would, they at least have a lot more room to play with visually.

I don't think TNG-Remastered will happen soon, but as time passes most aspects of the job will only become cheaper to do. Eventually the time will be right.

 

[FalTorPan]

Re: CG ENT-D model

For me, some of the windows on that TATV -d have got that 'cg shitty window light' look, so it looks like they'd need to render those elements on another pass to get the dynamic range right to sell the ship as credibly as a good miniature.

I think the windows are an example of where both physical miniatures and CGI models failed to sell the reality of the Enterprise-D. "Frosted white rectangles" don't look like windows to me.

There have been a lot of great physical models built over the years, the Enterprise D was never one of them. The original model was little more than a hull with windows--very little detail. The 4ft model looks like lumpy paper mache. I know, they look great in fuzzy low resolution. Go figure.

The six-footer remains the best depiction of the 1701-D. I'm not sure what additional detail would have done except to cause the miniature to deviate from Andrew Probert's design. If the windows could have little environments placed behind them, then the model would be about as close to perfect as any could be.

 

[trevanian]

Re: CG ENT-D model

For me, some of the windows on that TATV -d have got that 'cg shitty window light' look, so it looks like they'd need to render those elements on another pass to get the dynamic range right to sell the ship as credibly as a good miniature.

I think the windows are an example of where both physical miniatures and CGI models failed to sell the reality of the Enterprise-D. "Frosted white rectangles" don't look like windows to me.

Frosted white rectangles in this case at least have a physical presence, as opposed to out of focus mailing labels, which is the CG look. Look at NEM shots of the ship windows, especially the closeup of the back top before the viewscreen gets shot away ... just a fuzzy wash of white.

But yeah, I'll grant you slides or dioramas inside would have been an improvement, like what they did for the -e but didn't really get a chance to show off in FC.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

If they ever did redo TNG's effects you can rest assured the virtual model builders would have the same resources that the TOS-R team were given to build their Enterprise. That is, unprecedented access to Paramount's archives, and the original shooting model itself.

It is highly unlikely the 6ft. Ent-D TNG model would be uncrated and put on a spinning stand to get 3-D scanned like some actors are for videogames to create a 3-D CGI model of their body and face.

that TATV model was built in a week and looks like it.

Source URL please Prologic9 where it is mentioned that Eden FX's Gabriel Köerner built a new LightWave model of Ent-D in a week.

 

[3D Master]

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/showthread.php?t=3875

Holy crap that's horrible. Flat and cartoony as they come.

Is this the same thread in which I explained why CGI these days looks so bad and flat and cartoony, versus model shots with pictures to show it? The lighting - just like models, ever since Star Wars (with the exception of the first few Star Trek movies) they are over lit.

They are created to fit this idea of an lovely lit by the sun in Earth atmosphere cool-looking ship zipping about in front of a starscape.

Instead, they need to work to make the ships look REAL, as in 3D objects, not flat cartoon drawings. And this is done with lighting.