ST-One
Vice Admiral
Perhaps.
They managed to do it in Enterprise though. But costs for the CGI might have gone down a bit by that time.
My 3D model of Voyager (WIP)
- Thread starter BlobVanDam
- Start date
Perhaps.
They managed to do it in Enterprise though. But costs for the CGI might have gone down a bit by that time.
It's probably a combination of CGI becoming cheaper/easier through those years, and also the fact Voyager remained episodic, whereas Enterprise was a bit more serialized.
Saquist
Commodore
It just means they would have either one damage the model and reshoot after ever damaging episode like Deadlock...or go all CGI and still abandon the stock footage and then start charging up the budget when Voyager really wasn't highly successful to (especially at the end) to justify a budget increase. That's over time. It just wasn't necessary. The CGI they decided to put in the series was frequently cheesey.
Look at ENT...the CGI may have gotten better but you could tell it was CGI and that sucks. It wasn't untill Stargate Atlantis that CGI obviously got to the point (aswell as BSG) where it could actually take on models with out looking like shiney cartoons.
I didn't mind it because I understand the cost concerns. I was a fan of the series regardless of whether the ship was damaged or not. Call it Trek insensitive.
Progress has been a bit slow recently, as far as pretty renders go. But here are some new shots.
Attempt at aztec design for front of hull. Not looking too great so far
Same aztec design looking slightly better from this angle, but still dull.
Deflector with basic texturing done (no metal effects yet)
Basic texturing for back half done. When it's finished it won't just look like black lines drawn on.
Basic secondary hull texturing, without glowing windows, and no bump. Also this was done on the low poly mesh, not the high poly.
At the moment the Aztec'ing is slowing me down. The problem is that when viewing in direct sunlight, you don't see specular highlights, so it just looks flat and nasty. Materials have never been my strength, so any help welcome! This is my first ship ever, so I don't know the best tricks.
Attempt at aztec design for front of hull. Not looking too great so far
Same aztec design looking slightly better from this angle, but still dull.
Deflector with basic texturing done (no metal effects yet)
Basic texturing for back half done. When it's finished it won't just look like black lines drawn on.
Basic secondary hull texturing, without glowing windows, and no bump. Also this was done on the low poly mesh, not the high poly.
At the moment the Aztec'ing is slowing me down. The problem is that when viewing in direct sunlight, you don't see specular highlights, so it just looks flat and nasty. Materials have never been my strength, so any help welcome! This is my first ship ever, so I don't know the best tricks.
I feel compelled to point out that CGI work is NOT getting easier and cheaper, although the results that can be achieved are getting better with improvements in rendering engines. There is no 'Voyager' button in the latest 3D-Max or Lightwave, you are still having to spend weeks making stuff from scratch.
As someone whose job is freelance CG video, I didn't at all mean to degrade 3D graphics. I meant that the 3D tools and computing power available now make it easier for the artist to create and modify objects, and render it off easier than before, making it more feasible to do these things. Of course, as the technology gets better, the expectations of quality increase too, so it's not directly comparable.
And I will confirm that 3DS Max does not have a Voyager button. It would have saved me the past 2 months of work if it did!
And I will confirm that 3DS Max does not have a Voyager button. It would have saved me the past 2 months of work if it did!
I know that for the stock Voyager shots, they used stock footage of the ship which can then be put in front of whatever background they need. Is it possible to create an overlay for those shots which at least adds some scratches and blemishes to the model in order to show some progressive wear, but not physically altering its shape? In my head, that sounds like a cost- and time-effective alternative, but I'm not completely familiar with what might be involved to do that.
Progress render-
(for anyone pedantic enough to notice, the reason the light colours are flipped is because I flipped the image)
(for anyone pedantic enough to notice, the reason the light colours are flipped is because I flipped the image)
In most cases it's simply a texturing job, creating an image map with added dust and scratches and adding it to the various layers of the material. You can then use that to make dull patches in the glossiness, small dents and scratches in the bump map, discolouring in the diffuse layer, etc. If you can draw, you can do it for a little extra work.
I understand about using a different texture on the model, but that would require a whole new render. What I mean is taking the pre-existing 2D renders used for stock footage, then adding a dirt/grime/whatever layer over *that*. Or would that be more trouble than just re-rendering the scene using new textures?
Lovely to see this coming together. I wish I had your talent.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Progress render-
(for anyone pedantic enough to notice, the reason the light colours are flipped is because I flipped the image)
Are you going to put (simple) rooms behind the viewports?
I'm definitely going to for the bigger inset windows, but since the smaller windows are just textured on, I'm not sure how it would look. But I'll probably give it a try and see how it turns out.
It's possible, if the difference is purely in the texture, but it won't necessarily look that great. For one thing, you wouldn't be able to do anything fancy, like have modeled or bumpy damage. Actually, even having burned areas not be shiny like clean metal might be difficult.
Now, I don't have any production experience, so I'm essentially talking out of my ass, but I'm not sure if that'd really be necessary from the savings perspective. The hard part would be making the damaged model of the ship in the first place, but once you had it, new stock footage shouldn't be too difficult. If you so desired, you could swap it into the old 3D scenes of the stock footage and re-render it, and I'd imagine fresh renderings of old scenes would be the least-expensive VFX you could buy.. In fact, this exact thing happened with some stock-shots in nuBSG, when a damaged version of the ship was created for season 3, and an even more damaged version for season 4.
Just adding a grime layer to the composite would be less trouble than an all-new composite, but not much less.
I'm suddenly remember the DVD commentary for "Police Squad!" where the producers commented that by having the actors just stand still at the end of the episode rather than doing an actual freeze-frame, it saved them upwards of $12 on the optical effects.
Saquist
Commodore
Progress render-
(for anyone pedantic enough to notice, the reason the light colours are flipped is because I flipped the image)
Question:
Why did you decide a dorsal to ventral scoring streaks?
I'm not good with my terms, so I don't really understand the question. Are you referring to the dripping muck? I wanted to add some wear to the ship. I know that in space you wouldn't get muck and it wouldn't have a direction of gravity, but I figure realistically they'd spent enough time landed for repairs for it to be plausible.
^
Agreed.
Agreed.
Saquist
Commodore
Yeah I was figuring perhaps in the direction of travel front to back as though they went through an nebula or thick atmosphere. This way kinda looks like the ship had been rained on like a freeway looks after years of water draining off.
