TOS-R question...

[BillJ]

This is exactly how people react though...not "well its better because it looks sharper, has more detail and fits better with the alien's concept, and was lit better"...it's "well the original didn't need changing, it looked just fine, because that's how the designers meant it to look", and "smooth is better" (ignoring 40 years of real space design and advancing production techniques in scifi), "no the traveling mattes were meant to look that way". Because in fact...they can't look better, they never will. It will never look sharper or better lit, or more detailed or anything. It just won't, because of technical advancements that make a very technical area of filming TV better. I also think a melding of design sense...combining 60s sensibilities with modern concepts and 40 years of design improvements make for worthy successors to the originals. This is where the quibbles are worst...but I don't see one case where the new ships don't look better. Even so, the creators (or re-creators) take careful effort in making them appear like they might have come from the 1960s. I give them all credit for NOT making them look like NuBSG.

RAMA

They could've simply used the original design. How do we know that the smoothness of the Tholian vessel wasn't intentional? You call it a block of wood but it could've been someone's attempt to give us something truly alien.

Changing something for the sake of changing it is usually a fool's mission.

 

[RAMA]

See you damage your own argument right from the beginning by hurling insults at one of the images. Do you fear that if you simply pose the question of "which one is better?", the results might not be to your liking?

Well its just what it looks like, the image is there for your perusal.

RAMA

Top image looks like a fine conceptual drawing.

Bottom one looks like a mediocre film composite.

Neither one would I call 'realistic' or 'film-like' in the sense of viewing an actual event.

What I remember from the original is the sense of scale and otherworldliness when seen in motion as part of the whole. I'd have to rewatch the episode to really comment on which I presently prefer, but the fact remains that the 'improved' version looks like a detailed painting while the 'original' looks like a photograph meeting a blurry photograph.

Again this is your mistake, and the mistake I see continually on the Trekmovie threads...its not supposed to look like a Borg Sphere from Enterprise or exactly like the movement and detail of modern CGI spacecraft from Trek09 or NuBSG or Stargate Universe...its filtered through the lens of what was capable in the 1960s. Its a dedicated effort to make the model look better but still within its milieu. I think the fact you realize its not a movie quality effect means they nailed it on the head! You've just proven their stylized efforts were not in vain!

Now on the STNG-R...I expect these to look modern, utilizating the full range of modern CGI technology.

RAMA

 

[RAMA]

This is exactly how people react though...not "well its better because it looks sharper, has more detail and fits better with the alien's concept, and was lit better"...it's "well the original didn't need changing, it looked just fine, because that's how the designers meant it to look", and "smooth is better" (ignoring 40 years of real space design and advancing production techniques in scifi), "no the traveling mattes were meant to look that way". Because in fact...they can't look better, they never will. It will never look sharper or better lit, or more detailed or anything. It just won't, because of technical advancements that make a very technical area of filming TV better. I also think a melding of design sense...combining 60s sensibilities with modern concepts and 40 years of design improvements make for worthy successors to the originals. This is where the quibbles are worst...but I don't see one case where the new ships don't look better. Even so, the creators (or re-creators) take careful effort in making them appear like they might have come from the 1960s. I give them all credit for NOT making them look like NuBSG.

RAMA

They could've simply used the original design. How do we know that the smoothness of the Tholian vessel wasn't intentional? You call it a block of wood but it could've been someone's attempt to give us something truly alien.

Changing something for the sake of changing it is usually a fool's mission.

By combining the ENT Tholian ship and the one from TOS, I think they came up with something that was supposed to be a treat for the fans. I for one just happen to think it worked. I know fully well I can go up to 99% of the VFX artists in Hollywood, or 99% of the people on the street, and they'd agree the ship looks more realistic and better presented in every way imaginable.

RAMA

 

[BillJ]

I know fully well I can go up to 99% of the VFX artists in Hollywood, or 99% of the people on the street, and they'd agree the ship looks more realistic and better presented in every way imaginable.

How? There is no way to ever know because they never gave us a CGI version of the original.

 

[GNDN]

Well its just what it looks like, the image is there for your perusal.

RAMA

Top image looks like a fine conceptual drawing.

Bottom one looks like a mediocre film composite.

Neither one would I call 'realistic' or 'film-like' in the sense of viewing an actual event.

What I remember from the original is the sense of scale and otherworldliness when seen in motion as part of the whole. I'd have to rewatch the episode to really comment on which I presently prefer, but the fact remains that the 'improved' version looks like a detailed painting while the 'original' looks like a photograph meeting a blurry photograph.

Again this is your mistake, and the mistake I see continually on the Trekmovie threads...its not supposed to look like a Borg Sphere from Enterprise or exactly like the movement and detail of modern CGI spacecraft from Trek09 or NuBSG or Stargate Universe...its filtered through the lens of what was capable in the 1960s. Its a dedicated effort to make the model look better but still within its milieu. I think the fact you realize its not a movie quality effect means they nailed it on the head! You've just proven their stylized efforts were not in vain!

Uh, no. You misunderstand me. When I say 'film-like' I don't mean like the best feature film ever made... I mean like a photograph (film) of a real occurrence. If they were merely going for stylized, they wouldn't have built an ELEVEN FOOT MINIATURE! They were doing the BEST they could to produce quality photographic effects. And saying the TOS-R version looks like a very nice cartoon does not prove your case that I must come to like the new effect better.

When I mentioned nuBSG, I specifically mentioned the QUALITY, not the STYLE. I never insinuated spaceships moving as they do on BSG or camera whips, etc. Merely that the overall realism seemed higher to me for CGI effects.

 

[GNDN]

Let's all compare:

Computer Graphic vs. Model Spaceship. Rendering of fine detail and lighting clearly go to TOS-R. Mottled, pulsating lighting technique more pronounced in TOS.

Even though the TOS E is smaller in frame, it actually conveys more mass to me, especially in the saucer.

Here the shots show some stylistic differences. TOS-R is quite detailed, but the quality of the image is that of an illustration. For TOS, the weaknesses of the Fesarius model become clear when the camera is required to get this close. From a framing standpoint, however, notice how much smaller the Enterprise is shown to be. Emotionally, the TOS rendering has more impact.

As an aside, notice how the TOS shot has benefitted from remastering of the negative to improve color and contrast over the example previously shown at trekmovie, and this isn't even the HD capture! Nothing wrong with the quality of the film image, only limited by the model and compositing techniques.

Not much appreciable difference here, except for some reason, the TOS-R artists have slightly enlarged the balls (or domes as they opted them to be) which in effect scales down the Fesarius in my eye. The whole point of the sequence is a comparison of size, so not sure why they would take an element meant to convey the immensity and reduce it's effectiveness. It's not as if we know how big each ball is, so when they look nearly identical, one would imagine more = larger surface area. Also, the TOS image conveys more a sense of a three-dimensional sphere to me, at least in that particular still. TOS star background looks more like a photo than a graphic as well.

 

[RAMA]

Top image looks like a fine conceptual drawing.

Bottom one looks like a mediocre film composite.

Neither one would I call 'realistic' or 'film-like' in the sense of viewing an actual event.

What I remember from the original is the sense of scale and otherworldliness when seen in motion as part of the whole. I'd have to rewatch the episode to really comment on which I presently prefer, but the fact remains that the 'improved' version looks like a detailed painting while the 'original' looks like a photograph meeting a blurry photograph.

Again this is your mistake, and the mistake I see continually on the Trekmovie threads...its not supposed to look like a Borg Sphere from Enterprise or exactly like the movement and detail of modern CGI spacecraft from Trek09 or NuBSG or Stargate Universe...its filtered through the lens of what was capable in the 1960s. Its a dedicated effort to make the model look better but still within its milieu. I think the fact you realize its not a movie quality effect means they nailed it on the head! You've just proven their stylized efforts were not in vain!

Uh, no. You misunderstand me. When I say 'film-like' I don't mean like the best feature film ever made... I mean like a photograph (film) of a real occurrence. If they were merely going for stylized, they wouldn't have built an ELEVEN FOOT MINIATURE! They were doing the BEST they could to produce quality photographic effects. And saying the TOS-R version looks like a very nice cartoon does not prove your case that I must come to like the new effect better.

When I mentioned nuBSG, I specifically mentioned the QUALITY, not the STYLE. I never insinuated spaceships moving as they do on BSG or camera whips, etc. Merely that the overall realism seemed higher to me for CGI effects.

You meant photo-realistic. Yes, they do not look as photorealistic as say ENT CGI...but again, they were not supposed to be. Do they look like objects? Yes, and they move better and have better lighting and matting which makes them appear more real than the 1960s FX. I never saw one TOS-R ship that stuttered across the frame or had a matte wink out..making them more convincing.

Also I do NOT mean camera whips or fighter movements, I simply mean the range of shots capable with modern CGI...pans and zooms (fast OR slow) 3d coverage, etc. These were not attempted with any great regularity in the TOS-R.

 

[RAMA]

Let's all compare:

Computer Graphic vs. Model Spaceship. Rendering of fine detail and lighting clearly go to TOS-R. Mottled, pulsating lighting technique more pronounced in TOS.

Even though the TOS E is smaller in frame, it actually conveys more mass to me, especially in the saucer.

Here the shots show some stylistic differences. TOS-R is quite detailed, but the quality of the image is that of an illustration. For TOS, the weaknesses of the Fesarius model become clear when the camera is required to get this close. From a framing standpoint, however, notice how much smaller the Enterprise is shown to be. Emotionally, the TOS rendering has more impact.

As an aside, notice how the TOS shot has benefitted from remastering of the negative to improve color and contrast over the example previously shown at trekmovie, and this isn't even the HD capture! Nothing wrong with the quality of the film image, only limited by the model and compositing techniques.

Not much appreciable difference here, except for some reason, the TOS-R artists have slightly enlarged the balls (or domes as they opted them to be) which in effect scales down the Fesarius in my eye. The whole point of the sequence is a comparison of size, so not sure why they would take an element meant to convey the immensity and reduce it's effectiveness. It's not as if we know how big each ball is, so when they look nearly identical, one would imagine more = larger surface area. Also, the TOS image conveys more a sense of a three-dimensional sphere to me, at least in that particular still. TOS star background looks more like a photo than a graphic as well.

I could argue the point at length, all I can say is that you must have blurry vision...

The new shot is distinctly superior in every way...the most telling shot is the one with the E against the Fesarius...to me, the old ship looks like a soft 2D blur, the new one looks like a fully realized object. The E looks like a toy. Also, there is a particularly bad matte line that ruins any semblence of reality in the light E over a light object. The E from TOS-R looks more like a movie shot selection(angle and proportion), though lacking in big screen detail. One (the TOS-R Shot) can be used as computer wallpaper the other I wouldn't bother..

Edit: If in fact, these shots were in the proper HD format...the difference would be even more pronounced.

RAMA

 

[GNDN]

You meant photo-realistic. Yes, they do not look as photorealistic as say ENT CGI...but again, they were not supposed to be. Do they look like objects? Yes, and they move better and have better lighting and matting which makes them appear more real than the 1960s FX. I never saw one TOS-R ship that stuttered across the frame or had a matte wink out..making them more convincing.

Also I do NOT mean camera whips or fighter movements, I simply mean the range of shots capable with modern CGI...pans and zooms (fast OR slow) 3d coverage, etc. These were not attempted with any great regularity in the TOS-R.

I agree with you here. TOS-R has a rather consistent level of quality, and it was even mused as to whether to recreate the 'bump' in the Enterprise's flight path for the opening credits in CG

Of course these physical limitations wouldn't plague the CGI. But more convincing? As what? It's still a special effect, which at times looks like a cartoon. No one is under any obligation to blindly accept more recent as meaning better. I am no more convinced by a computer model than a physical one in this instance. They're both different versions of illusion contributing to a fantastic story, and at various times one is more photo-realistic, or merely compelling, than the other and vice-versa.

 

[Tallguy]

One (the TOS-R Shot) can be used as computer wallpaper the other I wouldn't bother..

RAMA

Hey, I just tried it and turns out that BOTH can be used as computer wallpaper! (TOS Enterprise screen shots are a regular part of my wallpaper rotation.)

I understand the imperfections of matting and compositing in TOS that you're talking about. But TOS beats TOS-R every time in terms of lighting.

You mentioned "object". To me the TOS shots look like objects, as in physically present (even if it's physically present as a model). The TOS-R shots look like CG. Nice, sometimes really good CG. But never like a really present object.

TOS-R gets a slight edge on the close-ups of the Fesarius. TOS for the win on the longer shots (where the detail doesn't matter).

TOS certainly has the handicap. TOS-R should have been superior. Match the lighting, smooth out the motion, fix the mistakes. The problem is that they didn't manage the lighting and almost all of their ship shot feel muddy, dark, and don't have any weight to them (IMHO).

Before you tag me as a "purist" (or other less flattering names) I'll take the most of the TOS-R shots from "Tomorrow is Yesterday" over TOS pretty much any time. I'm not anti-Remastered. I'm anti-not-good. (And I'm anti-not-making-the-originals-available which they haven't done.)

 

[GNDN]

I could argue the point at length, all I can say is that you must have blurry vision...

HAHA! So now taste comes down to 20/20 vision? (Mine is that or better, thank you) Meanwhile, I'm not trying to convince you of anything other than that some may place value on different elements of an artistic work.

The new shot is distinctly superior in every way...the most telling shot is the one with the E against the Fesarius...to me, the old ship looks like a soft 2D blur, the new one looks like a fully realized object. The E looks like a toy. Also, there is a particularly bad matte line that ruins any semblence of reality in the light E over a light object. The E from TOS-R looks more like a movie shot selection(angle and proportion), though lacking in big screen detail. One (the TOS-R Shot) can be used as computer wallpaper the other I wouldn't bother..

There are clear technical advances to the TOS-R shot, and who's to say that if this tech was available in '66 the shot wouldn't look exactly like that, but the framing is more out of TNG. Here's what a movie version may look like:

Yes, TOS has matte lines and technical limitations. Didn't stop 'em from telling the story and there are many TOS images I would choose as a wallpaper, but hardly every frame from every ep. Some of the choices, however, in the 'seamless' TOS-R, do little for the story, or at worst detract from it.

 

[GNDN]

I understand the imperfections of matting and compositing in TOS that you're talking about. But TOS beats TOS-R every time in terms of lighting.

You mentioned "object". To me the TOS shots look like objects, as in physically present (even if it's physically present as a model). The TOS-R shots look like CG. Nice, sometimes really good CG. But never like a really present object.

TOS-R gets a slight edge on the close-ups of the Fesarius. TOS for the win on the longer shots (where the detail doesn't matter).

TOS certainly has the handicap. TOS-R should have been superior. Match the lighting, smooth out the motion, fix the mistakes. The problem is that they didn't manage the lighting and almost all of their ship shot feel muddy, dark, and don't have any weight to them (IMHO).

Before you tag me as a "purist" (or other less flattering names) I'll take the most of the TOS-R shots from "Tomorrow is Yesterday" over TOS pretty much any time. I'm not anti-Remastered. I'm anti-not-good. (And I'm anti-not-making-the-originals-available which they haven't done.)

Pretty much on the same page with you here, Tallguy. I actually just rewatched "Tomorrow is Yesterday" and much of the visuals there are phenomenal!

My quibbles are primarily with the E in the atmosphere shots. How she moved under partial power (alluding to your 'object' comments) and also choice of angle and framing for some. The Earth orbit shots are breathtaking and showcase some of the best of what could be achieved.

If I'm to be called a purist, it's only as one who still appreciates the originals, can and do enjoy watching them without the remastering, and feel that they should continue to be made available alongside any future re-imagining. I enjoy most of the TOS-R effects, but I would never agree that they should fully supplant the originals.

 

[Warped9]

This argument is never going to come to a consensus. It really does come down to what an individual prefers. And no amount of "expert opinions" will sway anyone.

 

[Tallguy]

This argument is never going to come to a consensus. It really does come down to what an individual prefers. And no amount of "expert opinions" will sway anyone.

You're wrong. And I can cite sources that prove it. And if you disagree with that you're dumb.

 

[plynch]

It bothers people a lot that others don't see this their way. Fascinating.

Of course it bothers me when the Yankees or Ohio State wins.

Peace and well-being to all.

 

[GNDN]

This argument is never going to come to a consensus. It really does come down to what an individual prefers. And no amount of "expert opinions" will sway anyone.

[LouCostello]That's what I'm saaaayin'!!![/LouCostello]

I just like the pretty pictures!

i do have a tiny problem with this one though... (runs and hides)

 

[Warped9]

This argument is never going to come to a consensus. It really does come down to what an individual prefers. And no amount of "expert opinions" will sway anyone.

You're wrong. And I can cite sources that prove it. And if you disagree with that you're dumb.

These past years I've read page after page after page after page of people dissecting this subject to point out why the "new" is better. And hardly anyone has been swayed. I know I haven't. Yes, some of the new shots are quite nice, but I still stand by my opinion that a lot of it doesn't look "of the era." To my eye very little of the new f/x looks like something that would have been done in the '60s even given state-of-the-art resources for the time.

And whenever I see an episode of TOS-R I always experience a little sense of when I see one of the new shots because to my eye it just doesn't look right. I didn't say it looked bad, I'm saying it doesn't look right. There is a distinction.

But I also acknowledge that a lot of people either don't see the difference I can see or it just doesn't matter to them. Doesn't matter because it doesn't matter to me if I'm the only one who sees it this way no amount of argument or debate or "expert" analysis will convince me otherwise.

So I guess that just makes me dumb.

 

[Forbin]

IMHO, some of the new CG shots may be technically well-done, but aren't very artistically done. That's important - placement of objects within the frame, motion, lighting, etc. TOS usually went to the bother of getting that part right.

I usually use Who Mourns for Adonais to illustrate that - the shot with Apollo's hand holding the E. A simple, well-balance shot in the original, but a poorly laid-out mash of ship, hand and planet in TOS-R, that makes it difficult tio figure out where to look in the short moment it's on screen.

 

[Tallguy]

So I guess that just makes me dumb.

Sorry. I really need to stop trying to be sarcastic on the internet.

 

[Warped9]

One shot I did not like at all in the TOS-R version of "Who Mourns For Adonais?" was that of the Enterprise firing its phasers on Apollo's temple. In the original we see the ship firing it's phasers at a downward angle. Okay the beams should have been blue and the firing points on the ship were off, but I love the majesty and rightness of the shot---the big E firing downward from high orbit. Beautiful! And it was cut perfectly with the accompanying music.

In the new shot the ship seems to be firing sideways and from the angle looks like it could be completely missing the planet. It just looks wrong to my eye despite how everything is rendered technical well.

I really like this shot even if it could use some sharpening up:
http://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/2x02hd/whomournsforadonaishd1374.jpg

I don't care for this one at all. It's just blah even if it's technically nice:
http://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/2x02hd/whomournsforadonaishd1381a.jpg

Another one I really disliked was the replacing of the Eyemorg ship from "Spock's Brain." WhY??? If they can update the Tholian ship (albeit poorly) then why was it necessary to replace the original nifty looking Eyemorg ship with something completely different? There was no reason. They just wanted to.

There's also a weird feeling about all of this. Hardly anyone would seriously consider going back and redoing the f/x for classic SF films like King King, Forbidden Planet, 2001, War Of The Worlds or any number of others. But they felt compelled to do it to Star Trek because the newbies won't accept it otherwise. If you can watch and enjoy many classic SF, horror and other genre films then you should be able to enjoy Star Trek in its original form.