Question re: Original f/x vs. TOS-R...

[RAMA]

Obviously the expert CGI artist is missing how the glow from the new FX is much brighter.

Most of the FX commentaries are starting to sound like the conspiracy theories about the shadows from the moon landing photos being wrong.

The shadows make it look more like a real object. And the pulses are not so bright they would drown out every other light source.

The CGI ships are lit better than the original model, which comes off looking rather flat and overlit. The new ones are more realistic, as well as having more shadows, they took into account the the green glow on the model, which is clearly visible, and more than enough to wipe out a few of the shadows, specifically it seems the one cast by the neck.

 

[BillJ]

Obviously the expert CGI artist is missing how the glow from the new FX is much brighter.

Most of the FX commentaries are starting to sound like the conspiracy theories about the shadows from the moon landing photos being wrong.

The shadows make it look more like a real object. And the pulses are not so bright they would drown out every other light source.

The CGI ships are lit better than the original model, which comes off looking rather flat and overlit. The new ones are more realistic, as well as having more shadows, they took into account the the green glow on the model, which is clearly visible, and more than enough to wipe out a few of the shadows, specifically it seems the one cast by the neck.

But they also created no shadows. What's the point... You're not actually interested in sharing viewpoints, you just want to spread your own personal gospel.

 

[BillJ]

I have no interest in this whatsoever. The only interest I have other than accuracy is that the self-reinforcing, almost incestuous purist nonsense does not become spread unabated.

Now whose spreading the non-sense? Most everyone in here says that there are some things that TOS-R did better than the original.

They just don't have the unabashed love for TOS-R that you do. And quite frankly you seem pissed and petty about it, insulting those that don't agree with you.

Who said I counted everyone in the thread amongst the purists?

I'm sure the two or three purists feel honored that you think they'll change the world.

 

[RAMA]

The shadows make it look more like a real object. And the pulses are not so bright they would drown out every other light source.

The CGI ships are lit better than the original model, which comes off looking rather flat and overlit. The new ones are more realistic, as well as having more shadows, they took into account the the green glow on the model, which is clearly visible, and more than enough to wipe out a few of the shadows, specifically it seems the one cast by the neck.

But they also created no shadows. What's the point... You're not actually interested in sharing viewpoints, you just want to spread your own personal gospel.

Actually, the majority of people agree with me, the common denominator with most of those who disagree is that they populate small subgroups in places like this board, and that they are unimaginative people who think the FX and every design must stay exact! AKA: purists. Yes, I'm one of the crazy ones who feels the need to counter this thought process.

Wow, I just read some posts on this thread I missed from last night. Some people here take things sooo literally its hilarious. One of them explained to me in technical detail how the DM is in fact, NOT papier-mache. Yow. Another asked how we'd know what the galaxy barrier would look like...something discussed in detail weeks ago.

RAMA

 

[BillJ]

Actually, the majority of people agree with me, the common denominator with most of those who disagree is that they populate small subgroups in places like this board, and that they are unimaginative people who think the FX and every design must stay exact! AKA: purists. Yes, I'm one of the crazy ones who feels the need to counter this thought process.

Then why even bother if your in such a superior position? Perhaps there are some people who believe in respecting the work that went into Star Trek forty plus years ago? You try to chalk it up to lack of imagination... but isn't it a lack of imagination that led to TOS-R in the first place? Couldn't the people who worked on this pitched ideas to CBS for their own sci-fi adventure series, instead of changing someone else's work?

All I know is this... the Romulan Warbird from Star Trek: The Next Generation is a beautiful ship with many, many complex curves and I pray that the guy who did the D-7 doesn't get the job to build the digital version. Because it'll simply be a blocky mess.

 

[evilnate]

Actually, the majority of people agree with me, the common denominator with most of those who disagree is that they populate small subgroups in places like this board, and that they are unimaginative people who think the FX and every design must stay exact! AKA: purists. Yes, I'm one of the crazy ones who feels the need to counter this thought process.

Then why even bother if your in such a superior position? Perhaps there are some people who believe in respecting the work that went into Star Trek forty plus years ago? You try to chalk it up to lack of imagination... but isn't it a lack of imagination that led to TOS-R in the first place? Couldn't the people who worked on this pitched ideas to CBS for their own sci-fi adventure series, instead of changing someone else's work?

All I know is this... the Romulan Warbird from Star Trek: The Next Generation is a beautiful ship with many, many complex curves and I pray that the guy who did the D-7 doesn't get the job to build the digital version. Because it'll simply be a blocky mess.

That's something that I've thought quite a lot about since the rumors of TNG-R started surfacing. TNG is full of good to great model work. It's not just the warbird, but look at the Ferengi Maurader, or the Enterprise itself. Lots of non-standard shapes and curves. Even the Borg cube, as simple a shape as that is, is full of details that make it what it is. On the physical model that detail was made of plastic sprus and spare battleship parts, but to make a convincing CGI model, that has to be modeled detail, and not just painted on.

TNG also had a lot of impressive lighting, especially third season and on, and this was an area that TOS-R consistently fell flat on. The CBS Digital team is going to have to step up their game well beyond what we saw in TOS-R if they even have a chance of matching the original TNG shots, much less enhancing them.

 

[Maurice]

Obviously the expert CGI artist is missing how the glow from the new FX is much brighter AND coming from below the right side of the ship.

From a few frames previous....

​

Without the weapons fire you can see what appears to be a very soft shadow of the forward hull on the front of the main hull. So you have the lighting direction correct, Rama, so I'll give you that.

In other shots of the ship there's much more obvious shadow casting, so I still have to wonder why this shot is so mushy looking. I still maintain that the stronger shadows on the physical model look better.

 

[BillJ]

From a few frames previous....

​

Without the weapons fire you can see what appears to be a very soft shadow of the forward hull on the front of the main hull. So you have the lighting direction correct, Rama, so I'll give you that.

In other shots of the ship there's much more obvious shadow casting, so I still have to wonder why this shot is so mushy looking. I still maintain that the stronger shadows on the physical model look better.

You're right, but if you don't look real close you'll miss the shadowing.

 

[RAMA]

TNG also had a lot of impressive lighting, especially third season and on, and this was an area that TOS-R consistently fell flat on. The CBS Digital team is going to have to step up their game well beyond what we saw in TOS-R if they even have a chance of matching the original TNG shots, much less enhancing them.

Most likely whoever does the FX will be doing it with full contemporary FX, rather than filtering everything through a 60s filter. I expect to see Enterprise + FX as seen in TATV.

 

[evilnate]

TNG also had a lot of impressive lighting, especially third season and on, and this was an area that TOS-R consistently fell flat on. The mCBS Digital team is going to have to step up their game well beyond what we saw in TOS-R if they even have a chance of matching the original TNG shots, much less enhancing them.

Most likely whoever does the FX will be doing it with full contemporary FX, rather than filtering everything through a 60s filter. I expect to see Enterprise + FX as seen in TATV.

I'll believe it when I see it. Nothing that I've seen from CBS Digital suggests that they are capable of the level of f/x work that Eden F/X did on season 4 of Enterprise on the budget that they'll likely have for TNG-R, and yes, I've been to their website and seen other examples of their work.

 

[Warped9]

Okay, so I've just watched the TOS-R version of "Tomorrow Is Yesterday."

I just know some folks are gonna hate me...

The first shot of the Enterprise within Earth's atmosphere...is a disappointment. It's nicely rendered, but...it doesn't have that same feeling of looking way up overhead and seeing this weird looking thing up there. The original shot was crude, but it did have that feeling.

The opening credits where the ship wooshes by...is just flat and doesn't have the same impact. It's too slow and the angle is wrong. The magic is gone no matter how technically well it's rendered.

Why is the ship wobbling back-and-forth while in the atmosphere? It looks silly. And for all their technical polish the atmospheric sequences leave me cold. It just looks ordinary and like something they'd do in ENT or VOY.

Nice orbital shot sequence...but as mentioned before the cgi Enterprise looks, well, very cgi.

What's with the close-up orbital shot that's so close up that you actually see so little?

Yeah, yeah...slingshot sequence looks like a Saturday morning cartoon. Later breaking sequence doesn't do it for me either.

The last closing shot is nice.

Basically the way the whole thing is done just looks routine in addition to not looking like what could have been done back in the day under the best of conditions. And, of course, there's the fact the the ship doesn't look substantial. Maybe it's the way it's lit or perhaps the texturing, I'm not sure, but it just looks flat.

All right now, let the firestorm begin.

 

[Gepard]

I'll believe it when I see it. Nothing that I've seen from CBS Digital suggests that they are capable of the level of f/x work that Eden F/X did on season 4 of Enterprise on the budget that they'll likely have for TNG-R, and yes, I've been to their website and seen other examples of their work.

I think that's selling them a little short – there's a couple of duds on their reel, but I thought most of it looked pretty good, and certainly miles better than their TOS-R work. (Which, I notice, they neglected to include outside a couple matte paintings in the still gallery.) If they can give us this for outer space FX, that's good enough for me. My main concern is that they won't have enough money to do the TNG work any better than their TOS stuff.

And as long as we're comparing, I don't think Eden's ENT effects were all that hot, especially once the budget got slashed in the last season. Here's a CGI airplane from ENT's season 4, and here's a CGI airplane CBS Digital did for...I'm not sure what. Honestly, I'd rather have the CBS version.

 

[Gary7]

It's definitely a mixed bag. There are certain qualities about filming an actual model that still gets lost in the CGI interpretation of lighting made at this budget level. Unfortunately, it wasn't good enough to look like the original+enhanced. Instead, it looked completely different. This made it impossible to combine originally filmed shots and CGI replacements in the same episode.

I also agree about the planets. They were transformed way too much. Too much detail. I would have preferred that they worked with the original shots and just enhanced them a little, making them look more dimensional but preserving the coloration.

"Tomorrow is Yesterday" is an exception for me. I thought they did a fantastic job in making it look more realistic, especially with the atmospheric shots of the Enterprise.

One thing you just can't discount is that the remastered version does make some corrections, which helps with episode cohesiveness. I really appreciated how "Balance of Terror" was fixed up. There's also some nice touches like the rear view Enterprise beam projection to the planet in "Alternative Factor".

Do the blu-ray discs include the original shots replaced by CGI, so you can watch it either way?

 

[MANT!]

The story hasn't been changed in any appreciable degree by the new effects (The broadcaster cuts do FAR more damage IMHO than the addition of effects that were limited in time and budget) To me, there's very little controversy, The old effects were limited in time and budget too..and the reuse of those shots back in the 60s hurt any attempt to simply clean-up the old effects..as the blurring and grain of ever repeating shots being copied into each episode just made it worse over a season..or the entire series in some shots...

I have viewed old and new effects in the same resolution on my HDTV...and did the same for SDTV..

On my old 27" SDTV..it's a LOT harder to see the details some are pointing out here as proof of inferior effects...

Unless one has a HUGE PC monitor...It's hard to make a valid comparison between the two as views on the PC are not the same as on a large set...

I think it's more picking and choosing what screenshots support one's position more than anything objective..after all these are not viewed as a static slideshow on the screen, but as dynamic action shots..with camera angles moving panning and ships moving...

So the TOS-R faults for the most part are not noticeable to me..but then again, I'm not looking for faults..I'm trying to enjoy my favorite series on a 42" 1080P HDTV...

And really, isn't that what it's all about..

enjoying the show instead of finding nits to pick?

Do the blu-ray discs include the original shots replaced by CGI, so you can watch it either way?

Yes..so this is all really moot..

One can enjoy it any way they desire..orginal effects-mono sound..or redone effects-surround sound..or any combination of the 2...

 

[evilnate]

I'll believe it when I see it. Nothing that I've seen from CBS Digital suggests that they are capable of the level of f/x work that Eden F/X did on season 4 of Enterprise on the budget that they'll likely have for TNG-R, and yes, I've been to their website and seen other examples of their work.

I think that's selling them a little short – there's a couple of duds on their reel, but I thought most of it looked pretty good, and certainly miles better than their TOS-R work. (Which, I notice, they neglected to include outside a couple matte paintings in the still gallery.) If they can give us this for outer space FX, that's good enough for me. My main concern is that they won't have enough money to do the TNG work any better than their TOS stuff.

And as long as we're comparing, I don't think Eden's ENT effects were all that hot, especially once the budget got slashed in the last season. Here's a CGI airplane from ENT's season 4, and here's a CGI airplane CBS Digital did for...I'm not sure what. Honestly, I'd rather have the CBS version.

I wasn't able to open you airplane example, but if it's one of those Stukas from ENT, then you're right, the CBS-D version is better. However, the CBS-D pic is a static beauty shot, and the screen grab from ENT was I'm motion. That said, the sequence your referencing was pretty much they only time in season 4 where I thought that it didn't look so great.

I don't know...maybe I am being too hard on CBS-D. TOS-R is fresher in my mind than ENT, but I dont remember thinking that stuff in ENT looked bad like I did all through TOS-R. It really came down to the lighting and framing of shots for me, and ENT was generally good, whereas I felt TOS-R wasn't. I hope they surprise me when it comes to TNG.

 

[Gepard]

The TrekCore link won't work for me any more, either. And yeah, it was one of the ones form "Stomfront, part II." And I'm not disagreeing that TOS-R looked much worse than ENT. It totally did. I just think that CBS Digital can do much better – if they're given the time and money for it.

 

[evilnate]

The TrekCore link won't work for me any more, either. And yeah, it was one of the ones form "Stomfront, part II." And I'm not disagreeing that TOS-R looked much worse than ENT. It totally did. I just think that CBS Digital can do much better – if they're given the time and money for it.

I can agree with that...it remains to be seen if CBS will properly fund the project over 178 episodes. Hopefully well see something soon.

 

[Captain Robert April]

My understanding of an HD redo of TNG has generally been "Don't hold your breath." Mainly because so much of TNG was done on video, meaning that for most, if not all, of those 178 episodes, they wouldn't just be redoing effects sequences, they'd be reassembling whole episodes from the ground up. Thankfully, they saved all that footage, but the time factor would be a major bitch.

 

[Jonas Grumby]

It's nicely rendered, but...it doesn't have that same feeling of looking way up overhead and seeing this weird looking thing up there. The original shot was crude, but it did have that feeling.

Warped9, you've mentioned this loss of "feeling" in the TOS-R scenes before, and it is something I've noticed as well. And I think I know, at least partially, what the problem is. I don't think the TOS-R effects team had anyone who was really strong in visual composition. I'm amazed by how, in so many of the new effects scenes, the various elements appear haphazardly placed, unbalanced, and just plain "wrong." I'm beginning to think that the addition of a true visual artist to the team might have made a huge difference.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I think an experienced cinematographer or director would've been better.