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

[evilnate]

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.

You must have missed the recent news from Netflix that starting in July they are going to start streaming all Star Trek episodes, including TOS and ENT in HD, and starting this fall they are going to be premiering TNG in HD, implying than TNG-R is, and has been for sometime, in the works.

 

[Jonas Grumby]

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

Whatever they want to call it, I'm talking about the guy who composes the shots. I'm no film industry insider. I assumed the shots were composed on a computer. Do those guys still refer to themselves as cinametographers or directors?

 

[Warped9]

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

Whatever they want to call it, I'm talking about the guy who composes the shots. I'm no film industry insider. I assumed the shots were composed on a computer. Do those guys still refer to themselves as cinametographers or directors?

This is a good point. And it's something I've struggled to put into the right terms to describe it.

We may not think of it much, but when we watch a film or television program we are experiencing the result of someone(s) putting a great deal of effort into putting together an image with effective visual impact. They are trying to convey something, evoke some feeling through the visual image and its components.

Stepping out of Trek I remember the old George Reeves' Adventures Of Superman. The f/x are crude by today's standards, but I still love seeing George run and leap into the air and hearing that whooshing sound when he's in flight. The visual and audio f/x, as crude as they are, convey a sense of power and speed and wonder.

Seeing the 33in. filming miniature of the Enterprise swish across the screen at high warp is crude by today's standards, but it's so damned effective in conveying that sense of speed.

It isn't just a matter of technical proficiency, but also a matter of artistry.

 

[Green Shirt]

Stepping out of Trek I remember the old George Reeves' Adventures Of Superman. The f/x are crude by today's standards, but I still love seeing George run and leap into the air and hearing that whooshing sound when he's in flight. The visual and audio f/x, as crude as they are, convey a sense of power and speed and wonder.

I especially liked the first season standing still takeoff, which was strange looking--but neat. Also cool was the black and white takeoff from the office storeroom where Reeves' legs weren't lined up as though he was tilting or losing his balance while going thru the window.

 

[Maurice]

Cinematographers refers to the guy/gal shooting the principle photography, not the VFX effects camera operators/CG animators.

TOS-R's redone effects suffer from poop composition and poor lighting throughout. IMO they should have put more effort into making very good models, worked out a very solid lighting rig, and done fewer new shots and instead focused on replacing the stock shots with far superior stock shots.

Oh, and for Pete's sake, hired an animator who understands how to move an object like at actually has mass.

 

[Jonas Grumby]

^ I agree with all of that.

In addition:

TOS-R's redone effects suffer from poop composition

I think I just found my new bumper sticker!

 

[BillJ]

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.

You must have missed the recent news from Netflix that starting in July they are going to start streaming all Star Trek episodes, including TOS and ENT in HD, and starting this fall they are going to be premiering TNG in HD, implying than TNG-R is, and has been for sometime, in the works.

I thought this (TNG HD) was still a rumor at this point?

http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/08/star-trek-series-coming-to-netflix-watch-instantly-in-july-an/

 

[evilnate]

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.

You must have missed the recent news from Netflix that starting in July they are going to start streaming all Star Trek episodes, including TOS and ENT in HD, and starting this fall they are going to be premiering TNG in HD, implying than TNG-R is, and has been for sometime, in the works.

I thought this (TNG HD) was still a rumor at this point?

http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/08/star-trek-series-coming-to-netflix-watch-instantly-in-july-an/

I looked again and I was getting the report on The Digital Bits confused with the Netflix press release. My hunch I'd that well hear something official in the next couple of months.

 

[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 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.

Eden FX's proposal was indeed amazing, but were designed to look contemporary, and CBS didn't want to go that route, imagine the criticism of how out of place they'd look if they did? Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

RAMA

 

[David cgc]

It looked a damn sight less "contemporary" than the ship shots we ended up with. It's a spaceship! It's the easiest thing to do in all of CGdom! It's simpler to do than all those pretty matte shots! How did they keep screwing it up? Aim the key light so you get a specular hit somewhere on the damn thing, and turn on shadows! If you're feeling showy, add a fill light like they taught you in school. Jeeze.

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

Whatever they want to call it, I'm talking about the guy who composes the shots. I'm no film industry insider. I assumed the shots were composed on a computer. Do those guys still refer to themselves as cinametographers or directors?

They're called Layout Artists.

 

[Jonas Grumby]

They're called Layout Artists.

Thanks!

 

[Captain Robert April]

"Layout artist" says "print media" to me, which was why I'm thinking a cinematographer is what was needed, someone better versed in moving pictures instead of stills.

 

[Maurice]

Layout artist is a term used in animation for someone who lays out the shots and compositions.

 

[RAMA]

There are different forms of "respect"...one would be getting people who care about the show, and in terms of adding to a project where the tech had to be upgraded like this, making it some contextually believable, while adding 40-50 shots of the Enterprsie to the 17 stocks shots that existed for example. I think it was a worthwhile and needed effort and it succeeded enormously well. it has been supported by many of the major players still living at the time. Again its difficult to make you get it when you don't understand why the project was made in the first place, which you demonstrated yet again with this post.

RAMA

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.

 

[BillJ]

There are different forms of "respect"...one would be getting people who care about the show, and in terms of adding to a project where the tech had to be upgraded like this, making it some contextually believable, while adding 40-50 shots of the Enterprsie to the 17 stocks shots that existed for example.

But did the new effects actually improve the stories? I like TOS-R, I own TOS-R on Blu-ray... but there isn't a single episode that I rank higher than I did before the new effects.

The story is at the heart of everything and the previous effects served the story. I think that's why people aren't fawning all over TOS-R, the new effects introduce an interesting "what if?" but don't add or detract from the stories themselves.

Recently I've been re-watching TNG on DVD. The effects do an adequate job serving the story and the model work is simply amazing. I think TNG will be sacrificing alot by giving up some great work at the alter of HD.

 

[Gepard]

We can always hope that the TNG crew will be able to scan the VFX elements (those that were filmed on 35mm, that is) in at HD and recomposite them. They'll need to generate new things like phaser beams and any CG work that was rendered in 480i, but in principle it's possible to keep most of the original ship elements.

My preferred solution, in fact, would be for them to use as much of the Enterprise model work as possible and mix it with new CG ships to replace those Excelsiors and Mirandas we kept seeing over and over and over. That way, CBS-D could focus their efforts on fewer CG ships and have a benchmark with the model work to match. I suspect we won't be so lucky, however.

 

[BillJ]

My preferred solution, in fact, would be for them to use as much of the Enterprise model work as possible and mix it with new CG ships to replace those Excelsiors and Mirandas we kept seeing over and over and over. That way, CBS-D could focus their efforts on fewer CG ships and have a benchmark with the model work to match. I suspect we won't be so lucky, however.

I could see that working. Like the TOS matte paintings they would actually have physical elements to match the CGI up with.

 

[BlobVanDam]

We can always hope that the TNG crew will be able to scan the VFX elements (those that were filmed on 35mm, that is) in at HD and recomposite them. They'll need to generate new things like phaser beams and any CG work that was rendered in 480i, but in principle it's possible to keep most of the original ship elements.

My preferred solution, in fact, would be for them to use as much of the Enterprise model work as possible and mix it with new CG ships to replace those Excelsiors and Mirandas we kept seeing over and over and over. That way, CBS-D could focus their efforts on fewer CG ships and have a benchmark with the model work to match. I suspect we won't be so lucky, however.

If all of the original ship passes exist along with the rest of the film, then this would probably be easier than replacing it with CG. But then we're stuck with shots of the 4ft D model too. Do you want that on your conscience?

 

[evilnate]

We can always hope that the TNG crew will be able to scan the VFX elements (those that were filmed on 35mm, that is) in at HD and recomposite them. They'll need to generate new things like phaser beams and any CG work that was rendered in 480i, but in principle it's possible to keep most of the original ship elements.

My preferred solution, in fact, would be for them to use as much of the Enterprise model work as possible and mix it with new CG ships to replace those Excelsiors and Mirandas we kept seeing over and over and over. That way, CBS-D could focus their efforts on fewer CG ships and have a benchmark with the model work to match. I suspect we won't be so lucky, however.

If all of the original ship passes exist along with the rest of the film, then this would probably be easier than replacing it with CG. But then we're stuck with shots of the 4ft D model too. Do you want that on your conscience?

While you're joking around...my fear is that we're going to get a CGI version of the four footer, exaggerated detail and all!

 

[BlobVanDam]

We can always hope that the TNG crew will be able to scan the VFX elements (those that were filmed on 35mm, that is) in at HD and recomposite them. They'll need to generate new things like phaser beams and any CG work that was rendered in 480i, but in principle it's possible to keep most of the original ship elements.

My preferred solution, in fact, would be for them to use as much of the Enterprise model work as possible and mix it with new CG ships to replace those Excelsiors and Mirandas we kept seeing over and over and over. That way, CBS-D could focus their efforts on fewer CG ships and have a benchmark with the model work to match. I suspect we won't be so lucky, however.

If all of the original ship passes exist along with the rest of the film, then this would probably be easier than replacing it with CG. But then we're stuck with shots of the 4ft D model too. Do you want that on your conscience?

While you're joking around...my fear is that we're going to get a CGI version of the four footer, exaggerated detail and all!

I sure hope not. I'd expect they'd have the two deck edge of the 4 footer for ten forward, but hopefully it would otherwise stick to the 6ft.