With this level of detail, you can see the the registry number on the saucer is backwards! Wonder if it's too late to do anything about that...
With this level of detail, you can see the the registry number on the saucer is backwards! Wonder if it's too late to do anything about that...
With this level of detail, you can see the the registry number on the saucer is backwards! Wonder if it's too late to do anything about that...
Yeah, noticed that too. Unfortunately, they'd have to replace the miniature shot with their CG model, which I'd be against.
It looks like back in '88 they composited it over the ILM starbase interior plate (which in the film is the reverse of how it appears here) and then during the edit, decided to flop the completed shot to avoid breaking the 180° rule to keep the Enterprise traveling in the same direction (i.e. right to left).
However, this shot looks awful:
http://www.thehdroom.com/images/news/10647e.jpg
What's going on there?
Great stuff, some really cleans shot there. Nice to see the Angel One matte painting holds up well in HD.
However, this shot looks awful:
http://www.thehdroom.com/images/news/10647e.jpg
What's going on there?
With this level of detail, you can see the the registry number on the saucer is backwards! Wonder if it's too late to do anything about that...
Yeah, noticed that too. Unfortunately, they'd have to replace the miniature shot with their CG model, which I'd be against.
It looks like back in '88 they composited it over the ILM starbase interior plate (which in the film is the reverse of how it appears here) and then during the edit, decided to flop the completed shot to avoid breaking the 180° rule to keep the Enterprise traveling in the same direction (i.e. right to left).
Thanks for your 16:9 versions. How did you create these?
I compared them with the TSFS screencaps at Trekcore and the new TNG BR ones are clearly superior. The first 2 of the Enterprise approaching the starbase are much charper and retain a lot more detail. The movie version is softer.
But what really surprised me is comparing the flipped shot you mentioned above:
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tsfshd/tsfshd0159.jpg
In the movie the entire startbase has a greenish tint while the TNG BR version shows lots of details, red and black markings on the starbase model. Clearly, there's a lot of room for improvement with the movies.
However, this shot looks awful:
http://www.thehdroom.com/images/news/10647e.jpg
What's going on there?
Possibly the original shot was zoomed footage? (As with one shot in EaF.) The shot in the episode in SD is painfully blurry too, so it's not an oddity that's showing up for the first time here. ...Just that's it's more obvious now.![]()
Isn't this the one shot in "The Last Outpost" that was done in 2.35:1 anamorphic and then electronically panned and scanned to create the landscape reveal to the left later in the shot -- the same technique used to create 4:3 versions of 2.35:1 anamorphic films? I guess this was a clever budget-saver at the time but maybe they couldn't find the original Scope elements for this one shot and had to upconvert the video. If so wouldn't this be a strange choice of still to release to tease the upcoming Blu-ray?
Thanks for your 16:9 versions. How did you create these?
I compared them with the TSFS screencaps at Trekcore and the new TNG BR ones are clearly superior. The first 2 of the Enterprise approaching the starbase are much charper and retain a lot more detail. The movie version is softer.
In the movie the entire startbase has a greenish tint while the TNG BR version shows lots of details, red and black markings on the starbase model.
Kinda surprised they didn't redo the fancy starfield shot from Where No Man, and make the nebulas a little more detailed and sophisticated.
It looks like the exact same shot as before.
Kinda surprised they didn't redo the fancy starfield shot from Where No Man, and make the nebulas a little more detailed and sophisticated.
It looks like the exact same shot as before.
Kinda surprised they didn't redo the fancy starfield shot from Where No Man, and make the nebulas a little more detailed and sophisticated.
It looks like the exact same shot as before.
I think that's the point.
I'm shocked at how they can duplicate these shots that are on Trekmovie so closely to the originals!!
Well yeah, but they greatly improved the Crystalline Entity effect while still keeping it essentially the "same shot". I was just hoping for the same kind of thing here.
In fact, of the 23 new shots, only the sun from "The Naked Now" and the phaser beams in "Too Short a Season" are new effects! Everything else is original elements, re-comped.
In fact, of the 23 new shots, only the sun from "The Naked Now" and the phaser beams in "Too Short a Season" are new effects! Everything else is original elements, re-comped.
Are you sure about that scene with the Tsiolkovsky? I ask because in the HD shot, you can clearly see the ship's registry number on the rear of the secondary hull (NCC-53911), but when the ship hits the star fragment and explodes, the registry number is only three digits. So either a) the two ships in that scene are CGI as well, b) they're the original model shots but with a new registry number digitally placed on the hull, or c) they're the original model shots and the 53911 number was always there...which would not explain why the number changes later![]()
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.