• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

The most amazing fan-pro CG I've ever seen

Ian Keldon

Ian Keldon

Fleet Captain
It's ok. I personally don't think it's as amazing as you think it is, though. I much prefer the original model work over this.
 
I prefer the originals too. While they did try to match the original look, their rendering left things a little.... flat, for lack of a better word. Plus the fact that everything was a little too perfect to be believable ruined the illusion for me.
 
What I really like is that they pushed the camera dynamism just a little bit w/o going all JJ about it, esp in the first vid at the beginning. That opening was inspired by and designed to duplicate actual space imaging with a few tweaks.

It WAS just a tiny tiny bit "flat" in places, but nothing that adding a little bit of "grain" couldn't fix. I suspect they ran up against either the limitations of their software or the processing power of their computers or both.

But even with that little flaw, the smooth, crisp image quality compares much better than the harsh, sometimes murky, over-glared and color-blown FX of the 09 version.
 
That is very impressive work, no doubt about it. The first one in particular would be near impossible to tell from the movie apart from the lack of matte lines. The second and third are a little weaker looking, but still a step above what most people will ever create.
 
The Axeman said:
That is very impressive work, no doubt about it. The first one in particular would be near impossible to tell from the movie apart from the lack of matte lines. The second and third are a little weaker looking, but still a step above what most people will ever create.
Click to expand...

The third one is the weakest, esp. once Enterprise gets into Spacedock. They needed just a touch more grain and diffusion and "bloom" on the light sources IMO.



Shazam! said:
Probably the best fan stuff I've seen but still looks like a big computer game.
Click to expand...

??? You need a better graphics card or monitor or both then. Those vids (esp the first one) are big screen or near big screen quality. I would compare the first one esp to the orbital sequences in Avatar in terms of imaging quality.
 
Ian Keldon said:
Shazam! said:
Probably the best fan stuff I've seen but still looks like a big computer game.
Click to expand...

You need a better graphics card or monitor or both then. Those vids (esp the first one) are big screen or near big screen quality. I would compare the first one esp to the orbital sequences in Avatar in terms of imaging quality.
Click to expand...

Just because some folks don't see what you see is no reason to insult them or their gear. i have to agree with Shazam. A few moments in the different are impressive but the quality isn't carried throughout. It's inconsistent.
 
Last edited:
It's all right, but it's not even modern TV series quality. The lighting is unconvincing.
 
The Enterprise model also needed some minor finessing. The saucer edge was too vertical - should be angled a little more - and the contours of the different levels (for lack of a better term) of the nacelles were a bit on the square side also.

And yeah, the lighting looked a little too flat and even compared to the original model work.

But what really makes all CG LOOK like CG is the clarity. They want to show you how much work they put into their CG so they leave out the stuff that makes it look real - depth of field, focus, atmospheric haze (I know, no atmosphere in space - I mean all the other CG that needs to look like it's happening on Earth.) If CG artists and animators would learn to use depth of field and camera focus to their advantage, things could look that much more realistic. Right now, they're shooting themselves in the foot and then complaining that they can't walk.
 
Ian Keldon said:
??? You need a better graphics card or monitor or both then. Those vids (esp the first one) are big screen or near big screen quality. I would compare the first one esp to the orbital sequences in Avatar in terms of imaging quality.
Click to expand...
The first one is very nice, but let's stay calm here. Hyperbole helps nothing.

The only bit that took me out of it was when flares from the dock's lights would just 'pop' off in a single frame rather than fading/shrinking over a few frames. Still awesome job though, no question.
 
I would love to see these guys take a slightly different approach with their model and texture work. Instead of trying to make the ship model look like a "real" ship, made with "real" metals, try to model it like a scale model...made from wood and plastic, paint and glue. Don't try for photorealism...the "uncanny valley" (as it applies in this context) will defeat you every time.

Instead, use the advantages of CG to duplicate what people loved about scale model work and motion-control chromakey...the reality of the model. It's physically present, under real lights, being photographed by a real camera that can't get within a milimeter of the hull or fly through the superstructure.

Pair the above approach to texture and model design with an understanding that realistic virtual camera work (i.e., camera work that is identical to what would be possible if you were actually conducting a flyby of a real spacecraft), and one could effectively minimize a lot of the problems inherent in CGI. Unrealistic camera moves break the suspension of disbelief. If the camera moves realistically, people don't think about it, no attention is drawn, and that's what you want. Make the illusion as contiguous as possible!

I've studied filmmaking and cinematography, and been lucky enough to gain practical experience in both. If I had the knack for modeling and animation, I'd give this a try, myself. Sadly, I have neither the skill nor the time to acquire it.

That said, this was very good CGI...and at times I forgot I was watching a computer generated sequence. The editing was top-notch, and I did like the cinematography. Overall, I agree that this is some of the best CGI Trek I've seen. Almost on par with Dave Clark's work.


~Belisarius
 
Last edited:
0_o.

They're solid. Nothing jaw dropping, but considering this is one guy and not a modern vis fx team of 5-50 people strong, I'm amazed at the level of scrutiny this is getting.

I certainly couldn't pull off that level of quality with ease.
 
^The problem here is everyone is comparing it to the footage it's recreating instead of judging the accomplishment for what it is - an excellent piece of solo work.
 
a bit too obviously cgi compared to originals, its good. amazings pushing it a bit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top