CBS CGI porn please... the best shots!

^^^
My friend, I have the perfect site for you.

trekmovie.com - remastered page

 

Thank you!

 

I must admit that some of these shot look very good, and even though i love the original the way it is, if these new shots and effects make TOS more enjoyable for a new audience then I'm all for that....

In the End TOS lives on.

 

i would just like to say for the record that trekmovie.com is not a 'porn' site



...but that gives me an idea....hmmmm trekmovie-afterdark.com?

 

... Haaaaaa funny ptm.

(in case anyone doesn't know, PTM runs Trekmovie.com)

 

It was good to see some of those comparison shots, and the videos highlighting the new effects. I don't get to see every remastered ep.

I like some of what they've done, most of it actually, although the syndication edits ruin the episodes. I won't insult it like beaker routinely does, but I have to agree that the shot of the shuttle approaching does look more like a painting for some reason.

One change I think is overdue is replacing the oddly colored planets with more "natural" appearing ones. For isntance, the Omega Glory, if the planet doesn't look purple on the ground, why would it look purple in space???

 

... you know, I had a nice thread going here until you got personal. Beaker doesn't say things as a "routine", mmk?

 

And uh, did any of us jerks thank you for these?

 

Now here, folks, is someone who gets it. :thumbsup:

 

Agreed. As good and as bad as the spin-offs have been th original Star Trek is the end-all and be-all of Star Trek. Kirk, Spock and McCoy have a second lease on life thanks to Remastered. Those who lack imagination don't have to get thrown out of the episode because of the old-style special effects. Those who enjoyed the episodes as they were can get a nice kick out of the modern coat of paint that has been thrown on such a great show and enjoy the classics in an interesting new way.

 

There...was...aklingonfleet!?

Which episode was that?

 

I agree with the essence of this.

 

Your comparison doesn't work for me at all, because all it shows is how bad the trek shot looks, cuz the blacks and the contrast are lousy ... which is a whole lot of what makes it ... listen carefully now ... LOOK CARTOONY!

Take a look outside on a sunny day and see the contrast, the harshness of the shadows ... or don't, I guess it doesn't matter if you can't see it, given that you're the one who posted these two as similar.

 

Well, you're certainly entitled to dislike the effects shot for any reason you want.

Still, if you wanna get nitpicky, the shadows on the space shuttle are dark because: 1) there is relatively little fill light on the shuttle's shadow side, and 2) since the shuttle is in space, there is no atmospheric haze to lighten the shadows.

By contrast, the Enterprise in "Tomorrow is Yesterday" was (theoretically) thousands of feet away from the (theoretical) camera, meaning we're seeing it through quite a bit of atmospheric haze. This could (depending on the atmospheric conditions) result in significant lightening of th shadows. Additionally, the Enterprise is directly above a large cloud bank, which could cause a considerable amount of spill light to hit the underside of the ship.

Incidentally, look at the shadows on the Soyuz craft. It's close to the space station, which is acting as a big reflector. As a result, the shadows on the Soyuz are quite a bit lighter than the shadows on the space shuttle.

Again, you're entitled to dislike the shot for any reason that works for you. But in this case, your comparison is not valid.

 

No, my comparison is totally valid. I'm quite aware of the fill effect in orbit, mainly from other objects but also from earth to a slight degree. You've still got a huge amount of contrast and tonal RANGE in the NASA image, and that ain't present in most CG. I've probably spent a couple thousand hours studying earthscapes and NASA craft, looking specifically to duplicate the contrast levels for filmmaking purposes, and in order to accomplish this, I wound up having to take dimensional artwork out of doors to photograph in sunlight, just to make something that read okay. If I'd wanted something mushy looking, I could have done that easily indoors using normal lighting, but I wanted something that looked right.

You're right that there would be some fill effect on the E from the clouds and such, but you're not so far back from the ship to have the softening atmospherics to keep the dark shadow side from registering a lot more strongly. Again, all you have to do is look at a sunlit shot of a real plane and see the contrast levels.

I honestly don't think most filmmakers care if their stuff looks right at this point, because the audiences have been dumbed down into buying off on this painterly look (even for stuff that is supposed to be photorealistic.) If you want good CG spaceship stuff, look at SOLARIS. That was done at 4K by people who cared, for a demanding director, and it is really the exception that proves the rule as far as CG for me.

Pretty much any good-looking space-based film with ships -- SPACE COWBOYS and EVENT HORIZON leap to mind -- has been done predominantly with miniatures, and originated ON FILM, which gets you the full dynamic range (highlights AND shadows, not just one end of the scale or the other), something you can't even approach with digital capture. Even Kodak, which has pushed digital awfully hard, has admitted in their mag that film is way past what you can get digitally in terms of range.

As to the argument put forth elsewhere in the thread that the 'cartoony' look is a deliberate one ... I don't buy that for a second. I have seen a few shots from TosReMarketed that aren't horrible (I think they were orbit shots in TOMORROW IS YESTERDAY, but won't swear to that, I've only skimmed past a few times), and those shots DID have the blacks looking right, and they even had virtual lens on that was similar to the ones used for close flybys on the physical model on the original series. If they can do it there, but cartoony it up elsewhere, it is more likely a matter of time and cost, not stylistic intent, since the more photoreal stuff really jumps out compared to the usual hanna-barbera monstrosities.

 

I don't think the Trek shot looks bad at all. I think it looks real. I mentioned that the altitude is different for a reason. And skylark did a great job of explaining where I did not. Thank you skylark.

I'm sorry my example didn't work for you. I suppose a better comparison would have been some shot of an airplane with some land showing below. But when I saw the image of the Enterprise that I quoted, it reminded me greatly of those shuttle images.