do you think TOS should have been remastered?
- Thread starter Clym
- Start date
Ok, I'll give you the Botany Bay. But the D7 is not some dark, flat, battleship grey. It's very clearly two toned in those pictures, especially the lower one where you can see the green and purple tints. In a lot of shots the Enterprise is also obviously as green as it's shooting model, another color sucked away by the Remaster. There is nothing flat or grey about these shots.
These are HD screen shots right from the show. I really don't see how these are in anyway awful or unusable.
These are HD screen shots right from the show. I really don't see how these are in anyway awful or unusable.
I know I'm responding to myself, but here's the shot I was referring to. It's even worse when it's moving.
For comparison, this is the shot it replaced.
Both images are from Trekcore.
Neil
Yep. Most Trek fans know by know which angles are the most iconic or photogenic for the ships and we expect them as the bread and butter. Straight overhead or below shots can be used here and there but there has to be a good reason for it (think of the Mutara Nebula battle in Wrath of Khan).
Wouldn't it be nice if they took the actual Enterprise model from the Smithsonian after it's restored and just reshoot it for a future TOS remaster. It wouldn't be able to get more authentic than that.
Other than that, I wonder if the original compositing materials are available (ala the TNG remastering) where they could simply digitally composite the original Enterprise back in and lose the optical printing noise.
It's all pie in the sky at this point because I doubt they'll go back again, but just throwing it out there.
Other than that, I wonder if the original compositing materials are available (ala the TNG remastering) where they could simply digitally composite the original Enterprise back in and lose the optical printing noise.
It's all pie in the sky at this point because I doubt they'll go back again, but just throwing it out there.
I don't really clearly see two tone paint and I surely don't see purple (my understanding is the original filming model was painted grey with a light green underside). Though regardless of how it may have been painted, as for the color of the filming models in person, my point is that is usually pretty far removed from what they looked like onscreen.
Last edited:
The issue with that is that under the resolution we have now the 11 footers's "compromises" would be more obvious than what could be seen on old CRT screens. It would be far better to construct a photorealistic CGI model and recreate the original shots as seen in TOS.
Call Doug Drexler. He'll know what to do. One of the reasons his CGI model resonates so well is that he built it as 11 ft. long rather than 947 ft. and figured out what kind of lenses that must have been used to film the 11 footer. He also learned to closely approximate the lighting used.
I see it. If you don't ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Well at least you "gave me" the Botany Bay not being red onscreen. But I bet if you look hard enough though you'll see that too.
Actually subjectivity means things are not always obvious and there are few if any indisputable facts when it comes to the onscreen color of TOS filming miniatures. That's why I can't add the color of the Botany Bay or Klingon ships to the list of alleged remastered atrocities.
I re-read my post, no there's nothing remotely confusing about the quote from me you post. Probably not me then. I'd have corrected it if it was, but there's no need.
Yes, I was referring to CBs and the Okudas.
So I'm gathering you're not getting the gist yet......The claim by some "purists" here is that the CGI Fx are too crisp, to high quality for the interior set shots of even the remastered version of the show. They are said to be glaring and take one out of those versions. Yet, on the other hand we are told they are low quality CGI and do not look good as the old models. In other words, nostalgia driven people are trying desperately to make the remastering fit into their version of reality instead of reality itself because some dared to upgrade for modern HD.
CGI that was not designed from the outset to be in a somewhat 60s style (softer, less detailed than say, Enterprise from around that time) as the remastering was would be even more obvious. You are somehow arguing that it WOULD not be and are contradicting the other "purists".
Yes, I've seen the CGI on a large 4K TV...the CGI is much better than the original models which were shot and printed with analog printers, and with lighting we would not use today with tons of visible matte lines, etc. The model work was primitive even compared to 70s tv shows, much less the CGI of the remastering with the benefit of 40 years of improvement. I have yet to watch more than a few minutes of ANY of the episodes with old FX, why would I?
So yeah, this:
Ia better than this:
This..
Than this:
This..(and wow is this bad)
This over..
This (oh no, the matte lines :-()
Good:
Not so good..
Well..
You get the picture(it seems silly and a hopelessly uneven match even comparing these).
I could go on endlessly, I guess the conclusion is pretty easy to reach..but I'm not hoping for 20/20 vision.
As for the potential of model work, well certainly models would have worked fine, but it's not even remotely a logistical or economical possibility to recreate the shots from TOS in HD with physical models or practical FX in a speedy amount of time. Why is this even a question??
RAMA
"I could go on endlessly, I guess the conclusion is pretty easy to reach..but I'm not hoping for 20/20 vision"
Yeah, neither are we.
Dude we ALL get the "gist" as you put it.
You don't like the old FX.
That's fine.
Don't like them, that is your right.
There are a lot of old fx shots that I don't like either. Most of the bad ones are because of matte lines, re-used film stock, and bad color correction. All due to lack of resources and the limitations 1960's technology. However, there is NO EXCUSE now. There are no matte lines, re-used film stock, or color correction issues to deal with, so if the effects suck now it is because someone sucks at making them.
The difference here is that I have respect for original effects work because they had nothing. They had a blank page and look what they accomplished. CBSD had everything already established and conveniently layed out for them and look what they did.
OUR point (or the majority of us anyway) is that the CBSD effects are unacceptable sub-par CGI. The fact that it is even possible for some of the effects shots from a 1960's television show to look better than effects made over 40 years later only underscores our point.
The new effects should have/could have been A LOT better. In fact, they should have consistently put the old effects to shame, but they didn't.
Star Trek deserves better than that.
It deserves realistic looking effects that seamlessly blend into the live action footage.
Eden FX demonstrated that it could be done at the time, but CBS played it cheap.
As for your this is better than this comparison...
And finally, CBSD 's effects are so low end that you can even see THIS!
I mean c'mon!
Polygons?
That's pretty lousy work for an iconic show like Star Trek don't you think?
If they are good enough for you then by all means, enjoy them.
Here is the bottom line.
Do some of CBSD's shots look better? YES
Do some of the original shots look better? YES
Shouldn't all of the effects look better considering Star Trek was made 50 years ago?
ABSOLUTELY!
So let's get there on the next attempt.
I'm pretty much done on this topic.
It's all subjective anyway.
You like what you like, and I'll like what I like.
I'm fine with that
Someday when the 4k versions are done (or I get the financing to redo the effects myself-whichever comes first) maybe you'll see what most of us were squawking about.
Or maybe you won't.
"I'm not hoping for 20/20 vision"
Peace
Spockboy
Last edited:
You can tell the Klingon ship has a two-tone paint job in some shots. Anyway, thanks to voodoo of the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, here's info on the Klingon ship (link), with the following notable quotation:
Bear in mind it's possible the model may have had some paint changes made after it was delivered by AMT, so even if it was one shade of grey when it arrived it might've gotten a two-tone paintjob before it went before the cameras. As to the "purple" it could be that the grey color had a purplish cast to it or the way it was lit the grayish painted parts picked up a cast from the lighting that didn't show as well on the greenish (some modelmakers refer to that shade as "celery") bits.
As to the Botany Bay, there's this pic from the Idic Page (same photo is on the Star Trek Prop authority site with the copyright painted out):
The NASM reports the model's size as 31" in length, 20" width, and 7.5" height. The NASM also reports the original colors to be grey and pale green. Silver detail sections of the model were originally an adhesive mylar. UPDATE (March 7, 2004): A source who wished to remain anonymous, who had a direct connection to the studio model, gave me the following measurements of the studio model. These are approximations: length 28.5" and width (widest at engines) 19.5". The source, who I consider to be very reliable, said that the studio model was designed as a 2X prototype for the AMT model kit, which was pantographed down to kit size. In other words, if you need to know a dimension, just get it from the model kit and multiply by 2.
Bear in mind it's possible the model may have had some paint changes made after it was delivered by AMT, so even if it was one shade of grey when it arrived it might've gotten a two-tone paintjob before it went before the cameras. As to the "purple" it could be that the grey color had a purplish cast to it or the way it was lit the grayish painted parts picked up a cast from the lighting that didn't show as well on the greenish (some modelmakers refer to that shade as "celery") bits.
As to the Botany Bay, there's this pic from the Idic Page (same photo is on the Star Trek Prop authority site with the copyright painted out):
Last edited:
Mic drop.
CBS D knew the color was in there. They remastered the original footage and got this. It is an atrocity that they ignored it completely when they knew better than anyone it was there.
Last edited:
The Remastering should have happened, but CBS took the cheap way to do the CGI, putting everything on a shoestring budget while adding huge time constraints not allowing even CBS Digital the time required to actually polish the effects to a current (2006) standard..now, on my HDTVs and 4K set, I do find the old grainy effects rather jarring (multiple exposures of the same film stock really don't clean up well) but I do think the new effects could have been better..but it's really all about the stories..and the characters..
If you have limited resources you pick between quality and quantity. It appears CBS tried to split the difference or went for quantity. If I'd been in charge of that I'd have given priority to the former re the spaceships: basically build a library of CGI stock shots where emphasis was placed on the lighting and the camera moves and putting as much effort as possible into making sure the models could hold up. That Klingon ship is complete rubbish: a crappy low-poly eyesore that ruins the lines of the second most iconic ship in the show. 
Last edited:
You can tell the Klingon ship has a two-tone paint job in some shots. Anyway, thanks to voodoo of the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, here's info on the Klingon ship (link), with the following notable quotation:
The NASM reports the model's size as 31" in length, 20" width, and 7.5" height. The NASM also reports the original colors to be grey and pale green. Silver detail sections of the model were originally an adhesive mylar. UPDATE (March 7, 2004): A source who wished to remain anonymous, who had a direct connection to the studio model, gave me the following measurements of the studio model. These are approximations: length 28.5" and width (widest at engines) 19.5". The source, who I consider to be very reliable, said that the studio model was designed as a 2X prototype for the AMT model kit, which was pantographed down to kit size. In other words, if you need to know a dimension, just get it from the model kit and multiply by 2.
Bear in mind it's possible the model may have mad some paint changes made after it was delivered by AMT, so even if it was one shade of grey when it arrived it might've gotten a two-tone paintjob before it went before the cameras. As to the "purple" it could be that one of the colors had a purplish cast to it or the way it was lit the grayish painted parts picked up a cast from the lighting that didn't show as well on the greenish (some modelmakers refer to that shade as "celery") bits.
As to the Botany Bay, there's this pic from the Idic Page (same photo is on the Star Trek Prop authority site with the copyright painted out):
Here are some more pics for you.
First the original (two tone) Klingon miniature...
And the original Botany Bay...
Spockboy
Last edited:
But of course it is. Ugh.
Similar threads
