• 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!

Doomsday Machine FX test with 11 footer

Not bad...looks more to my liking than that fighter video game that they call the remastered version.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kor
Great job as always, Spockboy. Could anyone in the late 60's even imagine a future where an individual could produce this kind of high quality f/x work without a studio, crew and equipment that cost a fortune, nevermind being able to use the same model from the show to do it. It is really is quite amazing.
 
Last edited:
Great job as always, Spockboy. Could anyone in the late 60's even imagine a future where an individual could produce this kind of high quality f/x work without a studio, crew and equipment that cost a fortune, nevermind being able to use the same model from the show to do it. It is really is quite amazing.
I was thinking the exact same thing when I watched the footage!
 
That's great work.The lighting throws me off, but there's not much that can be done about that. Also the "laser pointer" phasers seem a bit weak for my taste. They look better when they are hitting the Doomsday Machine, but not so much when emitting from the Enterprise.

I enjoy your videos and love seeing the Enterprise back where she belongs.
 
A valiant effort! It was certainly fun to watch! In the spirit of constructive criticism, I'll mention the things that feel off to me, but don't misunderstand: it's a cool project and thanks for sharing with us!

But, I feel the image looks a bit odd, given that the image of the ship itself is just sorta sliding along. Without the changes of parallax of having an actually moving camera, it seems like a cartoon on Adult Swim.

Also the image clarity doesn't match the graininess of the live-action elements. The lights and darks, while believable for space, seem too contrasty when paired together.

But it's better than I could have done, so, I'm still pretty impressed.

--Alex
 
I'm wondering whether the Smithsonian should just put a bluescreen on the unlit side every once and a while just so people can play around better like this.
 
A valiant effort! It was certainly fun to watch! In the spirit of constructive criticism, I'll mention the things that feel off to me, but don't misunderstand: it's a cool project and thanks for sharing with us!

But, I feel the image looks a bit odd, given that the image of the ship itself is just sorta sliding along. Without the changes of parallax of having an actually moving camera, it seems like a cartoon on Adult Swim.

Also the image clarity doesn't match the graininess of the live-action elements. The lights and darks, while believable for space, seem too contrasty when paired together.

But it's better than I could have done, so, I'm still pretty impressed.

--Alex
I appreciate your comments Albertese. As far as the ship goes I was completely confined to what footage was available (including the awkward sliding motion) If I could just spend one day with a motion control set up and "proper" lighting I could really make something outstanding. Ironically, that simplistic sliding motion was more in tune with what was done in the original. Remember the Constellation starting up? (LOL)

As far as the grain I actually added quite a bit. The shot of the Doomsday Machine on the viewscreen was actually done by me as well, using the same grain as the Enterprise, but nobody seemed to notice that. I think it might also be, at least partly, the fact that we are used to seeing the Enterprise ridiculously grainy and have seen it that way for 50 years now. I made the darks "contrasty" to make it look more realistic instead of the 7 suns technique of the original. I was also confined by what type of lighting was used in the Smithsonian footage, which I had nothing whatsoever to do with.

:)Spockboy
 
But, I feel the image looks a bit odd, given that the image of the ship itself is just sorta sliding along. Without the changes of parallax of having an actually moving camera, it seems like a cartoon on Adult Swim.

That's how they did it on Star Trek: The Animated Series most of the time.
 
As I understand it, a lot of the TAS footage of the Enterprise was rotoscoping of the TOS footage. Not all, mind you, but more than you might think.
 
But, I feel the image looks a bit odd, given that the image of the ship itself is just sorta sliding along. Without the changes of parallax of having an actually moving camera, it seems like a cartoon on Adult Swim.

That's how they did it on Star Trek: The Animated Series most of the time.

I've often wondered if the Animated Series could be turned into something wacky akin to Sealab 2021 (an Adult Swim often-surreal often-hilarious animated show based on and apparently using the animation from 1972's Sealab 2020 cartoon). Example:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
(p.s. as an Adult Swim show, this is frequently tasteless. watch with caution.)
The same kind of limited animation lends itself to hilarity if misused. :p
 
As I understand it, a lot of the TAS footage of the Enterprise was rotoscoping of the TOS footage. Not all, mind you, but more than you might think.

Only a few shots of the Enterprise were rotoscoped -- the planet-orbiting shot (sometimes used to represent the ship turning in open space), a shot from the titles of the ship racing toward and over the camera, and the "Cage" opening shot with the tilt-in on the bridge dome. Otherwise, they just used static shots, most frequently the profile flyby.

Here's TAS's main title sequence:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
It include two of the three rotoscoped sequences I mentioned, but as you can see, it mostly uses static shots. The standard profile shot is seen beginning at 0:18, but they cut away just after the nacelles come into view, so you can't really see the lack of perspective shifting there. But they used it constantly in episodes.
 
Yeah, there's a clear difference between the static shots made to slide and the rotoscoped sequences. The static ones are much more painterly and highly rendered, but the rotoscoped sequences use the same cell animation process as the human characters. They are colored very flatly and have the black outlines that the more rendered static images lack.

--Alex
 
but the rotoscoped sequences use the same cell animation process as the human characters.

The ironic thing is, Filmation didn't really use rotoscoping for animating characters at the time, just for the ship. Starting a few years later, though, around the time they did Tarzan: Lord of the Jungle and The New Adventures of Batman, they began making regular use of rotoscoped sequences of live performers doing action moves, with the same movement sequences being reused frequently and often retraced for different characters. It made for much livelier animation than TAS had, though no less repetitive.
 
But, I feel the image looks a bit odd, given that the image of the ship itself is just sorta sliding along.
--Alex

That's the only issue with the FX test, but that's understandable, considering the circumstances with the model. I do like the darker tone to the ship, as it plays as a larger metal object than it would have with the terrible, earlier restoration.

Fascinating test, spockboy!
 
That's great work.The lighting throws me off, but there's not much that can be done about that. Also the "laser pointer" phasers seem a bit weak for my taste. They look better when they are hitting the Doomsday Machine, but not so much when emitting from the Enterprise.

I enjoy your videos and love seeing the Enterprise back where she belongs.

Agreed.
Strengthened the Phasers.

:)Spockboy
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top