Farragut pic is a faaaaaaake!!!!

I'm doubtful on that. While it's possible, I doubt it's the case. It's more likely the the already saturated scene isn't as clear on the reduced-image blu-ray grabs that are circulating out.

But, if you want to back this up, feel free to post the proof. Forgive me if I'm not going to cite 'he told me' considering the rediculousness of the rest of this thread.

 

(You're wrong and you'll see that eventually.)

 

I did post the proof.

 

...what? There's one saucer in that shot. I don't even know what you're talking about.

ETA: I checked my DVD-quality copy and it's one saucer. There's even an overhead wide shot of it before the shot in question that shows the saucer is nowhere near any other debris that could be overlapping it the way you describe.

I don't have a copy of the Blu-ray version, but I took the closest possible screencap from the thrid trailer in HD. This frame is just coming out of a cross-fade with Scotty on the bridge, so it's a little faint. The "OWE" is barely visible inside the red oval (it was clearer before I scaled it down so Flickr would accept the file). It's difficult to tell from the compression, but it doesn't look like there's any other markings in the areas where the "FARRAG" shows up in the smaller cap.

Is there anyone here who has a Blu-ray copy who could chime in? I'm not interested in...obtaining... 13 gigs of data just to address one Internet argument.

 

Actually.. forget it.

I think I'm going to get laid tonight. You guys do what you want.

 

Classy.

 

Here's the exact Farragut-free frame that will be coming to all of us on Blu-ray in the near future. (Yes, if you must ask, to me as well, as I will surely buy it the day it goes on sale just as I have bought everything else Trek that has come out on Blu-ray.) You can't read much beyond the "OWE" of Mayflower in this shot, but in other frames you can read at least the "flower" pretty well.

(And yes, this is all kind of silly, but it is trivially quick these days to grab this stuff and post it, so here it is.)

 

^I'd say that frame pretty much settles it.

Now I have to go get laid too.

 

Oddly, why can't you see the OTHER letters of Mayflower which actually should be clearly visible there.. but is not... (you can kind of make out the L, but the R is completely missing)

Damage lines are less cluttered, there's a little less debris and wreckage all around, and the colors and flares are far less saturated. It actually DOES look like a 'recut' of the special effects. (Again, RE: Transformers, which did similar things for its HD release)

 

Thanks, everyone. Sorry things had to get so dramatic over something so trivial.

 

I can't see shit.. The features on the wrecked hull are all dark and blurry. Maybe someone could do some photo-enhancement?

 

You guys are so slow. I already have my DVD AND I already got laid tonight. It is good to have friends.

 

Since a saucer with "Mayflower" on it is in two places at once, there may have been some repurposing of meshes or textures to fill out the wreckage with no intention that anyone should be analyzing it so closely. As for how the "Farragut" got on the image from the old thread, who knows?

(BTW, does your significant other know you're posting this from your bed? )

 

I'm married, takes more work - and I generally have to wait until she's done with HER online stuff. :P

 

That makes sense as far as Abrams would think.. but, it requires forgetting exactly which franchise you're working on! (It didn't help that people BTS told me that that was the Farragut...)

I checked some earlier graphics of that sequence for it, but I can't make out crap with all the dust and debris in the quick shots. I can't even make out the bolder Mayflower lettering except in the second cut-away.

It really does look like this is a much clearner cut. (Which is good, I thought the shots in the movie were often too busy.)

See above.

 

I don't think that needs to be Abrams' decision, nor involve anyone "forgetting" anything. ILM had X amount of time to do Y number of shots containing Z amount of details. It's inevitable that swapping, altering and editing of texture files, meshes, and other elements would be used somewhere.

Remember the kitbash ships from DS9? Those were put together out of desperate model kit parts with no regard for scale, consistency or logic, and that was work done by guys who are just as detail obsessed as many of the folks here are. They just needed to fill up a fleet fast, and they did so however they could.

 

Actually, I do make out the 'R' now, though barely. It doesn't seem right. The new shot composition is many times better, to be sure. Hope this is indicative of FX improvements throughout.

Once the models are built, it's really not THAT much of a trick to layer the lettering on them. It would be more relavent if they were physical models, but as CGI, the swap is pretty easy.

True, and those WERE physical models.. but even then, they built and painted them in an awful hurry, then stuck them in the back so no one could see the details on screen. Even through DS9, HD imaging wasn't yet on their minds.

 

One of the better, substantive discussions in this forum, lately, insults and all. No joke. Congratulations. Now we can start wondering what happened to that Orion chick again.

 

I love this place. Where the smallest detail is worth a few thousand words.