There's not been much in the way of improved model work for TV to compare it with - everyone's gone CG. 
How redesigned will the movie be?
- Thread starter broberfett
- Start date
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Everyone has gone CG, but unfortunately this current work still can't compare to the excellent motion control work that characterized DS9 and later TNG. Just because you can make the ships do 720 degree moves in CG doesn't mean they look any more realistic (and they don't, obviously.)
"Battlestar Galactica," "Firefly" and even "Farscape" surpassed Trek long, long ago in terms of the visual plausibility and "realism" of the effects work.
Nostalgic recall is the only reason that people can pretend that television model work on Trek compares well with current CG techniques. Of course, the CG used in "Star Trek" in later years doesn't compare well with current work either.
Nostalgic recall is the only reason that people can pretend that television model work on Trek compares well with current CG techniques. Of course, the CG used in "Star Trek" in later years doesn't compare well with current work either.
I have to agree with Dennis to a large extent here. But I think we're arguing TOOLS rather than ART, and that's the wrong argument to be having.
CGI is one "brush" in the artist's pallet, while models are another. Hell, cell animation is another (aka "rotoscoping").
Basically, all of these are there for use where and when they do the job best. Each has advantages, and yes, each has disadvantages. It's up to the artist to determine which tool is right for which job.
There are times that CGI gets used where it's not the best tool for the job (but it's the CHEAPEST or EASIEST tool) and in those cases, we often find ourselves noticing "hokey CGI." As I said earlier, this is mainly an issue with chaotic phenomena... smoke, flame, water, fine particles... and current-day work with those usually involves "fudging" the features by the use of filmed live-action elements. If you try to do those with pure CGI, it's almost always "fake" to the naked eye. Which is NOT to say that this will always be the case... the tools are always improving. But so far, computers just don't do chaos very well.
On the other hand, well-ordered systems (like, say, spacecraft flying in space) are VERY well-suited towards CGI. You can model things that would be difficult if not impossible to do in a real model (such as having a full interior, properly lit, with real little people inside!). You can move the camera without having to worry about avoiding "mounting stand points" on the physical model or lighting cables or whatever. You can adjust the camera to be, effectively, in the same scale as the model (meaning that the model will "photograph" as though it were full-sized). You can totally eliminate the issue of atmospheric scattering that is UNAVOIDABLE with real models (unless you shoot your models in a vacuum chamber!). You can make your lighting be like the real lighting conditions in space would be (even if that would make audiences say "that looks fake").
Basically, with the exception of certain damage scenarios involving chaotic phenomena (the original Death Star explosion was far better than the later CGI-ed one, for example), there's not much justification for spacecraft modeling to be done any other way but CGI these days.
The trick is to realize that the CGI is just the brush. The artist should still be trying to accomplish the exact same thing either way. If someone makes something dramatically different in CGI than they would have done with a model, "just because I can"... that's an ideal example of "bad art," I think.
The idea shouldn't be altered just because the tool lets you... the tool should be used to best approximate the original idea.
Otherwise, you get annoying "kewl CGI things" like funky organic shapes that are totally impractical (but quite easy to model in CGI), abusive levels of use of things like lens-flares or "shakeycam" stuff... things that don't add to the presentation, but are just there because the artist said "I CAN, SO I WILL."
Make sense?
CGI is one "brush" in the artist's pallet, while models are another. Hell, cell animation is another (aka "rotoscoping").
Basically, all of these are there for use where and when they do the job best. Each has advantages, and yes, each has disadvantages. It's up to the artist to determine which tool is right for which job.
There are times that CGI gets used where it's not the best tool for the job (but it's the CHEAPEST or EASIEST tool) and in those cases, we often find ourselves noticing "hokey CGI." As I said earlier, this is mainly an issue with chaotic phenomena... smoke, flame, water, fine particles... and current-day work with those usually involves "fudging" the features by the use of filmed live-action elements. If you try to do those with pure CGI, it's almost always "fake" to the naked eye. Which is NOT to say that this will always be the case... the tools are always improving. But so far, computers just don't do chaos very well.
On the other hand, well-ordered systems (like, say, spacecraft flying in space) are VERY well-suited towards CGI. You can model things that would be difficult if not impossible to do in a real model (such as having a full interior, properly lit, with real little people inside!). You can move the camera without having to worry about avoiding "mounting stand points" on the physical model or lighting cables or whatever. You can adjust the camera to be, effectively, in the same scale as the model (meaning that the model will "photograph" as though it were full-sized). You can totally eliminate the issue of atmospheric scattering that is UNAVOIDABLE with real models (unless you shoot your models in a vacuum chamber!). You can make your lighting be like the real lighting conditions in space would be (even if that would make audiences say "that looks fake").
Basically, with the exception of certain damage scenarios involving chaotic phenomena (the original Death Star explosion was far better than the later CGI-ed one, for example), there's not much justification for spacecraft modeling to be done any other way but CGI these days.
The trick is to realize that the CGI is just the brush. The artist should still be trying to accomplish the exact same thing either way. If someone makes something dramatically different in CGI than they would have done with a model, "just because I can"... that's an ideal example of "bad art," I think.
The idea shouldn't be altered just because the tool lets you... the tool should be used to best approximate the original idea.
Otherwise, you get annoying "kewl CGI things" like funky organic shapes that are totally impractical (but quite easy to model in CGI), abusive levels of use of things like lens-flares or "shakeycam" stuff... things that don't add to the presentation, but are just there because the artist said "I CAN, SO I WILL."
Make sense?
trevanian
Rear Admiral
It might make sense, but it doesn't change my essential and eternal disagreement with the other poster, which is that 'newest' in no way shape or form always means better. I would swear on a stack of agnostic bibles that I find 90% of WAY OF THE WARRIOR to look better than any VOYAGER cg shot, and while I think a good deal of FIREFLY and ALL of the ship stuff in SOLARIS is as good as most miniature work, they were are and remain EXCEPTIONS to the rule. Sweeping judgements about more recent productions being preferable in terms of visual credibility are suspect -- since there's no visible evidence to support them on any consistent basis. Much as I enjoyed FARSCAPE, the exterior stuff rarely even had decent blurring, which sets the fx back pre-SW if we're talking modelwork.
Then again, 2001 was pre-SW, and most of the stuff there is still as good or better than most of what followed.
It is NOT a matter of methodology, I agree with you on that; however, as long as the method used relies on a compressed time span for its process, something suffers (usually the image.) When you start seeing spaceship cg at 4K or 8K, if you have good artists involved, you probably won't see me pissing and moaning anywhere near as much. But for now, a lot of this stuff looks closer to seaQuest than to DS9, and to me, that AIN'T a good thing.
Then again, 2001 was pre-SW, and most of the stuff there is still as good or better than most of what followed.
It is NOT a matter of methodology, I agree with you on that; however, as long as the method used relies on a compressed time span for its process, something suffers (usually the image.) When you start seeing spaceship cg at 4K or 8K, if you have good artists involved, you probably won't see me pissing and moaning anywhere near as much. But for now, a lot of this stuff looks closer to seaQuest than to DS9, and to me, that AIN'T a good thing.
Even Star Trek: New Voyages, Star Trek: Exeter, Star Trek: Farragut, the Star Trek: TAS online comics, Star Trek: Legacy, Star Trek: Enterprise use CG instead of physical models. :thumbsup:
Actually, Exeter has used a combination of techniques. All of the outer space stuff except for a couple of pieces of debris has been CG.
However, we've effectively used miniatures for corridors aboard the Kongo, the destroyed Kongo engine room, the Tholian character "Tho'Kess" and the crashed Kongo saucer. These models have been created for us by MinneFex in Minneapolis and by Thomas Sasser. We've also combined those techniques with digital mattes created by Bruce Jensen.
The need (or lack of it) for motion-controlled movement is one of the determining factors for us low-budget types. It's much easier, less time-consuming and less expensive to get good complex motion effects and composites with CG than with models. If you simply need an object to move a little bit against a background that can be filmed without compositing - like the Tholian puppet - or are filming an environment with no motion other than a camera pan, you can get a much more plausible effect with a miniature than with CG.
There are a few shots in "Tressaurian" that combine miniature photography with live action and with digital matte work - the beam-in to the Kongo Engineering Control Room and the Corinth IV "crash reveal" (also known as the "Planet Of The Apes Reveal" to some of us who worked on it) and they were very time consuming.
However, we've effectively used miniatures for corridors aboard the Kongo, the destroyed Kongo engine room, the Tholian character "Tho'Kess" and the crashed Kongo saucer. These models have been created for us by MinneFex in Minneapolis and by Thomas Sasser. We've also combined those techniques with digital mattes created by Bruce Jensen.
The need (or lack of it) for motion-controlled movement is one of the determining factors for us low-budget types. It's much easier, less time-consuming and less expensive to get good complex motion effects and composites with CG than with models. If you simply need an object to move a little bit against a background that can be filmed without compositing - like the Tholian puppet - or are filming an environment with no motion other than a camera pan, you can get a much more plausible effect with a miniature than with CG.
There are a few shots in "Tressaurian" that combine miniature photography with live action and with digital matte work - the beam-in to the Kongo Engineering Control Room and the Corinth IV "crash reveal" (also known as the "Planet Of The Apes Reveal" to some of us who worked on it) and they were very time consuming.
Jimm Johnson has a real respect for the fx techniques that were used on the original Trek series. I'm sure we'd use more miniatures and less CG if it were practical.
The transporter sparkle effect used on Exeter is a physical effect that Jimm worked out many years ago based on the TOS technique, though it's digitally matted of course. In the Trek movies everything from physical effects to cel animation to digital effects have been used over the years. I think the physical effect is still the best - pretty much for the reasons that Ron Thornton articulated years ago using the example of sand falling from a steam shovel.
The transporter sparkle effect used on Exeter is a physical effect that Jimm worked out many years ago based on the TOS technique, though it's digitally matted of course. In the Trek movies everything from physical effects to cel animation to digital effects have been used over the years. I think the physical effect is still the best - pretty much for the reasons that Ron Thornton articulated years ago using the example of sand falling from a steam shovel.
