You can't just have normal establishing shots of the ships against black space. There's gotta be other things going on to hold peoples' attention for more than 3 seconds or else they might turn the show off!
Improved vfx and models for S2
- Thread starter Rahul
- Start date
What? How?!
= "why does space have to look like space. why can't it look like a 1960's starfield"
views taken from ISS.
I'll add: so far the ship has generally only been seen when it is deep in a a solar system. the various nebulae may be slightly overdone, as ever since Hubble, people expect a lot of that, but the thing is, space DOES look more dramatic out there. Out in deep space not pointed at one of the spiral arms or looking at some gas formation, sure, you'll get your white dots on black field. But of all the criticisms that get thrown at DSC, showing space backgrounds as interesting is one of the more petty ones. THere are always reruns, as long as you don't watch TNG footage that reused the Mutara nebula scenes.
throwing this in as a counterpoint to what I just wrote:
Starman here is not enjoying a dazzling light show due to the angle of the sun, reflection off earth, etc. so yes sky looks black there. There can be times that Discovery could be shown with a black background, but come on.. its boring.
Starman here is not enjoying a dazzling light show due to the angle of the sun, reflection off earth, etc. so yes sky looks black there. There can be times that Discovery could be shown with a black background, but come on.. its boring.
The images taken from Hubble and other telescopes are processed in order to get them to look like that.= "why does space have to look like space. why can't it look like a 1960's starfield"
views taken from ISS.
I'll add: so far the ship has generally only been seen when it is deep in a a solar system. the various nebulae may be slightly overdone, as ever since Hubble, people expect a lot of that, but the thing is, space DOES look more dramatic out there. Out in deep space not pointed at one of the spiral arms or looking at some gas formation, sure, you'll get your white dots on black field. But of all the criticisms that get thrown at DSC, showing space backgrounds as interesting is one of the more petty ones. THere are always reruns, as long as you don't watch TNG footage that reused the Mutara nebula scenes.
Humans can only see a small portion of the light spectrum. Theses telescopes can see a much broader portion of the spectrum. When a photo is taken, the portions that are not visible to the human eye are shifted to frequencies that we can see. Thus you end up with the dense space shots you see above. They look nice, but that's not what space looks like it for us.
This is some deep-digging. Star Trek has had cool/pretty space shots since at least VOY's intro was unleashed. It's never going back to the blank TOS/TNG star-field.
And I'm not saying all the space shots should have the empty star field background. I just think a portion of them should.
Personally, I think the simplicity of a starship juxtaposed against the black background of space has it's own beauty to it.
It's called "space" for a reason.
Personally, I think the simplicity of a starship juxtaposed against the black background of space has it's own beauty to it.
It's called "space" for a reason.
Fair point.
I'm pretty sure one of the S2 trailer shots had the Disco with black hull markings instead of white and red bussard collectors... or am I misremembering? Not that trailer VFX are indicitive of the final product anyway (see: Totally different planetscapes in the Disco S1 trailer to the actual first episode, and Star Trek Beyond's first trailer having a different version of the ship to the final movie)
I think it was just the angle and how the light reflected off the white.
The Bussards are blue in the trailer.
That's a really goofy looking angle there. It makes the ship look cute.... of all things lol.
blue bussards:
darker registry, but i think this is due to lighting:
fairly sure the ship we saw in runaway is the one we'll see in season 2.
Indeed. To the naked eye a nebula would be a faint grayish haze if you were at a distance where you could see the whole thing. And if you were inside it, you wouldn't even be able to see it at all, unlike that murky, colorful, turbulent mess in TWOK.
Kor
Well, the starfields have improved and it seems like they are dialing back the glow-effects a bit. Everyting else is still way to blurry and it's awkwardly lit. Some sharpness and better light sources would really help, I think.
It's still an ugly ship, but that's another topic.
It's still an ugly ship, but that's another topic.
It would be nice if they did though. Because perception of space travel has really been altered due to shows like Star Trek and Stargate.
As was mentioned above, many popular space images are in false colors and maybe contrast stretched.
those images were taken out the window of the ISS and are not "processed in order to get them to look like that"
The act of photographing it is processing it. The light sensitivity on those images is far beyond what the naked eye or an average photo could see. Those are from the night side of Earth. They're lit by a full moon, at most, but the station and the ground look like it's practically high noon. There's plenty of photos and videos at more "natural" levels of exposure where you can see only a handful of stars, and it actually looks like nighttime when it's night.
Those images are created by long exposures with a camera. That's not what the astronauts are actually seeing when they look out the window.
It's a science fiction tv show and adding nebulas and the like is a conceit to make things more interesting visually for the viewer. If you're willing to accept that starships can make sounds in a vacuum but get pissy over space being visually dynamic in a fictional tv show, you need to take a step back and have a think.
Similar threads
