& get crystal clear matte lines & optical drop-out!
I'm just funnin' with ya- I watch certain eps as originally produced myself on my 21st century flat screen LCD- it's all good!
It's official: Thank God for Remastered!
- Thread starter darkwing_duck1
- Start date
I'm just funnin' with ya- I watch certain eps as originally produced myself on my 21st century flat screen LCD- it's all good!
I'll be adding more fuel to the fire.
http://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/3x22hd/thesavagecurtainhd0004b.jpg
vs
http://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/3x22hd/thesavagecurtainhd0004.jpg
I mean HOLY COW, TOS effects look bad in HD!!! That matte line is like a centimeter thick, the lighting is horrible and it's totally blurred out. This doesn't look like an 11 foot model or a 300 meter long ship, it looks like a 30 centimeter model kit.
Conversely, though, the new effect (which is rather lovely, no question) does not look anything at all like what could have been accomplished in 1969.
Why? What is in there that could not have been accomplished?
For one thing, there's no way that shot could have been put together without visible evidence of matte work--even Star Wars couldn't avoid that; witness the traveling mattes and visible matte lines all through that film, as well as the obvious hand animation of shadows in the land speeder sequences . Also, the planet itself is too dteailed and painterly. They could have accomplished that with a matte painting, maybe, but then they would have only been able to show it as a 2D still. The lighting is also too subtle to be something they could have done back then, let alone making it so consistent for all the separate elements. Again, if you compare the state of the art in the cinema of the time--2001, say, or even Star Wars from nearly a decade later (and with the new invention of computerized motion control, which permitted repeat passes for the more subtle lighting effects)--even they don't look as seamless as this. Much of 2001's best effects are in-camera, a sheer impossibility for the TOS-R shot here, and even then, the Discovery is often over-lit.
If one wants Star Trek to look as much like a documentary of actual future events, then yes, TOS-R visuals fit the bill far better than the old effects do. It's patently disingenuous to pretend that these effects look like what they could have accomplished had they a few more thousands of dollars and a couple more weeks to play with. The only way TOS could have pulled off half of these effects is if they had access to 2008 cgi technology.
If one wants Star Trek to look as much like a documentary of actual future events, then yes, TOS-R visuals fit the bill far better than the old effects do. It's patently disingenuous to pretend that these effects look like what they could have accomplished had they a few more thousands of dollars and a couple more weeks to play with. The only way TOS could have pulled off half of these effects is if they had access to 2008 cgi technology.
Tell ya what, give ME a lot of time, money, and different lenses, and I'll serve up some amazing & similar FX WITHOUT CGI or even complex opticals. All models & mini tracks & moving cameras & front-projection (star fields & planetary orbit, mainly), with some animated stills for far off shots.
(I'm into old-school practical)
I think you'd be able to come up with shots that match the best effects work of TOS (the E and Botany Bay side-by-side, for example) or the best in-camera work of Gerry and Sylvia Anderson (Space: 1999) but a shot like the one we're talking about here? I dunno, mister...
Oh trial & error ad nauseum for sure on coordinating movement, and we're talking LOTS of different sized & tinted lights (some rigged to travel with the model- a nightmare unto itself), and take after take... but yeah, I could.
Eventually.
EDIT: this IS, of course, with unlimited time on my side.
It would have the virtue of never having been tried before. Heh.
Last edited:
My 11 year old Son & I just watched Tomorrow Is Yesterday, Remastered with New FX, and old-school DVD.
In the non-R version, we both agreed that many Enterprise shots, grainy & matte-lined as they were , weren't bad at all.
The shot where Enterprise leaves Earth orbit was HORRENDOUS with all the optical drop out ( he asked me where the Enterprise got a cloaking device that early) .
The lack O' Sun was lame.
Fortunately, we watched that one first. The remastered one cured all our sorrows.
FWIW.
In the non-R version, we both agreed that many Enterprise shots, grainy & matte-lined as they were , weren't bad at all.
The shot where Enterprise leaves Earth orbit was HORRENDOUS with all the optical drop out ( he asked me where the Enterprise got a cloaking device that early) .
The lack O' Sun was lame.
Fortunately, we watched that one first. The remastered one cured all our sorrows.
FWIW.
Last edited:
Like a lot of fans, you're confusing "remastered" with "new FX," hence your confusion about my post. The show has been remastered many times since the 1960s original TV run. Every DVD version of TOS has been remastered. There's no "unremastered" Trek out there that you can buy. It's all been remastered.My 11 year old Son & I just watched Tomorrow Is Yesterday, Remastered with New FX, and old-school DVD.
In the non-R version, we both agreed that many Enterprise shots, grainy & matte-lined as they were , weren't bad at all.
The shot where Enterprise leaves Earth orbit was HORRENDOUS with all the optical drop out ( he asked me where the Enterprise got a cloaking device that early) .
The lack O' Sun was lame.
Fortunately, we watched that one first. The remastered one cured all our sorrows.
FWIW.
The latest remaster does not include new FX. The new FX were added to the show after it was remastered in HD. I watch Remastered Trek on blu-ray all the time with the original FX. It's still remastered.
Very good.Hence ALSO my specification "Remastered with New FX."
Thank you.Very good.Hence ALSO my specification "Remastered with New FX."
But I will try to be more specific throughout my posts in future so as not to abuse the shorthand.
I realize it's been a week since this was posted, but I was on the road and didn't see this until today.
What you say is true in many cases. However, since the actors generally are freeze-framed when the beaming effect begins, if you had a background without them it would be a simple matter to do a digital freeze frame of the actors on the frame before the transporter effect starts and replace the effect with a new one. If there's no clean background plate, it's a helluva lot more work!
I a, slowly going through season 1 with the new effects, although my girlfriend likes to rewind and watch with the old effects (so that she can laugh at how bad they were, mind). Anyway we were watching 'The Galileo 7' and I must say the ending was a LOT more comprehensible with the new effects. In the original it's very confusing as to what is going on at the end. In the 'new fx' version it's a lot clearer because the effects aid the story. I know the aren't always great (esp. the shuttle leaving the enterprise, ugh) but they certainly service the story. That's enough for me.
Here: this was a 5-minute set up with a 16 inch model & no Photoshop-
BLUE SUPERNOVA
What say you now?
I say it's very impressive--really, quite lovely--but I stand by my original statement nonetheless.
Buuuuutttt....imagine what I could do with a larger & more detailed model, an ultra high speed Panaflex camera, variable intensity halogen lamps, water droplet & smoke effects and a fan?
If I used CGI at all, it would be to remove unwanted junk like the stand connecting the model to the tracks.
Interesting. I don't recall ever having a hard time understanding what happened, even the first time I saw it when I was around 13 years old.
Doug
I don't know if this is what Destructor means, but for MY part, I had to kind of imagine what I WASN'T seeing...
Similar threads
