Looking for screen cap TMP warp effect

[USS Mariner]

I've always felt the TWOK treatment killed the scale of the model, especially like the shot above.

Also, I'd kill for a larger version of your avatar, Trev.

It's a Quantum of Perfection.

 

[trevanian]

I've always felt the TWOK treatment killed the scale of the model, especially like the shot above.

Also, I'd kill for a larger version of your avatar, Trev.

It's a Quantum of Perfection.

Did you look at it carefully? It ain't exactly Mr Craig once they finished doctoring it. There's a mid-size one at:

http://www.albotas.com/2008/08/rick-astley-is-james-bond/

 

[Maurice]

While I like the warp-effect from TMP better than that from TWOK, I think the overall-lighting on the Enterprise and the new (less glossy) paint-job she got for TWOK are much better (I just like that unrealistic, overlit and stylized lighting-scheme ILM uses).

Look, ma, pencil lines.

Ugh.

 

[USS Mariner]

I've always felt the TWOK treatment killed the scale of the model, especially like the shot above.

Also, I'd kill for a larger version of your avatar, Trev.

It's a Quantum of Perfection.

Did you look at it carefully? It ain't exactly Mr Craig once they finished doctoring it. There's a mid-size one at:

http://www.albotas.com/2008/08/rick-astley-is-james-bond/

Oh, I knew who it was.

I simply couldn't imagine a more timely, and more appropriate avatar for you.

 

[trevanian]

I got an assignment on Monday to cover QUANTUM's director, cinematography and visual effects for ICG magazine, so I have been on the MI6 website this week to study up on it, and brother, I have made myself unpopular there in RECORD time.

And that's WITHOUT the avatar!

 

[ST-One]

You are just arguing for arguing's sake (a bit like me )
The style how the Enterprise was filmed in both TMP and TWOK was vastly different, but neither one style was more 'realistic'

And that beautiful close-up model they built:

 

[trevanian]

That closeup model didn't correspond detailwise with the bigger one too well, but it wasn't meant for intense scrutiny so I guess that is okay.

I think TMP's lighting scheme was definitely tons more realistic than anythign ILM ever even attempted, at least up until TUC (and when ILM tried the direct lighting, almost everybody on this board -- not me though -- called that shot the one where the ship looked like a toy.) ILM also tried to emulate TMP to some degree in GEN, with a measure of success. that would have been carried further in FC, but Paramount didn't like the dark/realistic look and had them turn the light back up.

You can find individual frames in TMP that don't look right, but overall, the attempt is very successful to suggest a single source lighting for in-system stuff and the lit--by-self aspect for deepspace flight. Most of the flaws have to do with the miniature being much smaller than needed given the story/film requirements. Trumbull wanted a model closer to 30 ft in length, which would have let a paintscraper like that dock exit you show actually hold up to scrutiny.

There ARE some good shots of ships from ILM -- the first shot of RELIANT coming to camera before it starts the sneak attack on E looks pretty good -- but they do a lot of softlight and blue-tinged stuff that is really using atmospheric type tricks to make the ship look big, and that is a huge cheat in a space movie, and not realistic at all.

 

[ST-One]

That closeup model didn't correspond detailwise with the bigger one too well, but it wasn't meant for intense scrutiny so I guess that is okay.

When was that ever the case. These close-up models are always more detailed than the model they are supposed to represent. Which is perfectly okay, since you do not need to put ever little detail on a starship (for example) that is supposed to be a few hundred metres long.

I think TMP's lighting scheme was definitely tons more realistic than anythign ILM ever even attempted, at least up until TUC (and when ILM tried the direct lighting, almost everybody on this board -- not me though -- called that shot the one where the ship looked like a toy.) ILM also tried to emulate TMP to some degree in GEN, with a measure of success. that would have been carried further in FC, but Paramount didn't like the dark/realistic look and had them turn the light back up.

I think the shot you are referring to is the warp-jump after Amargosa (that sun) was destroyed.
The lighting-difference between GEN and FC could also be explained by the two Enterprises themselves. The D had a darker paint-job than the E.

There ARE some good shots of ships from ILM -- the first shot of RELIANT coming to camera before it starts the sneak attack on E looks pretty good -- but they do a lot of softlight and blue-tinged stuff that is really using atmospheric type tricks to make the ship look big, and that is a huge cheat in a space movie, and not realistic at all.

There aren't many VFX-shots of spaceships in film that could be considered realistic anyway.
Personally I like the stylized lighting ILM uses. (It is as 'fake' as the lighting on the live-action sets.)

 

[Philo]

Funnny that this is sometimes described as cartoonish, when it's all done with real light, as opposed to the painted trails ILM used in Treks II-IV.

A very complicated effect, once the image of the ship flying off is shot, they had to repeat the move, frame by frame, holding the shutter open as the camera moved, basically keeping the back moving at the same speed as the front moved further and further off, then pulled the trailing edge in for the "pop". If anything, I think it's the star-filter type effect of the "tunnel" that reads a little cartoonish.

Oh yes, the ship streaking effect is beautiful. It's the tunnel effect that's a little off but I can still appreciate it's pure bombastic nature.

Gotta agree with your comments regarding the different lighting schemes as well. ILM's work could sometimes be breathtaking but for the most part I prefer TMP's style, although I wish there had been some more variety in the shots they used. Particularly, it would have been nice if they hadn't relied so much on medium shots. The compositions could be a little boring. Some more long shots (especially in context of the scope of a large screen) could have been pretty spectacular.

But I level that criticism at all Star Trek effects work (even moreso than TMP, which was pretty inspired). A more Leone approach to ship shots would have benefited all of Star Trek greatly. Especially with the later movies, it probably would have reduced a lot of the "felt like an episode of the TV show" feeling.

 

[trevanian]

That closeup model didn't correspond detailwise with the bigger one too well, but it wasn't meant for intense scrutiny so I guess that is okay.

When was that ever the case. These close-up models are always more detailed than the model they are supposed to represent. Which is perfectly okay, since you do not need to put ever little detail on a starship (for example) that is supposed to be a few hundred metres long.

I think TMP's lighting scheme was definitely tons more realistic than anythign ILM ever even attempted, at least up until TUC (and when ILM tried the direct lighting, almost everybody on this board -- not me though -- called that shot the one where the ship looked like a toy.) ILM also tried to emulate TMP to some degree in GEN, with a measure of success. that would have been carried further in FC, but Paramount didn't like the dark/realistic look and had them turn the light back up.

I think the shot you are referring to is the warp-jump after Amargosa (that sun) was destroyed.
The lighting-difference between GEN and FC could also be explained by the two Enterprises themselves. The D had a darker paint-job than the E.

All the warp drives shots in GEN are CG, so I don't think so. John Knoll at ILM, who supervised gen & fc, had a very specific look in mind -- probably best characterized by the -d's 'entrance' shot in GEN, approaching Amorgosa -- and was very disappointed to have to brighten things up in FC.


And according to SF modelling sites, the ILM scaled up engineering section is not accurate or detailed relative to the regular model. They did it really quickly, and while it looks sorta okay in TWOK, it looks pretty bad for the quick torp shot in SFS (I didn't even remember that model was reused there till somebody else pointed it out.)

The so-called toy-looking shot in TUC is when the BOP circles the refit which is seen on the bop viewscreen.

 

[cardinal biggles]

^Here's two screencaps from the good folks at TrekCore:

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tuc/ch12/tuc0614.jpg
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tuc/ch12/tuc0615.jpg

trevanian, is it possible they dragged that partial model out of storage for this shot as well?

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tuc/ch12/tuc0661.jpg

 

[RyanKCR]

^Here's two screencaps from the good folks at TrekCore:

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tuc/ch12/tuc0614.jpg
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tuc/ch12/tuc0615.jpg

That's that horrible shot. Chang is firing at a toy model.

 

[Data Holmes]

^Here's two screencaps from the good folks at TrekCore:

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tuc/ch12/tuc0614.jpg
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tuc/ch12/tuc0615.jpg

That's that horrible shot. Chang is firing at a toy model.

That's one of the best shots, from a realism standpoint, though.

 

[trevanian]

^Here's two screencaps from the good folks at TrekCore:

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tuc/ch12/tuc0614.jpg
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tuc/ch12/tuc0615.jpg

trevanian, is it possible they dragged that partial model out of storage for this shot as well?

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tuc/ch12/tuc0661.jpg

If they did, they also did a great job lighting it, because I didn't even remember this shot. I didn't see the model when I was there either (the oversize dish WAS on a wall), but your notion
does make sense given the angle.

 

[cardinal biggles]

I'm thinking it might be, because when they show the Enterprise firing again from the opposite side of the ship, you get the lower sensor dome in the frame.

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tuc/ch12/tuc0673.jpg

Here it's like the saucer isn't even there. There's also that "Enterprise" name on the side of the hull where the launcher is; there's no such marking on the model elsewhere in the film, nor do you have that tiny (and sourceless!) spotlight on that patch of hull. Not conclusive, but reasonable circumstantial evidence, I'd say.

 

[Procutus]

Hmm. I get better special effects holding a CD up to a light. But STTMP came out when we were still spinning 45s and LP records, so I guess it ain't bad.

Now, now.
That effect still looks good. Even today.

Overall, I think the FX in TMP have stood up quite well over time, even compared to the CGI orgy-fests that comprise most movie visuals these days.

And before it's pointed out to me, yes, I know that CGI were utilized in the DE version of the DVD. But they matched up nicely to 1979 visual technology.

 

[ST-One]

All the warp drives shots in GEN are CG, so I don't think so. John Knoll at ILM, who supervised gen & fc, had a very specific look in mind -- probably best characterized by the -d's 'entrance' shot in GEN, approaching Amorgosa -- and was very disappointed to have to brighten things up in FC.

Just pointing out:

The CG-shot:

not that dark compared to

or this

For a ship this white, the Enterprise-E is filmed quite dark.
Comparing these images, I'd say that the lighting-schemes are more or less the same.

 

[ST-One]

Hmm. I get better special effects holding a CD up to a light. But STTMP came out when we were still spinning 45s and LP records, so I guess it ain't bad.

Now, now.
That effect still looks good. Even today.

Overall, I think the FX in TMP have stood up quite well over time, even compared to the CGI orgy-fests that comprise most movie visuals these days.

And before it's pointed out to me, yes, I know that CGI were utilized in the DE version of the DVD. But they matched up nicely to 1979 visual technology.

Agreed.

 

[trevanian]

All the warp drives shots in GEN are CG, so I don't think so. John Knoll at ILM, who supervised gen & fc, had a very specific look in mind -- probably best characterized by the -d's 'entrance' shot in GEN, approaching Amorgosa -- and was very disappointed to have to brighten things up in FC.

Just pointing out:

The CG-shot:

not that dark compared to

or this

For a ship this white, the Enterprise-E is filmed quite dark.
Comparing these images, I'd say that the lighting-schemes are more or less the same.

Might want to compare the d orbit veridian shot (consciously designed as an homage to the original series by Bill George) with the e orbit earth shots, which are pretty bright. They have that awful noclouds earth in FC, and that messes with the credibility as well.

I think what you're seeing in your frames is that there is a really good key light in both movies, so there is a good dynamic range and contrast maintained. The black levels are what sells it, and if you have enough contrast and really good black levels, then people like me don't have to keep adjusting their TV sets. Part of the fx guy's issue was that because Par took so long approving the design, they only had a week or so to paint this 10 ft miniature. I have a feeling there were compromises on the paint job, but it still looks different in different lighting schemes (compare your e in neb stuff with, as I indicated earlier, the e in earth orbit and e in earth orbit spacewalk stuff.)

But I think Knoll's work was really good in both. I liked that the -B stuff had its own look as well, consistent to a degree with previous movies, and the cg -b is one of the best matches to a miniature in terms of lighting and texture that I've ever seen.

 

[ST-One]

Might want to compare the d orbit veridian shot (consciously designed as an homage to the original series by Bill George) with the e orbit earth shots, which are pretty bright. They have that awful noclouds earth in FC, and that messes with the credibility as well.

This ship has a much lighter color, the light sources come from different directions, the difference isn't that big.

I think what you're seeing in your frames is that there is a really good key light in both movies, so there is a good dynamic range and contrast maintained. The black levels are what sells it, and if you have enough contrast and really good black levels, then people like me don't have to keep adjusting their TV sets. Part of the fx guy's issue was that because Par took so long approving the design, they only had a week or so to paint this 10 ft miniature. I have a feeling there were compromises on the paint job, but it still looks different in different lighting schemes (compare your e in neb stuff with, as I indicated earlier, the e in earth orbit and e in earth orbit spacewalk stuff.)

But I think Knoll's work was really good in both. I liked that the -B stuff had its own look as well, consistent to a degree with previous movies, and the cg -b is one of the best matches to a miniature in terms of lighting and texture that I've ever seen.

Agreed

BTW:
Here is another example of a close-up model having different details and shapes than the actual hero-model:

Close-up:

Hero-model: