@Admiral Archer ---- You still playing with this?? I hope you didn't give up due to comments in this thread.
My USS Jenolan Green Screen Visual Effects Test
- Thread starter Admiral Archer
- Start date
Well, I haven't given up on filming miniatures, but I have had some trouble and obstacles in recent attempts. The problem is the blurriness, which I can't tell if it's because of motion or lack of focus. Sorry for the lack of updates, but I didn't want to post anything until there was something to post. This project is far from dead, but it may be a long time before there are any updates. I'm extremely excited about the new Star Trek Discovery Fleet Flyer toys by Gentle Giant, as they have armatures that would be ideal for filming miniatures in visual effects shots. But since they are not going to be released until fall of this year, I've got a few months to kill.
For Christmas, my dad gave me the choice of two Star Trek Eaglemoss ships from the local comic book store. I picked up two ships that I've always loved, (the USS Jenolan from TNG "Relics" and the Antares from TOS "Charlie X") and decided to do a quick visual effects test with the Jenolan. It truly is a wonderful and underrated design IMO, and the Eaglemoss model is spectacular. I picked up some lime green posterboard and filmed this with my iphone, so the quality isn't amazing, but I'm really excited to share with you all what I've come up with. Let me know what you guys think!
I keep waiting for the Star Destroyer behind it.
All right, fine. LOL Here's a bare bones video update, no music or frills, just the effects shots. Once again I used the USS Jenolan model, and I'm back to shooting the ship's movements during filming instead of just placing still images in front of a moving star field. Although it's still pretty shaky, I feel it's a lot less blurry than previous attempts have been ("Hey, I can actually read the registry number!"). I'm planning on building a rig for my camera so I can keep it steady, and any suggestions on how to do so are greatly appreciated. Anyhow, here's hoping I'm still improving. 
Are you eventually going to be filming larger models from farther away?
re camera rigs:
There are all kinds of things you can do, from the cheap-ass to the elaborate.
Aa cheap thing: place the camera atop a small rag or towel atop a (smooth) table, pointing at the model. Then grab two corners of the cloth and pull the camera across the surface like a slide. It'll be steadier than anything you can do handheld.
There are all kinds of things you can do, from the cheap-ass to the elaborate.
Aa cheap thing: place the camera atop a small rag or towel atop a (smooth) table, pointing at the model. Then grab two corners of the cloth and pull the camera across the surface like a slide. It'll be steadier than anything you can do handheld.
Last edited:
Here's something that warrants an update: I found an old trailer for my fan production I had been working on a few years back, and after changing the titles in the trailer from "Star Trek Allegheny" to "Allegheny: A Star Trek Fan Production" I feel it is worth a look to give you some context as to how I began. Now, before you guys proceed to tear me a new one for posting this, please remember that this was highly experimental work, and due to being transferred from disk to disk it has lost a lot of resolution (you can see black pixels in space for some reason in a lot of the exterior shots). Anyway, just thought I'd share this little piece of my own fan made history. Hope you enjoy it as much as I enjoyed finding it again!
No one's going to tear you a new one for that. No one's torn you a new one so far.
But your old test brings up a topic I've mean to point out for people using motion graphics, because I see in it a problem I see in a lot of fan made videos: that the default scaling routine in most programs does not work for portraying an object moving towards or away from you at a constant speed.
Most default scale routines are linear, so for instance, if I scale a ship image from 100% to 10% over a series of 18 frames the scaling will be -5% for each subsequent frame. The effect of this is that the relative difference between sizes of neighboring frames is much greater the smaller the image is, with the result that the ship would appear to be accelerating away from you. Conversely, if you scaled the image up, the subject would appear to be racing towards you at first and slow down the closer it got.
So if you want a scaled still to appear to be moving at a constant velocity you have to use an ease-out or ease-in tool to adjust the scaling ratio at the small end.
I just slapped together the video above to illustrate this.
But your old test brings up a topic I've mean to point out for people using motion graphics, because I see in it a problem I see in a lot of fan made videos: that the default scaling routine in most programs does not work for portraying an object moving towards or away from you at a constant speed.
Most default scale routines are linear, so for instance, if I scale a ship image from 100% to 10% over a series of 18 frames the scaling will be -5% for each subsequent frame. The effect of this is that the relative difference between sizes of neighboring frames is much greater the smaller the image is, with the result that the ship would appear to be accelerating away from you. Conversely, if you scaled the image up, the subject would appear to be racing towards you at first and slow down the closer it got.
So if you want a scaled still to appear to be moving at a constant velocity you have to use an ease-out or ease-in tool to adjust the scaling ratio at the small end.
I just slapped together the video above to illustrate this.
- In the first pass (linear) notice that the ship appears to accelerate away, growing smaller more quickly as it appears to recede.
- In the second pass (eased) notice the impression is reversed. The ship scales more noticeably when it is close and image shrink rate diminishes as it grows smaller, so it much more closely appears to cruising at a constant speed (and in this example, each subsequent image frame is ~98.035% the size of its predecessor).
- The third pass puts them together to illustrate the difference.
Last edited:
Of course, that may be the desired effect. But you make your point well. Definitely somethig to keep in mind.
Hence why I offered the technique.
So, as a follow-up to my note about linear scaling, here's an oddball example of a related illusion from an old arcade game.
The illusion of distance here was created by scaling the number of "clocks" per pixel so that the width of the graphics at the far end of the map was narrower and would feel father away. But since there is no vertical scaling, what ends up happening is that the stuff in the distance appears to be moving towards you faster than the stuff nearby!
The illusion of distance here was created by scaling the number of "clocks" per pixel so that the width of the graphics at the far end of the map was narrower and would feel father away. But since there is no vertical scaling, what ends up happening is that the stuff in the distance appears to be moving towards you faster than the stuff nearby!
Last edited:
Hey all, bad news, and some good news. Bad news first: I made the decision to delete my youtube channel last week, (for personal reasons, and not due to any negative feedback on this site) so none of my former greenscreen tests are online anymore. If you want to see them again, here is the good news: I have since decided to rebuild my youtube channel (AGAIN, I know, it gets frustrating) and I even have a new trailer for a possible fan production online. If anyone wants to see my greenscreen tests online for future reference or whatever, I can re-upload them. Now comes the tricky part: should I continue posting all my updates on this one thread, even though it's not about green screen tests anymore, or should I go ahead and open a new thread for the new fan production and all related discussions?
UPDATE: I once again have access to Adobe After Effects!!! YAY!!! 
And what better way to celebrate than to edit together a short green screen test featuring Star Trek's leading lady, the USS Enterprise NCC-1701 herself, as she appeared in the classic motion pictures! Cheers!
And what better way to celebrate than to edit together a short green screen test featuring Star Trek's leading lady, the USS Enterprise NCC-1701 herself, as she appeared in the classic motion pictures! Cheers!
