New Enterprise: Model or CG?

[Holytomato]

"The answer is obvious. Build a full-scale Enterprise is orbit and shoot that. Nothing looks more real than real."

I have a better idea. Build a full scale Enterprise blimp. Just like from the Dreadnought prose novel. Have the crew talk about Vulcan mint milkshakes (How Much For Just The Planet?). :thumbsup:



Seriously, it will be CGI. Star Trek: Legacy version. With glowing main nav deflector dish.

ENT was going to use a physical model for the NX-01 but the CGI model was better detailed, and they could control lighting and shadows better.

Star Trek: Exeter was doing test shots with physical models.
They decided they could get better camera angles, and ship movement using CGI models.

Physical models work best with something that doesn't have to move. Like a castle. Ex. Lord of the Rings. No, physical models should totally be dropped.

JJ should ask to borrow the TOS filming model from the Smith. Light it up just like the CGI model, and put the Aztec pattern on it. Then put it among all the CGI ships.

Imagine the outcry:

"JJ says its the physical model from the Smith."

"That LIAR! Traitor! He's just trying to make TRUE Trekkers happy!!!! Its cartoony C G I "

JJ: " ...mmm..its from the Smith. :thumbsup: "

"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"

JJ: "Yes it is."

"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"

JJ: "... "

This would make headlines on Sci Fi magazines.

I remember on another thread someone asked readers to pick the TOS Enterprise CGI model from photos. No one could. They were DS9's Trials and Tribblations, ENT's In a Mirror Darkly, TOS-R's, and the author's own take.

What you saw of the Clonetroopers were actors wearing physical helmets, and even sometimes boots.

 

[Michael Chris]

Well, I can't tell the difference for the most part. Don't really care. I'd say the CG in nuBSG is something to definitely strive for in this case.

 

[trevanian]

Holytomato said:
I remember on another thread someone asked readers to pick the TOS Enterprise CGI model from photos. No one could. They were DS9's Trials and Tribblations, ENT's In a Mirror Darkly, TOS-R's, and the author's own take.

The ds9 TOS was NOT digital, it was just a good physical model lit with way too much fill light and comped badly.

 

[RAMA]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

Dale Hoppert said:

RAMA said:I think this is a popular myth, usually spread by the same people who say they can tell CDs don't sound better than LPs...which of course, is silly.

Absolutely perfect digital audio fidelity is something a lot of us moldy oldies find unpleasant. There is an organic quality to analog recordings - and particularly to LPs - that many find preferable. For one thing you get a much better sense of the room where the performance took place and the ambienece thereof. A digital recording may do a better job of giving you exactly what the artist intended to record, but an LP recording gives you a more "real" experience of the performance. Plus there's the undefinable "warmth" of a needle tracking a groove. Why's that silly?

And I can spot CGI... or at least I do spot CGI often enough for its use to remain a distraction to me.

I was there for LPs, 8-tracks, and tapes and none of them were pleasant.

RAMA

 

[trevanian]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

RAMA said:

Dale Hoppert said:

RAMA said:I think this is a popular myth, usually spread by the same people who say they can tell CDs don't sound better than LPs...which of course, is silly.

Absolutely perfect digital audio fidelity is something a lot of us moldy oldies find unpleasant. There is an organic quality to analog recordings - and particularly to LPs - that many find preferable. For one thing you get a much better sense of the room where the performance took place and the ambienece thereof. A digital recording may do a better job of giving you exactly what the artist intended to record, but an LP recording gives you a more "real" experience of the performance. Plus there's the undefinable "warmth" of a needle tracking a groove. Why's that silly?

And I can spot CGI... or at least I do spot CGI often enough for its use to remain a distraction to me.

I was there for LPs, 8-tracks, and tapes and none of them were pleasant.

RAMA

Relative to WHAT? A live performance from the era? That's gotta be one of your most moronic posts ever, and that's saying a helluva lot.

 

[RAMA]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

trevanian said:

RAMA said:

Dale Hoppert said:

RAMA said:I think this is a popular myth, usually spread by the same people who say they can tell CDs don't sound better than LPs...which of course, is silly.

Absolutely perfect digital audio fidelity is something a lot of us moldy oldies find unpleasant. There is an organic quality to analog recordings - and particularly to LPs - that many find preferable. For one thing you get a much better sense of the room where the performance took place and the ambienece thereof. A digital recording may do a better job of giving you exactly what the artist intended to record, but an LP recording gives you a more "real" experience of the performance. Plus there's the undefinable "warmth" of a needle tracking a groove. Why's that silly?

And I can spot CGI... or at least I do spot CGI often enough for its use to remain a distraction to me.

I was there for LPs, 8-tracks, and tapes and none of them were pleasant.

RAMA

Relative to WHAT? A live performance from the era? That's gotta be one of your most moronic posts ever, and that's saying a helluva lot.

Funny, I always thought I was the reasonable one here.

To answer your rather histrionic question: relative to the format it's recorded in and what its played on. The LPs themselves were a hassle to play, damaged easily, and of course, immediately began to degrade in quality as soon as they were played. Tapes of any kind were worse. I was one of the rare people who actually always put the tapes BACK in their cases and they STILL were chewed up by the players..which has so many mechanical parts, they were bound to degrade from even one playing!

Anyone who says "prefection" isn't pleasant is moronic. There's no proof people can hear any difference between analog and digital...EXCEPT for imperfections in the analog players (tape, record players, etc), or from superior recording and mixing techniques of modern music.

 

[trevanian]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

See, now if you'd just put SOME of that in the earlier post, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I'd just have written you off w/o even posting.

Thanks for clarifying, though.

 

[Holytomato]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

Ahh hah! That's why asking questions is important. If no one asked questions, they would never learn anything. :thumbsup:

 

[Gepard]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

Boys, boys, boys...back on topic. Please.


Now, the important question is, will the Enterprise be equipped with 8-track cassette players? How will we know the film is a prequel if we don't have retro detailing?

I think Uhura needs an LP-player on her comm station. To record incoming calls. Outbound hails will be sent via wax cylinder, which will be ejected through the airlock and caught by the receiving ship. There will be much comedy as a result of incompatible technologies on the alien ships.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

STARTREK11 said:
In nuBSG the shots look blurry,soft focus,speeded up to cheat the viewer,they lack any mass,just whizz by like cartoonish animation.They are fuzzy and just lack any realism what so ever.In fact they remind me of the dreadful shots used in "Space Above and Beyond",which wa also ruined by this problem.I think they may be saving money by cutting on render times and then speeding it up to convince viewers this is a novel special effect but they cant fool me.The shots look cheap and cartoonish and peeded up and fast edited so that if you blink you miss it.fast.

Gee, I'm glad that no one who actually has any connection with the movie thinks that.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Starship Polaris said:

STARTREK11 said:
In nuBSG the shots look blurry,soft focus,speeded up to cheat the viewer,they lack any mass,just whizz by like cartoonish animation.They are fuzzy and just lack any realism what so ever.In fact they remind me of the dreadful shots used in "Space Above and Beyond",which wa also ruined by this problem.I think they may be saving money by cutting on render times and then speeding it up to convince viewers this is a novel special effect but they cant fool me.The shots look cheap and cartoonish and peeded up and fast edited so that if you blink you miss it.fast.

Gee, I'm glad that no one who actually has any connection with the movie thinks that.

Ummm... Dennis... have you, personally, spoken to everyone connected to the movie and know for a fact that what you just said is true?

Are YOU connected to this movie? If so, in what role?

Me, I'm not really connected. I'm a PPC shareholder and I have a few friends in the movie business, including people who are associated with firms that are involved with this film (but none of whom are, at present, working on it).

If you're involved, I think we'd all be interested to know what form your involvement is taking? You could be involved with the SFX work, in theory, or you could be involved with the writing in some fashion... or you could be dating someone on the staff... of you could just be looking into your crystal ball. I'd be interested in knowing which...

 

[JBElliott]

I got a ten out of ten. CGI is the way to go. It's far more versatile than modelling and it looks every bit as good.

 

[trevanian]

Man, take a look at the miniature-heavy EVENT HORIZON and SPACE COWBOYS and GALAXY QUEST before you make claims like cg "looks every bit as good." Point out some spaceship CG stuff (outside of SOLARIS, FIREFLY and some background stuff in FIRST CONTACT) that looks anywhere near as good as the models in those shows.

Until they are working at 4K or 8K, it ain't gonna even be all that close to compare.

 

[RAMA]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

trevanian said:
See, now if you'd just put SOME of that in the earlier post, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I'd just have written you off w/o even posting.

Thanks for clarifying, though.

Sure, its easy to ignore common sense/facts and instead substitute personal bias isn't it? I'm glad you originally tried so hard to speak up and not fall victim to your baser instincts.. :thumbsup:

RAMA

 

[RAMA]

JBElliott said:
I got a ten out of ten. CGI is the way to go. It's far more versatile than modelling and it looks every bit as good.

Exactly, its as I said, versatility of the medium is far more important even than budget. Even if the physical models were that superior to CGI, you still can't film them the way you can with CGI. Combine that with ease in compositing, and no loss in resolution, and CGI is the way to go. There isn't a single starship shot from the STNG movies that looks worse than some of the obvious model work from 1991's STVI.

RAMA

 

[trevanian]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

RAMA said:

trevanian said:
See, now if you'd just put SOME of that in the earlier post, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I'd just have written you off w/o even posting.

Thanks for clarifying, though.

Sure, its easy to ignore common sense/facts and instead substitute personal bias isn't it? I'm glad you originally tried so hard to speak up and not fall victim to your baser instincts.. :thumbsup:

RAMA

Why do you think this is a personal bias? I write about cinematography and visual effects for some percentage of my livelihood, and it doesn't get me any brownie points to spout off on this.

An awful lot of times in the last year or two that we have crossed swords on this. I've made very specific references, and you've 'refuted' them with generalities. Saying TNG flicks have better fx than some TUC model shots is a good example, especially since most TNG shots that have GOOD work are done primarily with model shots.

 

[RAMA]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

trevanian said:

RAMA said:

trevanian said:
See, now if you'd just put SOME of that in the earlier post, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I'd just have written you off w/o even posting.

Thanks for clarifying, though.

Sure, its easy to ignore common sense/facts and instead substitute personal bias isn't it? I'm glad you originally tried so hard to speak up and not fall victim to your baser instincts.. :thumbsup:

RAMA

Why do you think this is a personal bias? I write about cinematography and visual effects for some percentage of my livelihood, and it doesn't get me any brownie points to spout off on this.

An awful lot of times in the last year or two that we have crossed swords on this. I've made very specific references, and you've 'refuted' them with generalities. Saying TNG flicks have better fx than some TUC model shots is a good example, especially since most TNG shots that have GOOD work are done primarily with model shots.

Have we? On TOS-R? I don't recall specifics, perhaps you could refresh my memory, since CGI-models are relevant to this topic also.

Its personal bias to be dismissive of CGI by default. Suggesting modern photo realistic CGI models "don't have weight" and similar claims tend to be based on feelings, impressions and are not necessarily true...or based on facts, hence my analogy to LPs vs CDs.

In terms of STVI era, I think there is the feeling from some, that natural lighting is better than artificial computer lighting, but this "organic" lighting--kind of a misnomer in itself--has to be planned, and quite frankly, the "C" team that worked on STVI weren't very successful at it (though to be fair, some of the them like Bill George, went on to bigger and better things). Some of the close up shots of the E-A seemed like obvious physical models to me, particularly when the photon torpedo ripped through the saucer section. Some of the other problems that may be related to this: It was filmed in super 35, which to my eye, made the depth of field look more like television. The budget may also have something to do with its less than stellar FX.

If I'm correct, there was no physical model work at all on the E-E in Nemesis, and these are my favorite starship movie FX. In terms of imagination, originality, it is true that my favorite FX are from STTMP, circa 1979! Which is not to say that CGI can't be better with the right people at the helm...and in fact some of the FX were improved through CGI in the superior Director's Edition.

To further clarify, I still think that physical models/props are necessary in most FX where live characters interact with scenery and FX, IE: anything from close ups in Jurassic Park, to the Matrix.

RAMA

 

[trevanian]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

Pretty much any thread I've come across in which the virtues of CG are touted, you're there. I'm not talking about exceptional CG like the Cinesite ship stuff in SOLARI, I'm talking about most of the work, which doesn't measure up to a lot of miniature work done in decades past.

I've certainly never heard that the 'c' team worked on TUC ... in fact, TUC supervisor Scott Farrar is kind of the next Dennis Muren of ILM, as he has worked with Muren on recent Spielberg shows, co-supervising. Farrar's association with Trek goes back to shooting the great impulse speed pullaway from the officer's lounge during the drydock departure in TMP, and also includes the still-spectacularly dimensional title starfields from TWOK, which were filmed off a digistar planetarium out-of-state. He also shot most of the stuff for the stealing the E stuff in SFS, which, regardless of how dumb the sequence might be, still works well.

Super 35 was used for LIVE-ACTION on TUC, not for vfx, which were all done in ILM's then-typical VistaVision. You still have the extra generation of grain when going to super 35, but that is offset by the larger vista neg.

I'm at a loss to understand how you can find NEM's fx to be favorites, as the rift stuff looks kinda hanna-barbera unless I take the brightness on my TV down from 60 to about 30 (and the drydock at the end lacks any credibility at any brightness level, unless I take the sharpness down to VHS level.) Some of the bad guy ship shots are okay, and the crash sequence (which was done mostly with inverted miniatures) was good n spots, but honestly, most any E-E cruising by shot in FC completely smokes this stuff (and the Phoenix stuff in FC with the separation of stages looks about as good as anything in any TREK outside of the most gorgeous parts of TMP.)

In fact, I'd say FC and GEN, with a few obvious exceptions, show ILM using predominantly modelwork as being the ideal, since you limit the cg stuff to ship deformation (warp shots and a couple of damage-ship bits) or to short sequences (like the e-b in the nexus.)

Although I love the look of the briar patch in INS, and really love the reveal of Ruafo's ship coming through it early in the film, most of the INS cg is also way too bright and lacks cred. That particular shot I cite as good utilized a process that was extremely time consuming, so they couldn't use it throughout. The modelwork at the end of INS is also good, though it was done in a very compressed timeframe and so it doesn't integrate perfectly (the cg around it doesn't always look right.)

As for the DE's improvements ... I just don't see any improvements, just exchanging one problem for another.

For more info about vfx in TUC, GEN, FC or INS, you can buy the articles I wrote on them for Cinefex.

And again, I reiterate that cg, if done at the proper levels (4k to 8k) and with respect for photorealism, will probably look pretty decent. But that is the exception, not the rule, and if you run EVENT HORIZON model shots alongside NEMESIS CG shots, you can probably make your own re-evaluations, indicating newer doesn't necessarily mean superior.

 

[ST-One]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

Such bad cgi:

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=179&pos=7
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=189&pos=5
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=193&pos=21
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=194&pos=42
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=118&pos=33
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=20&pos=2

 

[trevanian]

Re: New Enterprise: Model or CG?

Thanks for the pics. The fourth one is a model shot, not CG. The fifth one is an example of very good CG. I couldn't get one of the others to come up, but the rest are mediocre cg fx shots.

How about pulling up some shots of the Phoenix from FC? or E-d arcing around veridian from INS? Just so we have some good miniature shots for comparison. Or ANY e-e earth orbit flyby from fc, more great model shots?