Eh I'd disagree, there were quite a few shots of Rogue One where you could probably mistake the Star Destroyers for Physical models.
That is true for many films but unfortunately it does not apply to TOS; those effects shots look terrible.
Eh I'd disagree, there were quite a few shots of Rogue One where you could probably mistake the Star Destroyers for Physical models.
Eh I'd disagree, there were quite a few shots of Rogue One where you could probably mistake the Star Destroyers for Physical models.
Well Rogue One has a significantly higher budget and is newer, so that would be the difference.I haven't seen that movie yet....Thanks, that gives me something additional to look forward to.
Maybe it's seeing the original TOS and then the revised effects. Some things are improved, but the Enterprise looks....off.
Eh I'd disagree, there were quite a few shots of Rogue One where you could probably mistake the Star Destroyers for Physical models.
Yes, of course there is no comparison but the sad fact is the TOS effects are lacking.TOS-R was a decade ago on a shoestring budget. A bit unfair to compare it to a recent blockbuster with state of the art effects and some of the best talent in the business!
No, it was never seen in the series. It's a great shot but at the end you see the camera shadow and the miniature wobbles. They certainly could have used the beginning sequence but they didn'tHad it ever been composited before?
That's what I thought. So it this is a "composite" not a "recomposite. "No, it was never seen in the series. It's a great shot but at the end you see the camera shadow and the miniature wobbles. They certainly could have used the beginning sequence but they didn't
Part of the problem is focus pulling on a model where the DOF (depth of field is low), especially when the camera is dollying towards or away. The low DOF is the most common giveaway that something is small, because we all know what big objects look like at any appreciable distance: the whole thing is always in focus.Honestly, the only problem on the physical models is that they are on lower mm film stock than the live action film itself in the series as shown. I don't know if it was 16 mm or what, but that's why it often looks the way it does, blurry and all. As this shows, other than some of the camera tracking in relation to the background images, the 60s effects are perfectly fine.
One of the most fascinating revelations from the effects footage from the Roddenberry Vaults was how the planet orbit shots were done. I always assumed the effects crew laid down curved track. The raw footage from these discs indicates that the track was straight and the physical model was rotated by a stagehand cranking a mechanism that rotated the model on its support pylon. The documentary about the show's effects was worth the price of these discs for me!Fascinating. I didn't realize there were effects shots there. I thought it was just a few cut scenes sprinkled through out the documentary. Maybe I will have to check it out after all.
One of the most fascinating revelations from the effects footage from the Roddenberry Vaults was how the planet orbit shots were done. I always assumed the effects crew laid down curved track. The raw footage from these discs indicates that the track was straight and the physical model was rotated by a stagehand cranking a mechanism that rotated the model on its support pylon. The documentary about the show's effects was worth the price of these discs for me!
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.