Now is the time for restoration/enhancement of the films

[Therin of Andor]

benny said:
the resolution for TV (especially 1987) wouldn't stand up to the movie screen. Hence why the sets had to be redone. It may have been the same old Enterprise model, but I'd be shocked if a shot was taken directly from EaF and put into the movie.

Just postulating... While Image G did most of the ongoing, cost-effective ship shots for TNG, the more complex, expensive shots of the Enterprise-D for "Encounter at Farpoint" were done by ILM, to provide superior (for the day) stock footage they could use throughout the series.

I assume this footage must have been done the old fashioned way, on film and not on video. EaF was compiled and edited onto video for TV broadcast, but the model work from the premiere episode must still exist as stock footage and this film appeared in the movie?

Never noticed myself.

 

[benny]

Charles Trip Tucker III said:
When you see the Enterprise begin to saucer separate from beneach the ship, that is lifted directly from "Encounter at Farpoint." When the camera angle shifts from below the ship to behind, new footage resumes. I know this, because I've compared screen caps. It's identicle.

I will have to check it out tonight. I usually notice this stuff and never ever noticed it being the same.

It just seems weird that footage created in 1987 and never redone in any way in the intervening 7 years could be used on a movie screen and still look presentable. Wish I had checked this thread last night...

 

[cardinal biggles]

Well, like Therin mentioned, ILM did the majority of the stock footage we saw of the six-foot model over the course of the show, so they probably had that sequence preserved on film.

Here's the relevant screencaps for comparison:

"Farpoint"

Generations

The differences in quality I chalk up to the fact that the sequence was originally done for TV, plus the fact that the master editing for TNG episodes was done on videotape. Obvioiusly, higher quality videotape than Joe Public was able to go pick up at his local Kmart, but still videotape that in the end wasn't as good as editing and compositing with and on film.

On the other hand, the more I look at it, the more I wonder if it was reused after all. ILM would have had to go back and (digitally?) re-color the Enterprise to match the new paint job they gave her.

 

[Tomalak]

The lighting is different. Even editing on VT wouldn't account for that much variance. Maybe they just reused the exact motion control moves?

 

[Doug Otte]

Tomalak said:
The lighting is different. Even editing on VT wouldn't account for that much variance. Maybe they just reused the exact motion control moves?

I think it's the same. The film version is tinted blue, but the light coming from the left looks the same. Also, notice all the same window lights on the model are lit in both shots.

If they went to the trouble to reshoot it, why would they so slavishly adhere to the same composition?

Doug

 

[benny]

Thanks very much for the screencaps. :thumbsup:

I have a hard time believeing that anything shot for the small screen could be redone and look as detailed and, well, good, as the Generations shot does. As far as we know, nothing else was reused from series to movie, in terms of shots of the Enterprise, so why reuse this?

 

[Therin of Andor]

benny said:
I have a hard time believeing that anything shot for the small screen could be redone and look as detailed and, well, good, as the Generations shot does.

It was shot by ILM, on film, whose previous work on ST had been ST II, III and IV. And they did "Star Wars". Obviously, the footage of the model was made on film, not video.

The reason TNG switched to Image G for model footage after "Encounter at Farpoint" was that TNG couldn't afford ongoing motion picture grade SPFX on a TV budget. They went all-out on EaF so they had motion picture style stock footage they could insert into new episodes.

 

[CoveTom]

Therin of Andor said:
The reason TNG switched to Image G for model footage after "Encounter at Farpoint" was that TNG couldn't afford ongoing motion picture grade SPFX on a TV budget. They went all-out on EaF so they had motion picture style stock footage they could insert into new episodes.

Actually, they didn't even really have to go all out. In the TNG Companion, Bob Justman states that ILM had an idle period between a couple of movies, and so they made TNG a bargain basement offer just to give them something to do to make their payroll during that period. So TNG just happened to come along at the right time and got ILM for a ton less than it would normally cost.

 

[benny]

Therin of Andor said:

benny said:
I have a hard time believeing that anything shot for the small screen could be redone and look as detailed and, well, good, as the Generations shot does.

It was shot by ILM, on film, whose previous work on ST had been ST II, III and IV. And they did "Star Wars". Obviously, the footage of the model was made on film, not video.

I understand that. I just don't buy that computers and effects houses at the time (1993/1994) could clean up any footage and enhance it enough to look as radically different as those two shots do. Even the Special Edition of Star Wars was a few years down the road.

 

[Tomalak]

Doug Otte said:

Tomalak said:
The lighting is different. Even editing on VT wouldn't account for that much variance. Maybe they just reused the exact motion control moves?

I think it's the same. The film version is tinted blue, but the light coming from the left looks the same. Also, notice all the same window lights on the model are lit in both shots.

If they went to the trouble to reshoot it, why would they so slavishly adhere to the same composition?

Doug

Looking at it again, I think you are right. It wouldn't have been too difficult to regrade the whole thing. Several of the warp entry sequences are from ILM's Farpoint shoot too.

 

[Peach Wookiee]

While I didn't like how dark Generations was (color wise), that saucer sep sequence worked well...