Brilliant! that must have been a helluva lot of fun.
Now that the Remastered Series has been around a while
- Thread starter Dave Scarpa
- Start date
Brilliant! that must have been a helluva lot of fun.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Depth of field was a real problem. Even though you have tons of DoF in S8 vs 16mm or 35mm, when you're shooting nearly wide open the field of focus drops off to nearly nothing very fast, meaning I needed the starfield very close to the model, so I couldn't get much in the way of 'receding into distance' stuff.
One thing I did in the extreme opposite way for shooting ship models -- and I don't know of anybody who has tried this, except I think they did it for the approach/landing shot in FORBIDDEN PLANET -- is shooting the spaceship miniature in broad daylight, with a large practical starfield a ways behind it, all of the elements backlit by the sun, and underexposing a couple of stops to keep the black mount from showing (not always successful, since it would occlude stars and show a back 'edge.')
The upside of this was nearly infinite depth of field, plus having a source that was really at infinity, so you didn't have problems with using multiple sources acting as a single sun source, which is hard to make work (and increases problems with poles showing, since you have multiple lights casting illumination and shadows during a shot.)
If I had the logistical means to do so, I'd've had a giant pole running out the off-camera side of the ship through the starfield to a car and just drive the miniature from the starfield to camera, hoping that by shooting highspeed it would smooth out the bumps. But that would have carried a lot of potential for disaster -- hardcore blooper material.
Yeah, shooting everything single-pass was the most phenomenally labor-intensive aspect of scifi filmmaking in the alleged good ol' days. Some of the best results I ever got for doing silly shots (like a space shuttle making an abrupt U-turn against a blue sky), was by simply turning the camera at right angles and throwing a model so it would make an arc -- the perspective made it look like a horizontal move, a U-turn, and the speed looked right while the shot pretty much looked like it needed a tire screech, it was so funny in style.
I don't know if his stuff is on youtube or not, but in the late 70s through the mid 80s, a guy named Lew or Lou Place in Long Island made a bunch of SPACE 1999 movies. SOME of his fx looked like Brian Johnson's stuff, like an EAGLE flying through a cloud bank. Some of it looked hokey ... and a few shots looked better than the real thing. I think I'll go looking to see if any of that stuff is online, just to see if my memory is playing tricks on me. I remember a friend who saw Place's setup telling me that he had HO scale trains on tracks above the Eagle, and wires/strings that led down to the miniature, which was driven through frame by the train engine. Depending on how you bent the HO track ('flex' track could be configured into almost any configuration), you could put the eagle through all kinds of turns and the like -- and assuming you could avoid seeing the wires, you could do some awesome stuff. again, all in-camera.
Man, this must all read like an article from Super8Filmaker, the periodical that, while dead by the early 80s, was responsible for costing me nearly all of my non living expense income from the late 70s through the early 90s.
One thing I did in the extreme opposite way for shooting ship models -- and I don't know of anybody who has tried this, except I think they did it for the approach/landing shot in FORBIDDEN PLANET -- is shooting the spaceship miniature in broad daylight, with a large practical starfield a ways behind it, all of the elements backlit by the sun, and underexposing a couple of stops to keep the black mount from showing (not always successful, since it would occlude stars and show a back 'edge.')
The upside of this was nearly infinite depth of field, plus having a source that was really at infinity, so you didn't have problems with using multiple sources acting as a single sun source, which is hard to make work (and increases problems with poles showing, since you have multiple lights casting illumination and shadows during a shot.)
If I had the logistical means to do so, I'd've had a giant pole running out the off-camera side of the ship through the starfield to a car and just drive the miniature from the starfield to camera, hoping that by shooting highspeed it would smooth out the bumps. But that would have carried a lot of potential for disaster -- hardcore blooper material.
Yeah, shooting everything single-pass was the most phenomenally labor-intensive aspect of scifi filmmaking in the alleged good ol' days. Some of the best results I ever got for doing silly shots (like a space shuttle making an abrupt U-turn against a blue sky), was by simply turning the camera at right angles and throwing a model so it would make an arc -- the perspective made it look like a horizontal move, a U-turn, and the speed looked right while the shot pretty much looked like it needed a tire screech, it was so funny in style.
I don't know if his stuff is on youtube or not, but in the late 70s through the mid 80s, a guy named Lew or Lou Place in Long Island made a bunch of SPACE 1999 movies. SOME of his fx looked like Brian Johnson's stuff, like an EAGLE flying through a cloud bank. Some of it looked hokey ... and a few shots looked better than the real thing. I think I'll go looking to see if any of that stuff is online, just to see if my memory is playing tricks on me. I remember a friend who saw Place's setup telling me that he had HO scale trains on tracks above the Eagle, and wires/strings that led down to the miniature, which was driven through frame by the train engine. Depending on how you bent the HO track ('flex' track could be configured into almost any configuration), you could put the eagle through all kinds of turns and the like -- and assuming you could avoid seeing the wires, you could do some awesome stuff. again, all in-camera.
Man, this must all read like an article from Super8Filmaker, the periodical that, while dead by the early 80s, was responsible for costing me nearly all of my non living expense income from the late 70s through the early 90s.
I was buying Super8Filmaker too, and there was another do-it-yourself magazine that I can't remember the name of. I want to say Cinemagic, but not sure that was the title. It usually featured special effects and makeup tricks, and some of the contributors included guys who eventually became professionals.
I seriously hate at least 90% of the new effects, but the "matte paintings" are, for the most part, notable exceptions.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Same harm that goes with colorized versions of movies and Lucasized versions, that whatever is 'new' gets the attention, and ultimately gets ported over to the NEXT version while the original sometimes falls by the wayside.
I don't have the BRs, I was curious do the episodes on Netflix represent them well? I ask because they seem so dark to me that it bothers me while I'm watching. Am I alone in this?
I've never seen a TOS-R episode on Netflix, but I can assure you the prints on the BD's are absolutely beautiful. The colour/contrast/brightness are pretty much perfect IMHO - the best TOS has ever looked by a considerable margin.
Edited to add: The correct abbreviation for Blu-ray is "BD" - as in Blu-ray Disc. Blu-ray is a single word. Sorry to be a pedant!!!
Here's a couple of examples I made from TrekCore where it seems too dark:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v71/MrAdventure/toshd1_zpsfedce2f2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v71/MrAdventure/toshd2_zps3816fc36.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v71/MrAdventure/toshd1_zpsfedce2f2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v71/MrAdventure/toshd2_zps3816fc36.jpg
Settings on your TV? My sets look more like the one's on the left than the one's on the right where brightness of picture in concerned.
Possibly my TV, that's what I'm trying to figure out. The left and right are SD vs HD, I didn't alter the brightness.
The question you asked makes no sense. The remastered episodes are the original episodes. "Remastering" has nothing to do with the new FX. The new FX are the only part of the show which wasn't remastered.
I have to assume you mean "which do you prefer watching, the episodes with original FX or with the new FX?"
I watch the HD remastered episodes with the original FX.
Did you mean to say that as The Most Interesting Man in the World?
I grew up with the original fx and watched the show in syndication a hundred times. Loved every minute of it. But now I prefer the new fx, precisely because they add something new to an otherwise over-familiar show.
Sure, TOS-R is peppered with shots I wouldn't have chosen, but there are also a ton of terrific views. Sometimes the new fx are the main thing I'm enjoying.
The official designation of the episodes with enhanced effects is the "Remastered Edition" (as seen on the DVD release). The OP is absolutely correct in using the word - he even capitalized it. You can blame Paramount for the misuse of the term, but it is what it is.
However, in principle, it's a pet peeve of mine as well.
Last edited:
Just consider it a new second definition, like many other words. Your blood pressure will love you.
Similar threads
