old BSG vs TNG (FX)

[RobertScorpio]

I have been watching the old BattleStar Galactica show, via netfix streaming. This show was made in 1978, and the FX are far superior to the FX of at least the first two seasons of TNG. Now, TNG debuted in 1987, nine full years after old BSG. Why do FX seem to have gone backwards between 1978 and 1987..???

Rob
Scorpio

 

[Broccoli]

Probably because Batman, with enough time to prepare, made the special effects for BSG.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Probably because Batman, with enough time to prepare, made the special effects for BSG.

No..the time element, a long held STAR TREK excuse, doesn't work here. Galactica had the same time constraints. TNG's effects, and I am watching Encounter at Farpoint as I write this, were just not at the level of a 1978 tv-miniseries...Then again, they had John Dykstra.

I am watching the Q "wall" effect, right now, live...and wow...they are very cartoony and the ENTER-D just looks awful in these shots....

Just my observations thought. You may disagree, but BSG's fx, in my opinion, were far better...

Rob

 

[JustAFriend]

Quite simple: The BSG effects were done not with CGI but on film with very large models by guys who had worked on 2001, CE3K, Silent Running, etc.

The early CGI looked fake and very large models (done by guys who KNOW what they're doing) can look like it's filmed in space.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Quite simple: The BSG effects were done not with CGI but on film with very large models by guys who had worked on 2001, CE3K, Silent Running, etc.

The early CGI looked fake and very large models (done by guys who KNOW what they're doing) can look like it's filmed in space.

Yep...so why make the change? To lower the budget? Because most of the FX in the first season of TNG were hardly 'challenging'...not one episode was really that great. Even the KLINGON ship they used was stock footage lifted from TMP...

Looking back at TNG's early years, I lose more respect each time...The writing was stiff, the FX were cheap...and the acting, at best, at a high-school level..thank Goodness the devil, Rick Berman,arrived...dude saved TNG..

Rob

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

Quite simple: The BSG effects were done not with CGI but on film with very large models by guys who had worked on 2001, CE3K, Silent Running, etc.

The early CGI looked fake and very large models (done by guys who KNOW what they're doing) can look like it's filmed in space.

There was no CGI on TNG until the crystaline entity showed up.

But ships were always models, throughout the series' run.

 

[Harvey]

The problem with early visual effects on the Next Generation is that they were mastered on video tape. Everything else looks pretty good on DVD, since they have film elements to go back to, but the effects look terrible.

The problem with the effects on the original Battlestar Galactica is that John Dykstra left after only a few episodes. I forget exactly how many. John Kenneth Muir has the number in his book on the series. After Dykstra left, the effects were mostly just re-used material that he had created for previous episodes. Any new effects created after his departure (Galactica's magical missile disabler in Experiment in Terra, for example) are very poor.

So, hard to pick one.

 

[Christopher]

There was no CGI on TNG until the crystaline entity showed up.

Well, yes and no. The "Q Wall" effect in "Farpoint" was pretty clearly computer-generated. But you're right that CGI was only used for occasional things like the crystalline entity, the space creatures from "Galaxy's Child," etc. It wasn't until late DS9 and mid-VGR that motion-control starship miniatures got phased out in favor of CGI models.

JustAFriend is on the right track, but is confusing one technological shift with another. The difference is that BSG's effects were shot and composited on film, whereas TNG's effects were digitally composited on video. This was a quicker, cheaper, more versatile technique, but it had resolution problems at the time, so you could often see distinct scan lines. Animated effects such as phaser and tractor beams were also created using video/digital equipment instead of traditional cel animation.

Also, I think there was a difference in approach. BSG made a large library of stock FX shots and recycled them over and over. Virtually every space battle was just the same flyby and weapon-firing and explosion shots cut together in a different order. So they made a finite number of shots that looked good and kept reusing them. With TNG, they also had a stock library, but it was a library of raw elements (the individual components of an FX shot) rather than finished shots. When ILM produced the FX for "Farpoint," the TNG producers had them create some extra Enterprise elements that could be used as an FX library for the series as a whole. But they composited these stock elements into lots of new shots, far more than BSG used. So they made a different compromise between quality and versatility.

 

[RobertScorpio]

There was no CGI on TNG until the crystaline entity showed up.

Well, yes and no. The "Q Wall" effect in "Farpoint" was pretty clearly computer-generated. But you're right that CGI was only used for occasional things like the crystalline entity, the space creatures from "Galaxy's Child," etc. It wasn't until late DS9 and mid-VGR that motion-control starship miniatures got phased out in favor of CGI models.

JustAFriend is on the right track, but is confusing one technological shift with another. The difference is that BSG's effects were shot and composited on film, whereas TNG's effects were digitally composited on video. This was a quicker, cheaper, more versatile technique, but it had resolution problems at the time, so you could often see distinct scan lines. Animated effects such as phaser and tractor beams were also created using video/digital equipment instead of traditional cel animation.

Also, I think there was a difference in approach. BSG made a large library of stock FX shots and recycled them over and over. Virtually every space battle was just the same flyby and weapon-firing and explosion shots cut together in a different order. So they made a finite number of shots that looked good and kept reusing them. With TNG, they also had a stock library, but it was a library of raw elements (the individual components of an FX shot) rather than finished shots. When ILM produced the FX for "Farpoint," the TNG producers had them create some extra Enterprise elements that could be used as an FX library for the series as a whole. But they composited these stock elements into lots of new shots, far more than BSG used. So they made a different compromise between quality and versatility.

And it showed then, and more so when you watch oldBSG and TNG in retrospect....the simple question is whether or not, for whatever reason, oldBSG had better FX than the first season of TNG, made nearly a decade later and the answer is yes...oldBSG had better FX...

Rob

 

[Arrqh]

The problem with the effects on the original Battlestar Galactica is that John Dykstra left after only a few episodes. I forget exactly how many. John Kenneth Muir has the number in his book on the series. After Dykstra left, the effects were mostly just re-used material that he had created for previous episodes. Any new effects created after his departure (Galactica's magical missile disabler in Experiment in Terra, for example) are very poor.

As I understand it (and I could very well be wrong) budget had a lot to do with this as well... in that they blew a significant chunk of their VFX budget in the first half of the season which greatly limited what they could do in the second half.

As for CG, it wasn't used significantly on Trek until, I believe, season 4 of Voyager and season 5 of DS9 if I'm remembering my season numbers correctly. Originally the CG of both shows was produced primiarily by Foundation Imaging (sigh) which got its start on the first 3 seasons of Babylon 5. Another production house (who's name totally escapes me at the moment) was also involved; it was later dissolved and most of it's employees went on to the new house EdenFX which worked on the later bits of DS9 and Voyager as well as being the primary studio on Enterprise (and the only one when FI was dissolved).

 

[DWF]

The problem with the effects on the original Battlestar Galactica is that John Dykstra left after only a few episodes. I forget exactly how many. John Kenneth Muir has the number in his book on the series. After Dykstra left, the effects were mostly just re-used material that he had created for previous episodes. Any new effects created after his departure (Galactica's magical missile disabler in Experiment in Terra, for example) are very poor.

As I understand it (and I could very well be wrong) budget had a lot to do with this as well... in that they blew a significant chunk of their VFX budget in the first half of the season which greatly limited what they could do in the second half.

As for CG, it wasn't used significantly on Trek until, I believe, season 4 of Voyager and season 5 of DS9 if I'm remembering my season numbers correctly. Originally the CG of both shows was produced primiarily by Foundation Imaging (sigh) which got its start on the first 3 seasons of Babylon 5. Another production house (who's name totally escapes me at the moment) was also involved; it was later dissolved and most of it's employees went on to the new house EdenFX which worked on the later bits of DS9 and Voyager as well as being the primary studio on Enterprise (and the only one when FI was dissolved).

Digital Magic lead to EdenFX, but there were several CGI houses that worked on the later Star Trek series including Digital Muse, VisionArt Design & Animation and Santa Barbara Studios.

 

[Broccoli]

Probably because Batman, with enough time to prepare, made the special effects for BSG.

No..the time element, a long held STAR TREK excuse, doesn't work here. Galactica had the same time constraints. TNG's effects, and I am watching Encounter at Farpoint as I write this, were just not at the level of a 1978 tv-miniseries...Then again, they had John Dykstra.

Parody must not be your strong suit.

 

[Gary Mitchell]

And it showed then, and more so when you watch oldBSG and TNG in retrospect....the simple question is whether or not, for whatever reason, oldBSG had better FX than the first season of TNG, made nearly a decade later and the answer is yes...oldBSG had better FX...

Rob

Heck, Space: 1999 in 1975 had better effects than early TNG.

 

[Christopher]

Well, "better" is a relative term. From the standpoint of people trying to make a weekly television show on a reasonable budget and schedule, the video compositing technology that had become feasible at the time TNG got underway was much better than the considerably slower, costlier film-based techniques. As I noted before, it let them do a greater variety of images and thus a greater number of FX shots overall representing a greater range of different things -- no need to repurpose the same old shots or avoid showing things altogether due to lack of time and money to create the images.

And while it's true that the video technology produced relatively crude-looking results at first, if they hadn't begun using it when they did, they wouldn't have had the opportunity to refine and improve it with experience and do better, more versatile work with it later on. Just think of it as the start of a learning curve.

 

[dragunzng]

Didn't Dykstra work on the effects for OldBSG? I'd say that's a fair answer why right there.

It's also worth noting that Star Trek has never really pushed the envelope in the realm off effects (outside of TMP, a handful of sequences in First Contact and one or two in Nemesis).

EDIT:

And while it's true that the video technology produced relatively crude-looking results at first, if they hadn't begun using it when they did, they wouldn't have had the opportunity to refine and improve it with experience and do better, more versatile work with it later on. Just think of it as the start of a learning curve.

So true, I argue about this all the time with folks who wonder why Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within was all CG, or why Beowulf is all CG when it could just as easily have been shot live action with more believable results. If you don't make the first steps you won't be able to refine techniques and pave the way for better work down the line.

Apologies for veering off topic.

 

[Christopher]

Didn't Dykstra work on the effects for OldBSG? I'd say that's a fair answer why right there.

Yes, he was the FX supervisor for the original BSG.

It's also worth noting that Star Trek has never really pushed the envelope in the realm off effects (outside of TMP, a handful of sequences in First Contact and one or two in Nemesis).

Are you kidding? TOS tore through the envelope and created a new one. The FX work in the original series was beyond the state of the art for its day. Four top FX studios worked in rotation on the show because its FX demands were too elaborate for any single studio to handle on a weekly schedule. New techniques were developed or standardized for its production. It was the first TV series to make regular use of bluescreen compositing for spaceship shots rather than flying its models on wires. TOS got Emmy nominations for its FX work three years in a row.

You're also ignoring the Genesis simulation from The Wrath of Khan, the first extended CG-animation sequence ever used in a motion picture, still regarded today as a breakthrough moment in the field of computer-animated FX.

And I would submit that despite its rocky start, TNG soon managed to be on the cutting edge of visual effects for television. The kind of motion-control miniature work they were pulling off by the end of the second season and thereafter, with those long, swooping camera moves around the ships, was extraordinary for its day.

 

[Dane_Whitman]

And I would submit that despite its rocky start, TNG soon managed to be on the cutting edge of visual effects for television. The kind of motion-control miniature work they were pulling off by the end of the second season and thereafter, with those long, swooping camera moves around the ships, was extraordinary for its day.

I agree with this. I've recently rewatched the whole series and I noticed that:

season 1 - has some very poor FX

season 2 - has some excellent FX for its time. Wow! What happened in between these two seasons? The opening sequence with the shuttlecraft in The Child for example, beautifully done. Its also worth noting that there are A LOT of new FX shots in this season. Made the show look fresh and put you right there in space with them.

season 3,4,5 - TNG's finest. The new shots of the Enterprise look beautiful. In fact the show had quite a few motion picture worthy shots. Though the constant use of stock planets got a bit tiresome.

seasons 6,7 - We still get some nice shots occassionally but overall the show hasn't really improved its FX over the past years and the lack of dynamic FX sequences is getting noticeable. This also haunts the first early seasons of DS9 and VOY. The model-approach puts these shows ahead of CGI-based shows like Babylon 5, but the FX could be a bit static now and then. However, I am glad they waited for CGI to mature enough before it was introduced in S3 of VOY and S6 of DS9. Made the transition between models and CGI quite smooth.

 

[RobertScorpio]

And I would submit that despite its rocky start, TNG soon managed to be on the cutting edge of visual effects for television. The kind of motion-control miniature work they were pulling off by the end of the second season and thereafter, with those long, swooping camera moves around the ships, was extraordinary for its day.

I agree with this. I've recently rewatched the whole series and I noticed that:

season 1 - has some very poor FX

season 2 - has some excellent FX for its time. Wow! What happened in between these two seasons? The opening sequence with the shuttlecraft in The Child for example, beautifully done. Its also worth noting that there are A LOT of new FX shots in this season. Made the show look fresh and put you right there in space with them.

season 3,4,5 - TNG's finest. The new shots of the Enterprise look beautiful. In fact the show had quite a few motion picture worthy shots. Though the constant use of stock planets got a bit tiresome.

seasons 6,7 - We still get some nice shots occassionally but overall the show hasn't really improved its FX over the past years and the lack of dynamic FX sequences is getting noticeable. This also haunts the first early seasons of DS9 and VOY. The model-approach puts these shows ahead of CGI-based shows like Babylon 5, but the FX could be a bit static now and then. However, I am glad they waited for CGI to mature enough before it was introduced in S3 of VOY and S6 of DS9. Made the transition between models and CGI quite smooth.

One thing i did not like...a couple of TNG filmed flybys ended up in Generations, I think...and that is not right at all!!

Rob

 

[Arrqh]

season 3,4,5 - TNG's finest. The new shots of the Enterprise look beautiful. In fact the show had quite a few motion picture worthy shots. Though the constant use of stock planets got a bit tiresome.

I'm really fuzzy on the details involved, but IIRC season 3 was when they used the new Enterprise model which was a few feet shorter but also more detailed... the detail made it look better and it was probably a bit easier to film due to its smaller size which let them be more flexible with their shots.

And then, as I recall, they brought back the larger one for Generations.

 

[Christopher]

One thing i did not like...a couple of TNG filmed flybys ended up in Generations, I think...and that is not right at all!!

Yes, GEN was very disappointing in its visual treatment of the E-D. This was a drawback of having the TV crew transition to the movie -- they treated it like just an ordinary episode, assuming the audience was already familiar with the ship. So we don't even see the ship until a good ways into the 24th-century portion of the film, and the glimpse we get doesn't even give us a good look at it. Our first view of the E-D on the big screen should've been more of an event, an impressive beauty shot with the camera pivoting around and getting the ship from multiple angles -- maybe one of those really cool ones where the ship flies overhead and the camera swings around to follow it, kind of like the closing shot of TMP. Instead it was a brief, routine establishing shot that had been used countless times in the show.

I'm really fuzzy on the details involved, but IIRC season 3 was when they used the new Enterprise model which was a few feet shorter but also more detailed... the detail made it look better and it was probably a bit easier to film due to its smaller size which let them be more flexible with their shots.

And then, as I recall, they brought back the larger one for Generations.

Yes. The original ILM miniature built under Ease Owyeung's supervision was 6 feet long and capable of saucer separation, but it was unwieldy to work with and its surface detail was 2-dimensional. Owyeung's unit also built a 2-foot miniature for long shots. In the third season, Greg Jein built a 4-foot miniature that had 3D surface texturing and accurately represented the Ten Forward windows (which hadn't been designed yet when the original miniature was built). It was much more manageable and better-looking, but lacked separation ability. The 6-footer was reused for the new saucer-sep shots in "Best of Both Worlds" and was refurbished for the saucer-sep sequence in GEN, which I assume means it was given more detail for the big screen.