Anyone have a link to the original beauty shot of the old girl, when they started TOS remastered? I can't find my saved image and I loved it. It was a huge image that showcased the real detail they put in the first mesh. The one that they then discarded as they didn't have the time/ processing power to render it for the actual episodes.
I think you're probably thinking of this pic. The thing that really impressed me was the little dangly lever-like object on the "nipple" of the lower sensor array. That's a detail that usually gets missed on CGI models. Dakota Smith
Actually I'm not sure that's it. That looks a lot like a shot done for R2 for their upcoming 1/350 scale model of the TOS Enterprise.
No, that's one of the originals. I remember downloading it at the time. There was another one though, a top 3/4 view with the Earth below. http://cdn.screenrant.com/images/new-enterprise.jpg - not full size, obviously, but that's the shot.
This is NOT NOT a slam on the f/x of TOS-R, okay? I just want to know more about mesh and perception and whatnot. That is a really nice picture. But, right away, my eyes and brain know it is a created picture/art, and not a photo of a physical object. Why is that, o more knowledgable than I? Something about light? lack of flaws? IDK Thank you in advance.
No, you're right. You can see it's cgi right off. And I think the lighting is part of what gives it away.
Focus/depth of field is another. It should get progressively out of focus from "front", in this case the windows on the edge of the saucer - to "rear", which for this shot would be the rear end of the starboard nacelle. A lot of CG can be recognized as such not because of a lack of detail but because of all the detail being sharp and clear - there's no priority as to what your mind should concentrate on.
I don't know what it is about CGI that looks "fake" to me. I think the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy ruined CGI for me. The PT is all about Lucas cluttering every shot with irrelevant CGI. Every shot is incredibly dense, filled with more visual information than a viewer can process. Consequently it's all just overwhelming and you can't help but realize that what you're seeing was totally manufactured in a computer. Ever since the PT, CGI just looks fake to me. I don't know quite what it is, either. A lot of CGI is highly-detailed, far more so than you can get with physical models. But I know it was created in a computer. Apparently that knowledge matters. Dakota Smith
If you do some digging, there were a lot more models in the SWPT than is talked about. The CG gets all the attention because that's where the money is now. As for "I know that it's CG therefore it looks fake" is kind of backwards logic. You knew that the OT was done with models but you don't say that looked fake. Like I said above, it's not about the amount of detail, it's about focus - if you're forced to try to see everything at the same time, not allowing your eye and mind to move from one area to another in some kind of progression, then your brain gets overloaded and gives up trying to process the information, which ruins the most important part of any sci-fi film - suspension of disbelief. You go into sci-fi saying, at least subconsciously, "OK, I know spaceships, monsters and lasers don't exist but I'm going to say 'the hell with it, they're real' for the next two hours". When your conscious mind (what you're focusing on) and your subconscious mind (what you think you're focusing on) don't agree, then suspension of disbelief is broken and you don't enjoy the movie. And that happens when CG isn't given proper depth of field to make parts of it out of focus.
Hear, hear. I've fallen away from reading sf, a friend all my life. Think I'll buy an Analog tomorrow.