Original TOS Effects shots done at home.

It is amazing how far we have come with special effects, but it isn't just the stuff on the big screen, a lot can be done at home now.
Admittedly, I did these shots quick and dirty (in an afternoon) but with the proper equipment it would be possible to shoot something comparable or even better than the Star Trek TOS effects which initially cost thousands of dollars and a crew of technicians. In this test I tried to maintain the TOS aesthetic, but with more movement.

Has anyone else out there done some TOS effects shots at home?

Also, how many of you still like the idea of models (in certain circumstances) as opposed to CGI?




Spockboy

 

Fun! To really sell the scale the beams should be fatter when seen with the Enterprise and much skinnier when hitting the much larger planet killer. This was an issue on the original as well.

I also always wanted to see the phasers "just bounced off" as Sulu reports. I always picture the beams reflecting off in multiple directions, a bit like the rays of light from the photon torpedoes in TMP.

I've shared this before, but for "The Tressaurian Intersection" I created and composited a lot of old school style VFX (too bad all out ships had to be CGI).

 

Most definitely... substantial objects such as ships and space stations done as physical models, and things like background stars, energy beams and photon torpedoes done as CGI. That would be my preference.

Television CGI just doesn't look like real objects to me (even feature films are hit and miss; see Dawn of the Planet of the Apes ). For example, the celebrated work on "Enterprise," which is very sharp and detailed, still looks like video game cut scenes to my eye.

Kor

 

I would really like to try the "bounce off" idea. Thanks for the idea
However I respectfully disagree about the beams getting skinnier or fatter. That was an artistic decision someone made while working for the Anderson Company IMO. It is completely understandable as well since it was only 1967 For me the artistic decision is to make the beams the same top and bottom. They don't widen or narrow they remain the same width and concentration like a laser. However if you mean make the beams look narrower at the bottom to show the scale of the Planet Killer, than I agree.

The Tressaurian Intersection was fantastic work.
Well done!
The shot of the crashed starship and that amazing opening zoom on the bridge.
And that was years ago.
Great job

Spockboy

 

That's what I meant. The shot of the Planet Killer is a different scale than the shot of the Enterprise.

That crashed saucer was a physical model.

 

That makes sense (smaller beams I mean)

I had an old friend named Rick who used to point out tiny mistakes that I had missed and would watch me squirm because he knew I would eventually be compelled to correct it.
It's my nature.
(Or maybe it's just OCD)

I just added a wider angle on the video for scale.

Spockboy

 

Thanks spockboy for starting this tread and posting your video. Yes, today's tech certainly can yield impressive results. Reminds me a bit of some work I did with film cameras back in the 80's. SFX were created "in camera" by multiple long exposures of backgrounds (stars fields), models, painted foam balls for planets, etc. on a single frame of film. Did it all on color slide film for the best color reproduction and fine film grain. I do remember some very good shots and others were epic fails. I had to try to plan out the shot of each element being photographed, the lighting, exposure duration, location in the frame, everything. It was a lot of fun, a LOT of time in the dark room and some interesting results.

Thanks for sharing!

Q2

 

Count me in for some models as well. Oh, you meant miniatures. Sorry my mistake. I think a harmonious use of CGI and models can bring about amazing results. Just look at Interstellar. Their "bigatures" gave the shots a level of detail that would be very hard/expensive(gotta pay those artists) to do with CGI alone.

 

Haven't seen it but I will check it out for the "bigatures"

Spockboy

 

spockboy, remind me of what software you are using to composite?

--Alex

 

I composite in After Effects Alex.
In fact I just added another couple of shots to the video.


Spockboy

 

Nice. But James Horner on a TOS shot? For shame!

 

BUSTED!
In my defense though, experimenting is fun


Spockboy

 

Solid, impressive work. Even with the "3 foot" MR model, it still has the necessary physical presence and weight, unlike so many poor CG versions.

Great miniatures filmed properly stand the test of time, while some CG--even in the evolution of the past 20 years--still has an easily recognized artificiality about it, and as mentioned above, the model has a physical presence and weight to it.

 

Get someone with toy train tracks--and you have motion control for a gopro

 

Years ago I did a transporter effect with glitter in a blender. Came out pretty damn well.

 

I've been wondering if Lego's programmable robotics line might be able to act as an entry level motion control system.
Camera's are so small and light these days.
It would be amazing for a fan production to be able to get the multiple passes for lights and whatever like the pros do.

 

Spockboy extremely impressive!

 

Just a simple Enterprise warp picture courtesy of my Diamond Select Toys Enterprise and Photshop.