Perfect example of what they SHOULD have done with the TNG-R FX

[Ian Keldon]

So, let's get this straight...

-You want to crop the image to widescreen from it's original aspect ratio, ruining the composition of the shot.

Doesn't have to be widescreen...that just happens to be how that video was done.

-You want to replace the original model photography with mediocre-at-best computer generated visual effects -- effects that don't even bother to be any more visually dynamic than the originals.

On the contrary, the choreography is SIGNIFICANTLY improved over the original. More use of subtle motion and in multiple planes. Plus debris when the Klingon ship is destroyed.

And I was using this as a "proof of concept" video...of course the CBS team would be expected to put out a little better quality than that (though it's hardly "mediocre" at all).

As for that YouTube video, I don't see any material difference between the original shot choreography and this version.

Um, I don't get it. Except for the ships being CG, it looked like the pretty much the exact same sequence.

Why go through all the trouble to make this if you're not going to at least come up with some cool new shots and choreography?

I will admit, though, the episode looks pretty damn good in widescreen.

The differences are subtle, but to my eye very clear. The motion of the ships is slightly more fluid and multi dimensional in the concept video. It's esp noticeable in the opening shot, and the "continual fire, all phasers" shot. Just enough change to make it more appealing visually. That and adding debris to the exploding Klingon ship.

Was the size difference between C and D as big as that video suggests? the scale looks entirely wrong, the D looks about 50 times the size of the C!

You're not accounting for the distance between the two ships in the scenes they're together in.

 

[Dick_Valentine]

You all got me on the use of the phrase "proper job", that was my British-ism really, I DID mean "preferred" but for some reason that phrase pops into my had easier than any others, so apologies for the confusion there.

I guess I was more annoyed at the criticisms of the YT clip itself, as I've been a subscriber of his for a long while and fan-created CGI like that really does brighten my day, whatever you may think of that. I wish there were more of it out there.
And tbh, I wish there was more original stuff instead of re-done stuff that we've already seen...

He's been re-doing famous scenes with CGI for a while now and I don't know what his intentions were with that clip but he's certainly been posting videos for much longer than the
TNG restoration project has been announced.
Initially it was just a training exercise for him to learn CGI and you can see how he has progressed over the years.

I probably shouldn't speak for him, he'll be over here soon enough to speak for himself, maybe I should go over to the art forum and lure him

I guess my attitude is slightly different to others on this, I'm used to the Doctor Who restoration team's efforts and they will make an occasional CGI remake of an episode to put on a DVD and the results are largely excellent.
Completely different kettle of fish though, as you can imagine from its set up Doctor Who doesn't have many exterior space scenes at all and even its most FX heavy episodes are usually reduced to Dalek Ray guns etc.
But when they do remaster an ep they put the CGI enhanced one right there next to the original episode, not a replacement, just an extra, if you will.
In an ideal world with unlimited budget, I'd have loved to have seen something like that, or maybe just pick one ep a season to really go to town on. Q Who for series 2, YE for series 3, etc.

But that's not to say the HD restoration isn't brilliant, it IS....

 

[JJohnson]

The announced "mission statement" for the remastering effort for TNG is to simply re-scan and re edit the original film elements exactly as originally presented, as opposed to rendering NEW scences and sequences as was done with TOS-R.

This is a missed opportunity, and the above video demonstrates how the FX could be substantially improved while remaining faithful to the tone and style of the show.

Agreed. I have utterly no problem with enhancing the FX to what they would have done had they the budget to do so. Give the alternate Enterprise-D a worthy battle scene! Give us alternate flyby shots and orbit shots! Get rid of the 47839174927145972 Excelsiors, Oberths, and Mirandas!

 

[JJohnson]

ITT old people moan about CGI....and how it was better in the olden days when models were used...

Come on. Not all CGI is created equal. Nobody here is saying "models are better than CGI." They're saying that the CGI in that particular clip is clearly not on the same level of quality that the remastered, recomposited, HD version of the original photography is likely to be. A professional CGI artist like Doug Drexler or Mojo, with sufficient software, time, and budget, could certainly create effects that were better-looking that the model shots created for "Yesterday's Enterprise." But whoever made that YouTube video did not.

I think the YT clip is getting unnecessary scorn.
Chris, the poster (who also posts here you know, so be nice) is just a fan who makes stuff like this in his spare time, he's not a visual artist who is paid to make that stuff full time.
And since he's just using his computer not some special computer design one like CGI guys would use, I don't think he does a bad job at all

All good points. But I don't think we're criticizing the video itself; it's fine for what it is, an amateur exercise paying tribute to a favorite sequence. What we're criticizing is the original poster's allegation that the video represents a template for how TNG Remastered should be done and that it's in some way fundamentally superior to the original. As I said, I don't even see how it materially differs from the original in action or composition, aside from the aspect ratio.

look through the rest of the videos to see some of the great work he comes up with, certainly a million times better than anything anyone here could come up with and a lot better than the grainy, blurry, static model shots you'd get pre-HD

Maybe it is a generational thing, but I don't think a clear image of a computer construct of middling resolution and detail is better than a grainy photograph of a genuine object that actually, physically exists. Grain is not always a bad thing.

And yes, I am a little disappointed they didn't do a proper job on TNG HD.

Define "proper." The purpose of these exercises has never been to do a Lucas-style alteration, but rather to perform a restoration, to come as close as possible to the original work in maximum possible quality. TOS-R only replaced the original footage with CGI because the original film elements no longer existed and thus there was no way to remaster the FX shots, only to recreate them digitally.

So I think it's a little solipsistic to use the word "proper" to mean "what I would've preferred." Personally I agree that it would've been nice to see some of the ponderous, limited FX shots of early TNG (or major errors like the too-big Stargazer in "The Battle") replaced or rethought. But just because they chose to go in a different direction than I would've, that doesn't make my opinions more "proper" than theirs.

I took the original post to mean: "I wish they would change the shots up, using CGI, so that the ships move more dynamically and don't just sit there, as shown in this clip from Youtube." I never took it as "This is what it should look like, this kind of CGI." Of course I'd prefer better CGI, but it was a good alternate take on that one episode.

 

[Christopher]

I took the original post to mean: "I wish they would change the shots up, using CGI, so that the ships move more dynamically and don't just sit there, as shown in this clip from Youtube."

See, that's just it -- although I haven't seen "Yesterday's Enterprise" in a while, I honestly couldn't see any material difference in the movement or staging. What I saw in the CGI sequence didn't noticeably differ from what I remember of the original version. (I did lose interest and stop watching about halfway through, but I doubt there would've any sudden change in approach or style midway through the sequence.)

 

[XFozzboute]

I know the guy who did these animations and he's trying to replicate the originals as much as he can and not change things too much. And his renders are done with 3D Studio Max.

 

[Christopher]

^Okay, then that just confounds my confusion. What was it that the original poster thought was different/better about this?

 

[ichab]

No thanks. I'm frankly a little tired of people trying to change the classics. I don't mind what's being done to TNG, but anything beyond that shouldn't be done.

This all reminds me of the big fad some years ago to colorize black and white movies. Just leave them alone already.

 

[Phily B]

i want minimal new CGI, its fine as it is.

 

[Saito S]

^Okay, then that just confounds my confusion. What was it that the original poster thought was different/better about this?

I'm honestly not sure.

Comparing it to the original scene, the only two shots in which angles, motion, etc. are changed in any significant way are

A) the very beginning, when the Ent-D swings around to face the oncoming Klingon ships, and
B) the "Continuous fire, all phasers" bit; the ship has more visible forward momentum in the CG version, and tilts upward more.

That said, other than the addition of debris when the BoP goes boom, the difference is pretty slight, if you ask me. I do think that the CG version of scene A is pretty cool; I like how we get to see the Ent-D pass all the way by, but I'm really not seeing this supposed massive improvement in ship choreography. It's a very minimal difference.

As to the quality of the CG: I don't think it's fair to bash it for not looking as good as the remastered model work in the show, but then, I don't really see anyone in this thread DOING that. Considering that it's fan-made, it's actually quite good for the most part (though not the best fan-made CG I've ever seen; that honor goes to Romulan Ale). The main flaw I see in it is that the phasers are a little dodgy.

Just so it's known where I'm coming from here, I'm a huge fan of good CG work; I bristle a bit when encountering what I perceive to be a knee-jerk "CG is bad/lifeless/lazy/etc" mindset. For certain productions, it's the perfect way to do visuals, and can look amazing when done well. I don't consider it any more or less "valid" than other, more traditional, effects tech; it's all in how you use it.

But TNG isn't one of those productions that would really benefit, unless one WERE trying to do a complete overhaul of all the visuals and redo them from scratch, which clearly isn't the case with the TNG HD releases. The whole idea is to make it look like the original, but better/in high-def, so I agree that restoration without alteration is the way to go.

 

[Christopher]

^Okay, thanks. Maybe the OP misremembered the FX in the original as being more static or simple than they actually were.

There is some CGI in the remastered TNG. They can remaster and recomposite the original film elements of ship miniatures and the like, but a number of things in the original, like planets, phaser beams, the Crystalline Entity, and such, were created using video effects or early CGI and only exist in low-resolution form. So they did have to be recreated from scratch, and what they did with the planets was similar to what they did in TOS-R: maintaining the same basic aesthetic as the original planets, but with more detail and realism.

 

[marksound]

old people ...

You should respect "old people" because you might live to be one someday and then you'll have to listen to all the disrespectful young punks bitching and moaning about how stupid old people are and you'll yell at them to get off your lawn ... I can almost guarantee it.

 

[JarodRussell]

ITT old people moan about CGI....and how it was better in the olden days when models were used...

Tell that to VFX guys, as they still choose real models over CGI at times.

 

[Dukhat]

When it was confirmed that they'd be doing TNG-R, I was initially hoping that they'd redo all the ship shots with CGI if only to create different and newer designs than the old movie models that they were forced to reuse because of budgetary concerns. Case in point with "Yesterday's Enterprise" and the "K'Vort class battlecruisers," which were just unrealistically upscaled BoPs. They hadn't yet built the Vorcha model, which is most likely what they would have used if they had it.

However, seeing as how fantastic S1 looks, I've changed my tune. I would much prefer the model shots in HD instead of CGI replacements.

 

[Christopher]

Case in point with "Yesterday's Enterprise" and the "K'Vort class battlecruisers," which were just unrealistically upscaled BoPs. They hadn't yet built the Vorcha model, which is most likely what they would have used if they had it.

If they wanted Klingon battlecruisers, I don't know why they didn't just use the lovely K'tinga-class miniature instead of the ugly, wrong-sized BoP.

 

[Maurice]

I heard rumors that the Ktinga model had been damaged after TMP and wasn't repaired until TUC, which might explain why TNG didn't use it in this episode. I'll try to remember to ask Bill George about this next time I see him.

 

[Christopher]

Hmm, yeah, I guess the footage of it in "Heart of Glory" and "The Emissary" was stock from TMP.

 

[Captain Fine]

I can't picture Yesterday's Enterprise with Vor'chas...anyone know some CGI? lol

 

[davejames]

If they wanted Klingon battlecruisers, I don't know why they didn't just use the lovely K'tinga-class miniature instead of the ugly, wrong-sized BoP.

"Ugly"? I thought fans pretty much all loved the BoP.

 

[Christopher]

"Ugly"? I thought fans pretty much all loved the BoP.

I think it's an eyesore. Really, I don't much care for any Klingon ship designs aside from Jefferies's D7 and its very faithful K'tinga counterpart (which is virtually identical in shape, just more detailed). Jefferies's design looks like a dragon in flight, elegantly menacing. The Bird of Prey was consciously designed to suggest a football linebacker when seen from the front -- just bulk and brute force, all the elegance lost. Not to mention that it doesn't really work as a Trek-universe design because it doesn't have any recognizable engine nacelles. (Well, okay, we've seen more nacelle-less warp ships since then, but none of them were Klingon.) And all the TNG-era Klingon ships were blocky and angular and covered with kitbashy surface detail, and the sleek simplicity and grace of Jefferies's design was long gone.