Why would it not be an exterior view of the galaxy?
"Polaris"
- Thread starter Admiral Buzzkill
- Start date
Just for giggles, here are some of the props we had on location.
The silvery material on the displays of the hand scanner (center bottom) and the dark stuff inside the "hand-held interociter" (upper left) are only there for shots when the devices are "off". They pop off the reveal greenscreen material beneath allowing us to superimpose readouts onto them.
The silvery material on the displays of the hand scanner (center bottom) and the dark stuff inside the "hand-held interociter" (upper left) are only there for shots when the devices are "off". They pop off the reveal greenscreen material beneath allowing us to superimpose readouts onto them.
DS9Sega is right - we have an excellent colorist, Gina Lockhart, who will be working with the planet footage as well as everything else to give us the best look possible. We actually have shot in several locations which will require post work in order to give them a more unified appearence as part of the same landscape.
The image I posted uptopic is just an early "concept" approximation of the look that we're going for.
The image I posted uptopic is just an early "concept" approximation of the look that we're going for.
Just for giggles, here are some of the props we had on location.
The silvery material on the displays of the hand scanner (center bottom) and the dark stuff inside the "hand-held interociter" (upper left) are only there for shots when the devices are "off". They pop off the reveal greenscreen material beneath allowing us to superimpose readouts onto them.
This gets me all tingly in my pants.
I suspected as such.
The compositing process looks great, at this resolution anyway, and I really love the galaxy, especially its cloudiness. The first live action reference for comparison that came to my mind was the galaxy rise over an alien ocean in Carl Sagan's Cosmos, at the end of Episode 9, and what you have here is the potential for something far superior.
Besides color, how much of the galaxy is visible through the planet's daytime sky, and how that depiction is reconciled with the apparent level of sunlight striking the surface of the planet, are the main issues I have, that will affect how convincing the final image is.
Well, what I said along with the initial posting of the image was:
...which I thought should have been sufficient to indicate that this is conceptual stuff as opposed to a fully-rendered frame from a final film (which we're nowhere near. We're just getting ready to shoot the location).
This picture has served to spur our internal conversation about how to design the sky such that it's not confusing when viewed from various angles - if you've got significant unfamiliar celestial objects dominating certain areas of the horizon, for example, then when you cut to reverse angles where these things aren't visible you risk giving the impression that the planet has more than one sky.
I think if we work really hard we may achieve the level of plausibility of planet imagery from Forbidden Planet or Trek TOS, but we're not going to accomplish Avatar.
...which I thought should have been sufficient to indicate that this is conceptual stuff as opposed to a fully-rendered frame from a final film (which we're nowhere near. We're just getting ready to shoot the location).
This picture has served to spur our internal conversation about how to design the sky such that it's not confusing when viewed from various angles - if you've got significant unfamiliar celestial objects dominating certain areas of the horizon, for example, then when you cut to reverse angles where these things aren't visible you risk giving the impression that the planet has more than one sky.
I think if we work really hard we may achieve the level of plausibility of planet imagery from Forbidden Planet or Trek TOS, but we're not going to accomplish Avatar.
The script calls for visiting a planet just outside a galaxy, and such a vast luminous object's gonna show up night or day.
And Dennis is right that "conceptual" is just that. This was a simple test of a photo of the location and the type of sky background we were discussing based on the script. That it raised questions within the production (matting issues, continuity, angles, etc.) means it's doing it's job.
Well, as long as you consider that a GOOD reaction.
The script calls for visiting a planet just outside a galaxy, and such a vast luminous object's gonna show up night or day.
And Dennis is right that "conceptual" is just that. This was a simple test of a photo of the location and the type of sky background we were discussing based on the script. That it raised questions within the production (matting issues, continuity, angles, etc.) means it's doing it's job.
...
Well, I can certainly say that without knowing any of the context it's a very interesting shot. To this day I hardly ever consciously notice an exotic star field or sky color, but I believe those kinds of touches are vital.
I think if we work really hard we may achieve the level of plausibility of planet imagery from Forbidden Planet or Trek TOS, but we're not going to accomplish Avatar.
I take it, then, that you are not shooting in 3D....
I think if we work really hard we may achieve the level of plausibility of planet imagery from Forbidden Planet or Trek TOS, but we're not going to accomplish Avatar.
I take it, then, that you are not shooting in 3D....
Oh, we do everything in 3D. For some reason it only shows up in 2D in the video.
I don't hear this kind of thing nearly enough.
The more troublesome and unavoidably true sister of that statement is "If it looks wrong, it doesn't matter whether it's right or not."
How exactly is a book supposed to look?
Why, praytell?
Xortex, I'd like to reply to your comment, but the first sentence of your post is a nonsensical jumble.
Why, praytell?
Read and understand. Especially the photocomposite image of the Andromeda Galaxy in Earth's night sky on page 2.
ETA: There was another thread, in the Stargate forum I think, where this also got discussed in regards to the McKay/Carter Intergalactic Gate Bridge and if we would see the Milky Way from the outside like they did in the show. The answer was "not that clearly" similar reasons, but I can't locate the thread in question.
That's nice.
But, in the first place, if hyperrealism is important to the Polaris team, I suggest they draft a professional astronomer who knows more about starlight than just the inverse square law, that there are dust clouds, and "common sense."
And in the second place, as I said just upthread, Carl Sagan was comfortable showing a bona fide galaxy rise (of the Milky Way, over an alien ocean) in Cosmos, and he was a professional astronomer. If the depiction he endorsed was totally bogus, then that would be noteworthy.
But, in the first place, if hyperrealism is important to the Polaris team, I suggest they draft a professional astronomer who knows more about starlight than just the inverse square law, that there are dust clouds, and "common sense."
And in the second place, as I said just upthread, Carl Sagan was comfortable showing a bona fide galaxy rise (of the Milky Way, over an alien ocean) in Cosmos, and he was a professional astronomer. If the depiction he endorsed was totally bogus, then that would be noteworthy.