Reflection at Enterprise build site

[trevanian]

There must be things in it that you don't like that makes it seems so, flat, to you. Because I am looking at it right now, and I see nothing wrong.

Probably the blackpoint, which was also an issue in the pre-computer days of optical composting. But that effects houses can't get the blacks to match on a live action element and a digital element in this day and age of interactive editing is....not logical.

In the film days, you could do things to keep the blacks from going grey. Variable density mattes, multiple exposures ... but all of those things had perils involved.

Yeah, I got no idea why you can't just dial in the black level these days, it should be, if not automated, then at least a no-brainer hand-made adjustment.

 

[Tom Servo]

There must be things in it that you don't like that makes it seems so, flat, to you. Because I am looking at it right now, and I see nothing wrong.

Probably the blackpoint, which was also an issue in the pre-computer days of optical composting. But that effects houses can't get the blacks to match on a live action element and a digital element in this day and age of interactive editing is....not logical.

In the film days, you could do things to keep the blacks from going grey. Variable density mattes, multiple exposures ... but all of those things had perils involved.

Yeah, I got no idea why you can't just dial in the black level these days, it should be, if not automated, then at least a no-brainer hand-made adjustment.

Yeah, I do know what you mean. I am a VFX student at the Art Institute of Philadelphia, and on the other part of my screen at the moment is a shake composite where I am working on the exact same problem.

 

[trevanian]

Probably the blackpoint, which was also an issue in the pre-computer days of optical composting. But that effects houses can't get the blacks to match on a live action element and a digital element in this day and age of interactive editing is....not logical.

In the film days, you could do things to keep the blacks from going grey. Variable density mattes, multiple exposures ... but all of those things had perils involved.

Yeah, I got no idea why you can't just dial in the black level these days, it should be, if not automated, then at least a no-brainer hand-made adjustment.

Yeah, I do know what you mean. I am a VFX student at the Art Institute of Philadelphia, and on the other part of my screen at the moment is a shake composite where I am working on the exact same problem.

I'm glad somebody is on this. In five or six years, I'm going to start holding YOU responsible for making composites look properly invisible!

 

[Gary7]

Remember... this is a trailer. I don't think it useful to pick apart the frames like this. There might very well be a few more passes of CGI cleanup before the film editing is finished, that will eliminate any unwanted artifacts like lens flare. Isn't Abrams a bit of a perfectionist, anyway?

 

[trevanian]

Remember... this is a trailer. I don't think it useful to pick apart the frames like this. There might very well be a few more passes of CGI cleanup before the film editing is finished, that will eliminate any unwanted artifacts like lens flare. Isn't Abrams a bit of a perfectionist, anyway?

From everything we've seen and read about, lens flare is where this guy lives (sort of like John McTiernan gone wild.) So I guess I'd disagree.

 

[PixelMagic]

J.J. Abrams loves lens flares. Watch MI:3, and you will see them all over the place. Star Trek will be the same thing. The reflection seen in that shot was added by ILM to tie in the CGI with the lens flares in the real shots, such as Kirk on the bridge.

I know a compositing supervisor at ILM, and he and I talked about these flares at length, and how it was his job to make sure the CG flares matched the real ones on set as closely as possible.

So yes, all the reflection is supposed to be is a internal lens reflection of the high powered work lights illuminating the Enterprise.

 

[trevanian]

J.J. Abrams loves lens flares. Watch MI:3, and you will see them all over the place. Star Trek will be the same thing. The reflection seen in that shot was added by ILM to tie in the CGI with the lens flares in the real shots, such as Kirk on the bridge.

I know a compositing supervisor at ILM, and he and I talked about these flares at length, and how it was his job to make sure the CG flares matched the real ones on set as closely as possible.

So yes, all the reflection is supposed to be is a internal lens reflection of the high powered work lights illuminating the Enterprise.

So are they using a variation on the old John Knoll lens flare emulation thing he started for TUC? Cuz it looked pretty flat back then, and I imagine they'd be better off tracking and comping REAL flares rather than just pasting ones in that don't have the luminosity of the real thing.

 

[PixelMagic]

So are they using a variation on the old John Knoll lens flare emulation thing he started for TUC? Cuz it looked pretty flat back then, and I imagine they'd be better off tracking and comping REAL flares rather than just pasting ones in that don't have the luminosity of the real thing.

From what I've been told, they are using Knoll Light Factory(which has been QUITE updated since TUC) for some shots. However, anamorphic lens flares are a bit more difficult to do in KLF, so the boys at ILM wrote some custom scripts in Shake to allow them to expand KLF to allow them more realistic anamorphic flares using a combination of simulation and real flare elements tracked in.

 

[Gepard]

Cuz it looked pretty flat back then, and I imagine they'd be better off tracking and comping REAL flares rather than just pasting ones in that don't have the luminosity of the real thing.

The VFX flares in this one look pretty damn good, especially in the shot where we see the Narada emerging form the time vortex (?) in front of a star. I was pretty impressed by how messy, wavy and organic the flares looked, even down to having blurry reflections of lens dirt in them.

 

[trevanian]

ILM wrote some custom scripts in Shake to allow them to expand KLF to allow them more realistic anamorphic flares using a combination of simulation and real flare elements tracked in.

That combined approach sounds really smart. In a perfect world, you'd use miniatures for beauty passes and medium shots and CG for the distance stuff and spins, and you'd probably mixNmatch real and CG for flares as well, depending on perspective and camera shift in a given take.

Sorry, forgot 'in a perfect world' is only used in movie trailers these days!

 

[ST-One]

ILM wrote some custom scripts in Shake to allow them to expand KLF to allow them more realistic anamorphic flares using a combination of simulation and real flare elements tracked in.

That combined approach sounds really smart. In a perfect world, you'd use miniatures for beauty passes and medium shots and CG for the distance stuff and spins, and you'd probably mixNmatch real and CG for flares as well, depending on perspective and camera shift in a given take.

Sorry, forgot 'in a perfect world' is only used in movie trailers these days!

Obviously the people actually doing the VFX-work disagree with you.
They use whatever technique is best to finish a job and not whatever technique you think is best to finish a job.

 

[Michael]

Seeing that this post isn't about lens flares in any way, maybe it is considered off-topic in this thread, but I just wanted to say that showing the Enterprise being build is one of the most touching images I have ever seen in Star Trek. It just looks stunningly beautiful! I'm glad they did it.

And now, back to your regularly scheduled discussion about how bad the effects really are ...

 

[trevanian]

ILM wrote some custom scripts in Shake to allow them to expand KLF to allow them more realistic anamorphic flares using a combination of simulation and real flare elements tracked in.

That combined approach sounds really smart. In a perfect world, you'd use miniatures for beauty passes and medium shots and CG for the distance stuff and spins, and you'd probably mixNmatch real and CG for flares as well, depending on perspective and camera shift in a given take.

Sorry, forgot 'in a perfect world' is only used in movie trailers these days!

Obviously the people actually doing the VFX-work disagree with you.
They use whatever technique is best to finish a job and not whatever technique you think is best to finish a job.

No, they're doing work that utilizes their facilities and also matches with directorial accords. Since ILM sold off their modelshop and uses that company on only an occasional basis (one that DOES include this flick, though for what we're not sure, since Kerner has been wordlessly deflecting inquiries to ILM), ILM does CG work, not physical stuff.

The industry changed very quickly from a 'use as appropriate' mix of tech in the mid90s to a 'you can do 10 times as many shots for only 5 times the money' doing nearly all CG, which is the only reasonable explanation for the larger budgets and largely inferior fx work of the last 10-12 years, at least in the arena of stuff like spaceships.

The CG-only solution is one driven by aesthetics (nobody cares about image quality, as long as you have a huge shot count) and finance (already addressed above) ... if you have some love for it, go ahead and wallow, cuz there's a deep pool of it to wade through to get to the good stuff.

You might want to take a look at the failure rate of VFX facilities ... they are almost never driven by the visual ideal, it is always a tiny margin that sustains them, even the few that survive for more than a decade. That suggests a level of compromise, one that probably influences artistic a helluva lot more than the 'use whatever technique is best to finish the job' line you had up there (which is also why I included that aside to 'in a perfect world', in case you hadn't read of all of what you were quoting from me.)

 

[ST-One]

That combined approach sounds really smart. In a perfect world, you'd use miniatures for beauty passes and medium shots and CG for the distance stuff and spins, and you'd probably mixNmatch real and CG for flares as well, depending on perspective and camera shift in a given take.

Sorry, forgot 'in a perfect world' is only used in movie trailers these days!

Obviously the people actually doing the VFX-work disagree with you.
They use whatever technique is best to finish a job and not whatever technique you think is best to finish a job.

No, they're doing work that utilizes their facilities and also matches with directorial accords. Since ILM sold off their modelshop and uses that company on only an occasional basis (one that DOES include this flick, though for what we're not sure, since Kerner has been wordlessly deflecting inquiries to ILM), ILM does CG work, not physical stuff.

Was I talking specifically about ILM?
Mhmm... no.

The industry changed very quickly from a 'use as appropriate' mix of tech in the mid90s to a 'you can do 10 times as many shots for only 5 times the money' doing nearly all CG, which is the only reasonable explanation for the larger budgets and largely inferior fx work of the last 10-12 years, at least in the arena of stuff like spaceships.

Yes, we all know your 'CGI is teh sux'-line.

The CG-only solution is one driven by aesthetics (nobody cares about image quality, as long as you have a huge shot count)

How dare those artists who use their talents to create these VFX-shots not meet your expectations.
Funny though that the movie industry and the audiences are more than satisfied with their creations.

and finance (already addressed above) ...

Yeah, it's a business...

if you have some love for it, go ahead and wallow, cuz there's a deep pool of it to wade through to get to the good stuff.

Nice.

 

[M'Sharak]

Get a room, you two. Jeez...


Sooo, lens flares and reflections!

 

[cooleddie74]

I was too busy looking at Kirk's motorcycle. It was pretty badass.

 

[Kryton]

And it purrs like the Jetsons car.

 

[cooleddie74]

Can't beat early 23rd century moped technology.

Pussy Magnet to the Nth Degree.

 

[trevanian]

Get a room, you two. Jeez...


Sooo, lens flares and reflections!

is that supposed to be a friendly, or is it okay for me to lob a few back again? (I stress LOB because if I came to the net to volley, there'd be blood.)

 

[Vektor]

I think people also need to bear in mind that the video being scrutinized to a degree sufficient to detect such things as these lens flares is not necessarily representative of exactly how it will look in the theater. Black point differences, for example, can be exaggerated on a computer monitor in a way that is unnoticeable on the big screen or even on most home theater setups. Just sayin'.