Star-less Trek

[Chris_Johnston]

LiChiu said:
It does look better without the stars.

Thank you for backing me up, LiChiu!
Sorry for not acknowledging you sooner.

 

[The Squire of Gothos]

Chris_Johnston said:BTW, did anybody look at the Firefly screenies I linked to earlier?

Yup, although Firefly is usually busy enough in space that I haven't had time to notice the star scape

 

[Plum]

^^^
Yes! Nice gorram site.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Chris_Johnston said:
BTW, did anybody look at the Firefly screenies I linked to earlier?

Yeah, and I feel the absence of stars works fine in Firefly, since in it the shooting (like in nBSG) is consciously done to simulate the camera work of a "real life" documentary (shaky movement, delay on focus, etc.)
Star Trek shooting, OTOH, is more naturalistic.

 

[LiChiu]

iguana_tonante said:

Chris_Johnston said:
BTW, did anybody look at the Firefly screenies I linked to earlier?

Yeah, and I feel the absence of stars works fine in Firefly, since in it the shooting (like in nBSG) is consciously done to simulate the camera work of a "real life" documentary (shaky movement, delay on focus, etc.)
Star Trek shooting, OTOH, is more naturalistic.

That's interesting. Maybe they should do camera work like that on star trek just for a different look.

 

[Holytomato]

"Just look at the opening credits of VOYAGER...all the stars, stellar gases, nebulae and random rocks and planets peppering the screen as the cast credits roll by and the ship zooms everywhere."

I would love to see someone put a Constitution (Mark 1: TOS-R, In a Mirror Darkly, Star Trek: Legacy. Mark 2: TMP. Mark 3: Phase II Tv series, or movie) in the Voyager intro. Maybe add the asteroid shot from "These are the Voyages."

 

[LiChiu]

After playing around with celestia I am convinced the starless background looks better.

 

[CoveTom]

Chris_Johnston said:
In interstellar space this wouldn't be unrealistic (but then the Enterprise would need to be lit by the onboard floods).

In TMP -- one of the few times in modern Trek they've actually cared so much about the scientific accuracy of the visual details -- Douglas Trumbull came to exactly the same conclusion.

On the TMPE documentaries, he mentions how that if you are outside of a solar system, there is no sun there is a key light and so he felt that the source of illumination had to be the Enterprise herself. That's why his version of the Enterprise has very distinct floodlights illuminating the hull from various angles. Now, he also admits that once he had justified the lighting that way, then he and his special effects team added a bunch more lighting to the ship that would not really be there.

To me, that seems like a good approach -- think about how something would really happen, do a little work to make it look realistic, and then enhance or change it as necessary for proper dramatic effect.

 

[Nebusj]

Perhaps, but then the blew the concept by supposing that the flood lights had to be something separate from the hull elements themselves, that is, that the saucer would be lit from some specific points rather than from its whole skin. My suspicion is that's going to be a point which looks increasingly quaint as the years pass. (Yes, the uniform styles and color choices are distinctly late 1970s, but at least fashion moves in fits, starts, cycles, and tantrums, and they could come back around to looking futuristic chic. Plainly obsolete technology has a much harder time of it.)

For visual science fiction it's probably best to come up with a striking concept and present it beautifully, and if it's a good idea, then the reasons why it works will be figured out by the audience that wants to know.

 

[xortex]

The ship in TOS was extrmely brightly lit white all of the time. I liked that the best.

 

[Chris_Johnston]

LiChiu said:
After playing around with celestia I am convinced the starless background looks better.

[image]http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u118/duck_duck1991/connie1.jpg[/image]

Must... have... USS Constitution... in Celestia!

Where did you get that? I don't see it on any of the Add-On sites!

 

[LiChiu]

Chris_Johnston said:

LiChiu said:
After playing around with celestia I am convinced the starless background looks better.

Must... have... USS Constitution... in Celestia!

Where did you get that? I don't see it on any of the Add-On sites!

I believe it was in the Romulas and Remus pack. I remember the ship was orbiting Romulas and I just moved it to be in Earth orbit. It is easy to put it anywhere.

EDIT:
Here are the star trek downloads available.
http://www.celestiamotherlode.net/catalog/fic_startrek.php

 

[Chris_Johnston]

Yeah, that's where I was lookin', but the Romulus pack didn't give any details as to what it contained.
Thanks for the heads-up, though!
D-loading it now!

 

[Chris_Johnston]

CoveTom said:

Chris_Johnston said:
In interstellar space this wouldn't be unrealistic (but then the Enterprise would need to be lit by the onboard floods).

In TMP -- one of the few times in modern Trek they've actually cared so much about the scientific accuracy of the visual details -- Douglas Trumbull came to exactly the same conclusion.

On the TMPE documentaries, he mentions how that if you are outside of a solar system, there is no sun there is a key light and so he felt that the source of illumination had to be the Enterprise herself. That's why his version of the Enterprise has very distinct floodlights illuminating the hull from various angles. Now, he also admits that once he had justified the lighting that way, then he and his special effects team added a bunch more lighting to the ship that would not really be there.

To me, that seems like a good approach -- think about how something would really happen, do a little work to make it look realistic, and then enhance or change it as necessary for proper dramatic effect.

Thanks for reminding me to go hunt down some screenies from TMP, CoveTom!

[image]http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tmp/themotionpicture0410.jpg[/image]
[image]http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tmp/themotionpicture0608.jpg[/image]
[image]http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tmp/themotionpicture0629.jpg[/image]

 

[LiChiu]

Chris_Johnston said:

CoveTom said:

Chris_Johnston said:
In interstellar space this wouldn't be unrealistic (but then the Enterprise would need to be lit by the onboard floods).

In TMP -- one of the few times in modern Trek they've actually cared so much about the scientific accuracy of the visual details -- Douglas Trumbull came to exactly the same conclusion.

On the TMPE documentaries, he mentions how that if you are outside of a solar system, there is no sun there is a key light and so he felt that the source of illumination had to be the Enterprise herself. That's why his version of the Enterprise has very distinct floodlights illuminating the hull from various angles. Now, he also admits that once he had justified the lighting that way, then he and his special effects team added a bunch more lighting to the ship that would not really be there.

To me, that seems like a good approach -- think about how something would really happen, do a little work to make it look realistic, and then enhance or change it as necessary for proper dramatic effect.

Thanks for reminding me to go hunt down some screenies from TMP, CoveTom!

Nice