Star Trek TNG Remastered?

[3D Master]

Perhaps not better, but pretty damn close (even in this unfinished, untextured state this CG-model looks amazing):



The thread about this model can be found at Foundation3D.com: http://www.foundation3d.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3875

Holy crap that's horrible. Flat and cartoony as they come.

Can't you read?
Of course it looks flat and unrealistic. It's not a finished model.
It has no textures and/or no properly set-up surface/material settings.

I didn't bother to read. All I did was look, and you are you seriously trying to make a case for good 3D space ship, PROPERLY DEPICTED IN SPACE THAT LOOKS LIKE AN OBJECT, with an incomplete, flat, cartoony ship?

Oh, and here is a very good example of great looking modern CGI:

And you know WHY!? Because as it is on the ground, with people walking around, and our brains are entirely geared toward dealing with pictures of stuff on the earth with people around them, any wrong lighting would be instantly noticeable and HEAVILY noticeable, so they automatically went to correct it until they had THE LIGHTING RIGHT!

Hence why monsters, and dinosaurs and stuff that is walking around on the ground and interacting with people, have always looked so much better than ships in space. Because bad lighting of these, would become instantly visible and make it look worse than stop motion picture, so they spent their time on making the monster seamlessly blend into the picture.

The do not have to do this with Starships. Since we've never been in space, and our brains are not geared toward dealing with things in space, and partially fool it by lighting the ship as if it's on the ground; you're brain doesn't automally go: "Wrong, wrong, wrong, eh, false information." It isn't until you notice that old visual effects like TOS, the ships looked much more like actual large objects in comparison to new shots, that your brain shifts gears and you start to notice how bad it really is. For those of us who grew with the model shots of TOS, it's been a lot easier to notice. Me on the other hand I'm of the previous group, I grew up on TNG, and DS9 and thought, "Looks so good." It wasn't until later age when I went to rewatch TOS, that the ship felt more like an object. And it wasn't after watching more episodes of TOS, and comparing it to the newer SFX - at first I didn't want to believe it - that my brain slowly got more and more trained into noticing the differences. And that what previously made it look good, now makes it look flat.

 

[ST-One]

Holy crap that's horrible. Flat and cartoony as they come.

Can't you read?
Of course it looks flat and unrealistic. It's not a finished model.
It has no textures and/or no properly set-up surface/material settings.

I didn't bother to read. All I did was look, and you are you seriously trying to make a case for good 3D space ship, PROPERLY DEPICTED IN SPACE THAT LOOKS LIKE AN OBJECT, with an incomplete, flat, cartoony ship?

Stop your crusade against CGI, will you please?

And, when you talk about a 'good 3D space ship', do you mean a physical miniature or a 3D-model?

I just posted that picture of this model because it has (almost) all the details of the 6-foot miniature it only lacks some proper textures/materials to look really good.

Oh, and here is a very good example of great looking modern CGI:

And you know WHY!? Because as it is on the ground, with people walking around, and our brains are entirely geared toward dealing with pictures of stuff on the earth with people around them, any wrong lighting would be instantly noticeable and HEAVILY noticeable, so they automatically went to correct it until they had THE LIGHTING RIGHT!

Hence why monsters, and dinosaurs and stuff that is walking around on the ground and interacting with people, have always looked so much better than ships in space. Because bad lighting of these, would become instantly visible and make it look worse than stop motion picture, so they spent their time on making the monster seamlessly blend into the picture.

The do not have to do this with Starships. Since we've never been in space, and our brains are not geared toward dealing with things in space, and partially fool it by lighting the ship as if it's on the ground; you're brain doesn't automally go: "Wrong, wrong, wrong, eh, false information." It isn't until you notice that old visual effects like TOS, the ships looked much more like actual large objects in comparison to new shots, that your brain shifts gears and you start to notice how bad it really is. For those of us who grew with the model shots of TOS, it's been a lot easier to notice. Me on the other hand I'm of the previous group, I grew up on TNG, and DS9 and thought, "Looks so good." It wasn't until later age when I went to rewatch TOS, that the ship felt more like an object. And it wasn't after watching more episodes of TOS, and comparing it to the newer SFX - at first I didn't want to believe it - that my brain slowly got more and more trained into noticing the differences. And that what previously made it look good, now makes it look flat.

So, you want your space ships to look like obvious miniatures, like they often did in TOS and TNG and even DS9?

 

[3D Master]

Can't you read?
Of course it looks flat and unrealistic. It's not a finished model.
It has no textures and/or no properly set-up surface/material settings.

I didn't bother to read. All I did was look, and you are you seriously trying to make a case for good 3D space ship, PROPERLY DEPICTED IN SPACE THAT LOOKS LIKE AN OBJECT, with an incomplete, flat, cartoony ship?

Stop your crusade against CGI, will you please?

What crusade against CGI!? Nowhere did I anywhere say that CGI is bad or wrong, anywhere. In fact, I've been saying that the model work of the 25 years has been every bit as bad as the CGI.

CGI is not the problem, nowhere did I say that it is. It's the way it (and model-work) has been used when it comes to depicting space ships. Most notably the bad lighting.

And, when you talk about a 'good 3D space ship', do you mean a physical miniature or a 3D-model?

A ship that actually looks like 3-dimensional genuine object. Not a flat cartoon.

I just posted that picture of this model because it has (almost) all the details of the 6-foot miniature it only lacks some proper textures/materials to look really good.

It will only look good, if they use good compositing; more specifically: the right lighting, proper camera movements, and movements of the ship. If you don't this right, it will look every bit as flat and cartoony as all the other ships we've seen flying around in visual effects over the past 20 to 25 years.

And you know WHY!? Because as it is on the ground, with people walking around, and our brains are entirely geared toward dealing with pictures of stuff on the earth with people around them, any wrong lighting would be instantly noticeable and HEAVILY noticeable, so they automatically went to correct it until they had THE LIGHTING RIGHT!

Hence why monsters, and dinosaurs and stuff that is walking around on the ground and interacting with people, have always looked so much better than ships in space. Because bad lighting of these, would become instantly visible and make it look worse than stop motion picture, so they spent their time on making the monster seamlessly blend into the picture.

The do not have to do this with Starships. Since we've never been in space, and our brains are not geared toward dealing with things in space, and partially fool it by lighting the ship as if it's on the ground; you're brain doesn't automally go: "Wrong, wrong, wrong, eh, false information." It isn't until you notice that old visual effects like TOS, the ships looked much more like actual large objects in comparison to new shots, that your brain shifts gears and you start to notice how bad it really is. For those of us who grew with the model shots of TOS, it's been a lot easier to notice. Me on the other hand I'm of the previous group, I grew up on TNG, and DS9 and thought, "Looks so good." It wasn't until later age when I went to rewatch TOS, that the ship felt more like an object. And it wasn't after watching more episodes of TOS, and comparing it to the newer SFX - at first I didn't want to believe it - that my brain slowly got more and more trained into noticing the differences. And that what previously made it look good, now makes it look flat.

So, you want your space ships to look like obvious miniatures, like they often did in TOS and TNG and even DS9?

:sighs:

You know what looks like an obvious miniature and toy? The only thing in the above link that looked remotely like an actual object; it was the shuttle in the cover picture of the trailer on the left side of the page. Watch that trailer, and watch it look like a toy.

And I considered it: BAD.

 

[ST-One]

What crusade against CGI!? Nowhere did I anywhere say that CGI is bad or wrong, anywhere. In fact, I've been saying that the model work of the 25 years has been every bit as bad as the CGI.

CGI is not the problem, nowhere did I say that it is. It's the way it (and model-work) has been used when it comes to depicting space ships. Most notably the bad lighting.

A ship that actually looks like 3-dimensional genuine object. Not a flat cartoon.

It will only look good, if they use good compositing; more specifically: the right lighting, proper camera movements, and movements of the ship. If you don't this right, it will look every bit as flat and cartoony as all the other ships we've seen flying around in visual effects over the past 20 to 25 years.

So, if the VFX-shots would look like this you'd get behind a remaking of the TNG-VFX using CGI?

You know what looks like an obvious miniature and toy? The only thing in the above link that looked remotely like an actual object; it was the shuttle in the cover picture of the trailer on the left side of the page. Watch that trailer, and watch it look like a toy.

And I considered it: BAD.

 

[3D Master]

What crusade against CGI!? Nowhere did I anywhere say that CGI is bad or wrong, anywhere. In fact, I've been saying that the model work of the 25 years has been every bit as bad as the CGI.

CGI is not the problem, nowhere did I say that it is. It's the way it (and model-work) has been used when it comes to depicting space ships. Most notably the bad lighting.

A ship that actually looks like 3-dimensional genuine object. Not a flat cartoon.

It will only look good, if they use good compositing; more specifically: the right lighting, proper camera movements, and movements of the ship. If you don't this right, it will look every bit as flat and cartoony as all the other ships we've seen flying around in visual effects over the past 20 to 25 years.

So, if the VFX-shots would look like this you'd get behind a remaking of the TNG-VFX using CGI?

Nope. STXI was just more of what I was talking about it.

 

[ST-One]

What crusade against CGI!? Nowhere did I anywhere say that CGI is bad or wrong, anywhere. In fact, I've been saying that the model work of the 25 years has been every bit as bad as the CGI.

CGI is not the problem, nowhere did I say that it is. It's the way it (and model-work) has been used when it comes to depicting space ships. Most notably the bad lighting.

A ship that actually looks like 3-dimensional genuine object. Not a flat cartoon.

It will only look good, if they use good compositing; more specifically: the right lighting, proper camera movements, and movements of the ship. If you don't this right, it will look every bit as flat and cartoony as all the other ships we've seen flying around in visual effects over the past 20 to 25 years.

So, if the VFX-shots would look like this you'd get behind a remaking of the TNG-VFX using CGI?

Nope. STXI was just more of what I was talking about it.

Okay, then I have to conclude that you do not know what you are talking about.

 

[ST-One]

Let's compare TMP to Star Trek







And now explain to me, please, why you think one is better than the other.

 

[3D Master]

Let's compare TMP to Star Trek







And now explain to me, please, why you think one is better than the other.

Well, look at the above two, and look at the new ship. Notice those doors opening? Notice how they stick out from what would be their closed position? Dang, hadn't noticed that one did ya? That requires you to actually concentrate on the picture, and take an enormous amount of concentration, doesn't it? That's because there is nothing that allows you to judge depth by; it is flat. The same for the flying ship and the still ships inside. Where is the flying ship? Further back, more in front, somewhere in the middle. Once again, in order to figure that out, you practically have get a measurer and start measuring and do scientific calculations.

The second two pictures it's all about composition. The TMP has both the nacelles, and the station above; giving you a sense of depth. In the new one, there's nothing. Not even the shuttle craft in the new one allows for any idea of scale; the shuttle itself barely has anything that you can use to judge it's 3-dimensional nature either. It's too little though, it looks flat.

 

[ST-One]

Let's compare TMP to Star Trek







And now explain to me, please, why you think one is better than the other.

Well, look at the above two, and look at the new ship. Notice those doors opening? Notice how they stick out from what would be their closed position? Dang, hadn't noticed that one did ya? That requires you to actually concentrate on the picture, and take an enormous amount of concentration, doesn't it? That's because there is nothing that allows you to judge depth by; it is flat. The same for the flying ship and the still ships inside. Where is the flying ship? Further back, more in front, somewhere in the middle. Once again, in order to figure that out, you practically have get a measurer and start measuring and do scientific calculations.

The second two pictures it's all about composition. The TMP has both the nacelles, and the station above; giving you a sense of depth. In the new one, there's nothing. Not even the shuttle craft in the new one allows for any idea of scale; the shuttle itself barely has anything that you can use to judge it's 3-dimensional nature either. It's too little though, it looks flat.

What the devil are you talking about?
You are not making one shred of sense.

 

[Gepard]

Well, look at the above two, and look at the new ship. Notice those doors opening? Notice how they stick out from what would be their closed position? Dang, hadn't noticed that one did ya? That requires you to actually concentrate on the picture, and take an enormous amount of concentration, doesn't it? That's because there is nothing that allows you to judge depth by; it is flat.

You'd get much better reactions from people if you weren't so condescending and rude. I'm tempted to say more, but suffice to say I don't want an infraction thanks to your insufferable posts.

 

[trevanian]

Let's compare TMP to Star Trek







And now explain to me, please, why you think one is better than the other.

Well for one, in the bottom image, the non-luminous quality of light coming from what I guess is the bridge exterior kills the shot right off. A dynamic range issue, which shouldn't have been an issue, since somebody said they did several different separate renders/passes to capture more of the range, yet the luminous tonalities are not luminous.

Enchiladas are ready, so I'll have to look at the top pair later.

 

[3D Master]

Well, look at the above two, and look at the new ship. Notice those doors opening? Notice how they stick out from what would be their closed position? Dang, hadn't noticed that one did ya? That requires you to actually concentrate on the picture, and take an enormous amount of concentration, doesn't it? That's because there is nothing that allows you to judge depth by; it is flat.

You'd get much better reactions from people if you weren't so condescending and rude. I'm tempted to say more, but suffice to say I don't want an infraction thanks to your insufferable posts.

And you wouldn't get "insufferable posts" (given what I've been put through here, I'm sweet and nice), if you don't spend your time insulting them first. "I wonder why he's called 3D master when he hates 3D so much." Bullshit about "scientific accuracy" that comes out of someone's ass. Continuing annoying questions about effects houses and specific effects work, like that matters when I've said over and over again that it's the entire paradigm on SFX for space ships is made. And on, and on, and on.

I didn't start it, YOU people did.

 

[Gepard]

I didn't start it, YOU people did.

So in other words, any time somebody disagrees with you or is just plain confused about your attitude we're "putting [you] through" something that deserves your incessant bile. Uh-huh.

Well for one, in the bottom image, the non-luminous quality of light coming from what I guess is the bridge exterior kills the shot right off.

Are you referring to the sensor dome on the top, which used to be the bridge in the original timeline? The new bridge is the little slot underneath.

At any rate, I'm unclear what you mean by "non-luminous quality," beyond there being no glow around the light source, and how that's supposed to relate to the dynamic range. The interior of the dome does look over-exposed, but that's probably realistic for a bright enough light source.

 

[ST-One]

Let's compare TMP to Star Trek







And now explain to me, please, why you think one is better than the other.

Well for one, in the bottom image, the non-luminous quality of light coming from what I guess is the bridge exterior kills the shot right off. A dynamic range issue, which shouldn't have been an issue, since somebody said they did several different separate renders/passes to capture more of the range, yet the luminous tonalities are not luminous.

Everything that should cast light on something, does so.
So, I don't see what you mean.

 

[3D Master]

I didn't start it, YOU people did.

So in other words, any time somebody disagrees with you or is just plain confused about your attitude we're "putting [you] through" something that deserves your incessant bile. Uh-huh.

When you write something like, "Why are you called 3D Master when you hate 3D?", is not being confused, it's being a dick.

And the same goes for deliberately spending your time trying to miss represent what someone wrote.

 

[ST-One]

I didn't start it, YOU people did.

So in other words, any time somebody disagrees with you or is just plain confused about your attitude we're "putting [you] through" something that deserves your incessant bile. Uh-huh.

When you write something like, "Why are you called 3D Master when you hate 3D?", is not being confused, it's being a dick.

And the same goes for deliberately spending your time trying to miss represent what someone wrote.

I can understand any criticism towards bad CGI and bad miniature-work.
But I can honestly not see your problems with the CG-work on Star Trek.
Think of the film what you may, but the fact is that the Enterprise was rarely shown so beautifully since TMP and TWOK.

 

[Gepard]

When you write something like, "Why are you called 3D Master when you hate 3D?", is not being confused, it's being a dick.

But you do. Your posts and your attitudes make crystal clear your loathing for modern VFX techniques and, by proxy, all who would enjoy them. Your posts are long-winded rationalizations for your anger; even the staff have called you out on it in the past. That you would also put a reference to your crusade in your username boggles my mind.

 

[Prologic9]

Are you referring to the sensor dome on the top, which used to be the bridge in the original timeline? The new bridge is the little slot underneath.

That has always been a sensor dome, save for very early on when it was a window. In the original timeline the bridge encompasses that entire structure.

 

[Gepard]

It's harder to get exact 1:1 matches between the original versions of the ship and the reboot because the artists changed so many proportions, but from the looks of things, they took the spotlight slots that were originally at the base of the bridge dome on the TMP refit and smooshed them down onto the deck 2 structure and turned it into the bridge. Similarly, the entire bridge dome seems to have been shrunk and turned into the sensor dome.

Some support for this comes from Ryan Church's concept painting which shows an original series-styled decks 1 and 2, with the bridge windows clearly at the deck 2 mark and the entire former bridge dome left intact above it.

 

[ST-One]

I've quickly thrown a scene together with Prologic's Enterprise-D and some very simple lighting.
Damn, I wish I were better at this.