I find you are being overly harsh! TOS-R was quite poor in a fair share of episodes, I will give you that. However, TNG-R is doing a much much better job IMHO. Is the CGI we have seen so far perfect? Of course not, but beggars can't be choosers!
The OFFICIAL STNG-R general discussion thread!
- Thread starter jefferiestubes8
- Start date
- Status
I find you are being overly harsh! TOS-R was quite poor in a fair share of episodes, I will give you that. However, TNG-R is doing a much much better job IMHO. Is the CGI we have seen so far perfect? Of course not, but beggars can't be choosers!
TNG-R isn't having to recreate every effects shot from scratch either.
I don't think it's harsh. Yes, the team is doing a fantastic job on this series, but that one CGI shot of the Enterprise from the sampler disc looks significantly poorer than every single model shot, including the ugly four-footer, in terms of realism, lighting and physicality. It's why I'm glad they're mostly using model shots. Their CGI isn't up to scratch. At least, not yet.
Which shot from the sampler disc is confirmed as CGI?
The opening shot from The Inner Light.
There are two for sure.
A recreated digital Matte in the opening shot of Sins of the Father and the opening shot of the Enterprise dropping out of warp from The Inner Light.
I think people here are still mincing words. The CG shots don't look bad, simply different. Objectively the quality is top notch, they do match the lighting and look pretty closely. The only "problems" so far have been in detailing (SOTF matte) and movement/camera aperture (TIL opening). No one is bringing up the Saucer seperation shot anymore, which I think works extremely well and you don't notice it in amongst the rest of the shots.
For the general audience? These work fine. For most of us? These work fine. For the 5 of you bitching and moaning....eh? Haven't we already been through this at least twice in this thread?
For the general audience? These work fine. For most of us? These work fine. For the 5 of you bitching and moaning....eh? Haven't we already been through this at least twice in this thread?
The saucer-sep scene is the original effects work, not CGI.
^I'm pretty sure it has been established that this is not the original shot: http://tng.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x01/farpoint_hd_193.jpg
Just take a look at the DVD screenshot for comparison: http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s1/1x01/farpoint1_110.jpg
Edited to add: I think only some of the footage is original but not all of it.
Just take a look at the DVD screenshot for comparison: http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s1/1x01/farpoint1_110.jpg
Edited to add: I think only some of the footage is original but not all of it.
Last edited:
That cap is not the original shot (the black bars on the RCS quad indicate it to be CGI) but, IIRC, most of the saucer-sep stuff is the original effects. But I'd need to watch the sequence again to be sure.
I was just looking at some of the screenshots on Trek Core and it looks like the long shots are original but some of the close shots look to be CGI.
As someone pointed out (I think someone who worked on Trek, Sternbach maybe?) the CGI model has two black ports on the RCS thrusters and the physical model does not. In the closeup the ports are there and in the long shot they aren't.
As someone pointed out (I think someone who worked on Trek, Sternbach maybe?) the CGI model has two black ports on the RCS thrusters and the physical model does not. In the closeup the ports are there and in the long shot they aren't.
Maybe semantics, but there is only one 'proper' GCI shot. The new static shots aren't CGI. I mean, okay, they are literally computer generated but they're not just straight renders; they must have had some painting work done on them, or extra post-processing, because they're still frames.
There are three of these stills that I can see. There's the Sins of the Father opening shot, which is also reused at the start of the saucer separation in Encounter At Farpoint; there's another shot during the separation which is not the original model, and I suspect is two matte painting elements moving apart, rather than a rendered 3D model; and there's the shot of the Enterprise firing its energy beam to the planet towards the end of that episode.
I don't mind these stills, they look good (overly dark shadows aside). The only genuinely 3D rendered sequence is the opening shot of The Inner Light, and I honestly thought it looked "bad". That's why I'm glad they're mostly using model shots, but I'm concerned about them not being able to find some of the footage and ending up with poor CG recreations.
I guess we'll find out in the coming months.
There are three of these stills that I can see. There's the Sins of the Father opening shot, which is also reused at the start of the saucer separation in Encounter At Farpoint; there's another shot during the separation which is not the original model, and I suspect is two matte painting elements moving apart, rather than a rendered 3D model; and there's the shot of the Enterprise firing its energy beam to the planet towards the end of that episode.
I don't mind these stills, they look good (overly dark shadows aside). The only genuinely 3D rendered sequence is the opening shot of The Inner Light, and I honestly thought it looked "bad". That's why I'm glad they're mostly using model shots, but I'm concerned about them not being able to find some of the footage and ending up with poor CG recreations.
I guess we'll find out in the coming months.
I think there is a lot of generational bias in this thread as a whole.
A lot of the older generation will immediately jump to the "CGI is bad" viewpoint because they remember how horrid it used to be when it first came out and they have a lot of nostalgia for the great model work of the movies etc that is colouring their viewpoint.
Likewise the younger generation jump straight for the "They should CGI everything, give us bigger explosions and remake all the boring stock shots into new compositions because CGI makes this EASY now!" and not realising a lot of work and money still has to go into that.
Which explains why this thread is so long
While I respect your point about focusing on the effects over the story, to be fair it is not like this is a new series and we're ignoring the acting, characterisations and plotting in favour of salivating at the spacebattles like its the Star Wars prequels.
They've all be debated ad nauseum since 1987, the SFX are the only bit of "new" material that is provoking debate, which is why it seems weighted that way!
I myself was probably attracted to Trek by the kewl spaceships and explosions etc, I think all children are drawn in that way.
I freely admit when I first saw the Inner Light I thought it was boring, but then I was eight and no phasers were fired in the whole episode!
Its only when I grew up I had the opportunity to enjoy these episodes over again as an adult and not just enjoy them for their special effects!
I would have said the underbelly shot is a proper, 3d rendered animation, but either way it uses the new CG model. There's also the brief shot of the stardrive section at warp flying at the camera (a few seconds after the shot where it turns around while flying by the camera), which appears to be a new shot too. Its not as noticeable because of the short time of the shot, I only picked up on it because it someone else mentioned it here.
Good spot. That's a very quick shot and there's a lot of motion blur, so it's hard to judge the quality of the render.
Yay me.
another review
and there is a posting on Slashdot the a technology-related news website for nerds with almost 500 comments already.
Remastered Star Trek: the Next Generation Blu-ray a Huge Leap Forward
http://hothardware.com/News/Remastered-Star-Trek-The-Next-Generation-Bluray-A-Huge-Leap-Forward/
and there is a posting on Slashdot the a technology-related news website for nerds with almost 500 comments already.
Remastered Star Trek: the Next Generation Blu-ray a Huge Leap Forward
Not true:
Remastered shot:
original shot:
The perspective is slightly off, and you can clearly see that the remastered shot was done with the CG model.
Indeed! All this inability of folks to tell the CGI from the model work appart should be proof enough that the CGI can't be that terrible! It's really quite disturbing how some people will fixate and ruminate on issues like this. Not that I would want to quote Mr Shattner in this context, but he did have a point!
We've known about that shot being replaced for ages...most likely due to that section of film being used in the film Generations. I would say the majority of the saucer sep stuff is the original model work.
Contrary to the ridiculous post earlier about older folks not being able to accept CGI, I love CGI...it's just another tool...and when it's done well it's great. However, I don't care for the attitude that the effects must be replaced with CGI because the old effects are lame, or simply because 'they can'. They are what they are, and I want to see 'as much' of the original effects work re-scanned, re-composited, and preserved in this project as possible.
When a situation calls for a CGI replacement, such as lost footage, my only hope is that they have the skill and the time to properly recreate the scene to have it match the existing footage.
They may want to start by asking whoever created their CGI model to re-texture it to better match the TV series paint job on the model, rather than the Generations paint job they did on the ship.
- Status
Similar threads
