The OFFICIAL STNG-R general discussion thread!

[Jefferies]

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.

My impression from this thread so far has been that very few individuals are actually crying for wide spread CGI replacement. The general consensus seems to be that retaining the old model work in most cases is preferable.

So I'm not really sure what the issue is? As you have pointed out some things need to be CGI due to technical problems with the original footage. In the few cases this had to be done I feel they have done a pretty good job considering their limits on time and resources. The vocal minority who is constantly bashing the accomplishments of this project is a tad annoying at times because their criticisms are excessively fastidious. Which brings me back to Mr. Shattner’s advice to people of this particular nature...

 

[Dac]

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 did only mean that one shot. All the other CG replacements have only been one shot also.

 

[Xavier_Storma]

I would prefere the option to have a fully remastered old SFX TNG, and the possibility to watch the episodes with ALL NEW CG effects.
Pretty much like they did with TOS-R on BD.

Image they would include awesomeness like this:

 

[mswood]

You can perhaps guess posters' ages from how much they obsess about CGI and not about the quality of the stories or the acting. I speak as an old fart who witnessed many theatrical performances - staged proscenium, thrust, and in the round - before I ever set eyes on a video game.

Yes please guess my age. And you should of course understand that the stories aren't changing, the only aspect of the product is sharper focus to the production values of the show (of which the fx is so far the only aspect getting more then just a sharper focus, its actually getting some things changed). Its highly logical for that aspect of the show to get the lions share of the discussion.

And just for the records (even though I honestly don't remember it) my family has film footage of me watching the original broadcast episode of TOS), thought I only remember it from its early 70's syndication airings.

As for CGI, like any production tool. I love good CGI, I love good model work, I hate bad CGI I hate bad model work. Certainly TNG had plenty of both good and bad motion control photography. To not realize that would be utterly foolish. Just as you can have bad and good CGI and to not realize that is equally foolish.

 

[mswood]

I would prefere the option to have a fully remastered old SFX TNG, and the possibility to watch the episodes with ALL NEW CG effects.
Pretty much like they did with TOS-R on BD.

Image they would include awesomeness like this:

Please no. While I like the more organic (at least in still form) movement of the alien (tentacles). I would hate for early Trek to have that perspective shot of the Enterprise. Which is very much not the style of layout the show would have used. Later in the shows run so more variance was used with layout, but not in the first season.

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.

My impression from this thread so far has been that very few individuals are actually crying for wide spread CGI replacement. The general consensus seems to be that retaining the old model work in most cases is preferable.

So I'm not really sure what the issue is? As you have pointed out some things need to be CGI due to technical problems with the original footage. In the few cases this had to be done I feel they have done a pretty good job considering their limits on time and resources. The vocal minority who is constantly bashing the accomplishments of this project is a tad annoying at times because their criticisms are excessively fastidious. Which brings me back to Mr. Shattner’s advice to people of this particular nature...

Truthfully we can be just a little excessive. But when a family member who doesn't watch Trek notices something then I don't think its something that should get a pass.

Well my boyfriend who only watches Trek if I make him, only noticed one thing about the three episodes, and that was the opening shot of Sins of the Father, he wondered what was wrong with our player. Nothing else, was mentioned besides he didn't remember TNG looking that good before (clearly a compliment on the general work done). THe only negative (of course besides the story and acting) was that one shot with mentioned above.

He liked these much, much better then the TOS remaster, which he found very poorly done. Though in fairness its been decades since I have made him watch an episode of TOS, before that so he probably remembers very little about the look of the show.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

You can perhaps guess posters' ages from how much they obsess about CGI and not about the quality of the stories or the acting. I speak as an old fart who witnessed many theatrical performances - staged proscenium, thrust, and in the round - before I ever set eyes on a video game.

Yes please guess my age. And you should of course understand that the stories aren't changing, the only aspect of the product is sharper focus to the production values of the show (of which the fx is so far the only aspect getting more then just a sharper focus, its actually getting some things changed). Its highly logical for that aspect of the show to get the lions share of the discussion.

And just for the records (even though I honestly don't remember it) my family has film footage of me watching the original broadcast episode of TOS), thought I only remember it from its early 70's syndication airings.

As for CGI, like any production tool. I love good CGI, I love good model work, I hate bad CGI I hate bad model work. Certainly TNG had plenty of both good and bad motion control photography. To not realize that would be utterly foolish. Just as you can have bad and good CGI and to not realize that is equally foolish.

Yeah, please don't take my comment personally. Anyway, all I'm really saying is, I care more about the overall huge improvement in the image and sound that allows the stories to be told more effectively than I care about the accuracy of detail in eye-candy shots.

 

[tomswift2002]

Well I don't think it was ever the intent to match the work being done by the artist of the day (during tis production phase). and I have never held it to that standard. But I would had liked to see the original mesh fully rendered (like some early released images), and to see work done that might have matched the early CGI of 1st season Voyager, but in ship shots, I think they in general failed. And when you show that level of render and then look at teh digital matte work (I really, really liked those a lot). They don't match. One has much sharper detail (well thats what it looks like on my 55 HD).

But clearly the artists didn't get the quality they wanted on the Enterprise, and clearly they had no problem with much more detailed digital mattes and planetary bodies, and most of the praise I have read for the remastered work, wasn't the ship shots.

You realize that the CGI used for Voyager's opening was done using PCBasic and AmigaBasic on some early 90's PC's and Commodore Amiga's, right? And yet that CGI still stands up a lot better than Enterprise's CGI. I remember for years being impressed by that opening, wondering how they did those model shots, until I read an Issue of Star Tre The Magazine from 2000 where it was discussed and the CGI was revealed.

No, Enterprise received the worst CGI of ny show.

Plus that CGI D almost made me want to vomit when it appeared on screen in TATV, because it was so cheap and ugly looking.

 

[mswood]

Well I don't think it was ever the intent to match the work being done by the artist of the day (during tis production phase). and I have never held it to that standard. But I would had liked to see the original mesh fully rendered (like some early released images), and to see work done that might have matched the early CGI of 1st season Voyager, but in ship shots, I think they in general failed. And when you show that level of render and then look at teh digital matte work (I really, really liked those a lot). They don't match. One has much sharper detail (well thats what it looks like on my 55 HD).

But clearly the artists didn't get the quality they wanted on the Enterprise, and clearly they had no problem with much more detailed digital mattes and planetary bodies, and most of the praise I have read for the remastered work, wasn't the ship shots.

You realize that the CGI used for Voyager's opening was done using PCBasic and AmigaBasic on some early 90's PC's and Commodore Amiga's, right? And yet that CGI still stands up a lot better than Enterprise's CGI. I remember for years being impressed by that opening, wondering how they did those model shots, until I read an Issue of Star Tre The Magazine from 2000 where it was discussed and the CGI was revealed.

No, Enterprise received the worst CGI of ny show.

Plus that CGI D almost made me want to vomit when it appeared on screen in TATV, because it was so cheap and ugly looking.

I am quite aware of the CGI work done by Santa Barbara Studios for the opening. The opening , with an inaccurate (or incomplete Mesh) still works, but its also done so with the beautiful space backgrounds that no regular episode is going to be given. It also features the model (and an inaccurate other model) as well, as to mix both CGI and motion Control Photography). In fact I also think Santa Barbara Studios (with the exceptions of not getting a completely accurate mesh) had far more time then the typical episode to due their beautiful background shots (in fact thats what lead them to Insurrection, where I was terribly disappointed with their ship work, still beautiful space scenery though).

And with ENT it had (like I mention above) both good and bad CGI, and unlike most other Trek series it actually had a reduced production budget something DS9 and Voyager never dealt with even though both shows also had massive audience erosion.

I do agree that I general wasn't a huge fan of the fx company on ENT (but clearly saw their work done on other shows to show that it wasn't the worst fx of the time period they produced, not at all). I do admit that season 4 really did take a visual hit, and due to the fact that this was during the budget cut I assume that had something to do with it.

And I thought their ships shots especially season 1-2 were far above the work done by Santa Barbara Studios, again only their ship shots, I love their scenery, it was and still is breath taking).

But be that as it may, I still think all of it was on average better then anything done on TOS remastered (ship shot wise).

 

[NewHorizon]

I would prefere the option to have a fully remastered old SFX TNG, and the possibility to watch the episodes with ALL NEW CG effects.
Pretty much like they did with TOS-R on BD.

They would probably have to charge 300 dollars a season to pull that off, and double the number of employees to pull it off in the same amount of time. lol

TOS:R episodes were scanned from the complete 'edited for screen' 32mm film of the episodes. The effects were complete...there was no recompositing to be done. TNG:R episodes, on the other hand, are being scanned from the un-edited raw negatives. The effects are then re-composited.

The show is being re-edited from the ground up. It's major work, so there is no way they could feasibly provide both options...not without charging a mint to fund it.

I'm personally over the moon about the way they have chosen to do it. TOS:R was a huge disappointment to me in terms of consistency in the execution and quality of the CGI replacements.

 

[tomswift2002]

I am quite aware of the CGI work done by Santa Barbara Studios for the opening. The opening , with an inaccurate (or incomplete Mesh) still works, but its also done so with the beautiful space backgrounds that no regular episode is going to be given. It also features the model (and an inaccurate other model) as well, as to mix both CGI and motion Control Photography). In fact I also think Santa Barbara Studios (with the exceptions of not getting a completely accurate mesh) had far more time then the typical episode to due their beautiful background shots (in fact thats what lead them to Insurrection, where I was terribly disappointed with their ship work, still beautiful space scenery though).

And with ENT it had (like I mention above) both good and bad CGI, and unlike most other Trek series it actually had a reduced production budget something DS9 and Voyager never dealt with even though both shows also had massive audience erosion.

I do agree that I general wasn't a huge fan of the fx company on ENT (but clearly saw their work done on other shows to show that it wasn't the worst fx of the time period they produced, not at all). I do admit that season 4 really did take a visual hit, and due to the fact that this was during the budget cut I assume that had something to do with it.

And I thought their ships shots especially season 1-2 were far above the work done by Santa Barbara Studios, again only their ship shots, I love their scenery, it was and still is breath taking).

But be that as it may, I still think all of it was on average better then anything done on TOS remastered (ship shot wise).

According to John Grossman in the July 2002 edition of Star Trek The Magazine the companies that worked on the opening titles for Voyager with the CGI ship were Amblin Imaging and Eden FX, not Santa Barbera Studios. Whereas Eden had Foundation Imaging helping them on Enterprise (Foundation had previously worked on Seasons 6 & 7 of DS9 doing the CGI for the big ship battles). Unfortunately, Eden FX dropped the ball on the CGI in Enterprise and when it came time to redo the SFX for TOS-R it is a very good thing that CBS went in house with CBS Digital, otherwise we'd have CGI models that wouldn't look anywhere near being studio models, and would look like half-rendered "Michelin-stage" ships.

And even wtih Eden FX's CGI issues on the Voyager opening shots, those CGI shots look a lot better on my 40" than any of the shots of the the all-CGI NX-01 or the 1701 or 1701-D in These Are The Voyages.... Even when I saw my first episode of Enterprise on VHS back in 2002 I was shocked and dismayed at the extremely low-quality CGI that Paramount was presenting (not to mention the low-quality scripts that they were approving for the show); the NX-01 looked like something from an early (1995-1997) Playstation 1 video game.

 

[mswood]

Well according to Cinefantastigue two CGI models were used in the opening credits. One by Amblin, and one by Santa Barbara Studios.

If that article is accurate they also spent 8 weeks on those 104 seconds. Hardly something that would be afforded to a weekly series. Just as much of the motion control work on Pilots are giving a little bit more prep and production time then an weekly episode, this also applied to CGI work as well.

But irregardless on whose work it was, for example I always preferred Digital Muse DS9 work over Eden Fx's, though in its own ways it was like watching the difference between motion control photography overseen by Legato versus that of Curry (Legato the one I always, always preferred).

But my whole point on CGI on older Trek was that I wasn't going to be judging TOS remastered versus the current shows (like NuBSG's), that i just wanted it to be at least reaching the quality of the CGI we saw through much older Trek. For example look at the quality when Voyager went fully CGI (somewhere during season 3) you can see a huge level of difference in quality over that run. Just as you can see a CGI difference through the last two years of DS9. Both the good and the bad.

And again knowing that ENT suffered budget cuts that did hit its production departments, and seeing the same companies work in season 1-3 (I also think parts of season 3 were weaker, other's I thought very strong), you can easily see a difference.

Whats funny is that Amblin, became Digital Muse, and Digital Muse became Eden FX. Yet due to the change in worker's you can see a difference between them.

But I do disagree, I seriously disagree about even the worst shots of Eden looking worse then what CBS digital gave us (though of course they also had large issues with time and costs). And I wish my playstation had some of the effects work they did, you must have had a significantly different video game collection then what I enjoyed.

It's the one production issue that I literally know no one (in person, be it friends, co workers, people I have meet or spent time with in conventions) that actually likes that work for ships. Every other major production issue I have friends with different opinions. From set design, to DP's, to costumes, to model vs CGI, from model Producers, to music composition, makeup work, ect. But on this everyone I know disliked that work.

While I know that's not an accurate sample, I also don't read about it being well received by posters on various forums (though it is the one place where I finally have seen people who did like it).

 

[22 Stars]

Is irregardless a real word?

 

[Sho]

^ Yes, quite common in English.

 

[Jefferies]

^ Yes, quite common in English.

Wouldn't exactly use the word common. Compared with regardless and irrespective its really quite rare. In fact, I can't even remember the last time I heard or read it. Must be quite a while ago.

 

[Trekker4747]

It's not "really" a word. As "regardless" pretty much means the same thing people think "irregardless" means. But it's "becoming/became" a word because people kept using it wrong.

Brawndo has electrolytes.

 

[Tosk]

It's got what plants crave.

 

[Trekker4747]

Water? You mean from the toilet?

 

[Start Wreck]

Is irregardless a real word?

No. It's a confused amalgam of the words irrespective and regardless, and technically would mean the opposite of what's intended.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Is irregardless a real word?

No. It's a confused amalgam of the words irrespective and regardless, and technically would mean the opposite of what's intended.

Used as long ago as 1874: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irregardless

 

[ATimson]

No. It's a confused amalgam of the words irrespective and regardless, and technically would mean the opposite of what's intended.

The latter has never stopped the English language before (see also: flammable/inflammable).