The OFFICIAL STNG-R general discussion thread!
- Thread starter jefferiestubes8
- Start date
- Status
Yes, because a convincing rendition of sparkles in water is a difficult application of particle animation and complex lighting. If you want photorealism and not a painted look it's just more cost and time effective to shoot it on film, and they didn't even need to.
It's not impossible if the original filmed transporter elements still exist, and since the company went to such great lengths to archive everything they clearly do exist. As others have explained, the transporter effect was created on film.
It looks great.
If this is true, it makes me wonder what they're going to do when they get to "Relics." If I remember right, someone in the FX department actually found the old TOS transporter sparkle effect just before post-production of "Relics" and used it for Scotty's beam-in scene. I wonder if the TOS sparkle still exists.
I wouldn't be surprised if it does still exist.
I just watched EaF on DVD so that when I watch the BD here in a couple of weeks I'll have something fresh in my memory to compare it too.
I always thought the DVDs looked pretty good all things considered, but now after just these clips from the BD being seen I can tell how absolute assthe DVDs look, most notable the color being so heavily shifted to the green side of things.
I really look forward to the sampler set and especially to the series as a whole on DVD, I mean it's going to be glorious.
I always thought the DVDs looked pretty good all things considered, but now after just these clips from the BD being seen I can tell how absolute assthe DVDs look, most notable the color being so heavily shifted to the green side of things.
I really look forward to the sampler set and especially to the series as a whole on DVD, I mean it's going to be glorious.
That is fun. I remember Rob Legato detailing that effect on Reading Rainbow with Levar in 1987
Ah yes, and this thread is so long and condensed now but you can go back and find clips of it on here.
RAMA
I think this criticism of CGI is silly, it is fully capable in the year 2012 of rendering particle FX and the like and has been for YEARS, even more complex shapes are almost indistinguishable these days...in fact CGI starships have been fooling even professionals since the 1990s. Guys, this is not pre-Jurrassic Park here...get a grip.
RAMA
For context: I'm a software developer, and I have a not insignificant amount of experience implementing both general signal processing and specifically graphics-related algorithms. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm right, since what I am saying is still conjecture, but it's not entirely uninformed either.
The above is not a "criticism of CGI". I have no problem with CGI. In fact, as a technology enthusiast, I think CGI is really nifty stuff.
I'm also not saying it's not impossible for CGI to recreate the transporter effect. Of course it's perfectly possible, using a myriad different techniques, from the aforementioned particle animation to bitmap generation using various noise functions. But in a commercial project, you don't go by what's possible, you go by what's fastest to do while meeting the needs of the project. And recreating the transporter effect to match the old one to the degree we see here is relatively more time-consuming than starting with the practical plate, especially if you already have a well-oiled scanning pipeline, and in fact most likely already scanned the reel anyway because scanning is done by a separate group and it's easier just to have them scan everything and index it than communicate forth and back about whether every tiny scrap of film is actually needed.
I'd say I'm about 60-70% convinced it's the original plate, if it's as close a match as gaghyogi says. Now I wish we had an insider posting here!
I think being anti-CG is not necessarily an unreasonable position in regards to the restoration of an existing property. I would expect the decision to be more meaningful than say the way the choose to render an effect in the upcoming John Carter movie.
Yeah, I agree; posted my personal stance on shot replacements earlier.
I am neither pro nor anti CGI, I am simply disgusted with every yahoo on the internet blasting the practical model effects and demanding 'replace it all with CGI, do it right'. There is nothing right about replacing someone else's work 'just because we can', especially when that work exists in a form that can be revamped and look better than it ever did 25 years ago. Sure, if the materials are lost...CGI that stuff in there but be respectful to the source material and make it look like it's part of the show.
Once again, I'm not anti-CGI...I just don't want CBS digital to get carried away and replace the work of the artists who made that show what it was. CBS digital had no part in making TNG the success it was back in the day, and I sincerely hope they have the restraint not to try and plaster their own stamp all over the show just because they can...that's not what this restoration was supposed to be about. They had no choice with TOS, I respect that, but this is different.
I'll buy every season of this set if they respect the show...but if they start getting all TOSR on it, they can keep it.
I want to see all of the original model work in HD...not a CGI approximation. I want to see how good this show can look...and that means all of it.
Once again, I'm not anti-CGI...I just don't want CBS digital to get carried away and replace the work of the artists who made that show what it was. CBS digital had no part in making TNG the success it was back in the day, and I sincerely hope they have the restraint not to try and plaster their own stamp all over the show just because they can...that's not what this restoration was supposed to be about. They had no choice with TOS, I respect that, but this is different.
I'll buy every season of this set if they respect the show...but if they start getting all TOSR on it, they can keep it.
I want to see all of the original model work in HD...not a CGI approximation. I want to see how good this show can look...and that means all of it.
Where do you really see many fans wanting to replace every shot? That's a fairly small group of fans at least based on the forums and sites I visit. Especially once, examples of the footage was released.
Most seem to only want, not the removal of original shots, but just not the numerous reuse of the same stock shots (especially stock shots that have no original elements to them).
I myself am only hoping that they redo a few glaringly awful shots, the horrific scale work in the one scene in defector, the Q on the hull ( the shot was terrible, but the model was not designed for showing someone literally standing on it ), as two examples. And the literal reuse of stock shots that weren't even from TNG but from the film series.
Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!
Turns out...they may use a new 6ft model, along with the 2ft model AND the 4 foot model...so far the 6ft CGI model is looking better than the 4footer did.
Turns out...they may use a new 6ft model, along with the 2ft model AND the 4 foot model...so far the 6ft CGI model is looking better than the 4footer did.
Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!
Except that the 6ft CGI model is actually more of a hybrid between the 4ft and the 6ft. Tobias Richter modeled it so that the body more closely resembled the 6ft while the saucer resembled the 4ft. It's a nice looking model but then it's adding yet another variation of the ship into the mix.
Except that the 6ft CGI model is actually more of a hybrid between the 4ft and the 6ft. Tobias Richter modeled it so that the body more closely resembled the 6ft while the saucer resembled the 4ft. It's a nice looking model but then it's adding yet another variation of the ship into the mix.
- Status
Similar threads
