The OFFICIAL STNG-R general discussion thread!
- Thread starter jefferiestubes8
- Start date
- Status
Come on, no you can't. You may know it's a model, but you can no more tell that thing is a model than you could tell that a Star Destroyer was a model in ESB. It looks extremely good and detailed. As good as it did in Generations where it looked amazingly good. And, most importantly, it looks solid which CGI rarely does.
What really does look obvious is that warp shot shown above in Start Wreck's post. It's like a cartoon with little surface detail and horrendous lighting.
I don't know which ones you're looking at, but I mean these ones:Other 'quick ID' methods you can also use are: the secondary shuttlebays (light bleed = model) the saucer impulse engines (lit = CG) or the windows near the back of the neck. (The model has them right up to and across the corner, on the CG one the windows stop well before. See below.)
Those windows are there on the CG-model. The camera angle is slightly different but you can still see them.
The model has windows right up to the corner, and the CG one doesn't.
You are right.
I thought you were talking about the lowermost row of windows on the neck.
Sins of the Father had a CGI BoP. I don't see that as a matte painting.
What happened is simply this I believe: The Okudas are consultants, and there may not have been plans to use developed, existing CGI ships, but the actual team executing the remastering, included several as a "test" for future releases. It's also possible some were used as tests for replacing the 2ft and 4 foot model shots in many or all future blurays.
I don't know which ones you're looking at, but I mean these ones:
The model has windows right up to the corner, and the CG one doesn't.
You are right.
I thought you were talking about the lowermost row of windows on the neck.
I like the differences...there is some raised detail, such as lifeboat covers but not to the extent of the 4 foot physical model.
I understand, and I honestly don't think it looks bad there. It's interesting to find out that the new klingon shot is a matte painting and not a CG render. So far those in favor of CG have been claiming it as an example of how good it could look. In actuality the only CG is most likely the warp shot and that's unanimously bad.
Funny how lock step Okuda is on "Original Intent" as he's the guy who swapped out several ships in TOS-R with more modern looking stuff- especially the Tholians that look like the designs from Enterprise.
No, I think it's safe to say that there's qualified consensus that the BoP shot is absolutely CG - not a matte (see previous 20 pages). As somebody said, it's likely that Mr. Okuda was mistaken or talking about something else, which is understandable considering the dozens of threads he must be juggling on a daily basis.
No, plenty of people, like me, think it looks great.
And there is evidence that those other new shots ARE in fact the same 3D mesh.
YAY! Neato Torpedo, yesterday i didnt care now i think its awesome. I can enjoy them and on a sick way it makes me happy because this prick at work said i hate star trek nobody cares about that crap! Nobody cares so they are remastering and releasing it , yep so they can just collect dust on the shelves. I hate rich bel air mad at the world kids like him who havent worked for jack shit in thier life
Yes, I've seen the semi-demented ramblings of people arguing over window placement and insisting this is the work of a particular artist. I wouldn't actually call that "qualified".
Please keep your insults to yourself. This is beneath this community.
whats wrong the 4 and 6foot are a little different. the 4 is more detailed if i remember properly its looks blocker on the screen i like the sacuer has more pronouced little outlines where the pieces of tritanium are supposed to meet i think. But what are u refering to, windows missing, whats different?
With all the reams of unedited footage he's having to go through for the entire season, it's only natural that he might get some details mixed up over these first 3 episodes.
It would be cool if someone would ask when they started working on this project though, so we could get a good idea how long it takes to get each season out. At this rate, it seems like we'll be lucky to get one season every 9 or 10 months.
whats wrong the 4 and 6foot are a little different. the 4 is more detailed if i remember properly its looks blocker on the screen i like the sacuer has more pronouced little outlines where the pieces of tritanium are supposed to meet i think. But what are u refering to, windows missing, whats different?
The 4-footer isn't more detailed. Its details are just much more pronounced than the details on the 6-footer and were better visible in lower resolution on smaller screens.
It would be cool if someone would ask when they started working on this project though, so we could get a good idea how long it takes to get each season out. At this rate, it seems like we'll be lucky to get one season every 9 or 10 months.
I keep reading "six months ago" but don't know the original source.
- Status
Similar threads
