Am I right in remembering that they used pimped-up Commodore Amiga's to do the B5 effects?
Treks not taken:early cgi in STNG
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
Am I right in remembering that they used pimped-up Commodore Amiga's to do the B5 effects?
Yup. It was big news in the Amiga community at the time. As I understand it Newtek developed the Video Toaster and LightWave 3D software for the Amiga in conjunction with the B5 effects people. B5 had a room-sized render farm of interconnected Amiga 2000s cranking out one frame of video a week or something (okay, a little faster than that 
)
So like I said, we have B5 to thank for all the great CGI that came later.
)So like I said, we have B5 to thank for all the great CGI that came later.
Easiest way to tell is that on the CGI model the small row of windows on the very aft end of Voyager (trailing edge of the Hangar deck platform) are lighted. The physical model did not have enough room inside to light those windows so they are always dark
Early CGI raytracing was scan line by scan line- I had several Amigas and it took sometimes an hour for a single frame, depending on how many lights and the scenes qualities (reflective/glass elements added a lot of time). Even on a Silicon Graphics Indigo each frame took time. I was building graphics for video production and commercials and all my clients wanted to see a 3D scene and be able to spin and shift the viewpoint- they never could understand to do that it took days of rendering. Now things are so much different and we mostly take it for granted being able to fly through a 3D environment calculated on the fly.
We're already far along enough in time for a lot of people to forget B5's contribution. I still thought the brief uses in STNG were exciting at the time and the wave of the future.Yup. It was big news in the Amiga community at the time. As I understand it Newtek developed the Video Toaster and LightWave 3D software for the Amiga in conjunction with the B5 effects people. B5 had a room-sized render farm of interconnected Amiga 2000s cranking out one frame of video a week or something (okay, a little faster than that
So like I said, we have B5 to thank for all the great CGI that came later.
That description does not match that of the article linked to that video on YouTube, nor to other articles I checked. It doesn't appear LucasFilms' embryonic Computer Graphics Group did it at all. The article linked from that YouTube clip reads, "In 1978 pioneer CGI programmers John Whitney Jr (The Last Starfighter) and Gary Demos (The Last Starfighter) programmed a CGI X-wing fighter test to show George Lucas and Lucasfilm the potential power of computer graphic images in film."
Furthermore, a page about Triple-I indicates that's where Whitney and Demos did the demo. Specifically:
Lucasfilm tests
Other 3D CG tests were done for Star Wars, The Black Hole, and The Empire Strikes Back, but did not end up in the finished films. One particular test for LucasFilm involved Art Durinski building a beautiful 60k poly count X-Wing fighter. Rendered at 4k by 6k resolution, Lucas was only impressed after the ever-amazing Mal MacMillan wrote some additional code to "dirty" it up from it's original pristine CG condition. It was eventually shown on the cover of Computer Magazine in 1979. A lower poly count version was created for an animation test Gary Demos did of a five ship formation, complete with anti-aliasing and motion-blur. Unfortunately the seven thousand dollar per minute production cost required by Lucas was much too low for Triple-I to consider real production.Also in 1978 scanning and filmout tests were performed with Richard Edlund at LucasFilm, but the nature of the CRT technology and 5247 film stocks did not yield great results.
Other 3D CG tests were done for Star Wars, The Black Hole, and The Empire Strikes Back, but did not end up in the finished films. One particular test for LucasFilm involved Art Durinski building a beautiful 60k poly count X-Wing fighter. Rendered at 4k by 6k resolution, Lucas was only impressed after the ever-amazing Mal MacMillan wrote some additional code to "dirty" it up from it's original pristine CG condition. It was eventually shown on the cover of Computer Magazine in 1979. A lower poly count version was created for an animation test Gary Demos did of a five ship formation, complete with anti-aliasing and motion-blur. Unfortunately the seven thousand dollar per minute production cost required by Lucas was much too low for Triple-I to consider real production.Also in 1978 scanning and filmout tests were performed with Richard Edlund at LucasFilm, but the nature of the CRT technology and 5247 film stocks did not yield great results.
The high-poly model described about can be seen here, but was too detailed for animation, hence the lower poly count model seen in the video clip.
Last edited:
There's a documentary on YouTube about the history of ILM/Lucasfilm Computer Group, which I believe was divided into six parts. The X-wing test footage is mentioned in the documentary as well as the back story of why it was made. After seeing the documentary, I looked for the clip and assumed this other 1978-9 early cg x-wing test footage was the very same one. My mistake.
Even Enterprise's CGI was bad.There was no way that you could confuse the NX-01 as anything more than a CGI model for a real physical model.It depended on the practitioner, of course.
But even on Voyager, some of the CGI was terrible. First time I saw Blink Of An Eye I could tell that the Voyager was a CGI model and not the physical. It was so white as to look washed out on my 19-inch CRT at the time, and then there was no star in the system to give it that "close to the light" washed out look.
I dunno. I rarely can tell the difference between the cg model and physical model on Voyager. Since they continued using stock footage(and some new shots) of the physical model throughout the end of the show, I'd guess that most episodes contain both.
I can tell that the Delta Flyer, and many alien ships are CG, as well as the NX, but when the show(s) were airing, I never noticed any difference. They looked just as "real" to me as the miniatures.
The same goes for DS9. Watching those latter season space battles today looks like B5, but at the time, I couldn't tell the Difference.
I think the best space scenes ever produced for Trek using miniatures and MC photography were those seen in "First Contact." Especially some of the EVA shots.
I can tell that the Delta Flyer, and many alien ships are CG, as well as the NX, but when the show(s) were airing, I never noticed any difference. They looked just as "real" to me as the miniatures.
The same goes for DS9. Watching those latter season space battles today looks like B5, but at the time, I couldn't tell the Difference.
I think the best space scenes ever produced for Trek using miniatures and MC photography were those seen in "First Contact." Especially some of the EVA shots.
My general rule of thumb is that if it looks too smooth, it's probably CGI. 
The physical models actually look like they inhabit the space they're in. They look like if you could reach out and touch them, then you'd be able to feel the edges, run your hand along the contours, feel those bumps and windows, etc. And when a physical model gets violated, blown-up, then there's nothing to match that visceral impact of watching something like that be turned into shrapnel before your eyes.
Sadly, for my money, even today's (quite superior to 1990s efforts) CGI technology still can't over-ride my feeling that the objects aren't actually real. But that might just be me. Even things with high polygon counts and the best texture-mapping possible still can't quite achieve that feeling of "real-ness" that a physical model accomplishes by mere fact that it is, actually, a physical object being filmed.
The physical models actually look like they inhabit the space they're in. They look like if you could reach out and touch them, then you'd be able to feel the edges, run your hand along the contours, feel those bumps and windows, etc. And when a physical model gets violated, blown-up, then there's nothing to match that visceral impact of watching something like that be turned into shrapnel before your eyes.
Sadly, for my money, even today's (quite superior to 1990s efforts) CGI technology still can't over-ride my feeling that the objects aren't actually real. But that might just be me.
Even things with high polygon counts and the best texture-mapping possible still can't quite achieve that feeling of "real-ness" that a physical model accomplishes by mere fact that it is, actually, a physical object being filmed.I believe every time you see VOY going to warp from the rear if the lights are off in the observation lounge below the shuttle bay it's a model if they are on it's CGI
I find this an interesting observation.
I do wonder if CGI 'dates' quicker than good model photography? (Bad model photography, obviously, is a different matter. )I tend to wonder if that opening sequence from Star Wars of the Star Destroyer, shot with a physical model, will be timelessly beautiful forever; whereas most of the zippy-zappy frenetic CGI space battles from the prequels already look a little out-of-date and videogame-like. Perhaps even today's CGI won't hold up to the ravages of time.
I find this an interesting observation.
I tend to wonder if that opening sequence from Star Wars of the Star Destroyer, shot with a physical model, will be timelessly beautiful forever; whereas most of the zippy-zappy frenetic CGI space battles from the prequels already look a little out-of-date and videogame-like. Perhaps even today's CGI won't hold up to the ravages of time.
I thought most of the CGI in the prequels looked fake to start with.
Fair point. 
I'll have to keep an eye out. I always figured cg shots of Voyager were when the ship was doing a barrel roll roll or something
Yeah, It probably will. I think with that opening scene you mentioned it probably depends. If you watch the Theatrical release on the 2006 DVDs, some of the space scenes look really awful, but ILM has cleaned up and recomposited all the elements. And in some cases, even reshot a few shots. There's a shot at the very end of the millennium falcon that was really bad, so they just recreated the whole thing and refilmed it. So when you watch it now on Blu-Ray, it looks great.I find this an interesting observation.
I tend to wonder if that opening sequence from Star Wars of the Star Destroyer, shot with a physical model, will be timelessly beautiful forever; whereas most of the zippy-zappy frenetic CGI space battles from the prequels already look a little out-of-date and videogame-like. Perhaps even today's CGI won't hold up to the ravages of time.
As for the Prequels, there are a lot of elements in scenes that are mistaken for cg, but are actually miniatures. For instance, in The Phantom Menace, all the space ships are miniatures, like the Naboo fighters, Amidala's chrome ship, The Trade Federation donut looking thing, etc. In Attack of the Clones, the Naboo ship at the beginning I believe. I don't remember what else is in that movie, and in Revenge of the Sith, that big ship where Palpatine is being held prisoner that later crashes is a miniature, as well as the "landing strip" that it crashes on.
Just my 2cents
Old school old person here.
I'd take a good story and some action recorded on film over that eye seizure inducing cgi stuff any day.
I suppose it will get better but I still have problems watching that stuff.
To me it still is full of jerky movement, light watch with a strobe light going.
I'd take a good story and some action recorded on film over that eye seizure inducing cgi stuff any day.
I suppose it will get better but I still have problems watching that stuff.
To me it still is full of jerky movement, light watch with a strobe light going.
At the time, I could've sworn the plague ship in Season 1 was CG. I couldn't believe that it wasn't after watching a portion of a video (I'm not sure if it's the one presented in the OP, but it was some TNG docu I was watching).
I think I'm remembering right...it's been a few years since I've seen the ep. I just remember that there was a ship that looked so much like CG at the time that it was amazing that it was a physical model filmed several times under different lighting conditions to give the effect seen in the episode.
Today, I'd love to see a non-sci-fi movie or show that apparently has zero special visual effects, maybe a western or romance or something...completely done in a computer. All CGI. I would love to see that.
I think I'm remembering right...it's been a few years since I've seen the ep. I just remember that there was a ship that looked so much like CG at the time that it was amazing that it was a physical model filmed several times under different lighting conditions to give the effect seen in the episode.
Today, I'd love to see a non-sci-fi movie or show that apparently has zero special visual effects, maybe a western or romance or something...completely done in a computer. All CGI. I would love to see that.
Similar threads
