So just the video FX not the optical FX basically.
Visual Effects in Discovery
- Thread starter Galaxy
- Start date
So just the video FX not the optical FX basically.
Why can't any of the space shots be clean? Why does every space shot have to be filled with extra stuff like nebulas, asteroids, debris, "gaseous anomalies", extra planets/moons, lens flares ect.?
The space visuals are a cluttered mess half the time. It also makes space feel smaller.
Space is called space for a reason; it's mostly empty.
The space visuals are a cluttered mess half the time. It also makes space feel smaller.
Space is called space for a reason; it's mostly empty.
What do you mean they were created on VHS?
He probably means they were video FX created on the video masters from the transferred film. Equating video with VHS. It was probably Beta and quantel done on the fly episode by episode, so no elements to store.
It shows better in that low rez video than the img I quoted. Paused at the same frame I see much more detail of and on the saucer areas which are not spotlit.
"Background" You mean that steller nursery structure they included to add realism? "Fog" You mean all that hydrogen gas which exists in outer space?
So my understanding is, you like it best if space is portrayed as empty inky blackness and ships are barely visible against it.
I meant a background that looks like a matte painting, which it probably is. Hydrogen gas is invisible.
I think it looks pretty good but, what would you prefer they use?
D'oh! Of course. Lets call it dust instead.
One of my disappointments, no space in space. It looks like Time Square.
In my younger years I spent many nights outside looking at distant galaxies, planetary nebula, Globular clusters at the edge of our galaxy and other fuzzy things. From what I saw space is, well, space. Any objects are spread out at great distances. In DSC they have nebula inside a solar system next to a planet.
Sure, "basically." On the other hand, a compositor I know referred to the TNG-R process as "redoing the effects from scratch," since it was all in his area of expertise. You don't get something that looks good just by dropping layers of photography into the right order on the computer.
The composite is where the magic happens. The filename indicates you pulled the screencap from the EAS Remaster comparison page, so the same frame as it was done in the '80s is right there for you to compare it to. Here, I'll make it easier by shrinking the recomposited version to the same size, so it's apples-to-apples and one isn't bigger than the other:
The moon and Earth have been replaced with new high-res CG elements, which I mention only for completeness since it's besides the point. For the original elements, everything's sharper. The fine detail on the model photography is visible because it was comp'd on a modern system and not on videotape. You can see the panel lines on the ship rather than a smooth shape, the windows are only subtly blooming, and there are even reflections on the cover of the impulse engine. But that's all an artistic choice. You could take the same photograph passes ILM made in the '80s and turn it into something that looks very much like Discovery, just as a different compositing strategy could eliminate virtually all the fuckery we're complaining about in DSC. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the raw render passes from Discovery, but I do have them from a shot for TNG-R, so allow me to illustrate with a very quick and dirty example trying to composite a TNG shot, using the original elements, in the style of Discovery. (To be fair, since so much of the Discovery's look is, well, "look," I used the final TNG-R comp as a base, and used the elements to emphasize different lighting passes to more-or-less get the same effect as DSC). It was super-fun fighting literally every bit of instinct and experience I have about how space is supposed to look.
This is what the Enterprise approaching spacedock looked like in the '80s:
This is what it looked like in TNG-R:
And this, God help us all, is what it would look like if some Lucasian madman decided to try and make everything in older Trek shows match Discovery's season one look:
And, for reference, the Discovery orbiting Pahvo in reasonable-quality on-line-streaming HD:
(Yes, there is that much chromic aberration in Discovery. I really want to know why they aren't just having the VFX team try and match the live-action footage in terms of lens and lighting style. That way it'd be the DP's fault if space looked weird.)
In the original series, whenever you see anything glowy (plasma torpedo, energy being etc), it's usually quite a garish, vibrant colour. My suspicion is that vfx artists on DSC are going for a 21st century equivalent of the the campy hyper-saturated look of the original series.
Sure, "basically." On the other hand, a compositor I know referred to the TNG-R process as "redoing the effects from scratch," since it was all in his area of expertise. You don't get something that looks good just by dropping layers of photography into the right order on the computer.
The composite is where the magic happens. The filename indicates you pulled the screencap from the EAS Remaster comparison page, so the same frame as it was done in the '80s is right there for you to compare it to. Here, I'll make it easier by shrinking the recomposited version to the same size, so it's apples-to-apples and one isn't bigger than the other:
The moon and Earth have been replaced with new high-res CG elements, which I mention only for completeness since it's besides the point. For the original elements, everything's sharper. The fine detail on the model photography is visible because it was comp'd on a modern system and not on videotape. You can see the panel lines on the ship rather than a smooth shape, the windows are only subtly blooming, and there are even reflections on the cover of the impulse engine. But that's all an artistic choice. You could take the same photograph passes ILM made in the '80s and turn it into something that looks very much like Discovery, just as a different compositing strategy could eliminate virtually all the fuckery we're complaining about in DSC. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the raw render passes from Discovery, but I do have them from a shot for TNG-R, so allow me to illustrate with a very quick and dirty example trying to composite a TNG shot, using the original elements, in the style of Discovery. (To be fair, since so much of the Discovery's look is, well, "look," I used the final TNG-R comp as a base, and used the elements to emphasize different lighting passes to more-or-less get the same effect as DSC). It was super-fun fighting literally every bit of instinct and experience I have about how space is supposed to look.
This is what the Enterprise approaching spacedock looked like in the '80s:
This is what it looked like in TNG-R:
And this, God help us all, is what it would look like if some Lucasian madman decided to try and make everything in older Trek shows match Discovery's season one look:
And, for reference, the Discovery orbiting Pahvo in reasonable-quality on-line-streaming HD:
(Yes, there is that much chromic aberration in Discovery. I really want to know why they aren't just having the VFX team try and match the live-action footage in terms of lens and lighting style. That way it'd be the DP's fault if space looked weird.)
Wasn’t me guv. Someone else pulled those caps.
Thanks for the breakdown. I won’t lie, I already knew a chunk about optical FX, but had no idea they still composited shots rather than just render scenes whole. I’d still call it a fair test xD
I also had no idea TNG comped on the video rather than optical printing composites.
Yeah, supposedly the availability of video editing and video compositing were what made TNG doable on the budget allotted at that time. And according to an article that was contemporary to the production (Cinefex?) they were warned when they made the decision that it would make theatrical release of the pilot or any other episode impossible.
Yeah, that kind of distribution seems real unlikely in the current theatrical market, but at least through the early 80s TV shows were occasionally given a second life as theatrical movie releases, either here or oversees. Back in the late 70s both the BSG and Buck Rogers pilots were shown in theaters.
You can see the theatrical credits for Buck Rogers below, but you have to go to Youtube - it's disabled for embedding:
Yeah, that kind of distribution seems real unlikely in the current theatrical market, but at least through the early 80s TV shows were occasionally given a second life as theatrical movie releases, either here or oversees. Back in the late 70s both the BSG and Buck Rogers pilots were shown in theaters.
You can see the theatrical credits for Buck Rogers below, but you have to go to Youtube - it's disabled for embedding:
For the same reason crew in a Starfleet ship aren't smashed into the bulkheads and turned to goo when the ship accelerates from zero to near lightspeed (under sub light Impulse Drive) in a fraction of a second.
I disagree. If you compare it to say The Expanse, Discovery (since episode 3) seems notably cheaper despite supposedly being a more expensive show overall. The Expanse doesn't do much on-location filming (since most of the series takes place off Earth, and other habitable planets have not been introduced yet) but there is very little recycling of sets over the course of a season. Sets are used in a dynamic fashion too - you don't see the action all taking place in 2-3 rooms over the course of an episode. The series is packed with bit characters and extras, and genuinely feels "busy" (e.g., not on a studio stage). VFX are pretty damn convincing as well, if not particularly flashy.
I am in one of those overseas markets xD so in the UK we saw those films too...mainly on TV or VIdeo Rentals, but also those edits in addition to the TV series if they got bought. I think Twin Peaks had rights issues for years cos of it.
I think it was a rush job. And money was spent in strange places outside of the FX...the uniforms are too expensive for what they are (special fabric for the starfleet sequins) for example. All part of Fullers textured approach, but perhaps a bit too much. But that’s a thing in taking the ‘art’ approach. Just came off my second viewing of Blade Runner 2049 (both since it’s home release here at midnight xD) and found myself thinking ‘if they had just bothered with holographic Vegas stuff, licensing the songs etc, this film would have made much more profit, lost nothing in its content, and we would be more likely looking at a third film a couple of years down the line.’ This sort of holds true in DSC too...better producers, and maybe thinking more about it from a cost perspective instead of just the art side. Mudds Andorian Helmet is probably the silliest waste of time and money for instance..but all the spacesuits seem to be one off costs rather than useful spending.
(Hey...some would argue the holographic Vegas thing applies to Ds9 too xD)
The visual FX come out of a mess I think, and it shows. Maybe not STV levels, maybe more TMP but with less success in the end result.
Similar threads
