^ And why am I in this handbasket?
Visual Effects in Discovery
- Thread starter Galaxy
- Start date
Yeah there've a been quite a few comments conflating style decisions made by the art department and production team with 'mistakes' made by the VFX team in this thread, which is a different topic entirely.
Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas any more.
How could you tell it was a real handbasket if the VX was so poor?
More voices would not help, only a change of mind from the execs at CBS?It isn't, because it isn't up to them. A forummember who knows people who work/worked on the SFX for Disco, already confirmed that Pixelmondo is capable of way more than this. They reason we have weird lighting and such in the SFX is because that's what the producers/CBS wanted it to look like. So, Pixelmondo being aware means jack shit untill the people in charge actually want it to look different. So, here's hoping THEY are aware of our views.
It's making them money. So, yeah, more voices is necessary to demonstrate how money would be impacted.
I hate to say this, as I'd also be partial to a less wonky visual style, but I realllly doubt that the choices they're making about lighting and color grading are seriously costing them viewers.
After reading over the thread I have to chime in with some thoughts & hopefully constructive critique, that turned into a few paragraphs :-)
I don’t like to admit it but I’m beginning to miss the signature well lit, diffuse look from the older Trek series.
I find a lot of the shots in DSC blow by and don’t settle or register with my eye so well (taken into consideration the cuts are faster and more action orientated).
Ships and objects entirely composed of hard spec and flagged shadow at times feel shell-like and unnatural or unreal, like they’re not there in space as solid 3d objects. The glow/bloom effects do add life to the frame, mostly as a surface sheen and I notice the light effects always happily animate towards the camera in an overstated orchestrated manner. It does make well framed/symmetrical shots more grand looking and you either love or hate JJ Abrams lens flare syndrome :-P
Directorial choices like crash zooming, camera schmutz and wide flares and streaks probably won’t age as well once the trend shifts or goes away, its seems to be TPTB’s intention new Trek aims for a shorter lifespan with more frequent shows/series and storylines turn over for Netflix consumption. Some of these things still feel like they’re ramping this psycadelic sci-fi aesthetic up for the next gen with even more saturation and differences in light/shade changes when things like HDR, 4k and 10bit displays will become more common. Color is still a powerful tool and TOS did benefit from the new color tv technology back in the day, this time around it seems a lot like a callback to the original series intentions to blow peoples minds ;-)
If some of the vfx 2d compositing probably isn’t helping as intended with 2d blurs and the like, I’d like to know if they use any deep compositing techniques in post to help with layering and smoke/fog effects. It’s still great work overall, but on the 3d side there seems to be less hard surface modelling reading the thread here for the expected level of detail, given the stated budget. I’d take a guess and say that style of Vfx may be done on purpose to help tie into any future video-game options since the techniques, Lod and shader models seem to be comparable with the current AAA spec.
Imho Treks older digital models never really got the anisotropic lighting model accurate enough for the hull and saucer shapes. I’d love to see something more natural/realistic looking in 2018. I don’t know if PBR and BRDF research has halted or slowed in the last few years or it's computationally too expensive to render for DSCs current pipeline, any vfx pros please chime in :-)
Imho ILM held the crown for hard surface/metals the last few years with micro details coded for their shaders (Iron Man) and a lot more weathering detail, but DSCs flashy aesthetic would probably obliterate that type of thing and be crushed in the grade. I guess they render as much as they can in the beauty pass to save time/budget on a tight schedule and handing the rest off to comp.
The show still gets an enthusiastic thumbs up here, small things like the greebles, windows and a little more photoreal rendering and comp time seem to be sometimes pushed a little out of reach of a very capable vfx company, but I still find the work is amazing and light years ahead of anything Trek ever attempted to produce for a weekly show.
I don’t like to admit it but I’m beginning to miss the signature well lit, diffuse look from the older Trek series.
I find a lot of the shots in DSC blow by and don’t settle or register with my eye so well (taken into consideration the cuts are faster and more action orientated).
Ships and objects entirely composed of hard spec and flagged shadow at times feel shell-like and unnatural or unreal, like they’re not there in space as solid 3d objects. The glow/bloom effects do add life to the frame, mostly as a surface sheen and I notice the light effects always happily animate towards the camera in an overstated orchestrated manner. It does make well framed/symmetrical shots more grand looking and you either love or hate JJ Abrams lens flare syndrome :-P
Directorial choices like crash zooming, camera schmutz and wide flares and streaks probably won’t age as well once the trend shifts or goes away, its seems to be TPTB’s intention new Trek aims for a shorter lifespan with more frequent shows/series and storylines turn over for Netflix consumption. Some of these things still feel like they’re ramping this psycadelic sci-fi aesthetic up for the next gen with even more saturation and differences in light/shade changes when things like HDR, 4k and 10bit displays will become more common. Color is still a powerful tool and TOS did benefit from the new color tv technology back in the day, this time around it seems a lot like a callback to the original series intentions to blow peoples minds ;-)
If some of the vfx 2d compositing probably isn’t helping as intended with 2d blurs and the like, I’d like to know if they use any deep compositing techniques in post to help with layering and smoke/fog effects. It’s still great work overall, but on the 3d side there seems to be less hard surface modelling reading the thread here for the expected level of detail, given the stated budget. I’d take a guess and say that style of Vfx may be done on purpose to help tie into any future video-game options since the techniques, Lod and shader models seem to be comparable with the current AAA spec.
Imho Treks older digital models never really got the anisotropic lighting model accurate enough for the hull and saucer shapes. I’d love to see something more natural/realistic looking in 2018. I don’t know if PBR and BRDF research has halted or slowed in the last few years or it's computationally too expensive to render for DSCs current pipeline, any vfx pros please chime in :-)
Imho ILM held the crown for hard surface/metals the last few years with micro details coded for their shaders (Iron Man) and a lot more weathering detail, but DSCs flashy aesthetic would probably obliterate that type of thing and be crushed in the grade. I guess they render as much as they can in the beauty pass to save time/budget on a tight schedule and handing the rest off to comp.
The show still gets an enthusiastic thumbs up here, small things like the greebles, windows and a little more photoreal rendering and comp time seem to be sometimes pushed a little out of reach of a very capable vfx company, but I still find the work is amazing and light years ahead of anything Trek ever attempted to produce for a weekly show.
Last edited:
Nah. I render with a PBR workflow all the time, and I do it at home on my comptuer which is nice but not top of the line. Pixomondo with their hundreds of render computers could definitely and probably do use a PBR workflow.
Here are a few examples of my starship shots done with PBR over the past year...
Pixomondo is definitely capable of this level of work or even better. Could be a time or cost issue, I know they were definitely rushed in Season 1. Perhaps they'll get more time in Season 2.
I didn't know that, interesting if true. The second half of the season did look better though. Not as blurry. I could make out ships better.
That's bullshit. I've been watching Discovery in 1080p on CBS All Access since Battle of Binary Stars.
It's true as far as browser-based computers go. If you download the all access app, it goes a bit higher, depending on how much bandwidth your ISP is allowing you to have.
I watched Battle of Binary Stars on my desktop computer on premiere night in 1080p. Same with Context is for Kings.
^ I'm getting 1080p on an Xbox 1 and a hilariously overpowered gaming PC. Don't know what I'm getting on my laptop or my iPad, but... well, it sure as hell aint 1080p.
What is the max resolution on a CBSAA app?
The CBSAA app on my ROKU and on my Samsung 4K Smart TV both delivered 1080p resolution. The quality on the CBSAA website depended GREATLY on internet bandwidth available and website traffic. I saw anywhere from 480 to 1080i depending on the time of day. I don't believe I ever received true 1080p from the website. Your mileage may very...
Q2
I seem to get no more than 720P from the website.
I get 1080p all the time on the website. *shrug*
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:
You are going to visit the Neuromancer, Captain TRON
Similar threads
