# Innovations that could help make fan-based Trek productions more affordable?



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

The following is a response and a request for info from a statement made by member X15-A2 about Paramount's declining interest in Trek.


It is NOT a thread about Paramount's cancellation decision. Please do not waste time going into that here, this thread is not about that, to discuss that in detail feel free to go to the thread this subject was raised in here http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=110097 . Please don't clutter up this thread with that subject.


This thread is intended to discuss ways fan-based productions of all types, video, film, CGI, model miniatures, etc. can be accomplished...




X15-A2 said:


> It would seem that it is up to the fans themselves to resurrect "Star Trek" like the amazing folks at "Starship Exeter" and "New Voyages" are already doing. These people are just amazing and their products get better with each outing.
> 
> Screw "Paraflounder"!
> 
> ...


Bravo!

While I don't think there is, at this moment, the ability to churn out fan movies technically as slick as Paramount's deep pockets can, I think we are within a couple of years from external FX shots being capable of being produced just as slickly as ParaBorg's.

Probably the biggest obstacle to fan produced stuff is internal sets.
Sure, blue box sets interlaced with 3-D internal sets might be doable(you would know more about that then I Phil) but the acting skills and coordination required to do that convincingly are nothing to be sneezed at. Not to mention the physical space requirements.

True, a couple of very well-heeled fans might be able to afford to put together net quality video that is convincing, like the people at Starship Exeter. But few fans will be able to afford the space and money to put together something like that.

To be able to put together something convincing at high-rez 720p or 1080i broadcast quality is probably way more involved.

Again though, probably not from a CGI standpoint, but in the space required to create and maintain interior sets.

Standalone movies like SkyCaptain and the World of Tommorrow and Sin City might be able to do it with high-tech CGI and a few boxes and props thrown in for "one shot" movies.

But to maintain consistency with sets like the Bridge that would have to be used over and over, at the very least roughly accurate full-size sets would probably be needed to make sure that actors' movements remain consistent and believable.

Not too many fans have enough space or resources for that kind of production, though obviously a few have.

Perhaps yourself and Thomas might be willing to go into detail about what could be done "CGI wise" to help make low-cost interior sets that would be used recouringly more inexpensive? Especially interior set cost reductions?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I think the biggest challenge would be to make a program that mimicked the production standards of the original exactly so that new episodes wouldn't look too--well,_ new_.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

That I think could be done fairly easily.
Warped 9, for example added an excellent filter to an image of a CGI TOS E he had once and it looked exactly as if it was a screen grab from TOS.


----------



## Steven Coffey (Jan 5, 2005)

One great product they could use is Adobe After Effects ,it is a great video editor that allowes you to edit in special effects.I am sure that with After Effects you could add in film grain and even scratches to give it the feel of classic Star Trek but you can do some very good special effects with the program by its self.


----------



## spacecraft guy (Aug 16, 2003)

I did a workshop with the ILM/Lucasfilm people in 1999 where we built a creature, filmed it, and composited it into Episode 1 footage using an Apple laptop, all in the space of an 8 hour workshop. 

That was 6 years ago - now I know that they have proprietary software and other tools available that they can simulate the look of just about any film stock. Eventually to recoup development costs and generate revenue, the software will make it to the marketplace.


----------



## Dennis Bailey (Jun 16, 2004)

After we get over the novelty of it I'd expect the interest in duplicating the original series in terms of its _defects_ -- such as heavily-grained effects work (largely the result of multi-generation optical printing) and perfect duplicates of simplistic sets and costumes -- will dissipate. Talented directors, designers and artists willing to devote the kind of time and energy involved in creating these films are eventually going to want to do their best work within a context of current-day professional standards, which will require an evolution in design, directorial and acting technique as well as videography. 

As noted above, the task of pulling together the physical aspects of a Trek-like production -- costuming, sets, effects -- is initially so daunting for a fan production that it looms larger than its importance in the finished product. What is and will continue to be most interesting is what the producers, writers, directors and actors will do once the starships are in place on the stage floors -- what stories will they tell, how will they innovate away from the artificially-limited structure of television episodes or aping big-budget commercial action/adventure films, what kinds of characters might develop other than those that networks can comfortably pigeonhole as inoffensive and appealing to this or that age/gender/ethnic/status demographic group?


----------



## trevanian (Jan 30, 2004)

I agree with Bailey about as often as seven-headed calves are born in my backyard (I live in an apartment and don't have a backyard), but in this case, he has a point. 

Telling stories that are relevant and challenging through characters that evoke the most memorable and unique qualities of the best (i.e., Gene ****) trek characterizations is a lot more important than duplicating the look. I really like the saturated and contrasty look of TOS and its bold music choices, but I find that what makes it most memorable (and infinitely rewatchable) is that the characterizations really click for me (for a more recent example of characterizations clicking, see any episode of FIREFLY, or the first act of the second episode of DS9's second season, when everybody is saying goodbye to Kira.)

I think you could do low budget versions with miniatures and sets rather than doing the virtual set thing, but that is dependent on the funding and the talents of the folks involved. Ought to be enough survivors of the Super-8 wars out there to lend a hand, though I know only a couple myself (besides me that is ... I'm very much a film guy, sort of like a non porn version of Burt Reynolds in BOOGIE NIGHTS)


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

I am as much a *Trek* geek as any of you, and considering my history probably a bit more than most. But as much fun as I'd have working on one of these films, I'd never try to do one myself. And it's not like I don't have the experience in doing productions of that scale to pull it off. It's just that it would so wrankle me to do everything and then not be able to profit in the slightest way from my labors. 

That's why the very best homage I can conceive would be a fan-made reboot w/o the specific *Trek* trappings. A "*Trek*-clone" -- a much maligned phrase in some circles but dead-on accurate for describing the kind of thing I have in mind. Hell, how else to fix all the things we have nitpicked to death for decades? How best to capture the ellusive *Trek* "spirit"? Through slavish imitation? That can be fun, but remember -- a big part of our love of Trek was that it was new and different. Can a remake be _that_?

I agree with *Trev* -- the key is fine storytelling -- and to that I would add "_done with a new and refreshing twist_". Could it be *Star Trek*? No more than it can be 1966 again. But maybe it can be _more_ than *Star Trek* ever was, or could be.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I just want a better written Trek. Not something completely outside the Trek universe.
I have to agree with Trev that it could be much more adult(and thereby more realistic). 

Perhaps in a couple of years at the very least FX costs will dwindle down to where they are hardly a consideration for a small-sized studio and Paramount could license out Trek to even more then one. Then those studios could compete for fans as long as they stayed within certain writing guidelines. I don't mean censorship here - they could make Trek with porn scenes in it for all I care - I mean guidelines to keep the shows from disagreeing with one another.


----------



## Dennis Bailey (Jun 16, 2004)

aridas sofia said:


> That's why the very best homage I can conceive would be a fan-made reboot w/o the specific *Trek* trappings. A "*Trek*-clone" -- a much maligned phrase in some circles but dead-on accurate for describing the kind of thing I have in mind. Hell, how else to fix all the things we have nitpicked to death for decades? How best to capture the ellusive *Trek* "spirit"? Through slavish imitation? That can be fun, but remember -- a big part of our love of Trek was that it was new and different. Can a remake be _that_?


I'm absolutely with you on this, right down the line. There are production advantages to doing "Star Trek", certainly -- you've got a big pre-sold audience, and you can say to Tom Sasser or Dennis Bailey "we need a miniature Engine Room and a Constitution-class starship" without having to put in the design and discussion about what those things are and ought to look like that you would for a new production -- but at a certain point those advantages are outweighed by the creative and possible financial opportunities of an original production.

So, *Aridas* -- let's say that we wanted a production with design that leaned more toward TOS than, say, "Star Wars" without directly imitating either one (I'd say 95% of productions since the late 60s have gone the 2001/"Star Wars" route, for obvious reasons). 

What might that look like?

IMAO, one aspect of it would be that the hero ship design would tend toward interesting and elegant geometry -- combinations of simple shapes -- rather than nernie detail. Might even be a little retro. 

While the design of the TOS Enterprise can be justified somewhat on logical technological grounds, the fact is that its overall appearence is primarily a matter of esthetics -- for example, the globe-ship design is more defensible as a matter of practicality than the saucer; Roddenberry just liked the look of the saucer better. As Whitfield observed in "The Making Of Star Trek", once you solve the basic problems of motive power, life support and gravitation just about any design is buildable.


----------



## Steven Coffey (Jan 5, 2005)

I think the question was a matter of making fan based Star Trek more affordable not about ripping it off.


----------



## Dennis Bailey (Jun 16, 2004)

Perhaps you've an answer or suggestion you'd like to contribute?

*Aridas*, it helps that an awful lot of the basic setting of TOS was generic borrowing from the "space opera" tradition of sf writing and a few obvious examples in previous sf films. For example, treating a space exploration/defense body as a "Space Navy" with naval rank, tradition and so forth was always a common practice from the 1920s onward and continues to be so now -- see "Forbidden Planet", a film that Roddenberry lifted pretty liberally from, or the current "Honor Harrington" series of novels. Or Chandler's "Commodore Grimes" short stories and novels.

Roddenberry's adoption of the "Space Navy" was terribly clever, though, because a large portion of the generation of adults he was aiming the show at had served as conscripts in the U.S. armed forces and could relate to people working in an environment so organized. Making "Starfleet" itself into a subculture which Americans intuitively understood as more structured, tradition-bound and limited in modes of dress and social relations and so forth made it easier for TOS to plausibly dodge questions concerning what "Earth culture" was supposedly like.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Steven Coffey said:


> I think the question was a matter of making fan based Star Trek more affordable not about ripping it off.


 
Right you are...


I once had a very good thread on Trek fan Blueprinting go way way south because of dozens of postings on the subject of what is and isn't "canon."


staying on the topic is a very good suggestion.


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

I'm not sure if I'm OT or not, but here is my reply to *Dennis*.

I don't like discussing it becuse I'm not sure what will come of it. But this is what I've been working on for the last three years. Piece by piece building a universe the way I did with Trek on projects like *SotSF* and the *FRS*. But wholly new. I have been working on a novel set within that universe for the last six months, but I'm finding that my background as a history writer hasn't helped as much in this area as I'd have liked.

Hopefully it will be finished at some point, and published. And the objection to things without the Trek imprimatur from folks like my buddy *Chuck_P.R.* will be overcome.

Quite frankly, it's the only way to do it for someone that wants to devote a lot of time and money. I'm shocked at the level of commitment from the folks at *Exeter*, but of course it's not all for love. Those boys and girls will have some nice calling cards to present if they chose to go further in the "business". For me, I've published books that cost tens of thousands of dollars to create and distribute. And made back that amount, and more. _That's what made the work possible, time wise_. Of course, Paramount is much more protective of its franchise nowadays. And that's fine. Because as Matt Jefferies said, it's not a bad idea to "do something on your own." 

To answer your question more specifically, one of the biggest problems is the remove from the era you mentioned. Both the lack of direct military experience by a broad cross section of the population, and the distance from retrofuturist art that lent an air of style to prognastications on what a space navy might look like. Tamed by a firm grounding in military experience, the pairing would get you very close to an artistic style that would be recognizably Trek without any of the particulars. But such a style might appear hopelessly dated or "out of touch" to a big chunk of the folks you're targeting.


----------



## Dennis Bailey (Jun 16, 2004)

aridas sofia said:


> But such a style might appear hopelessly dated or "out of touch" to a big chunk of the folks you're targeting.


Well, one of the wonders of doing these fan films is that we _can_ succeed by targeting and trying to please a much smaller number of folks than a studio can. The success, again, of "Honor Harrington" (not a terribly well-written series nor particularly well-imagined beyond the first two or three books, IMAO) as well as other "military sf" shows that there's an audience of sufficient size for this kind of thing.

Parenthetically, I think it was probably Roddenberry's (and others) intuition that the military setting was something audiences of the 1980s would be less likely to sympathize with or relate to that caused TNG to de-emphasize it, whatever more "idealistic" justifications were publicly advanced for the change. By 1987 an educated and independent component of the U.S. workforce was already fleeing even traditionally hierarchial civilian organizations in favor of more worker-participatory corporations.


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

Dennis Bailey said:


> By 1987 an educated and independent component of the U.S. workforce was already fleeing even traditionally hierarchial civilian organizations in favor of more worker-participatory corporations.


In this sense, you're onto something. The future will likely be decentralized -- we already can begin to see that much. But the romantic allusions to be drawn from the exploration and fighting on the sea -- those are very valuable commodities to be throwing away. Unless of course they can't be tapped into successfully anymore.

As you can tell, I'm of two minds on this subject.


----------



## Dennis Bailey (Jun 16, 2004)

Yep, but my other point is that when you're spending tens of thousands of dollars on a production rather than tens of millions of someone else's money you can pretty much aim at making a movie to please a small group of people who share your tastes. The old "naval analogy" works just fine on this level. And even in the occasional commercial film -- see "Master and Commander". That's a somewhat different question than whether eight or ten million people would watch a show about the Royal Navy every week (with frequent interruptions for McDonald's ads).


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

I'm about to become unpopular again, but these kinds of threads are better left at Trek BBS. They have little or nothing to do with scifi modeling, plastic, CG or otherwise, and have completely strayed from the original topic.

Its not that the thread is mean-spirited or disruptive. But dammit why does every forum have to turn into a remake/reboot/clone Trek debate? This is so old and pointless. How many forums does this need to be debated on before people are satisfied?  

Please, can't we just talk about the hobby here and not keep going over and over and over _overwrought, worn out, completely obliterated ground?_

As far as the initial topic... CG has come a long way, and prices have dropped dramatically in the last decade or so. However these are still merely tools that require extremely high level of skill to operate convincingly. Even so, better access helps to inspire new artists to try these tools out, and maybe become really creative with them. Its certainly the case with me and my current career as a VFX artist.

A couple of things I've learned from experience though. Its nearly _impossible_ to do any kind of movie project completely on your own. The number of skills required and the amount of time it takes is virtually impossible for one person. Look at the current crop of TOS fan films. Even the best ones with dozens of talented people involved still don't come close to the quality of stuff done nearly 40 years ago with TOS!
Secondly, you still need actors (even for all CG characters), music, sound effects, sets, props, lighting and AV recording equipment. Then some method to deliver it to your audience. No matter how you slice it, that stuff is expensive, takes up space and takes a lot of time to create or acquire. So while CG has undoubtedly made things easier, and a little less expensive, movie making is still firmly in the hands of the big boys.
What technology _has_ done is allow certain artists to make visuals that were impossible, or too expensive or dangerous to make before.

As we can all agree, the bottom line is the _story_ and how its presented. A good actor can sit on a stage all by himself and enthrall hundreds of people if he and his story are compelling enough.


----------



## Dennis Bailey (Jun 16, 2004)

Nova Designs said:


> Its not that the thread is mean-spirited or disruptive. But dammit why does every forum have to turn into a remake/reboot/clone Trek debate?


Who's debating Trek reboots? We're talking about making fan films that resemble the original "Star Trek". Being actually involved in helping make a rather elaborate "Star Trek"-based fan film, I find the prospect plenty interesting from a conceptual/production POV.

It's hard to do a film project of any real scale by oneself. Making films or videos is _almost_ by its nature collaborative. There are worthwhile exceptions, but not many.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> CG has come a long way, and prices have dropped dramatically in the last decade or so. However these are still merely tools that require extremely high level of skill to operate convincingly. Even so, better access helps to inspire new artists to try these tools out, and maybe become really creative with them. Its certainly the case with me and my current career as a VFX artist.
> 
> A couple of things I've learned from experience though. Its nearly _impossible_ to do any kind of movie project completely on your own. The number of skills required and the amount of time it takes is virtually impossible for one person. Look at the current crop of TOS fan films. Even the best ones with dozens of talented people involved still don't come close to the quality of stuff done nearly 40 years ago with TOS!
> Secondly, you still need actors (even for all CG characters), music, sound effects, sets, props, lighting and AV recording equipment. Then some method to deliver it to your audience. No matter how you slice it, that stuff is expensive, takes up space and takes a lot of time to create or acquire. So while CG has undoubtedly made things easier, and a little less expensive, movie making is still firmly in the hands of the big boys.
> ...


Looks like for the reasonably near future without tens of thousands of bucks and tons of space the most promising technology would perhaps involve a blend of CG characters with CGI sets.

Anyone have any info on the current state of the art in CG creation/manipulation of human characters.

If that became significantly sophisticated little more would be needed then voice overs!

But there doesn't seem to be too many convincing examples of CG human characters. Anyone know anything about this technology?


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> There doesn't seem to be too many convincing examples of CG human characters. Anyone know anything about this technology?


The closest anyone has come would seem to be "Polar Express," but based on that it would appear we've got a ways to go (IMO). In any case I suspect the edition of CineFex dealing with "T.P.E." might shed some light on the technologies involved.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect the best, most practical performer for a fan-produced "Trek" film would be a human being.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

There is a real psychological theory that I read about. Essentially what is says is that the closer synthetic humanoids get to looking like real humans the more the human mind rejects it as fake.

As good as some CG characters are, unless they are obviously stylized audiences tend to be turned off by them. That's why films like _Final Fantasy_ and _Polar Express_ got so much flack. Conversely people don't have a difficult time suspending disbelief for 2D human characters or completely ficticious characters like the ones in _Monster's Inc._


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Interesting, Nova! It seems that the illusion must be completely convincing or there's little need to even bother.

However, it seems that it's difficult not to stylize them to some degree. I found a certain artistic style to the characters in FF. I liked the characters though my brain couldn't help but consider them as anything but very fine cartoon characters.


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

Nova Designs said:


> I'm about to become unpopular again, but these kinds of threads are better left at Trek BBS. They have little or nothing to do with scifi modeling, plastic, CG or otherwise, and have completely strayed from the original topic.
> 
> Its not that the thread is mean-spirited or disruptive. But dammit why does every forum have to turn into a remake/reboot/clone Trek debate? This is so old and pointless. How many forums does this need to be debated on before people are satisfied?


My first post in months and I get bashed. Lucky me. And here I thought I _was_ adding something constructive to the discussion. I see that's not the case. Carry on with your inquiry into... what was it? "Innovations that could help make fan-based Trek productions more affordable?"

_Innovations_ like actually doing something that could make money and possibly attract a few investors? I guess that one is unacceptable?

And yet my point still stands. It doesn't have to be velour tops with delta emblems and twin nacelled ships to be *Star Trek*. *Star Trek* is more than that. It is about optimistically exploring the possibilities of being human. Do that with style, a sense of art and adventure, a respect for science and history... do all that you'll do what *Star Trek* tried to do, better than even *Star Trek* was often able to do.

Sorry for expressing my POV.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I think you know few have more respect for your work then I do, Aridas.

Your and Dennis' conversation did have a connection to the subject of fan based productions. Though this was intended to be more to do with technical issues, CGI etc.

I have the utmost respect for both your work and opinions. Perhaps Nova wasn't as tactful as was possible but I think it's obvious that we were getting away from the subject more then a bit.

I doubt he meant to offend, and I'm sincerely sorry if you were offended by either of us. But Nova did have a point.

I don't think there is any need to take it as being bashed though.
I don't think his language was that harsh. He was clearly exasperated, but he did explain why quite thoroughly.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Thanks Chuck...

Aridas sofia... come on... Bashed? Who bashed you? It certainly wasn't me that's for sure. I can't find your name or a quote by you anywhere in my post. You and I have gotten along famously in the past, same with you Dennis. I don't see why either of you should take this personally or react so negatively to me.

I had hoped that the logic of talking about modeling on a modeling forum wouldn't be too much to ask for. Look, instead everyone getting all defensive, how about trying to see my point, however inexpertly expressed it may have been? 
We _all_ love Star Trek, fine. We all have endless opinions about all aspects of it too, cool!! But this is supposed to be a _hobby forum_ about making model kits, scratchbuilds, dioramas, what have you. While I find all the discussions about CG and directors and such very interesting, I just think that it has a time and a place and that _this particular forum_ just isn't it. Especially when it becomes so pervasive. Its well beyond once in a while. In fact there are three off-topic threads right now that have nothing to do with modeling in any form going on. All of which should probably be in the _Movies for Modelers_ forum since that's the jist of what they are about.

What I'd like to see happen is you TrekBBS guys model some kits! That's what this place is supposed to be about and it would be great to encourage you guys in that direction.

If you want to talk directors, TV shows, and fan films (all interesting topics to be sure) there _IS_ a HobbyTalk forum for that. Just not this one.


----------



## Dennis Bailey (Jun 16, 2004)

I didn't take it personally, just noted that we weren't actually having (yet another) debate about things like rebooting Trek.

*Aridas*, have you read or are you a participant in the forum where folks are/were doing some kind of universe built around that ship model that Matt Jefferies designed? The name of it escapes me momentarily, but the model itself was used as the reference for the _MacArthur_ in "The Mote In God's Eye". Cool model.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Dennis Bailey said:


> ...have you read or are you a participant in the forum where folks are/were doing some kind of universe built around that ship model that Matt Jefferies designed? The name of it escapes me momentarily


That would be the Leif Ericson Galactic Crusier.


----------



## Dennis Bailey (Jun 16, 2004)

That's it. Isn't that forum part of Hobbytalk? For some reason I don't remember where I saw it.

Having a touch of dementia this evening.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Dennis Bailey said:


> That's it. Isn't that forum part of Hobbytalk?


Not sure; try running a search for "Leif Ericson." Otherwise, this site may be of interest...

http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~frank/le.html

In terms of setting a story in a "Trek"-like universe without actually doing "Trek" per se, the Leif Ericson might be an interesting point of departure. The kit's instructions include a "backstory" detailing the ship's mission; I'd be happy to forward a copy if you're interested, although I'm not sure how helpful it would be from any practical standpoint. In any case we have obviously strayed radically OT and any further discussion along these lines should probably resume in the HobbyTalk Movies room.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

You are right about this being a modeling forum, Nova.
Though it should be noted that CG is not only not out of place here, this very forum was actually started primarily for the purpose of CGI modeling and blueprinting, because a certain other owner of a now defunct forum wouldn't let anyone mention the word blueprinting or CGI without deleting the person's post and/or thread.

It was expanded to a discussion of physical modeling as well as a lot of people here had felt more comfortable discussing that in then Capt Locknar's forum(before Capt Locknar and Thomas created the forum as it is now) then the other forum which was more "draconianly"(if that's even a word) moderated.

So CGI is not really out of place here, it was the original reason this forum was created. Eventually it was expanded to envelop other types of modeling including physical modeling - but CGI and blueprinting was it's genesis.

We've often gone off topic here. It's not taboo as it is elsewhere.
But up to now most of us that have been here awhile have been very careful to try to "link out" and create other threads if we feel the need to take the discussion in a novel direction.

Nothing at all wrong with bringing up new subjects, or subjects only very remotely related to the subject, it's just that once that side discussion reaches a critical mass(a hard thing to judge, I will be the first one to admit that) it's best to link out to another thread.

Usually, except for very rare exceptions, the off-topic link out need not be to an entirely new forum as long as everyone uses the Off-Topic thread label appropriately.

We have never felt the need in this hobbytalk forum to be that stiff with the topic rules.

The very reason I started this thread was in deference to the subject of Trekfreak's thread. The point raised by Phil Broad was a tremendously interesting one and one that deserved a solid round of discussion --- But I also recognized that my response and request for information wasn't on-point as far as Trekfreak's "RIP Enterprise" thread.

So I linked out and created a new thread.
The result was the first post of this thread.

There is no reason we have to be extremely stiff about topic discussions, let's just try to keep it flowing and if there's a new subject that comes up and after a couple of posts seems to need more in-depth treatment, just create another thread - whether it be on-topic or off-topic.

Also let me say that a lot of newer members, through no fault of their own, haven't had a chance to pic up on the above forum origins/customs. 

A newbie who has done some thread searching/reading could also become very confused by the fact that the more draconianly moderated defunct forum I mentioned has had it's database of threads absorbed by this one.

Some threads you might find in this forum's database from the defunct forum have been locked because of the mere mention of a particular person, subject or website that a former moderator may have had a problem with. Whereas Capt Locknar and Thomas have never deleted a thread I know of for such reasons.

I really wish those threads could have been tagged so we would know which was which. But that's life!

Let's keep this a cozy corner of Hobbytalk it has been ever since Capt Locknar started it and enjoy ourselves.


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

I try to follow the discussions here, and I was a serious modeler at one time. Like anything, it takes me time to do it the way I want to see it done, and graduate school got in the way of that part of my life. I hope to get back to it in the next year now that my son is the age we can do it together. So I am more than a little interested in the discussions that go on in these and other similar forums.

I'm sorry if I overreacted -- it's a bit of a sore spot really. When I try to discuss creating something along the lines of what I was mentioning above with "serious" SF types, I get accused of doing a "Trek clone." And when I try to discuss it with people that were fans of my Star Trek work, they really aren't interested. But as you say there is a time and place, and this isn't it, though when I jumped in I thought that was the direction the discussion was headed.

For what it's worth, I recently invested a lot of money in creating an ergonomic work environment, and a lot more on the computer hardware, with an eye towards becoming proficient enough to do what I think we are discussing. This summer I hope to take the courses in Lightwave and Maya that will allow me to do some remarkable stuff. Physical modeling will still play a part in conceptualizing, as I've always done things that way. (And as 3D scanning tech becomes more accessible it should hopefully allow some workarounds to bring more and varied talents to bear with hopefully some time savings.) 

This kind of investment will always be necessary. You'll need to develop skills with whatever is out there. And that takes time and/ or money, and of course time is money. I know of no innovation that can get around that, and it will always require a lot of talented, skilled people coming together with a shared goal in order to make up for a lack of green. Technology can only do so much.

The tech is important, however. I'll be able to do alone what would have taken an entire SFX house only twenty years ago. So in that sense, hallelujah.

BTW, the _Leif Ericson_ was designed by *Matt Jefferies* for AMT when they were in the midst of the _Galileo_ and D7 development. It is unclear whether he intended it for use on *Trek*. But it did make it to several unused Filmation cels on *TAS*. Here are a few sketches he did that are clearly headed in the direction of that design:










As for my modeling skills, I wish I could claim anything as grand as you guys have shown. Here is a little something I threw together awhile back, however: 

_t'Ch'ann_ class heavy battlecruiser


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Now, _that_ is badass.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Chuck, don't misunderstand my intentions. I am in no way advocating a return to the way things were under the former "administration" And I do think that CG modeling is appropriate fodder for discussion, although I would really hate to see this focused on _too_ heavily simply because there is so very much of that CG stuff out there already and very little of what kind of modeling we do... which is the _crux_ of our hobby. I have never said CG modeling was out of place, but I do think that discussions about who's a better director, reimagining Trek, or making fan films are out of the focus of the forum. Instead of slapping on an Off-Topic moniker to "make it alright" why not just take the time to post one's thoughts in the appropriate place? For example the topics I mentioned would all be excellent candidates for the _Movies for Modelers_ forum.

Keep in mind I do 3D modeling and special effects for a major animation studio and also as a hobby, so I'm as big an advocate of that art as you'll find. But I don't come here for that. I come here for the smell of styrene and superglue! 

As far as people working out CG models in that light, right on! :thumbsup: _FourMadMen's_ work is, of course, a prominent example of that working well here. Lots of great research and reference material grew out of that long discussion to everyone's benefit--and hopefully it will bear more fruit. The scifi modeling community at its best. 

But one thing that I really _hate_ to see is when discussion turns to bitter debate and division. TrekBBS (not to beat that horse too much) is a place where the Star Trek community has, in my opinion, shown its _worst_ side. There are more camps and deeply divided people there than at any place in the Trek community that I have ever seen. Sure, pockets get along for a time and a few glimmers of creativity surface, but mostly its tepid, shallow commentary, petty fan-boy competition, intense series against series infighting, and a lot of jockeying for position as the local Trek "know-it-all". Its really sad that with all that energy and opinion, not much of anything at all is produced.
Truth be told there are a few interesting discussions from time to time, and I'll follow those for a while. But mostly its just irritating as any serious discussion quickly degrades or becomes pedantic. I stopped participating a long time ago, now I merely check in as a lurker from time to time to see what's up. Call it morbid curiosity.

I guess what I'm afraid of is this. While I'm all about keeping the forum as open as possible there is such a thing as going too far the other way. If you look out at the world, one can see that anarchy is just as destructive to a society as a dictatorship can be. I don't want to see anyone get a boot to the head, but I also don't want to see this forum overrun by rabid Trek fanaticism either. There have been several moments in the last year where discussions _have_ gotten to that point. And its all too easy for these sorts of speculative Trek topics to spiral down into pointless arguments of who's right and who knows more and canon this that and the other. 

Its when I start to see topics dive off in that direction that I get so exasperated.

Some of you guys might think I hate Trek. That couldn't be more wrong. If it makes any difference (probably not) I have as strong feelings and opinions about Star Trek as any of the people here or on TrekBBS. Yet I don't feel the desire to debate or argue about it with strangers on the internet. That is entirely unproductive and serves only to burn us out on that which we love so much. And to fracture the community that has a hard enough time staying together as it is. This is something I have seen happen many times over the years at different forums. Instead, I choose to just privately work on my own personal Star Trek projects with the hope that someday, someone may see and appreciate the work I have done.

The occasional foray into the speculative what ifs of Trek are fine as long as we rememeber that this forum is about our hobby, which is scifi modeling.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

BTW, I love the idea of exploring a backstory to the Leif Ericson. I've always thought of building a really high detail CG model of the ship. Just one of many projects I never quite got around to.


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

Dennis Bailey said:


> *Aridas*, have you read or are you a participant in the forum where folks are/were doing some kind of universe built around that ship model that Matt Jefferies designed? The name of it escapes me momentarily, but the model itself was used as the reference for the _MacArthur_ in "The Mote In God's Eye". Cool model.


No, I'm not part of that group, and I hadn't seen that before now (though I do visit that BBS now and then). However on this forum that I visit more regularly it _is_ being discussed for gaming purposes (the SFC game IIRC).

I love *MJ*'s work but that design has always seemed unfinished to me. I went over the design with a fine tooth comb back in the eighties to see if the ship should be in the *Federation Reference Series*. I concluded that while it was definitely retrofuturist cool, it just didn't have that aerospace saavy that seemed to characterize his work. I was impressed by this guy's recent take on it, however. Sorta like what I think Jefferies would have done if the thing really mattered a whole lot.

What _was_ impressive over on Starship Modeler was the community spirit and shared purpose. *Nova* was right when he noted that if one tenth of that existed over at the TrekBBS the place would be a creative wellspring.

Back on topic (I think) one innovation that will need to occur is the ability to more widely disseminate storytelling skills. Whether via software or online classes or whatever. The affordability of these productions will improve if pitfalls can be avoided in the writing stage.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

aridas sofia said:


> _t'Ch'ann_ class heavy battlecruiser


Fantastic!


----------



## Dennis Bailey (Jun 16, 2004)

Damn, that "refit" of the LE is just...damn. That works.

I'm not the person doing the editing and other assembly on "Exeter"; Jimm would probably be better able to speak from experience about what kind of "holes" exist in the current suite of tools available to fan film/video makers. It's hard for me to think of one, really; the whole reason that this kind of thing is exploding right now is that all the necessary tools have finally been put within reach of talented people working on limited budgets.

It's more a matter at this point of refinements in the capabilities of the existing tools and hopefully further decreases in price. Frankly, the one thing that would make the most difference would probably be a price collapse in the commercial rental sector of real estate markets. Given that, building sets would relatively inexpensive. :lol:


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

^ You'd think it would be cheaper to build a big shed in the boondocks.

I can see it now...aridas startin' a studio based in the West Virginia panhandle. 

I'd get shot before I got anything shot.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^Just don't step into the wrong marijuana field!


----------



## Dennis Bailey (Jun 16, 2004)

aridas sofia said:


> ^ You'd think it would be cheaper to build a big shed in the boondocks.
> 
> I can see it now...aridas startin' a studio based in the West Virginia panhandle.
> 
> I'd get shot before I got anything shot.


It might be. Adequate electricity is a concern, though.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

aridas sofia said:


> I try to follow the discussions here, and I was a serious modeler at one time. Like anything, it takes me time to do it the way I want to see it done, and graduate school got in the way of that part of my life. I hope to get back to it in the next year now that my son is the age we can do it together. So I am more than a little interested in the discussions that go on in these and other similar forums.
> 
> ...
> 
> For what it's worth, I recently invested a lot of money in creating an ergonomic work environment, and a lot more on the computer hardware, with an eye towards becoming proficient enough to do what I think we are discussing. This summer I hope to take the courses in Lightwave and Maya that will allow me to do some remarkable stuff. Physical modeling will still play a part in conceptualizing, as I've always done things that way. (And as 3D scanning tech becomes more accessible it should hopefully allow some workarounds to bring more and varied talents to bear with hopefully some time savings.)


Hold that thought for a moment, I think you and Nova's brainwave patterns are about to merge on the 3D/scanning tech(i.e. mechanical creation of a physical model from 3D) subject...



Nova Designs said:


> Chuck, don't misunderstand my intentions. I am in no way advocating a return to the way things were under the former "administration" And I do think that CG modeling is appropriate fodder for discussion, although I would really hate to see this focused on _too_ heavily simply because there is so very much of that CG stuff out there already and very little of what kind of modeling we do... which is the _crux_ of our hobby. I have never said CG modeling was out of place, but I do think that discussions about who's a better director, reimagining Trek, or making fan films are out of the focus of the forum. Instead of slapping on an Off-Topic moniker to "make it alright" why not just take the time to post one's thoughts in the appropriate place? For example the topics I mentioned would all be excellent candidates for the _Movies for Modelers_ forum.
> 
> Keep in mind I do 3D modeling and special effects for a major animation studio and also as a hobby, so I'm as big an advocate of that art as you'll find. But I don't come here for that. I come here for the smell of styrene and superglue!
> 
> ...


 
I understand and agree. With the imminent death of Polar Light's Star Trek line past a couple more releases(and God knows even that is uncertain), and the whaning of popularity of model building(not enough people teaching the art to their sons and daughters as you plan to do Aridas, most kids don't seem to have the patience for it any more) I'm starting to forsee a time in the not so far off future in which, if you want a kit of a particular subject made you may just *have to* make it in 3-D and have a company make it for you on a prototyping machine.

Thankfully it has gotten cheaper, but not nearly cheap enough. Recently I had a sheet of parts made from a 3-D model of it FourMadMen made for me. That very simple sheet of parts cost about $200 bucks and was made using a process that is very limited in detail and the smoothness of texture that can be achieved. Plus the material they use if really fragile and of course needed to be recast.

To build an entire decent sized kit via that way of prototyping I'm sure is currently out of reach for most people, at least as a casual hobby.

But the affordibility may change as the prototyping technology improves.

I hope it does, as there may come a time *very soon* when someone wanting to have a model has little choice but to combine 3-D modeling skills with a prototyping service. 

I don't like this vision I have of the future. But sadly I have a feeling it will eventually come to pass...






P.S. FourMadMen's 3-D file snapshot and resultant physical prototype picture below:

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=16929

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=16925


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

After reading through this thread, I'm not sure if it is ending or if I should contribute further to it but there are a few minor points that I would like to make so here goes:

IMO all productions begin with a well written story. Obviously we all agree with this but I am a little bemused that it is the last thing mentioned in most of the previous posts. So be it.

Be that as it may, the question "to Trek or not to Trek" I see as follows; making a re-pop "Trek" show offers challenges beyond those usually associated with film production, primarily in the area of research or "getting it right". This is the very same challenge faced by model builders, is it not? For the most part (but not always) we don't "design" our chosen model subject, the goal instead is accurrate re-creation. Personally, I love research and this is one aspect of the hobby that has always attracted me to it. So this is a "crossover" attraction when it comes to a fan-made Trek re-pop film. The idea of a similar-yet-familiar "new" story is viable too but for me, if I am going to be tasked with comming up with something "new" then it is going to be NEW, not "similar" if you know what I mean. The only time I constrain my imagination in that way is when I'm trying to design "in someone else's shoes" such as in the case of my "Perseus Fleet Support" ship. In that instance I was trying to design a ship in the style of a Matt Jefferies '60s Trek work. I'm sure that this is the same for many of you. So my feeling is that "new" should be "all new" and if that is the case then we diverge from the original intent here which was to take "Trek" in the direction that the fans (or at least some of them) wanted it to go. Keep in mind too that there is room in the arena for any group to participate, no matter what their "take" on the subject. This is by no means a "one shot" or exclusive situation and frankly, I could see myself working on all of them, "re-pop" or "new" because each type presents unique challenges. That is the beauty of fan-based productions as I see it, if one group does not represent the direction you want to go then nothing prevents a person from starting their own group and following their own vision.

When it comes to costs of sets, I am of two minds about it. It has always seemed to me that any really worthwhile story should be able to be performed "in the round" with no sets or special effects whatsoever. Sets and special effects are always secondary to story telling. "Begin with a strong script and the rest will follow" is what I've always believed. That being the case, actors should be able to perform sans sets, in front of a green screen or whatever. In fact, the "Sin City" director has stated that he feels he got better performances from his cast because there were no sets or other distractions and thus their performances were "pure". Much like theater in the round. For most Trek eras the sets are little more than textured boxes so I wouldn't think that coordinating actors with CG sets would be wildly difficult. Obviously there would be some limitations and there would be a learning curve of course but most of that should be capable of being handled with careful planning. Do such CG enviroments (or characters for that matter) have to be so realistic? Was TAS? People liked that show and it was a long way from being "realistic" so my answer would have to be "no".

If we must have real sets, is that a show-stopper? I know for a fact that an extremely convincing TOS Bridge may be built of corrugated cardboard, construction paper and vacumme formed plastic because I've actually seen one myself and that is probably the most difficult TOS set to make. It looked a little ratty around the edges but when seen through a camera viewfinder it looked incredible (it was fully lit too with twinkie-blinkies)! Total cost back then was supposed to have been around $1200. Don't get me wrong here, that set naturally had its limitations. For one thing, it was not built to last by any means. Nor was it built so that actors could stage fight scenes in it or even lean on it. But it looked great and worked perfectly for its intended purpose. This question of expense is really a test of ingenuity more than anything else, there are plenty of techniques for making inexpensive sets. This challenge also appeals to me in the same way it does when it comes to model building because scratch building is largely a test of one's ingenuity on how to make this or that part.

Does a project like this have to be for profit? To me, "profit" can be the knowledge and experience I gain, not to mention new friends and connections I make. As mentioned before, a project like this can also make an excellent introduction into the film industry because it gives you a chance to showcase your abilities in a compelling way, whatever your job might be on it. So "profit" is relative to me.

A fan-made film is never a solo effort and I wouldn't suggest that it is. My thinking here is that there are so many talented people walking around looking for a project that it should not be so difficult to put together a willing crew.

Some people are already doing it and not just with Trek. I think that this is a phenomenon that will only increase as the available tools become increasingly powerful.

Lookout Paramount, the FANS are taking over the ship!!

BWAH, HA, HA, HA, HA!! (wringing hands)


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Okay Chuck,

I got wood when I saw that Shuttlecraft chair on your 3D "grown" part! Very cool. What scale is it?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

X15-A2 said:


> Okay Chuck,
> 
> I got wood when I saw that Shuttlecraft chair on your 3D "grown" part! Very cool. What scale is it?


I think you meant "wooed." If not that's a whole *new* other discussion I'd rather not have!

Assuming you meant "wooed," everything will end up being 1/24th ! The whole ship will probably end up being about 15.35". Glad to have you back! :wave:


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Thanks Chuck, good to be back.

BTW, there is a question regarding CG effects that I've always wanted to have answered, what kind of hardware is used by the folks in Hollywood? Processors, RAM, etc? We seem to have several proffessionals on this board so hopefully one or all might give us the info about this? Thanks!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^ Don't mention it! Hope you'll eventually do your own take on an integrated exterior/interior Class F shuttlecraft. You exterior prints are gorgeous and your screengrabs incredibly valuable!!!

Thought you might want to see the chair closer up, so I'm reposting a pic link I just entered in the Galileo thread.

Here's a pic of the 1/24th scale Picard from PL's Scorpion kit reclining in the class F Shuttlecraft seat.

He's still a little stiff in the arms and legs but I'm sure he's more comfortable then in that Scorpion thing.

Especially since I had to remove the sprue from his butt to seat him properly!

I always suspected Picard had a stick up his butt but it took PL's Scorpion kit to prove it! :lol:



http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=17354


----------



## jwrjr (Oct 31, 2003)

If you need model lighting, and the project is interesting enough, ask me. For a sufficiently interesting project, I can give you a really good deal.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

X15-A2 said:


> BTW, there is a question regarding CG effects that I've always wanted to have answered, what kind of hardware is used by the folks in Hollywood? Processors, RAM, etc? We seem to have several proffessionals on this board so hopefully one or all might give us the info about this? Thanks!


I'm wondering the same thing. Rick Sternbach himself sometimes posts on the TrekBBS TrekArt forum. You might want to ask this question there to, perhaps directly addressed to him in the thread title. I've gotten a response from him in the past that way.

If you find out, please post the info here too!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

jwrjr said:


> If you need model lighting, and the project is interesting enough, ask me. For a sufficiently interesting project, I can give you a really good deal.


Cool! Any pricing yet on your PL 1/350th 1701 Refit kits yet?


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

X15-A2 said:


> BTW, there is a question regarding CG effects that I've always wanted to have answered, what kind of hardware is used by the folks in Hollywood? Processors, RAM, etc? We seem to have several proffessionals on this board so hopefully one or all might give us the info about this? Thanks!


I was reading part of the new issue of _Cinefex_ where they talk to lots of top names in effects production. At one point they discuss this issue, and I gather that many of them have moved away from the Silicon Graphics computers they used to use. Apparently, Silicon Graphics got complacent and relied on their name while the desktop systems increased in power to the point they offered better value. So the impression I got is that many now use desktop Macs and probably a few PCs and/or both. These would, of course, be the higher-end machines for both platforms. (But take note how common it has become to see "Composited with 'Shake'" in the end credits of effects-laden movies -- Shake is a Macintosh program.)

But regardless of the chosen platform, it looks like the two together have dealt Silicon Graphics quite a blow.

As for RAM, I don't know what high-end Windows machines can take, but the top of the line Macs now can access eight gigabytes of RAM. They're also dual processor machines -- rumor has it a quad-processor G5 Mac might be nearing release, but for now that's a rumor. Maybe someone else can speak to what the high-end Windows machines tend to have.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Thom S. (Sep 28, 2004)

Nova does have a valid point. I can't tell you how close I came to moving this thread too. I'm away for a couple of weeks and utter chaos of free speech wreaks havoc! But, as I too am involved in a non-profit star trek playtime fanfilm, I decided to let this one slide as it pertains to what Jimm, Dennis, myself, and dozens of others are working on.



Here is a temp clip of the engine room establishing shot before final dressing. This was shot with a hand held, hence the jerky nature, and lit with a couple of small table lamps on hand. the final footage will be shot with a very high end HD camera and lit properly.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

I should add to the list of hardware info in my previous question what kind of video cards are used? I guess what it comes down to is this, are they (Hollywood types) using the same hardware available to the rest of us or is it some kind high-end, way-outta-your-price-range equipment that the rest of us are unlikely to ever see? Can your average home-computer-buying-fan put together the same system they use or are we talking about $50,000 machines (or something like that)?


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Thomas,

Thanks for posting the Engine Room shot, I've been waiting to see an update on that one. Looks like it was worth the wait! Please post a larger image if you get the chance.


----------



## Thom S. (Sep 28, 2004)

There are plenty more images on my website.

If you're _really_ interested, click the image above.


----------



## dsscse (Dec 19, 2004)

deleted


----------



## jwrjr (Oct 31, 2003)

This isn't really the place for Chuck's question to me, I answered it via email.

I understand that Shrek II was made on computers running Linux (not Windows).


----------



## jwrjr (Oct 31, 2003)

Thomas - your flasher for the Engine Room is on the way.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

... my own rambling response deleted!...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

jwrjr said:


> This isn't really the place for Chuck's question to me, I answered it via email.
> 
> I understand that Shrek II was made on computers running Linux (not Windows).


Thanks jwrjr,

but since the thread was about fan production of Trek related productions, and I could perhaps imagine one or more fans might be interested in using a Refit model for FX or whatever, I saw no harm in your letting us in on the product. Especially since Thomas has given it his endorsement.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

On the processor front, I had thought that Silicon Graphics had been taken over and gone south at least 7 years ago or so? I guess it's always possible they came back when I wasn't paying attention to the processor market the way I used to...

Rick Sternbach would be a good source for the info on the hardware/software *Enterprise* used for FX production, and I believe that Aridas knows how to contact him directly... hint, hint!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Thom S. said:


> Here is a temp clip of the engine room establishing shot before final dressing. This was shot with a hand held, hence the jerky nature, and lit with a couple of small table lamps on hand. the final footage will be shot with a very high end HD camera and lit properly.


So it won't be a consumer grade HD camera like the new $3700 Sony?
Or did you guys get your hands on a better one?

The techno-nerd in me has to know...


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> On the processor front, I had thought that Silicon Graphics had been taken over and gone south at least 7 years ago or so?


You may well be right. I don't know.

Edit: No, they're still around -- http://www.sgi.com/

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Well to answer that hardware question, let me start by saying that SGI has been out of the picture for nearly a decade. Too expensive and too slow, believe it or not.

We pretty much use WinXP and Linux for OS. Linux on the servers and render farms for certain and only Windows where its necessary for certain apps... like Photoshop or Lightwave. We used Lightwave and Maya (on windows) to make all of Jimmy Neutron (both feature and series). Our current feature project is a lot of proprietary in house software as well as Houdini, XSI, Realflow, Maya and sprinkling of Lightwave, Modo, ZBrush, and Silo. Whatever it takes to get the shots done. As things progress we will be moving over to completely proprietary software that will allow us to basically develop any feature we need in house. Places like Pixar are already 100% proprietary--i.e. no commercial software at all.

All our workstations are custom-made Dual 3.8Ghz XEON boxes running Linux with 4GB of the fastest workstation RAM around. Some band of QuadroFX1300 video cards with 256MB vram. RAID, twin dual channel monitors graphics tablets and a few NTSC monitors are round things out. I have TWO of these myself. Now, Its not out of the realm of possibility to build a machine like this personally, but it would be _damn expensive._ And we have over 250 of them and growing!

Our renderfarm is custom built and has a HVAC/Halon system that could freeze a star solid!  Its got over 800 3.0 GHz nodes with 2GB of RAM per node. All on Linux and that's about all I know about it, other than standing in front of the thing makes one weak in the knees, hehehe!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> We pretty much use WinXP and Linux for OS. Linux on the servers and render farms for certain and only Windows where its necessary for certain apps... like Photoshop or Lightwave. We used Lightwave and Maya (on windows) to make all of Jimmy Neutron (both feature and series).


Did Conan O'Brien ever get a royalty check from you guys cloning him in cartoon form for Jimmy Neutron? :lol:



Nova Designs said:


> Our current feature project is a lot of proprietary in house software as well as Houdini, XSI, Realflow, Maya and sprinkling of Lightwave, Modo, ZBrush, and Silo.


Maya alone runs about, what? $20,000 bucks?
All the commercial software alone is probably a couple hundred grand? 



Nova Designs said:


> Whatever it takes to get the shots done. As things progress we will be moving over to completely proprietary software that will allow us to basically develop any feature we need in house. Places like Pixar are already 100% proprietary--i.e. no commercial software at all.


Wow. To have guys on staff that can write that stuff or to buy the education necessary(which I doubt just one guy could do if he had the money) is probably even MORE expensive then the commercial stuff you talked about. 



Nova Designs said:


> All our workstations are custom-made Dual 3.8Ghz XEON boxes running Linux with 4GB of the fastest workstation RAM around. Some band of QuadroFX1300 video cards with 256MB vram. RAID, twin dual channel monitors graphics tablets and a few NTSC monitors are round things out. I have TWO of these myself. Now, Its not out of the realm of possibility to build a machine like this personally, but it would be _damn expensive._


And I doubt one guy could do it all on one machine!



Nova Designs said:


> Our renderfarm is custom built and has a HVAC/Halon system that could freeze a star solid!  Its got over 800 3.0 GHz nodes with 2GB of RAM per node. All on Linux and that's about all I know about it, other than standing in front of the thing makes one weak in the knees, hehehe!


What's a renderfarm?
How does it work?
Do they sell them at Walmart?


----------



## jwrjr (Oct 31, 2003)

I wouldn't have thought that the PL refit would be the subject of an affordable Trek fan film. But maybe ...
So here goes -
nav flasher + strobe controller - $25
photon torpedo simulator - $25
both - $40

p.s. Mr. Coffey, I tried to answer your email, but it was rejected as spam.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Hehehe, well lets see...

Maya is only about $1,500 a seat, plus $1,000 a year "maintenance" Kinda like protection money from the mob. Houdini Master (what we use in the effects department) is something like $17,000 a seat though, plus yearly maintenance. Not only that, its hard as hell to use! But I'm learning--and it does amazing stuff. Then there are render licenses which I won't go into. Suffice to say that there are a couple of million bucks tied up in commercial software.

I _personally_ own 2 seats of Lightwave, one seat of Modo (modeling package) Zbrush (modeling again) Realflow (fluid dynamics) and Maya. Not to mention dozens of little plugins for all that.

A _renderfarm_ is basically several hundred computers that splitting up frames in an animation sequence among themsleves to render simultaneously. So lets say you have a 100 frame sequence that takes 5 minutes a frame and you stick it on a 100 node renderfarm. You should get your sequence back from the farm in about _5 minutes_ because every frame renders at the same time instead of sequentially. Rendering that same shot locally on your workstation one frame at a time would take *8.5 HOURS!* More nodes in that case won't matter because you only have 100 frames and anything above the first 100 nodes will just sit idle. But with dozens or hundreds of artists submitting shots to the farm during a work day, you can see how several hundred or several _thousand_ nodes would be really necessary. The farm is solely dedicated to rendering so that frees up the workstations for the artists to move on to their next shot instead of having to wait hours or days for a render to finish. :thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^ Yeah, but can we buy one at Walmart?

And when is Conan O'Brien getting that Jimmy Nuetron royalty check?


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Conan is paying US! 

Walmart stopped selling renderfarms because the ******** couldn't afford them.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Thomas, that engineering set looks astounding! I am seriously at a loss for words!


----------



## Steven Coffey (Jan 5, 2005)

jwrjr said:


> I wouldn't have thought that the PL refit would be the subject of an affordable Trek fan film. But maybe ...
> So here goes -
> nav flasher + strobe controller - $25
> photon torpedo simulator - $25
> ...


My email puts every one as spam till I add you to my contact list,Sorry about that!I will be ordering some in the very near future! :thumbsup:


----------



## jwrjr (Oct 31, 2003)

No problem since the message got through one way or another.

To remake a point I made back when I first started offering lighting parts - I'll design lighting controls for just about anything. And since I don't deal in big production runs, I can keep the prices reasonable.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Nova,

Thanks so much for providing the info about your systems at work, that is exactly what I wanted to know.

Where is your company located and would they allow visitors? I would be very interested to see it. I'm in the LA area and could arrange a visit to the Boeing factory in Long Beach in exchange, if you're into aviation. Thanks again.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

That would be a fun exhange of info! Unfortunately were located in Dallas.  On the upside, its a lot cheaper to operate (and live) here than in LA. On the downside there aren't many artists around when we need them.


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

*Chuck* wrote: 


> This thread is intended to discuss ways fan-based productions of all types, video, film, CGI, model miniatures, etc. can be accomplished...


One way I have approached this problem is to be flexible with the media I am willing to develop my ideas within. That seems to also be inferred by this statement -- "fan-based productions of *all types*..." The forum at Starship Modeler that *Dennis* directed me to has approched it one way -- put everything on the table and leave it all open to development as a group. The weakness there is that it's nobody's baby. Nobody has everything wrapped up in it, everybody has a little bit wrapped up in it. I think that diminishes the emotional and practical cost/benefit analysis -- an important calculation when there is no fortune at the end of a hell of a lot of work.

So instead, go with something everybody is already invested in. We all love Star Trek. TrekBBS veterans, fan publication publishers, even a _script writer_, damnit! -- so there is an emotional connection to Trek which is hard to define but none the less is very real. For something like *Exeter* I'm sure that's what floats the boat. But there are very few things that have motivated people to such an extreme over the decades as Star Trek. And one thing that really bothers me is that even if all the hurdles are overcome, if some flunky at Paramount decides fan productions are not in the franchise's best interest -- bang! -- all that effort for naught. And I really have to wonder how long Paramount's "permisiveness" will last once the Internet pipeline widens and more marketable, commercial entertainment is delivered that way. I can't imagine in ten years that Paramount productions delivered to homes worldwide via the Internet will share space with fan-made homages that are nevertheless trademark infringements. If that happened now, if *Jimm and Josh* had access to a network to show *Exeter*, don't you think that Paramount might object?

So, to get back to my original point, maybe one way to approach *Chuck's* inquiry is to ask what kind of media fans are willing to consider. In order to circumvent treading on toes that come back to kick you, how do you approach recreating Star Trek? Models and CGI can be invaluable tools to storyboarding, but also illustrated novels, comics etc. Scripts that would work in fan films could serve equally well in these kind of media. Is it that we want to see _*Star Trek*_ again, as it was, 1960s production values and all? And is that because we've never really gotten over how it was taken away? If so, then there really isn't a broad range of choices. It's what *Exeter* or *New Voyages* are doing, or nothing.

I for one would also be happy producing "James Blish" type adaptations of _new_ stories, but illustrated-novel style. I think such an approach is tailor-made for a small group. And for me personally, it is also perfect for something non-Trek. But I share these observations with you because they apply to hoped-for Trek productions as well.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^^

*"And I really have to wonder how long Paramount's "permisiveness" will last once the Internet pipeline widens and more marketable, commercial entertainment is delivered that way. I can't imagine in ten years that Paramount productions delivered to homes worldwide via the Internet will share space with fan-made homages that are nevertheless trademark infringements."*

That's really a legal issue we can't solve here. I don't see too many people giving up because of that possibility though. Perhaps Paramount would object heavily at that future point. But that point is probably still several years away. 

The next two years will be spent by broadcasters, studios, and networks - cable and satellite alike - just transitioning to High-Def.

While most if not all of these private companies have their hardware transitioning plans firmly in place if not already executed, much much much time will be spent on converting older movies and shows, wherever possible, to High Def.

Why? Why not just ignore all the past stuff and move forward?
In the next several years the battleground between cable and satellite providers will be in their respective abilities to provide the largest libraries of High Def movies and other content on demand.

That will take a few years of studios/networks attention and transitioning time as well.

_*But I'm also in danger of loosing the point of this thread myself.*_

*The reason I bring the above up in response to Aridas' quote is to point out that for a few years there may be an opportunity to, for a short while, have a new golden age of fan produced works - whatever the medium.*

*CGI, physical modeling, Blueprinting, plain-ole fan fiction, fab art, etc. will probably get a chance to flourish again - at least for a few years. And today's technology will make them all light years ahead in quality of what we had to share with one another in the '70's.*

If Paramount has any sense they will do what some software manufacturers do and provide some of their FX info as free source code with the stipulation that whatever it is used to produce remains their property.

If Paramount had any sense they would make a statement freely allowing Trek non-profit fan-fiction with the same stipulation.

This would, within a year or so, create a tremendous volume(admittedly some great, some very very lame) of Trek work in which Paramount could draw from later.

However, this is wishfull thinking. None of us can force them to do the above. But I predict that fans will nonetheless produce works of every medium with or without Paramount's tacit or explicit approval.

If some wanted to do stories/novels for profit, they can apply to Paramount as current novel writers do now. 

*All of this has little to do with the main purpose of this particular thread, though. *
*And I apologize for adding to the confusion by responding to a lot of these points.*

I never intended to discuss in detail what mediums are acceptable to fans.
But now that we have brought it up let me risk saying that clearly all mediums are acceptable to one group of fans or another. I personally enjoy all of them that I can think of. 

As long as no one invents Trek Thug Rap I'll be okay with it all. 

*My main point of the thread was to discuss technology fans might use to churn out Trek related stuff they are interested in;*

*whether that be physical models, CGI models, blueprints, animation, fan films etc.*

*an on-point example of technology discussion might be, for example:* 

What's the best/most widely used software for someone who writes scripts?
What's the best/most widely used software for someone who writes novels?
What's the best/most widely used software for someone who does 2D Blueprinting?
What's the best/most widely used software for someone who does 3D modeling?
What's the best/most widely used software for someone who does animation?

etc, etc.

Hope I haven't confused things yet again.
Carry on.


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. But I was trying to say that the same technology that is used for fan made films has other applications for fan productions. That's all. Just like you restated:
"whether that be physical models, CGI models, blueprints, animation, fan films etc."

I was actually trying to get back to what I thought was your broader, original point -- the _variety_ of applications inferred by there being a wide range of goals.


----------



## spacecraft guy (Aug 16, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> ^^^^
> 
> 
> *The reason I bring the above up in response to Aridas' quote is to point out that for a few years there may be an opportunity to, for a short while, have a new golden age of fan produced works - whatever the medium.*
> ...


Usually a study model of a set, vehicle or creature is built by a film or TV show's art department to see how the design "works" and be approved by the director before it goes to the effects house to be physically built (now fairly rare) or to be rendered with CGI. Most model building now is done in preproduction, not post. 

I would encourage anyone who wants to go the "do-it-yourself Trek" route to build the model of the Trek ship or set that you would like to see. The practical experience of designing and piecing together your design will help you envision down the line how best to render it with CGI for a film or animation project and blueprint it so you can share your design with other fans. 

Compositing your ship or set into a scene is now fairly easy - I saw the ILM guys tack up a green screen against a wall and use an Apple laptop to do the compositing. If you want to try your hand at using the new technologies available, and you live near a college or university with a film department, I would try taking a film/video course - most will have an "open university" process where you can take a course without having to formally enroll. Once you do, you usually can get access to the film/video department's equipment. You may only have access to it very early in the morning or late in the evening (film majors usually get preference on the equipment), but if you prepare throughly in advance and give the film student who is monitoring the use of the filming stage, edit bays, rendering farms, effects suites or optical printers (not likely, but some film departments still mandate you do something on film) a really good bribe (nothing illegal, please - a large good non fast-food meal works really well, most film students subsist on Ramen noodles and caffeine), you can really get a lot done for a reasonable amount of money. Most of the people who are teaching the courses will have working friends in the industry who they may refer you to. 

So take out that sketch of your ship or set that you drew on a napkin or placemat or doodled on a pad in an idle moment, and get started!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^Yep, Spacecraft Guy.

I think that a time will come soon when many traditional modelers, whether Trek modelers or whatever the genre, will be almost forced to learn 3D applications and send their stuff to prototyping companies to "roll their own" kits in the not so near future.

The physical modeling market seems to be whaning. Though I believe had PL marketing guys chosen their subject release order more carefully they might have made their Trek line a tremendous success; rather then making people wait through selection after selection they really were not interested in - like the NX-01 and Scorpion. 

The 1/350th Refit has completely sold out it's first run. But it has come at a time that seems was too late to keep more then a couple of the releases already in the pipeline from being canceled.

That's what happens when marketing guys fail to apply common sense and give people what they are clamoring. And instead make "cute" decisions instead of the most obvious and profitable, common sense decisions.

They screwed around and lost the farm!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

aridas sofia said:


> I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. But I was trying to say that the same technology that is used for fan made films has other applications for fan productions. That's all. Just like you restated:
> "whether that be physical models, CGI models, blueprints, animation, fan films etc."
> 
> I was actually trying to get back to what I thought was your broader, original point -- the _variety_ of applications inferred by there being a wide range of goals.


I understand. 

I know there are many writers out there working on Trek ideas.

I know there is scriptwriting software that is popular among professional writers.
I hear there is even some novel development-specific software.

Anyone know about any of these software packages?
Have opinions? Likes/dislikes? Know titles?


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

*Dramatica Pro* is something I own, and it has its uses. It is good as a kind of "virtual writers' group", providing suggestions based on a broad database of examples of scripts and novels. But as a structural tool to aid in actual writing... I wouldn't use it. It is too confining. You really need to learn dramatic structure inside and out to write a script or novel IMO, and this kind of thing can't replace the work of learning it. And once you know it, you don't need this software for that purpose any longer. 

But like I said, it's not bad for feedback.

http://www.dramatica.com/


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

What is a good writing program? This is a question that I would like to have answered too. Most of the common softwares that I've seen so far are not set up for the person who needs to write 200-400 pages. The Technical Writers in my department at work have used a software called "Framemaker" but I think it is really intended for page composition with text, graphics, etc. rather than writing really long documents.

Video editing/effects: so far I have experience with "Pinnacle" & "Premiere". Pinnacle, although very easy to use, is really intended for home movie type users (as opposed to "home feature film makers" as we are discussing here). Premiere is similar to Photoshop (both are Adobe products) in terms of complexity and has wide-ranging capabilities. It is so complex in fact that one would spend a considerable amount of time trying to master all its funtionality. However, like "Photoshop", "Premiere" users quickly learn those portions of the software that they really need and ignore the rest so I wouldn't let its complexity scare you away. It hasn't taken too long for me to get used to using it. There is an excellent "how to" book that I picked up for it which I could tell you about too, if anyone is interested (I don't have here at the moment, otherwise I would post the info now). That is the extent of my video editing software experience.

Modeling/animation: It has been stated here and elsewhere that there is no single "standard" software used by industry for these purposes, rather, they use a wide range of softwares, each for different purposes. I think we fans need to do the same thing, become familiar with several packages and how to make them talk to each other. My intention is to begin with "Lightwave" but I have my sights set on "Maya" and "3D Studio max" as well. Not to mention "Posur" (human figures) and "Bryce" (natural environments). These I have copies of but there are others that have been mentioned that I would like to try too. So far most of my experience is with "Microstation" which is an excellent CAD and 3D modeling software but it is weak in rendering tools and its animation capability is very primitive.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

X15-A2 said:


> What is a good writing program? This is a question that I would like to have answered too. Most of the common softwares that I've seen so far are not set up for the person who needs to write 200-400 pages.


FinalDraft has become the industry standard. It is quite user-friendly and extremely versatile. Whether your project is a feature film, a teleplay, a sit-com, or a novel, FinalDraft is the way to go (IMPO).

On a related note, I've noticed Mac (i.e. FinalCut Pro) is slowly but surely creeping up on Avid as the editing system of choice. There's a wonderful new book out which chronicals Walter Murch's editing of "Cold Mountain" (the film was cut on a Mac). Anyone interested in the future of film (i.e. digital) editing should check it out.

Speaking of software...

For obvious creative reasons I have finally reached the point where I simply MUST learn some sort of 3-D modelling software (the closest I've ever come to this sort of thing is Photoshop). The guys in our motion-graphics department use a combination of Maya and Cinema 4-D, but I know a number of you swear by programs like Blender and LightWave. Since I don't know how to use any of this stuff, where would be a good place to start (at this point I'm more interested in being able to render sets and vehicles than creatures or figures).


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Lightwave seems to be the most popular commercial app for doing sci-fi 3D. Blender is freeware that is surprisingly powerful.

Phil has gotten tremendous results via MicroStation, but that 3D program is primarily geared towards "real-world" applications.

All of the stuff FourMadMen does is in Blender.

Both of those guys can give you way better advice on those apps then I can so I'll limit my inexperienced rambling to these few very basic lines and hope I've summed up those three apps correctly.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Carson Dyle said:


> FinalDraft has become the industry standard. It is quite user-friendly and extremely versatile. Whether your project is a feature film, a teleplay, a sit-com, or a novel, FinalDraft is the way to go (IMPO).


So I assume it has facilities for character, scene, narrator, etc, etc. Is it available for all platforms?


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> So I assume it has facilities for character, scene, narrator, etc, etc. Is it available for all platforms?


Yes to all of the above.

Unlike certain software packages, FinalDraft doesn't attempt to "collaborate" with you via structural tips, hints, suggestions, etc. It simply makes the tedious process of page formatting less tedious. In addition, the fact that it's so widely used throughout the industry simplifies things when it comes to interfacing with actors, producers, agents, development execs, and all those other wonderful people one has to interface with in order to get one's ideas off the page and onto the screen.

Come to think of it, the last freelance screewriting assignment I had was submitted via e-mail; the only hard copies I printed out were my own working drafts. This may not seem like a big deal, but it sure beats waiting on line at Kinko's at 3AM in order to make a deadline.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

I wish that I had the experience to recommend a 3D software here. What I have noticed is that most (possibly all) of the software packages used for FX modeling seem to have started out life as tools for "organic" modeling, in other words, for making creatures, plants, fire, clouds, water, etc.

They only seem to be adding tools for us "machine builders" as an afterthought so they will vary from product to product as to how useful they are. One thing that these packages must have (I haven't really begun to evaluate them yet so I can't say which is best) is dimension-driven tools. A machine builder absolutely must have the ability to work to scale and this can only be achieved accurately via keyed-in dimensions. So look for tools with dimension key-in windows.

There is another problem that crops up for machine builders which is difficult to describe but I will try. It is what happens when a given software is only geared for those who want to create/design from scratch a "new" object, instead of providing the tools for re-creating an existing object. You will run up against this deficency as soon as you start trying to make a model of an object based on blueprints. There are many CAD tools that will be needed which you will find lacking in many of these software packages (this is why I love Microstation, it is a totally integrated CAD/3D modeling tool). I have found this to be a problem in early releases of Lightwave and in some engineering softwares too! Software packages such as "Solidworks" which caters to the designer but forgets that you may need to create objects which have already been designed by others.

The plans I made of the Shuttlecraft are intended for just this type of evaluation, to see which softwares are better for us machine builders. I wanted a sci-fi subject that could be made from dimensioned drawings. Unfortunately I haven't begun that experiment yet...

Carson, thanks for the tip about FinalDraft, I'll definitely check it out.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^Yes, thanks Carson, and Phil too!(X-15A2).
This thread is becoming just what I had in mind.
A very interesting discussion of the tools of the trade!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

X15-A2 said:


> I wish that I had the experience to recommend a 3D software here. What I have noticed is that most (possibly all) of the software packages used for FX modeling seem to have started out life as tools for "organic" modeling, in other words, for making creatures, plants, fire, clouds, water, etc.
> 
> They only seem to be adding tools for us "machine builders" as an afterthought so they will vary from product to product as to how useful they are. One thing that these packages must have (I haven't really begun to evaluate them yet so I can't say which is best) is dimension-driven tools. A machine builder absolutely must have the ability to work to scale and this can only be achieved accurately via keyed-in dimensions. So look for tools with dimension key-in windows.
> 
> ...


Just sent you an email to your yahoo boxes, Phil! 

Also, anyone wanting to checkout the Shuttlecraft work Phil is talking about can checkout this link

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/GalileoTop.htm

and especially here:

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/ShuttlecraftPlans/GalileoPlansTop.htm


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Keep in mind that 3D software is developed for a specific market and purpose. Software like Lightwave, XSI, Maya, and 3DS Max were designed for making movies, TV shows, and games... where as apps like Microstation, AutoCAD, and Solidworks were designed specifically for architecture and engineering. That being the case, engineers don't have need for high-end dynamics, particle systems, deep shadow maps, animated UVs, automatic character rigging tools or high dynamic range image formats. Artists making movies seldom have need of CAD tools simply because it only has to _look_ accurate, no one will be taking millimeter measurements or building anything off of the model. Its only has to look good on screen.

Its one reason that it takes so many different tools to make a movie or even a physical product. Specialization makes for better toolsets where as trying to be everything to everyone makes for poor tools.

Also, I think that trying to integrate all the features of all these very different tools would be extremely difficult if not impossible--not to mention incredibly expensive. 

Like Scotty says "Use the right tool for the right job!"


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Object scale becomes important when they are grouped together and their relatives sizes become apparent. Furniture in a room or groups of ships for example. You would want scale accurracy when creating the Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbor circa 1941. To me it is far easier to just key-in a dimension rather than to guess. So yes, it only has to look good on screen but to me it simplifies things if you can use specific data such as a blueprint to create a model. At least that is how it seems right now, I'll get back to you when I get some experience with these other software packages...


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

I forgot to include "proportional accurracy" as a "want" too.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

X15-A2 said:


> Carson, thanks for the tip about FinalDraft, I'll definitely check it out.


You're quite welcome. Thank you for your comments regarding 3-D modelling software. 

I must confess I'm still a bit unclear as to which program would best suit my needs. A number of the animators and graphic artists at work swear by Cinema 4-D, and as it's a program we already have up and running it won't cost me anything to check it out. I must say however that the stuff you've created on Blender is terrific, and given that program's freeware status I intend to take a stab at it as well.

So much software to learn, so little time...


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

One thing I should mention to everyone interested in learning these 3D softwares, once you learn one of them, then you will find it easier to pick up the others because they are not so vastly different from each other. Thats one good thing about the whole process.

Carson, if they have Cinema 4D where you work and there are people available who are willing to help you then I would go with that. Sounds like it will be your best chance to learn one of these softwares.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I agree with both of those statements. As a Blender user I've often learned things by going through tutorials for other applications. The names of specific tools often differ but the theories and procedures are quite similar.

Having someone to go to who is willing to help you can be of great benefit so if you have "built-in" help with Cinema4D then I too would go that route. But if you do decide to try Blender I'd be happy to help when I can. The next version of it will have some newbie friendly features and future versions will see revamps of several of the sub-systems. Most notably the animation system (can't wait for that one).


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

X15-A2 said:


> One thing I should mention to everyone interested in learning these 3D softwares, once you learn one of them, then you will find it easier to pick up the others because they are not so vastly different from each other.


I was hoping someone would say that  

Based on my research, Cinema 4D would seem to be the best place for me to get my feet wet software-wise. Up `till now, the only experience I've had with 3D imaging has been as an Art Director overseeing the work of someone else. 

Example: The company I work for was hired to create the key art for the "Thunderbirds" advertising campaign. In what has become a fairly typical scenario, the relationship between the production company and the distributor was so terrible on that particular show that gaining access to any of the actual SFX renders was out of the question. As a result, I had to hire a freelance designer to build the I.R. ships from scratch.

Overseeing the painstaking process of building those five ships marked my first exposure to the world of 3D modelling, and it was an eye-opening experience. Since then I've happened upon some of the cool stuff you and other talented HobbyTalk denizens have cooked up, and I must say it's really put the hook in me. Now if I can just learn the bloody software!

Thanks again for the feedback, guys. It is greatly appreciated. :wave:


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Well a couple of additional points.

Firstly, 


X15-A2 said:


> Object scale becomes important when they are grouped together and their relatives sizes become apparent. Furniture in a room or groups of ships for example. You would want scale accurracy when creating the Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbor circa 1941. To me it is far easier to just key-in a dimension rather than to guess. So yes, it only has to look good on screen but to me it simplifies things if you can use specific data such as a blueprint to create a model. At least that is how it seems right now, I'll get back to you when I get some experience with these other software packages...


In my experience, modeling to scale in any package is not difficult at all. And of course it makes good sense to model objects that are going to be in a shot together to the same relative scale to each other and their environment. My comments were more specific to the millimeter precise detail necessary to construct a physical object or to show its accuracy. Also keep in mind there is another process called compositing that allows for fixing of scale issues, especially in space shot scenes.

Remember, most of the models of ships in TOS, Star Wars or BSG were NOT in scale with each other, although they appeared to be on screen.

Secondly,



X15-A2 said:


> One thing I should mention to everyone interested in learning these 3D softwares, once you learn one of them, then you will find it easier to pick up the others because they are not so vastly different from each other. Thats one good thing about the whole process.
> 
> Carson, if they have Cinema 4D where you work and there are people available who are willing to help you then I would go with that. Sounds like it will be your best chance to learn one of these softwares.


This is not necessarily a true statement. Take it from me, I use Lightwave, Maya, Houdini, Modo, XSI... and a bunch of other smaller specialized apps. None of them use the same standards, conventions, keyboard shortcuts, menu placements, etc... It takes sometimes weeks to get up to speed when changing apps and using multiple apps together can be confusing when going back and forth.

Any transition from one app to another is going to take a lot of time. But the key to making the transition quickly is nailing down your concepts. Understanding how a GOOD CG workflow is supposed to work and understanding all of the concepts and methods of modeling, animation, lighting, rendering and effects creation is the KEY. Of course mastery of all of that can take many years--if not decades. I am speaking from experience here, not any kind of software bias.

Also choose your software based on where you want to go with this. If your goal is to eventually work in TV and film, Maya Lightwave and XSI are apps you should learn. If you want to work in the gaming industry, Maya and Max are king. If you want to save money and just noodle around as a hobbyist, C4D and Lightwave have the best value and most features out of the box. If you are intrested in making blues or are a stickler for millimeter accuracy, look into a CAD app.


----------

