# Evolution of CBS CGI TOS remastered Enterprise?



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

Until a couple of months ago I had been away from the forums for awhile.

Have any of you who have the remastered episodes on disk noticed differences between the TOS E in the early and later episodes?

I had noticed that the CGI work on the first few episodes were a bit crude.

Recently I happened to see a much later episode on cable and it was much more elaborately done, including gridlines and a tremendous degree of azteching I don't remember ever seeing on the first episodes that were broadcast.

Did they go back and redo the remastered scenes once they had developed better CGI versions of the TOS E - before compiling the DVDs for sale?

Or are the cruder versions still visible on the earlier episodes they first did for broadcast?

Anyone planning on trying to duplicate the late version CGI azteching on their 1/350th R2 TOS Enterprise?


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

I have often thought in viewing the blu-ray episodes that the CGI Enterprise does appears to be more refined in the later episodes. Can't say that I am a fan of it though in any of the remastered episodes. Not convincing to me at all ('arcade-prise') and pales to the Defiant shown in the ST-Enterprise episode "In the Mirror Darkly".


----------



## santee (Nov 15, 2012)

*The remastered version is an insult.*

Replacing the Enterprise with a CGI version to me is a slap in the face to the talented craftsmen who built and filmed the original model. 

It's as bad as replacing Kirk and Spock with CGI versions. :freak:

Blinking eyes on the Gorn?..... well that's ok.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

I watched the TOS series on Netflix. I don't think it's a slap in the face of the original SPFX folks at all. Most of the shots are similar, but the episode "Doomsday Machine" and "Trouble with Tribbles" were both better with more precise SPFX. The 11' model didn't lend itself to lots of motion. They didn't have computer controlled cameras, and all the stuff we have now. The enhanced live action shots along with the better SPFX shots (like seeing the red glow when the shields react to blasts from the Romulans ) also enhance the story telling. Did you also notice the re-recorded theme? the reason I don't mind the swap is that it is better than the untouched matte lines of the original. Do you also notice the matte line removal on the DVD sets? What about that? I guess the question is one of how purist do you want to be? I wouldn't do that to the SPFX from Lost in Space, but they still look incredible even 1/2 century past.


----------



## Gregatron (Mar 29, 2008)

Scoll down for my studies of the CG models:

http://enterproject.wordpress.com/category/other-variations/


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

santee said:


> Replacing the Enterprise with a CGI version to me is a slap in the face to the talented craftsmen who built and filmed the original model.
> 
> It's as bad as replacing Kirk and Spock with CGI versions. :freak:
> 
> Blinking eyes on the Gorn?..... well that's ok.




How is it a slap in the face to them? Like it or not the original effects although great for the time don't stand up so well today. I think the new effects blend in with the show quite well.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

SUNGOD said:


> How is it a slap in the face to them? Like it or not the original effects although great for the time don't stand up so well today. I think the new effects blend in with the show quite well.



I agree, its not a slap in the face at all, its respect... now what that JJ Abrams guy has done, THAT is a slap in the face!


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Until a couple of months ago I had been away from the forums for awhile.
> 
> Have any of you who have the remastered episodes on disk noticed differences between the TOS E in the early and later episodes?
> 
> ...





I've got the box set but haven't got round to watching the later episodes. What was the name of the episode you saw?


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Nova Designs said:


> I agree, its not a slap in the face at all, its respect... now what that JJ Abrams guy has done, THAT is a slap in the face!




Agree with that. I think it's ridiculous they've got other actors playing the original crew.


----------



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

SUNGOD said:


> I've got the box set but haven't got round to watching the later episodes. What was the name of the episode you saw?


I saw two recently. the one I believe I noticed the increased detail in was "The Doomsday Machine."

I was quite impressed with it, actually.


----------



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

Gregatron said:


> Scoll down for my studies of the CG models:
> 
> http://enterproject.wordpress.com/category/other-variations/


Thank you!

That is an incredible article and resource on not only what I was asking about, but the other iterations of the TOS E and other TOS Constitution class ships as well!

Fantastic work! :thumbsup:


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

The CG effects to me is a novelty, something to watch to see something different. When the effect model in the TOS was seen ungrainy, then is was stunning. When I see the CG ship, it looks...fake. Sure they improved the details, but, it lost it's breath taking beauty of our Grand Lady.


----------



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

SUNGOD said:


> Agree with that. I think it's ridiculous they've got other actors playing the original crew.


Not much they could have done about that, given the script.

But I find it hard to believe they couldn't find decent actors(even if they were complete unknowns) who looked more like the original cast. 

I have no problems with Abrams starting with a TOS prequel. I just wish he would have done something earlier on, maybe even gone with the crew of Captain Pikes' Enterprise, and left the whole TOS timeline intact.

But that has been the problem with Trek ever since a few years into TNG. It seems like virtually every producer and storyline is totally obsessed with constant time-travel time hopping nonsense.

It's become ridiculous to the point of absurd.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

santee said:


> Replacing the Enterprise with a CGI version to me is a slap in the face to the talented craftsmen who built and filmed the original model.
> 
> It's as bad as replacing Kirk and Spock with CGI versions. :freak:
> 
> Blinking eyes on the Gorn?..... well that's ok.


I don't consider it a slap in the face either.
While others here will disagree and this road has been covered a lot already when the remastered stuff first aired.

Yes, IIRC, they altered the CG model so that it would render faster (Render time IS money).
Now which version of the CG model is better, is open for debate.
They both have their pluses and minuses.

For me, what I personally don't care for the most on the remastered stuff, it the way they had the ship move in a lot of cases.
They had it move in a lot of ways like it did back in the 60's.
While I'm guessing it was a way to maintain the feel of the 60's effects, I wished that they had made the ship move better.
So that is a person opinion and nothing more.

I'd love to see it remastered one more time myself.
There is still a feel of TV effects in the image quality, when I'd love to see feature level effects.

Now, as for the lighting of the sets.......thats another story.
Man how I hated 60's lighting.

Some of the earliest episodes though were pretty good for lighting.
I wish they had kept it up.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

SUNGOD said:


> Agree with that. I think it's ridiculous they've got other actors playing the original crew.


Thats simply a part of life.

Look at how many people have played James Bond.

Older people only think Connery was Bond.

Same thing here.

For me, Daniel Craig is the best Bond so far.

Until they perfect CG people (and they will) we'll just have to tolerate other actors playing our favorite characters.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

SUNGOD said:


> Agree with that. I think it's ridiculous they've got other actors playing the original crew.


That's not what I meant, and I think you know that. 

I'm talking about the complete wipe of Star Trek via a cheap alternate time-line gimmick, throwing out 40+ years of well known and loved history. All so he can turn it into a cheap, teen-angst driven Star Warsish battle, popcorn flick without the slightest hint of a decent story, character development or logic. 

Blow up Vulcan, wipe out most of Starfleet and portray the entire crew as a bunch of pimply, bumbling teenagers... oh and then promote them all to command the Federation flagship! huzzah!

And don't get me started on the JJprise...


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

ClubTepes said:


> Thats simply a part of life.
> 
> Look at how many people have played James Bond.
> 
> ...




But James Bond is just a name given by MI5 to it's top spy...007. It's not his actual name so it doesn't matter if he's played by different actors.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Nova Designs said:


> That's not what I meant, and I think you know that.
> 
> I'm talking about the complete wipe of Star Trek via a cheap alternate time-line gimmick, throwing out 40+ years of well known and loved history. All so he can turn it into a cheap, teen-angst driven Star Warsish battle, popcorn flick without the slightest hint of a decent story, character development or logic.
> 
> ...





What a bizzare reply. Ok I take your points and agree with them but I also don't like the original crew being played by different people and I don't suppose a lot of other people do too.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

Does a topic about CGI TOS models really need to degrade into yet another discussion about JJTrek, etc.? Haven't we covered this enough times by now?


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

SUNGOD said:


> What a bizzare reply. Ok I take your points and agree with them but I also don't like the original crew being played by different people and I don't suppose a lot of other people do too.



I thought you were being sarcastic! :wave:

Seriously though, I didn't really care for it either, but it was just unavoidable. Some of the cast is already passed, the rest are far too old to be believable. And I think they did a fair job of casting...as far as looks, with a few exceptions.

And as bad as anyone might think the casting is, that pales in comparison to the actual movie. The choices made in casting were like facial impersonators... the performances were utterly unlike any of the original characters, save McCoy, and even he was slapstick and one-dimensional.


But I've taken this far enough off topic... sorry.


----------



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

Looks like the early version of the CGI TOS E was a little closer in appearance to the later.

Doesn't sound like too many people are interested in azteching. Neither am I.

But I will say some of the other FX in the later episodes were excellent, especially in The Doomsday Machine.


----------



## feek61 (Aug 26, 2006)

I personally don't like the new effects; they look like cartoons to me but that's my opinion. It does drive me crazy that they did stuff like reduce the number of windows on the main dorsal and add lighting to the impulse engines. I honestly much prefer the original effects and do think the remastered effects is a bit of a gimmick. Yes, they can add more detail and more scenes but I just don't think you can match the beauty of the original miniature. Maybe I'm just too old, lol.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

I love the original model. It was one of the things that got me into modeling, that and the Jupiter 2. That being said, there was not much beauty in the original FX shots in "Star Trek". There was far too much grain so much so that it completely removed the believability of the scale of the ship. The first clear shots were in "Space Seed". The second season saw a better quality while the third season gave us the clearest images of the old girl. Is the CG perfect in the remastered episodes? No, but the original wasn't perfect either with parts of the ship disappearing in the blue screen overspill.

To those of us who grew up with the imperfect original effects from the beginning, nothing will ever seem as "right" when we watch, but we will not be around forever and CBS/Paramout wants new generations to enjoy the show at a level they are used to from other contemporary series.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

I remember the first time I saw the remastered episodes back around 2006 or so. I was curious to see what CGI would do for TOS. There were shots that looked good, but there were others where the CGI was so poorly done, it would stand out like crazy. Personally, I find the idea of.replacing grainy bluescreen model shots with bad CGI a waste of time and effort. I've seen some fan CGI that.makes some of the remastered shots look like they were done by a thirteen year old with his first computer.

That said, I might watch the enhanced episodes via Netflix or something, but when it comes to owning the TOS episodes, the original footage works fine for me.


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

Any facelift given to a lady that never ages is always going to disappoint someone. The VFX update is no exception.

In my mind, I would "scuff up" the digital shots to add some grain, defocus and desaturate a little to dovetail a bit more seamlessly with both the live-action and the deep-seated memories of the original FX shots.

The "middle of the curve" would like it. Describing an identical shot I would expect the disapproval to take two forms:

1) "While the updated effects are more dynamic and offer far more than was possible on the original production's meager budget, there is a veil of grain and overall lack of clarity that just doesn't live up to current digital standards. It just looks a bit shoddy and under-planned."

2) "The updated effects are cool. They're slick. Maybe that's the problem... they just seem too "slick" and somehow pull us out of the moment. The old Enterprise has never looked cleaner, but maybe that's not such a good thing."


----------



## Kremin (Sep 26, 2012)

I've not seen the full episodes of the remastered effects episodes just the you tube effects shots and I have no objection to them they are showing a version that IMHO the orginal producers would have wanted if they had the budget and time to do with ships and details that add to the story


----------



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

Some of the earlier CGI, now that I've gotten a chance to look at more episodes, was a bit rough. However, after the first eight episodes - as mentioned in the Gregatron article link, they did steadily improve. Not just on the TOS E but in other areas as well.

One or two people seemed to feel like the remastering somehow diminishes the work of the original physical modelers.

I can't say I agree. Because I don't think the many many many problems that there are in the special effects as originally filmed had anything to do with the modelers.

I think they were for the most part budgetary problems.

Yes, there were later technologies developed about the time of Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica that would have helped.

But most of what was irksome to me about some of the original TOS effects they had all the technology necessary to fix at the time they were shooting.

They simply didn't have the time and/or budget to fix those problems.

I'm pretty sure this was the most expensive TV show in terms of special effects at that time. But even with all the money spent on it, there still really wasn't enough time and money to do everything I'm sure they wanted to do.

So as a result we often saw things like stock footage of two or three different versions of the Enterprise in the same episode!

Those kinds of things confused me as a 10 year old. Today's audiences I'm sure would be totally distracted by it.

So I do say I applaud CBS's efforts to fix those types of problems and make TOS more accessible to younger generations.

Their CGI may not be perfect, but overall - this or that porthole missing aside - it is way more consistent and believable - even if some of the earlier stuff looks a little rough.

CBS didn't have to spend all that effort and money at all.

I'm hoping they saved all those CGI versions and the rendering/movement instructions. 

Perhaps in another 4, 9, or 14 years they can take a crack at updating the models and re-running the routines again. Which, if they saved them all, would probably not be anywhere near as expensive to do as it was the first time. Taking advantage of the fact that computing power and CGI realism seems to be increasing exponentially as time progresses.

Even having said all that, I still think they did a decent job of cleaning up some the effects and making them more up to date and acceptable to a more modern audience.

No more grainy, fuzzy shots or reusing stock footage from different models of the same ship in the same episode anymore.

CBS didn't have to go through all that, and while their CGI might not be perfect, I think they do deserve credit for making TOS Trek look better and having the special effects mesh more seamlessly with the storylines.

Now if they could just get Uhura to fall in the same direction as everyone else when the ship is knocked sideways!!!!!!!!!!! :tongue:


----------



## RossW (Jan 12, 2000)

> But James Bond is just a name given by MI5 to it's top spy...007. It's not his actual name so it doesn't matter if he's played by different actors.


You know, this is the second time I've heard someone say that 'James Bond is just the name they give to whomever has the 007 designation' but there's no basis for that in the books or the movies. In fact, in 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' Bond uses his own family heraldry when discussing Blofeld's application to the College of Arms (that's where 'The World is Not Enough' comes from - it comes from the Bond family). They go to great lengths in the movie version of OHMSS to link George Lazenby's Bond to Sean Connery's by having him go through his drawer full of mementos from earlier movies. In 'The Spy Who Loved Me', the Russian agent played by Barbara Bach tells Bond what she knows of him and mentions that he was married, once.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

RossW said:


> You know, this is the second time I've heard someone say that 'James Bond is just the name they give to whomever has the 007 designation' but there's no basis for that in the books or the movies. In fact, in 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' Bond uses his own family heraldry when discussing Blofeld's application to the College of Arms (that's where 'The World is Not Enough' comes from - it comes from the Bond family). They go to great lengths in the movie version of OHMSS to link George Lazenby's Bond to Sean Connery's by having him go through his drawer full of mementos from earlier movies. In 'The Spy Who Loved Me', the Russian agent played by Barbara Bach tells Bond what she knows of him and mentions that he was married, once.


Not to mention that "For Your Eyes Only" opens with the "Moore" Bond at Teresa Bond's grave then kills Blofeld, (Yes it was HIM!) to complete the "Connery", "Lazenby", "Moore" connection as being the same Bond. :thumbsup:


----------



## CaptCBoard (Aug 3, 2002)

Sorry-- I have to stick my nose in here and say I wish people would stop referring to the surface panels of Star Trek vessels as 'azteking'. Only one ship had a paint scheme "inspired by Aztec designs" and even the painter who said that never referred to what he was doing as 'azteking'. The term has never been a part of Star Trek history, apart from hobbyists who use it. Its like using Icarus as the name of the ship in Planet of the Apes-- the ship never had a name in the film or the book AND its a dumb name for a spaceship!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Since that is what the pattern resembles, from an artistic stand point, I don't see that it should be changed for artists here referring to it. As for only one ship having it, most, if not all ships following ST:TMP had a similar panel design on the hull. The Reliant, the Enterprise B, D and E, the NX-01 and even the new version of the Enterprise in the new line of films.

Since Icarus was brave enough to fashion a pair of wings and travel into space, I think it is a perfect use of the name. More so when you know Icarus' flight ended tragically, with him falling into the sea, just as the ship in POTA does!


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Nova Designs said:


> I thought you were being sarcastic! :wave:
> 
> Seriously though, I didn't really care for it either, but it was just unavoidable. Some of the cast is already passed, the rest are far too old to be believable. And I think they did a fair job of casting...as far as looks, with a few exceptions.
> 
> ...





Not sure why you thought I was being sarcastic as I think it's a very valid point... and I think it's just as bad as anything else in the movie. I just don't think they should have bothered showing them as younger people when they don't look anything like the original crew (apart from maybe Spock). 


But back on topic as you say.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

RossW said:


> You know, this is the second time I've heard someone say that 'James Bond is just the name they give to whomever has the 007 designation' but there's no basis for that in the books or the movies. In fact, in 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' Bond uses his own family heraldry when discussing Blofeld's application to the College of Arms (that's where 'The World is Not Enough' comes from - it comes from the Bond family). They go to great lengths in the movie version of OHMSS to link George Lazenby's Bond to Sean Connery's by having him go through his drawer full of mementos from earlier movies. In 'The Spy Who Loved Me', the Russian agent played by Barbara Bach tells Bond what she knows of him and mentions that he was married, once.




I suppose so but it's still quite vague and I've seen a lot of people saying it's only the name given to him. I'm sure I saw some documentary where they said Fleming made it ambiguous too.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Thought that I'd weigh in on this.  I completely understand those of you who like the original shots more. I was looking forward to seeing the remastered shots. But, for me, the biggest mistake ended up being CBS's decision to go in-house for the digital FX. I had hoped the ships would be up to the quality of the Defiant in Enterprise's 4th season mirror universe episodes. Sadly, Eden FX wasn't chosen to do it.... YMMV.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

I really don't see what's so bad about the new cgi. The Enterprise looks pretty much the same to me as the original effects....just better without all the grain, matte lines and see through bits.


----------



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

CaptCBoard said:


> Sorry-- I have to stick my nose in here and say I wish people would stop referring to the surface panels of Star Trek vessels as 'azteking'. Only one ship had a paint scheme "inspired by Aztec designs" and even the painter who said that never referred to what he was doing as 'azteking'. The term has never been a part of Star Trek history, apart from hobbyists who use it. Its like using Icarus as the name of the ship in Planet of the Apes-- the ship never had a name in the film or the book AND its a dumb name for a spaceship!



You are probably right that the term is in error.

But I have seen it used that way tons of times on the modeling boards, 

to the point that I'm not sure what I would substitute without someone here saying "what are you talking about, azteching?"

You are making a valid point about the term's original origin.


But I think if people were to try and reverse the use of the term to the point where the term is no longer used the way it's currently used, might be darn near impossible.

At the very least I think it would be awkward.

But maybe someone on the boards could come up with a suitable idea for a replacement term.

Don't know that it would catch on though.

But I'm willing to keep an open mind.




On another issue,

Please email me Captain.

I never received the final decal sheet for my studio scale D-7, just the penant decals.

I'd like to get the final set, even if I have to pay a couple of bucks for them.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

It is an Aztec pattern, why do we need another word for it?!


----------



## taipan (Aug 1, 2010)

SUNGOD said:


> I suppose so but it's still quite vague and I've seen a lot of people saying it's only the name given to him. I'm sure I saw some documentary where they said Fleming made it ambiguous too.


I think they stated that they are all named "James Bond" in "Casino Royale" with David Niven, that one was supposed to be a spoof but that is where I first heard it.


----------



## RossW (Jan 12, 2000)

Ah! But that was not an EON production and as you said was a spoof - no connection to the book (other than the name James Bond & Le Chiffre) or the Sean Connery movies.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Good cgi---the kind that is pretty much indistinguishable from looking convincingly like a real object---is time consuming and hence expensive. CBS was never going to pop for that. You were never going to get an _Enterprise_ that conveyed a genuine sense of size, mass and convincingly lighted. All that came through with the original 11ft. filming model, but was lacking in the TOS-R cgi model. The cgi version was decent enough for what it was, but it looked out of place intercut alongside the remaining live-action footage. The original 11 footer was also not realistically lighted for a "real" ship seen in space, but that was overcome by the convincing sense of size and mass. Today they could get that with better cameras and a smaller physical model (such as the 8ft.(?) TMP refit _Enterprise)_, but back then that monster 11 footer really worked.

Although I've said it myself before it's not really fair to say the cgi _E_ looks like a cartoon, but it is so obviously animation. And it looks like such a contemporary production whereas TOS had a style to it that wasn't quite realistic but worked for the context of the show. TOS had red and green and brown and blue and purple planets (as seen from space) that weren't realistic, but it was stylish. That style was lost in trying to make all the planets realistic---they looked boringly similar from show to show. I also disliked how they changed some things just for the sake of change--I HATED the blinking Gorn eyes, the _sooo_ contemporary Tholian ships and the changing of the alien ship in "Spock's Brain." They worked as they were and at best only needed to be tweaked.

I've no doubt that with a really well built 1/350 TOS _Enterprise_ and dedicated f/x work someone could make TOS f/x sequences that would put the TOS cgi ship to shame. Yet that points to another path CBS would never have paid for: using new state-of-the-art models to recreate the original shots and feel of the show.

And that's part of another thing lost in the translation to cgi---some of the iconic shots I loved were dropped for ones I just didn't care for. They were mostly dead to me. A case in point, too, was the energy barrier sequence in WNMHGB---it now looks like fog or gas rather than exotic energy. Also the new version of the iconic ship banking shot (seen in "The Cage," WNMHGB and a few early TOS episodes) was redone as cgi, but something was lost in the exchange. As flawed as it is I still love that iconic shot even if the 11 footer didn't yet have lights installed in it.

I'm sure much better could have been done throughout TOS-R, but CBS was never going to pay for what it would cost to get those results. As is I will keep my DVD season sets and continue to forego the TOS-R versions.


----------



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

I agree that the CGI wasn't perfect. I also agree with Dr. Brad that they should have gone with EdenFX instead of inhouse. But I can't fault them for trying. I believe they did make the series more accessible to newer viewers and the F/X more logical.

I simply have to disagree though, that there was ever truly a sense of mass or scale conveyed by the original F/X.

Yes, someone standing in front of the 11 footer could easily argue she could have been used to do that.

If they had been filming on high quality 35mm film for viewing on the big screen.

But that didn't happen. They were filming for a TV screen and they obviously used that limitation to cut costs.

I'm not faulting them for that - back in the day I'm sure the NBC execs were ringing their hands over the fact that even with the limitations of time and money, this was still the most expensive ongoing TV series in terms of special effects ever produced.

I'm sure we all have certain scenes we remember fondly for the way we felt they stood out as especially cool when we were kids - like the energy barrier scene Warped likes.

For me it was the Tholian Web scenes. But they didn't just stick out in my mind because they were so exceptionally done, they were also helped by the other scenes that weren't so great, and the every present annoying appearance of totally different versions of the same Enterprise in the same episode because of their overuse of stock footage.

That really could have been fixed, even back then, by just going back and repeating those angles with the 11 footer once it was done. But it persisted throughout the series.

I really honestly can't remember getting any sense of size or scale via the 11 footer being used. Yep, she was puuuuurtyier. But it was only our own viewers' willingness to suspend disbelief that allowed us to attribute any sense of size to what we were watching on TV.

Heck, back when Star Trek first aired, I don't believe there was a color TV available over 27 inches. And there certainly wasn't any surround sound broadcasting going on.

My father's old 27" stereo console Zenith was state of the art for a couple of years, and it was made in 1972. And you weren't going to get much sense of mass and size out of something like that.

Find an old 27" Color TV, a DVD of a modern Trek movie like TMP or Wrath of Kahn and send it through an RF modulator.

Those movies we know can convey a sense of size and scale to the starships. But not so well on an old plain jane 27" TV.

I'll always remember the old effects and show fondly. I won't be throwing away my old DVD's of the TOS series even though I've been able to download the remastered versions.

But if you sit through entire episodes one realizes that a lot of what we remembered as being impressive then was often conterbalanced by a lot of not so impressive stuff.

Again, CBS's work isn't perfect. But I appreciate the work they did.

When seen in high def in surround sound(I've just got an old Harmon Cardon 5.1 system) the new effects are impressive - if not perfect. Especially the stuff after the first ten or so episodes.

They really aren't taking away anything from TOS, as that version still exist.


----------



## Avian (Feb 16, 2010)

Warped9 said:


> Good cgi---the kind that is pretty much indistinguishable from looking convincingly like a real object---is time consuming and hence expensive.


Not as expensive as you might think though. While the quality of the model & level of detail is important, the critical factor is accurate lighting. And the lighting packages available today (Vray, MentalRay, etc) are much cheaper, easier and faster to use than just a few years ago.

I should point out the obvious too: The Enterprise would rarely look like it does in any of the series' if it were a real ship in real interstellar space. 

Without any stars around it would be nearly invisible, relying only upon the extremely dim ambient light from the galaxy. And in a star system the shadows would be very sharp and deep black unless there was reflected light from a planet nearby, or unless the ship was close to the star and thus the shadow lines would be more diffuse. Kubrick and Geoffrey Unsworth got it pretty good with "2001."

Even in the comparison shot below, the re-mastered Enterprise is lit with a bit of artistic license. It's pretty clear that in addition to the starlight from the right and the reflected planet light on the left, there is an additional fill light behind the camera to soften the shadows. Even the reflected light from the planet is a bit off. The planet is forward and to the left of the Enterprise. The reddish light on the ship implies the planet is further back from its position on the screen. Needless to say, the original shot is _horrible_.

Regarding mass, it's hard to convey any sense of scale in space because there are no environmental visual cues we customarily use to judge size. So you have to rely upon things like "windows" or "doors," or nuts and bolts on the ship itself. And since CG is infinitely scaleable, you can create a sense of massive scale more easily with CG than with a physical model because - from miles away - you could literally zoom into a ship to see the fingernail scratches on the paint job next to a hatch.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I think a big part of folks getting a sense of mass in the original shots probably has to do with the knowledge that regardless of how well or how badly a given shot is composed, we know we're looking at a real, physical object, whereas with the CGI shots, no matter how masterfully they've been rendered, we still know we're looking at an assembly of pixels and polygons.

In other words, cartoony is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



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

Captain April said:


> I think a big part of folks getting a sense of mass in the original shots probably has to do with the knowledge that regardless of how well or how badly a given shot is composed, we know we're looking at a real, physical object, whereas with the CGI shots, no matter how masterfully they've been rendered, we still know we're looking at an assembly of pixels and polygons.
> 
> In other words, cartoony is in the eye of the beholder.


Well said.

There is no accounting for the "gray matter" factor.


----------



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

Avian said:


> Regarding mass, it's hard to convey any sense of scale in space because there are no environmental visual cues we customarily use to judge size.



Good point. You may have noticed I discussed issues like surround sound. I doubt the original broadcast were even in true stereo. I don't remember that being a broadcast feature in my market until the 80's. Maybe it was available elsewhere earlier, but I doubt stereo was even available during the original broadcast.

Surround sound though, whatever the flavor - can be a significant factor towards conveying a sense of scale.

I remember the first example I can remember of as a kid.

Battlestar Galactica in SensorRound.

Maybe it wasn't the first theater version of a type of Surround Sound employed to provide a sense of size as well as distance . . .

I'm by no means a cinema expert . . .

but at 13 years old or so when it came out I found that to be a ground-breaking experience.

It's not visual, but it can be a tremendous help in conveying a sense of scale.

Even a home surround sound system, when combined with the remastered sound effects, can be impressive.

I think that aspect is often overlooked when discussing the Remastered edition. The surround sound effects do help enrich the experience.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Captain April said:


> I think a big part of folks getting a sense of mass in the original shots probably has to do with the knowledge that regardless of how well or how badly a given shot is composed, we know we're looking at a real, physical object, whereas with the CGI shots, no matter how masterfully they've been rendered, we still know we're looking at an assembly of pixels and polygons.
> 
> In other words, cartoony is in the eye of the beholder.


I completely agree with your opinion. When I watch the episodes with the original effects shots I know I'm looking at footage of an actual physical object (granted, when I watched the show when the episodes were first aired I had no idea it was only 11 feet long). When I watch the episodes with the remastered effects shots the Enterprise looks like exactly what it is--an animated artist's rendering. The remastered effects shots aren't so poorly done that I find them distracting, but I'd like to have seen what the people who created the CG effects would have come up with if time and money hadn't been issues.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Take a look at these two side by side images from an earlier post by Avian:










It's been said that the Enterprise is a character in her own right; iconic. In the original image, she is brightly lit and clearly is the center of focus of the image: all the attention is on her.

The second image: she's a shadow, quite literally, she takes a second place to the planet behind her. 

As far as mass and size: she was originally shot on 35mm film using a 1 inch lens (about 36mm). This lens is used because it is close to how the eye images what it sees. Used with the extreme closeups of the 11 foot model, we get the presence of the old girl. Size is judged by details. Windows were the only things we could use. I grew up in a house with a plate glass window, so in my head, those windows could make that ship pretty big.

As far as mass, the ship model was mostly shot moving slowly, changing direction slowly, even ponderously. But always CLOSELY! It was rare that she was seen at a great distance. Next to the K-7 station or with the 3 Romulan Battlecruisers, comes to mind. She was usually seen in orbital shots, next to the DY-500 Botany Bay, or arriving and leaving. We never knew the length of the Enterprise from the series itself. Unless it was possibly on the viewscreen graphic showing the Enterprise and a Klingon Cruiser next to each other. 

I often found the effects in TMP, using a smaller model with a snorkel lens (super wide angle) to carry less of a presence, even on the big screen! Because of that lens, she looked like a model to me. And the paneling didn't give me a larger sense of scale, in fact, to me, it made the ship seem smaller.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Those images are open to interpretation by the viewer and no definitive conclusions can be drawn by them. I love the model, but in the side by side comparison above, I see an overexposed ship, with her registry banners and numbers barely readable. The CG image is crisp and sharp with proper shadows and brights spots and all the markings are clearly visible. As for the focus of the shot, yes, in a still frame, the original ship stands out far more, by virtue of its brightness, but in the actual moving image in the show, the movement of the CG model still demands your attention as it glides though the scene.

Just my take on it.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Tried a combo:










Just for fun! Let overexposure rule! Each to his own. I would have been curious to see the original model footage matched to CGI or redone with the original backgrounds without the bluescreen matte line issues.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Dr. Brad said:


> But, for me, the biggest mistake ended up being CBS's decision to go in-house for the digital FX. I had hoped the ships would be up to the quality of the Defiant in Enterprise's 4th season mirror universe episodes. Sadly, Eden FX wasn't chosen to do it.... YMMV.


Someone posted ortho renders of the Defiant from Enterprise and I have to say I was shocked at how inaccurate the model was. I would have been very disappointed if they had used it for the remastered series. That said, the main thing that the defiant had going for it was _competent lighting_. The CBS folks had no idea of how to properly light a CGI model. 

The main problem with the CBS Remastered effort are that they started with a too detailed, but extremely accurate model for the first few episodes. It took too long to render. They replaced it with a new model which was simpler, but still dimensionally accurate (thank you!) but had some really amateurish texturing to it (giant, bump-mapped plating, anyone?). They should have simplified the geometry of the model, but merely lowered the resolution of the textures of the original model to make it more manageable. Finally, they should have hired someone who knows something about 3D lighting (and real world lighting, for that matter).

We must keep in mind the low budget they were given and the extremely short time frame. All said, I give them an A for effort, and a B- for execution. I love many of the choices they made overall for the series, and a few of the new episodes are great improvements. I only wish they had been given the chance to either go back to the original elements and re-master them (as they are with TNG) or hand the CGI over to a more competent studio.

M.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Avian said:


> I should point out the obvious too: The Enterprise would rarely look like it does in any of the series' if it were a real ship in real interstellar space.


I maintain that the original effects are a reasonable interpretation of how the ship would "look" in deep space. Here's why: The ship seems evenly lit from nearly all sides, and the windows are all bright white. We are seeing footage taken with an extremely light sensitive camera -- the hull is evenly lit by they starlight that surrounds it on all sides, while the lit interiors are blown out and over exposed. A more normal sensitivity camera, more like the human eye, would show us a nearly black hull, with the windows revealing lit interiors more in line with an office building viewed at night.

Of course, as you point out, within a star system, the lighting would be far more stark than it was shown in the original footage. But even here, a bit of creative lighting can save the day. Here's an image of my 3D Enterprise with both it and the planet lit by the same, single, distant "sun." However, I've added a bit of blue fill light which could be coming from a nearby moon, to pick out the rest of the ship and the night side of the planet.

Even so, unlike mine, in this "normal exposure" image, the windows should be less bright and show some interior detail...

M.


Click to enlarge.


----------



## CaptCBoard (Aug 3, 2002)

(nevermind...)

Scott
[email protected]


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

I did appreciate the remastered series. And they gave the E a nice send off for the final scene in the final aired episode of the series.

I shopped out some credits to get a clean screen grab...









Two more years of adventures boldy going we will never know.


----------



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

MGagen said:


> Someone posted ortho renders of the Defiant from Enterprise and I have to say I was shocked at how inaccurate the model was. I would have been very disappointed if they had used it for the remastered series. That said, the main thing that the defiant had going for it was _competent lighting_. The CBS folks had no idea of how to properly light a CGI model.
> 
> The main problem with the CBS Remastered effort are that they started with a too detailed, but extremely accurate model for the first few episodes. It took too long to render. They replaced it with a new model which was simpler, but still dimensionally accurate (thank you!) but had some really amateurish texturing to it (giant, bump-mapped plating, anyone?). They should have simplified the geometry of the model, but merely lowered the resolution of the textures of the original model to make it more manageable. Finally, they should have hired someone who knows something about 3D lighting (and real world lighting, for that matter).
> 
> ...


You never know, MGagen. How long did it take to go back and remaster TNG? I didn't/haven't followed that, are they still working on that? You used the present tense, but that may have been inadvertent.

There is going to be another major TOS anniversary in 2016, about four years from now. And the powers-that-be always seem to do something big every 5 or 10 years from the original airing.

So there is always hope my friend! :thumbsup:

I've read about some of the inaccuracies in the Enterprise Season Four Defiant as well. But I still thought it came off as a beautiful render nonetheless.

One of the guys working at Edenfx at the time posted several times here.

And while the models certainly could be improved, it seems to me they had a much better understanding about how these models should interact and appear onscreen.

I think had they been hired by CBS originally, with their working experience, knowledge of the subject and skills they probably could have done a better job.

There is always the chance CBS will pull all of the digital models off the hard drive shelves, blow the dust off, and hand them to some F/X house to improve later.

It's getting cheaper and easier to do, at least in terms of computer horsepower and software, as each year passes.


----------



## feek61 (Aug 26, 2006)

Sorry boys, to me, this looks like a cartoon.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Well, yeah, I'll give you that one...


----------



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

feek61 said:


> Sorry boys, to me, this looks like a cartoon.


I always winced whenever I saw the old F/X of Apollo's hand from TOS.

I think I even referenced it earlier in the thread.

I have to admit, they certainly don't seem to have improved it.

Way too much going on in that shot as well, which I think lends to the cartoonishness.

They should have tried to duplicate the original shot where the only background was stars.

Way too much stuff in the shot, and that hand is barely recognizable as a human hand.

Ouuch!!!:freak:


----------



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

RSN said:


> Since that is what the pattern resembles, from an artistic stand point, I don't see that it should be changed for artists here referring to it. As for only one ship having it, most, if not all ships following ST:TMP had a similar panel design on the hull.


But that's not really aztecing. It's just a slang term we've come to use.


Now if you want to see some *real* *aztec*_-ing_, check out the pics below. :tongue:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> But that's not really aztecing. It's just a slang term we've come to use.
> 
> 
> Now if you want to see some *real* *aztec*_-ing_, check out the pics below. :tongue:


Funny, but here is an example of Aztec pottery. Care to tell me what the pattern reminds you of? As I said, this artist calls it an Aztec pattern. :thumbsup:


----------



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

RSN said:


> Funny, but here is an example of Aztec pottery. Care to tell me what the pattern reminds you of? As I said, this artist calls it an Aztec pattern. :thumbsup:


Those don't really remind me of what modelers have come to refer to aztecing.

But there are aztec art examples of differing adjacent textures that do affect one's perception of size and scale.

Which a lot of modelers have come to refer to as aztecing.

It is a slang term, but a slang term that has probably passed the point of critical mass.

I can see why someone might not want to use it as it's imprecise.

I'm that way myself about a lot of terms that have come to be accepted and used widely.

Every time I hear somebody say, "there is nothing like . . . "

or, "there is nothing in the world like . . . "

I can still hear my grade English teachers, all but one nuns, admonishing myself and everyone else for using the term.

If there is nothing like it, it doesn't exist.

The correct thing to say would be "there is nothing *else* like it."

But I realize that people have been misspeaking like that for so long it's hopeless to try and put that genie back in the bottle.

CaptCBoard was right, but you also have a right to use a term of art loosely if you choose to. The term has become popular to the point I doubt it could be replaced by anything better.

My attempt was to both acknowledge that and add a light bit of humor to the subject.

You know, funny ha ha. :tongue:


Let's try again . . .

More *Aztec*-ing!!!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Cool, glad we have permission to use it again!! I am sure my college professors will be glad to know what they referred to as "Aztec Patterns", alternating geometric shapes of dark and light, can now be officially called that!! That was, you know, funny!


----------

