# Some Defiant Images from "Mirror, Darkly"



## nx01Rob (Mar 1, 2005)

Well, here's a selection of pics from the show. I'm sure some will like....and some will find all the flaws!  Either way, enjoy whichever suits you best!

I will post more as time goes and some hi rez ship images on Four Mad Men's site.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Thanks Rob! Much appreciated!

Brad.


----------



## Heavens Eagle (Jun 30, 2003)

Many Thanks Rob!


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Schweeeeet! Many thanks, Rob!


----------



## omnimodel (Oct 9, 2004)

Truly a work of art. I love that you can even see interior details through the engineering hull windows!

Rob, now that Enterprise is coming to an end, what project are you working on next? After watching the Voyager box sets, I've become quite a fan. I would say some of the effects are film quality or better, particularly considering the short amount of time given to work. One of the most jaw dropping scenes I've ever seen in a Trek episode was the beginning of VOY season 6: "Good Shepherd", where we zoom in and out of windows all over the ship.


----------



## mactrek (Mar 30, 2004)

[Roscoe P. Coltrain imitation] I Love it! I Love it! I Love it![/Roscoe P. Coltrain imitation]


----------



## Trekfreak (Mar 26, 2005)

If you notice from the first image that the Classic constitution has aztec pattern.


----------



## mactrek (Mar 30, 2004)

Yes ... and if I understand correctly, it was at the producer's request (as the original 1701 model didn't have any aztecing). The cool part is that it's _really_ subtle and nicely done. It doesn't even show up unless the light hits it just right.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

The aztec pattern was pretty apparent from the first time we got a close up of _Defiant_ in part one.


----------



## haro genki (Apr 13, 2005)

Also appears to be a grid pattern on the nacelles...


----------



## cinc2020 (May 10, 2004)

*Cgi*

Fake! The CGI is poor. The idea, however, is very cool.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Well perhaps you'll show us what you can do then?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

haro genki said:


> Also appears to be a grid pattern on the nacelles...


Myself, I thought the honeycomb pattern was an interesting touch. Nice.


----------



## jgoldsack (Apr 26, 2004)

cinc2020 said:


> Fake! The CGI is poor. The idea, however, is very cool.



Everyone is a critic....


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

Smooth talker...



cinc2020 said:


> Fake! The CGI is poor. The idea, however, is very cool.


----------



## nx01Rob (Mar 1, 2005)

You know, even I think some of the lighting is sucky. But what can you do! Ran out of time putting out MANY fires. However, those are DIRECT rendered frames as delivered. Fake....I love it! Prove it, pretzel boy..I guess I don't exist either and and if you search my name, I never did anything that you find. It's a conspiracy! What a world.....PS Cinc: The moon landings never happened either....I know, I know...shhh...our secret!


----------



## nx01Rob (Mar 1, 2005)

Well, I guess I knew what I was getting into by putting them out there. Just trying to fullfill requests by the guys that were interested.


----------



## Capt. Krik (May 26, 2001)

Rob,

Thanks for posting those images. You and everyone involved did an outstanding job in my opinion. The old Connies never looked better. It was great to see one in action one more time. :thumbsup:


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

nx01Rob said:


> Well, I guess I knew what I was getting into by putting them out there. Just trying to fullfill requests by the guys that were interested.


Eh... don't let one "declaration" spoil our li'l party, Rob!


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

TrekFX said:


> Eh... don't let one "declaration" spoil our li'l party, Rob!


Hey, those two episodes will be the main reason I buy the season 4 DVDs when they're available!

Brad.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

Rob, Please don't let people get you down. I got chills when I saw the Defiant and that's not a common thing for me. The world is full of different people and as my Dad used to say, Cinc "would probably bitch if his nuts were caught in a golden vice!"


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Rob, don't let one idiot troll get ya down...most of us love seeing this stuff! Now I just have to figure out how to paint that honeycomb pattern...

My new personal canon is that they TOS 1701 looked like that...just that the resolution wasn't good enough to see it.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

*Honeycomb*

It that really on the ship or is it a cast shadow from the Tholian drydock? I'm bettin' it's a cast shadow


----------



## nx01Rob (Mar 1, 2005)

Oh! The honeycomb pattern is being cast by the lights!!! It is NOT ON THE SHIP. Sorry about that guys, I should have explained it. I just forgot.

Oh and thanks for the nice comments. Don't worry, it won't stop me from posting info that is wanted.


----------



## Heavens Eagle (Jun 30, 2003)

Yes I believe the hex pattern is a cast shadow. It becomes more apparent on the inside of the Starboard nacelle. The pattern continues over all kinds of shapes and gets larger the further forward it goes.

Neat lighting effect Rob. And don't let the idiot savant get you down. One poopster doesn't need to spoil the party for the rest of us. Goes to show that there are stupid people all over.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Wonderful pictures Rob!

If you have more, don't hesitate to post them. By the way, I'm part-way through my TOS Defiant kit from the 1/1000 TOS Enterprise kit by Polar Lights. Its inspired by your work!

Huzz:thumbsup:


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

Thanks for the pictures, Rob! Please feel free to post more (just 'cuz I didn't like the writing on the episode doesn't meant I didn't like the visuals  ).

Well, just because it's a shadow effect doesn't mean it should be dismissed as an idea to pain on the model. In a way it makes sense: next to a triangle, a hexagon is a strong building block. That's why it appears in nature so often.

José


----------



## cinc2020 (May 10, 2004)

*Idiot? Pretzel boy?*

Ah. I see. Criticisms are in fact not welcome. Perhaps my delivery was a bit harsh, but I stand by my assessment. Sorry if I hurt some feelings. 

If you want constructive criticism, we should provide it. The image is nicely done, to be sure, but isn't realistic. That's all I'm saying. We have a lot of CGI and digital work out there - so the bar needs to be lifted higher and higher. 

Having said that, I'll be a bit more diplomatic with my input in the future. My apologies to the artist in question.

spe130 and HeavensEagle - calling me an idiot goes over the line. I suppose that's easy when not speaking face to face. My post was certainly not in good form, but calling each other names is childish and silly, especially given the subject matter.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

Cinc, the problem here is that we have access to the CGI modeler who worked on the show. The man was kind enough to answer all questions and post pictures on our behalf. To say your comments were in poor taste is an understatement, but I think you are admitting your error.
Look, I've been to your website, your work is nice, but there is better work out there. You said it will take you a month to superdetail the Refit shuttle bay. Rob animated the Mirror universe episodes in 2 weeks. He has said he can do better, but with the time allowed, I feel it was great work. It "looks fake" isn't constructive criticsm. 
Offering a better solution is.
Please, If you are going to piss someone off, do it on a different thread.


----------



## Sword of Whedon (Jul 5, 2004)

It looked terribly CG to me on anything above medium-far shot, but honestly with the budget and schedule you have it's understandable.

They should have shot it with a model and not processed it up like was done on DS9.

At least the CG was far far better than the ep that surrounded it. Can you give us any insight into which person put in Jurassic Park instead of "Arena"?


----------



## cinc2020 (May 10, 2004)

F91

Calm yourself.

I will be the first to admit that there are much better artists out there than myself. I certainly didn't claim I was the best out there. Thanks for pointing that out. I suppose I deserve that. Being called an idiot and stupid, however, is ridiculous.

I also admitted my error, so let's leave it at that. 

I agree that "it's fake" is not constructive (but hardly a deadly criticism). Still, I do believe a lot of CGI looks like CGI. 

It will take me a month to superdetail the hangar bay because I have a job and a life. Besides which, it takes as long as it takes. Comparing modelbuilding with the digital domain doesn't make sense anyway.

Rob, my apologies for being crass in my original post. I would never suggest that you shouldn't contribute and pass on your work. Obviously, you're welcome here. 

Let's move on.


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

Thanks for the pics, Rob. I must say the Defiant was gorgeous and "spot on" as far as I am concerned. I have an earlier pic of the Defiant and the Avenger together. The light shining off of the hull shows a very convincing, randomly mottled appearance. I don't know much about CG but I'm curious how that was done (so well).
Also, I noticed something on the hangar bay doors that I could not recognize. Is it battle damage?


----------



## nx01Rob (Mar 1, 2005)

I see that I did not understand the fake part. I thought you meant they were not real images from the show. In that yes, I wanted you to prove they were not. That certainly was my mistake. Sorry for that.

If you think we don't realise the work isn't often "photoreal", your dead wrong. We are doing the best we can in the time, budgets, producer changes and requests, etc., alloted. Some shots turn out great, some medium, some are complete misses. I think anyone who has real production experience understands that. The comparison has to be for similar effects in a similar production environment. You can't compare work that has two weeks to get done to similar work where they had months (or years!). That just isn't a fair shake.

Whedon (and trev), honestly, I've seen a lot of model work for film that looks like ass as well. I am beyond knowing why you guys like complaining about everything so damn much. Bloody hell guys, get your asses out here(if not already), get a job on a TV show or film as VFX Sup/producers/DP's and DO IT BETTER THAN ANYONE. Man I want to see your expertise and critiscism put into action! Into some positive production! I did it, my fellow animators/miniature builders did it, if you guys are that good, your portfolio's should speak for themselves and get you work.

Personally, I think if you give talented people time and budget, CG can be indistinguishable from model work. And I'm sorry Cinc, but modelbuilding and CG modelbuilding take the same amount of time and effort, if not even more in the CG realm as you have to "add" a lot more things that are just natural on a real object. Most often we just don't have the time to do it.


Also, you know what , I am NOT posting to get nasty critical comments. I am posting because people here have asked me too as they want more pics to accurize and/or build there models. I'm just not sure what the animosity towards the images I post are or why. To me, "Constructive" advice means sage words on doing a better job. To respect that advice, it has to come from people who understand and have worked in the environment the work is getting done in. Anyone else is guessing.

Thank you to all you guys who understand that and still appreciate the images for reference. I will always try me best to help out.


----------



## cinc2020 (May 10, 2004)

Rob,

I would hope folks in the industry can see the CGI results as being photoreal (or not). I've always believed this, since I can see the results for myself as an audience member and as an interested modeler who reads about this stuff from time to time.

As for CGI vs model-building, I have no idea about the work that goes into CGI - and indeed, I never compared the two, someone else did. I would imagine it takes the same amount of effort, though in different ways. I am curious about the 'money-quality of CGI' connection, however. Does this have to do with hours spent on a project, the hardware, or the software?

Rob, to be honest, I posted my remark without realizing who you were. I didn't mean any disrespect, though the comment I made was clearly disrespectful no matter who it was intended for. And if criticism was not what you wanted, my mistake. I have no "animosity" towards you or your work. Though now, apparently, several folks have serious animosity towards me. Oh well - I brought it upon myself.

Lesson learned, I guess...


----------



## nx01Rob (Mar 1, 2005)

You said comparing modelbuilding to the digital domain didn't make sense and I took it to mean you felt that the work wasn't comparable, and it actually very much is. 

The money-quality does effect time spent as well as hardware. Faster and more numorous machines means you can start turning on options that help for more realistic renders, especially for lighting. The more real the textures, models and lighting, the more memory and time they will take to render. Also, the more real the model and textures, the more time it takes to build it and paint it. 

Cinc, it's ok. Everyone is allowed there opinion. We are all just human, with natural responses to things. I have looked at many a thing and thought "wow that sucks" without really thinking about what went into it. It's only really madening when you know they had the time/budget, but someone *chose* a bad look! and even that is subject to opinion!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I thought the photos were great. I love CGI stuff. The Defiant never looked better. It is a shame that I could not watch the episodes. I have always loved your work, Rob. I hope you will let us more deserving fans see more of your work.THANKS!


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Rob, 

Thanks for the images. Obviously, the majority of us appreciate them and take them at face value. Great stuff! You're doing us all a great favor by putting these up for us to "steal" for use as reference materials and it's a great help to the hobby.


----------



## nx01Rob (Mar 1, 2005)

Thank you Griff, Lloyd, F91, Mactrek et al. I've lost my way a bit there. I remember why I am doing it, because I am the fanatical detail modelbuilder also and I would want the same reference for my projects. Don't worry, regardless of comments, I will do my best to post images you guys need for your kits and projects.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

Cool as a cucumber babe.



cinc2020 said:


> F91
> 
> Calm yourself.
> Let's move on.


----------



## Sword of Whedon (Jul 5, 2004)

> Whedon (and trev), honestly, I've seen a lot of model work for film that looks like ass as well. I am beyond knowing why you guys like complaining about everything so damn much. Bloody hell guys, get your asses out here(if not already), get a job on a TV show or film as VFX Sup/producers/DP's and DO IT BETTER THAN ANYONE. Man I want to see your expertise and critiscism put into action! Into some positive production! I did it, my fellow animators/miniature builders did it, if you guys are that good, your portfolio's should speak for themselves and get you work.


Hahaha, those who cannot do become critics  I'm simply not that good, and I acknowleged the kind of time and budget constraints you guys are under. I think the best way to put it is that with the same amount of time and money, models will always look better than CG, simply because they're real. One of the things I loved about hitchhikers was the extensive use of physical models. I have worked on several productions, though never in an official capacity. I do however have plenty of friends in the industry who have educated me fairly well on the limits whose work can be seen in Voyager, DS9, First Contact and many many SF movies. So I have at least been educated in what to look for. The DS9 model looked better because it was real, that's all. My "spider sense" rarely fails when sniffing out CG, usually only when a mix of motion control and CG is usued (like the end of the LIS movie)

The Gorn looked awful, I'm sorry. And it didn't look like a Gorn. Someone decided to "re-invent" and forgot the details that made it a Gorn. While I'm sure the modeler was handed a spec sheet, it would have been far better to manufacture a suit, because then you're wanking the classic cheese instead of just doing a new effect badly.
Again, this is not a slight on your work. It simply isn't possible to do that kind of work properly on the sched you have, I understand it. It's the fault of the morons working on the actual production that they put you into that kind of position in the first place.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Then again, the original Gorn was about as real looking as a cheap rubber mask that it was, and about as scary as your average lumbering 50s robot. I think the CG equivalent was a hell of a lot more convincing as a terrifying moster reptile than the Gorn from the 60s. That kind of action could never have been done by a "guy in a suit" would've cost a fortune to make and would probably only have looked worse. Remember this is a _TV show_ with about a two week production time that were talking about, not a $100 million, 2-year, 300 artist feature film.


----------



## nx01Rob (Mar 1, 2005)

Whedon, strangely I agree with everything except the for the same "time and money". If we had as long to build a CG model as the physical ones took to build on Trek, our CG models would be Orders of Magnitude different in quality. If we also took some of that time for the advanced render, I bet I could fool even you!  The practical Voyager model itself took months to build and cost over 60 thou. We're asked to build two or three ships per episode for about 8-10 thou each, for 10-12 shots and all of it be done with changes, final, in 2 1/2 weeks. For the same "time and money", you'd barely have next gen shot quality and an occasional episode where there's enough advanced time to build the models and do the motion control (I remember some next Gen shots that looked very fake and CG and later found out they were practical models! I was shocked. Sometimes, real models, actually don't look..."real"!). It comes down to production choices, as you said. We wished they would have asked less and gave us more time to do it right. I am with you on that.

As for the Gorn, none of us were happy with it. We wanted more time. Oh well. I do think two shots were pretty good though. They were quick cuts, closeup, mid section up shots. The Gorn sequence alone needed a good month of dedicated work to be more convincing. As for the design and motions, those where definite producer direction. In that, opinions will vary for sure as to wether it was better or worse conceptually.


----------



## ProfKSergeev (Aug 29, 2003)

Thanks for posting the images, nx01Rob! It was great to see a Constitution class on the small screen again and in action, nonetheless.

I don't mean to be presumptuous, but as long as you're taking requests, would it be at all possible for you to post a few shots (possibly orthographic) of the "Half Saucer," as you and the rest of the FX team call it? I've been working on a scratchbuild/kitbash of it for a few months but have run into a wall, so to speak. Plus, I think my tape of "Twilight" is burned out from all of the freeze-framing! Keep up the great work!


----------



## nx01Rob (Mar 1, 2005)

*CG vs Miniatures*

One last thing about "real" models having the advantage, of being, well, real! 

To me, a good, ultimite FX shot is one where I think I'm looking at something that I think is real. Miniatures often don't do that job either. Example: The Bond Film "Goldeneye". As much as I loved Derek Meddings and grew up on his work, at no time, during any point in the film, did I not know that I was watching miniatures. I never thought any of it looked "real". My point is, wether CG or miniatures, if it is not fooling me, then it does not matter which one is missing the mark. 

Conversely, would it matter wether you were being completely fooled by CG or a miniature? I think not.


----------



## nx01Rob (Mar 1, 2005)

ProfKSergeev said:


> Thanks for posting the images, nx01Rob! It was great to see a Constitution class on the small screen again and in action, nonetheless.
> 
> I don't mean to be presumptuous, but as long as you're taking requests, would it be at all possible for you to post a few shots (possibly orthographic) of the "Half Saucer," as you and the rest of the FX team call it? I've been working on a scratchbuild/kitbash of it for a few months but have run into a wall, so to speak. Plus, I think my tape of "Twilight" is burned out from all of the freeze-framing! Keep up the great work!
> 
> Lauren Oliver



Yes, I will do that, sorry I forgot about that request. Thanks for reminding me!


----------



## ProfKSergeev (Aug 29, 2003)

Thank _you_, for catering so kindly to our requests. The renders you've provided on the forum are such a treat, and it's great to hear about the process of bringing the designs to fruition.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Cinc, I'd like to apologize...I misintrepreted what you were saying. When I read your post, I thought you were saying that the images Rob posted weren't really from the episode, being "fake" in that manner. Once again, sorry.


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

I think the shots look great!

One question, why is it flying next to that upside down Akira in one shot? 

Edge


----------



## cinc2020 (May 10, 2004)

spe130,

No problem. I started the whole mess anyway.

Let's build and be merry!


----------



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

Dr. Brad said:


> Hey, those two episodes will be the main reason I buy the season 4 DVDs when they're available!
> 
> Brad.


Agreed!!!

If Paramount had any sense, to get Season 4 on DVD they would sell Seasons 1-3 at a higher price and give away Season 4 - BUT REQUIRE PEOPLE TO BUY AND SEND IN RECEIPTS AND PROOFS OF PURCHASE TABS FOR SEASONS 1-3!

That's about the only way they'll ever sell anywhere near as many seaon 1-3 sets!

Don't let anyone's negativity spoil the party, Rob!

With the way the physical model building industry is going. I can forsee a time when if you want a physical model, someone will have to know how to do 3D rendering and have their models made by computerized build-up, one at a time!

The two art forms complement one another quite well. The 3D side requiring an incredible amount of computer skill, as does physical modeling. Sometimes until something rendered in 3D is built as a physical model problems with the 3D model aren't apparent, even if you've poured over the subject matter dozens of time. I've had that experience with the Class F shuttlecraft I'm working on with FourMadMen(assuming he hasn't totally given up on the idea).

I guess it's sort of like how you often don't catch a written mistake until you print it out, no matter how many times you stare at it on the screen. 

Maybe that will change once accurate 3D display technology(goggles, etc) become widely available.

Either way, you have every right to be immensely proud of the stuff you are posting. It is not only fantastic but will probably help tons of physical modelers as well.

Even if no one uses the info to help with a physical model, it's damn beautiful work that I find immensely enjoyable and greatly appreciate.

I had the same response to seeing the Defiant that F91 did - got chills down my spine. The hairs on the back of my neck even stood up as if I had seen the ghost of a long dead friend.

You are helping bring back a little bit of the TOS world back to us and I for one appreciate everything you've done and posted. Keep up the great work! :thumbsup:


----------



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

Also, I was able to see the second Defiant episode at work in High Def. We have a bigscreen High Def TV in the breakroom. Then saw it in regular definition. (Wish I had a high def recorder and TV at home, but alas...)

The high def version of the show looked both perfect and seamless. The regular definition show looked fantastic as well, but the ship looked different somehow.

I'm assuming that you folks only make one version compiled for high definition, and the regular definition show is copied at an artificially reduced resolution for broadcast in regular definition. If that is so, does that sometimes cause issues that aren't seen in the high def broadcast?


----------



## heiki (Aug 8, 1999)

Ok Rob,


Did you work on a 1701 CGI as well for the last/final episode?


----------



## norge71 (Apr 13, 2004)

Unfortunatly here in Utah the channel that broadcasts Enterprise has some of the worst static distortions (not just my set, watched it at someone else's with same result)! So I'm probably gonna have to shell out the bucks for the DVD to at least appreciate the images. So thanks a ton Rob cause the stuff you've been posting looks so much better than what I've seen on the tube.
And I heartily agree with Chuck_PR and his comments about referrences for model builders.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Hehe, if you guys want a big CG TOS 1701 check this out. I did this about _3 years ago._ I'm currently working on Version 4 to correct a few tiny innacuracies. Stuff no one would really notice. I did the subtle aztec thing, rooms behind the windows, full shuttlebay... the works. Its the same one I used in my Jefferies dedication animation


http://nova-designs.com/2d_3d/3d_imgs/trek/TOS_1701v3/E_beauty5_1280x1024.jpg


----------



## norge71 (Apr 13, 2004)

Nova... That's really nice. Can't see what innacuracies you would need to fix, but that's sweet.


----------



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

norge71 said:


> Unfortunatly here in Utah the channel that broadcasts Enterprise has some of the worst static distortions (not just my set, watched it at someone else's with same result)! So I'm probably gonna have to shell out the bucks for the DVD to at least appreciate the images. So thanks a ton Rob cause the stuff you've been posting looks so much better than what I've seen on the tube.
> And I heartily agree with Chuck_PR and his comments about referrences for model builders.


I had to put up an outdoor antennae to get UPN in clear here in New Orleans(bought it the first year Voyager came out).

If that's not an option another solution would to buy a high-def tuner box that has standard Audio Video and/or S Video outs in addition to digital and/or component outs.

Then you can record from the High Def box in regular definition using the AV or S Video/Audio outputs.

Of course it won't be in High Def(unless you buy a High Def recorder and TV to watch it on), but if the station that is fuzzy broadcasts in High Def you'll probably get a good signal even using an indoor antennae.


----------



## nx01Rob (Mar 1, 2005)

heiki said:


> Ok Rob,
> 
> 
> Did you work on a 1701 CGI as well for the last/final episode?



I did not work on the final episode. So, whatever the stuff looks like is out of my hands. 

As for HD vs crappy broadcast. All I can say is we do render at 1/2 HD and when we've seen our work projected on the big screen at the Paramount theatre it actually looks BETTER than when we see it on our monitors....go figure! Almost like.....a real film!


----------



## norge71 (Apr 13, 2004)

It's satellite. It's the way the station sends it to Dish. It's too far and mountainous for any standard signal to get through. </crying> jk, It's the only channel that comes in bad and there's no other reason to watch UPN.


----------



## Rattrap (Feb 23, 1999)

I dabble a little in both practical and digital modeling, and frankly, the same skills go into each. The differences are, when a plastic modeler needs to smoothly round out a corner, he sands and files to shape, putties, primes and repeats. A digital modeler subdivides and tweaks, finds the bad spots, subdivides them further and so on.

However, the only modeling equivalent to 3D animation is the shadowbox. That's the only time we try to match light, shadows and so forth. If you've ever done a shadowbox, you know what an unbridaled pain in the neck they can be.

Now take that perfectly lit shadowbox and repose everything thirty times with just the minutest changes. Congratulations- you've just created _one second_ of video.

And- just like modeling in the real world, sometimes everything is mathematically perfect, but when you render it, it looks like crap. Then you have to start flying by the seat of your pants and tweaking a little something here and a little something there until it works. Sometimes, as much as you'd like more time, you realize there insn't any, and you say, "close enough" and move on.

Modeling for a living, whether practical or digital is a lot different than what we do for a hobby. I'm sure there have been times when NX01Rob would have liked to have saved something and come back to it in a month or two, but when you're working to a deadline, you don't have that luxury.

Oh, and NX01Rob, let me add my thanks to the long litany.

:wave: The Rat


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

norge71 said:


> Nova... That's really nice. Can't see what innacuracies you would need to fix, but that's sweet.



Well I got the captain's toilet in backwards... hehehe. Thanks


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

nx01Rob said:


> As for HD vs crappy broadcast. All I can say is we do render at 1/2 HD and when we've seen our work projected on the big screen at the Paramount theatre it actually looks BETTER than when we see it on our monitors....go figure! Almost like.....a real film!


That's gotta be SO SWEET seeing that stuff on the BIG screen like that!
:thumbsup:


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Nova, two questions about your 1701:
What's with the tiny nav lights outboard of the big ones?
If the three round lights in the front of the saucer aren't windows, what are they?


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

The tiny lights are actually on the real miniature so they are on mine. What they are for I have no idea. 

You can see them in  this image...

The three round ports in the front of the saucer are sensors.


----------



## nx01Rob (Mar 1, 2005)

Nice work Nova.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

nx01Rob said:


> Nice work Nova.


 Thanks Rob. It gets better though... just wait. :wave:


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Rob,

I'm sorry if this was asked before, but did you guys start from scratch on the Defiant mesh, or did someone have a mesh from before?

........I may have just answered my own question.......

Flipping through all the 'ships of the line' calendars, it looks as though you did the Dec. of 2003 shot where the F-104 Starfighter is chasing the Enterprise from 'Tommorrow is Yesterday'
Which BTW is one of my absoulute FAVORITE shots from all of those calendars.

I would LOVE to see that whole opening sequence from that episode redone.
I can imagine how the Enterprise's bow wake would push the clouds away, then only to have them suck back in on the vacume and turbulance after the ship passes by.
And the shots that could be done from the pilots POV if he were to get into close formation with the 'E'.
Ahhh if only my own CG skills were up to that point.

Rob. Thanks for all the posts.
I think you had a great job working on all the Trek stuff you did, and good luck to you on your future jobs.
BTW, did anyone yet ask for Top, Bottom, Front, Back,.....etc. views of the Defiant? If not, I'd love to see those.

Thanks.


----------



## nx01Rob (Mar 1, 2005)

I am going to get to the Defiant soon, believe me. WARNING: I think you will be disapointed in her in some ways. I know there were inaccuracies that we did not have time to fix, but didn't matter for the shots we did. Once you have those orthos, your going to start pulling out the diagrams and I bet she starts failing in many ways! That's ok though, enjoy them and feel free to point out all flaws. I won't mind and Koji may use the info to correct whatever they may be. (Only real one I notice is that decks 2-3 don't have the right shape in my eye. Just had no time to fix it before delivery)

Keep reminding me about the images you want to see. It's actually better if you PM me as a reminder as it is more direct and doesn't get burried in a board posting. The half saucer is almost done...


----------



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

norge71 said:


> It's satellite. It's the way the station sends it to Dish. It's too far and mountainous for any standard signal to get through. </crying> jk, It's the only channel that comes in bad and there's no other reason to watch UPN.


Quite ironic! Sort of the reverse is true for me. The whole reason I got the external antennae was Cox Cable here in New Orleans carries UPN on channel 2.

I could NEVER get a clean signal on channel 2, even with new cabling, AC line filters, av filtering clean power, and an FM Trap!!!

Cox cable's quality control sucks on the lower channels here.
Once I put up the external antennae - clean signal!



norge71 said:


> It's satellite. It's the way the station sends it to Dish. It's too far and mountainous for any standard signal to get through. </crying>


You could always put up an antennae tower.
As long as it's taller then the surrounding mountains you'd be fine.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Yeah I rememeber when my Dad lived in Ouray, Colorado he had to get a huge 12-foot satellite dish in order to get any TV. But MAN he got _everything in the world_ with that system!


----------



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

^^^ You can still get everything with an 8ft dish. Plus they don't give you problems with reception even in a hurricane! 

Having said that I sadly don't have one myself. Luckily though I have a nice, easy-to-mount-antennae-on ham radio tower that is about 65 feet high, compliments of my non-deceased father's obsession.

Had to take down his old 20 meter antennae to put up my TV antenna safely(the man had 3 different ham antennae on the tower, but ZERO TV antennae on it - go figure!  ), but it was worth it!


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Rob, every ship in a class doesn't have to be identical...it's actually rather rare that they are, at least in modern naval terms. We've already seen at least one other slight variant of the Constitution class (the Constellation), so any slight differences in the Defiant are excusable.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> ^^^ You can still get everything with an 8ft dish. Plus they don't give you problems with reception even in a hurricane!


Actually, that can happen with a big dish. Strong winds will blow it out of alignment. It tends to go in and out in really windy storms -- and the time the tornado went cruising by my parents' house, it went completely for a bit. I went outside (I didn't realize what was up -- I'm not stupid!  ) and I couldn't _see_ the tornado because it was something like 2 a.m., but I could hear it _very_ well -- and it destroyed a house across the field, about a quarter-mile away.

Yikes!

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Also, my friend in Vermont reports that a serious loss of signal can occurr when a moose stands in front of your dish. :freak:


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Yes, I have the same problem...
Dadbern mooses.


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

^ I thought the plural was meese... 

José


----------



## wpthomas (Apr 28, 2005)

nx01Rob said:


> As for HD vs crappy broadcast. All I can say is we do render at 1/2 HD and when we've seen our work projected on the big screen at the Paramount theatre it actually looks BETTER than when we see it on our monitors....go figure! Almost like.....a real film!


I seem to recall a story about when they made Star Wars - they looked at a lot of the old Disney matte paintings and thought "Boy, did I remember that being better when I was a kid." No detail, very sketchy. So they went and did thiers much "better". When they got them on film they looked awful! So they had to go back and re-do them to be not as "good" in real life, more like the Disney ones. Might this be the same kind of effect?

Thanks so much for the posts, Rob.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Hey ! Who edited my moose out ? :thumbsup:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

spe130 said:


> Rob, every ship in a class doesn't have to be identical...it's actually rather rare that they are, at least in modern naval terms. We've already seen at least one other slight variant of the Constitution class (the Constellation), so any slight differences in the Defiant are excusable.


I'm of the school of thought that says that the Constellation was of a slightly older class than the Constitution, but the point is still quite valid. Just compare the various Nimitz class carriers, especially the USS Ronald Reagan and its predessors.


----------



## trevanian (Jan 30, 2004)

wpthomas said:


> I seem to recall a story about when they made Star Wars - they looked at a lot of the old Disney matte paintings and thought "Boy, did I remember that being better when I was a kid." No detail, very sketchy. So they went and did thiers much "better". When they got them on film they looked awful! So they had to go back and re-do them to be not as "good" in real life, more like the Disney ones. Might this be the same kind of effect?
> 
> Thanks so much for the posts, Rob.


Maybe it was another movie, not sw? Cuz SW had Peter Ellenshaw's son doing most of the matte paintings, and he did them as a moonlighting project WHILE working at Disney, where he'd been for a few years at that point.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

trevanian said:


> Maybe it was another movie, not sw? Cuz SW had Peter Ellenshaw's son doing most of the matte paintings, and he did them as a moonlighting project WHILE working at Disney, where he'd been for a few years at that point.


I heard the same as you say -- but the described reaction certainly mirrors my own the first time I was able to see reproductions of the matte paintings, and it is true for those I've seen from other movies as well. It is amazing at how you rarely notice it in context, but they are really _obviously_ paintings when you can examine them at any length. Many are quite unabashedly "painterly" in style.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Some of the matte paintings done for 1954's _20,000 Leagues Under the Sea_ look absolutely real to me. I am thinking of the scene at the opening of the show where you see all the old sailing ships in the harbour. There may be a couple of other similar examples in that Disney flic.

Huzz


----------



## Prince of Styrene II (Feb 28, 2000)

sbaxter said:


> Actually, that can happen with a big dish.


We have a 8 foot dish on our big satellite truck at work. It can get interferrence easily. Tree branches & snow piling up on the dish are two that I can think of offhand.


----------



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

Prince of Styrene II said:


> We have a 8 foot dish on our big satellite truck at work. It can get interferrence easily. Tree branches & snow piling up on the dish are two that I can think of offhand.


Well... yeah!

You need a clear line of sight of course. :lol:

I have an uncle who has a "mesh style" 8 foot dish who has weathered many hurricanes out in the last couple of decades. I think the highest winds he's had were around 90mph. Had zero destortion the whole time.

I'm aware that tornadoes, hurricanes that are stronger and/or that come much much closer then the ones that have come towards New Orleans(thank God!) in the last couple of decades generate WAY stronger winds.

But they are way less likely to give you problems during "ordinary" storms then the small dishes.

Moose and tree issues aside. 

Now back to our regularly scheduled subject... the Defiant!


----------



## trevanian (Jan 30, 2004)

sbaxter said:


> I heard the same as you say -- but the described reaction certainly mirrors my own the first time I was able to see reproductions of the matte paintings, and it is true for those I've seen from other movies as well. It is amazing at how you rarely notice it in context, but they are really _obviously_ paintings when you can examine them at any length. Many are quite unabashedly "painterly" in style.
> 
> Qapla'
> 
> SSB


A lot of it has to do with how big the painting is and how close you are to it (or how well it is reproduced in the case of books.) 

When I've seen actual matte paintings in person, they all look to have the same rez as the art you see on the wall at Bob's Big Boy ... I don't think I've seen any matte art that looked photoreal in person (though I have seen non-movie art that seemed photoreal -- go figure.)

A lot of the Whitlock art in EARTHQUAKE that I've seen reproduced in books looks like documentary photography, very convincing, but recently I got a book on FX that showed one of these paintings with a lot more detail, and all of a sudden it looked like a painting (for the first time in 20+ years!)

The matter of how convincing a matte painting looks in the actual film often has to do with how it is printed ... I mean, from what I recall of ESCAPE FROM LA, the matte shots were so OFF from the way the live action looked in terms of contrast, you'd have though they were done for an old student film. Yet the folks involved (including the aforementioned Ellenshaw jr) were pros, which leads me to think that the comping was done in a hurry by somebody who didn't give a hoot (and Carpenter must have been nose-deep in blow to approve the finals.) I think a few of the BLADE RUNNER shots in the final sequence have similar issues, but not to the same degree.

the first shot on the hull in TMP (not the totally sucky dish profile shot, but the one where you see them rise up onto the hull) was totally credible in the theater, but when you saw it on video, esp on LD, it looked awful, presumably because it was brighter and showed TOO MUCH detail.


----------



## enterprise_fan (May 23, 2004)

nx01Rob said:


> I am going to get to the Defiant soon, believe me. WARNING: I think you will be disapointed in her in some ways. I know there were inaccuracies that we did not have time to fix, but didn't matter for the shots we did. Once you have those orthos, your going to start pulling out the diagrams and I bet she starts failing in many ways! That's ok though, enjoy them and feel free to point out all flaws. I won't mind and Koji may use the info to correct whatever they may be. (Only real one I notice is that decks 2-3 don't have the right shape in my eye. Just had no time to fix it before delivery)
> 
> Keep reminding me about the images you want to see. It's actually better if you PM me as a reminder as it is more direct and doesn't get burried in a board posting. The half saucer is almost done...


Funny thing about time, the more you look at something the more flaws you see. 

Everyone has their take on how it should have looked where it should have been located. Drawn diagrams are no different. Every one that have been drawn since the original show was broadcast has had changes made by that artist. Some are corrections on design flaws others are additions of something that was never thought of before. 

The few of us that were around for the orginal broadcast were quite young then. Science Fiction back then was Star Trek. We didn't care how many flaws the ships had we watched it anyway. We didn't know that Main Engineering wasn't in Engineering section. We just knew that it existed. We didn't know that the Shuttle Bay interior didn't fit the exterior of the ship. We knew that it extsted. We didn't care what color it was painted and that the windows were in the wrong place. We it was painted and that it had windows. 

It is your model of the Enterprise. It might the orginal Enterprise. It might be the refit 1701 or 1701-A. If it is a CGI, draw it the way you think it should be. If it is a model, paint it the way you think it should be painted. If it is a kitbash, make it the way you want it to look like. Half the joy of our hobby the finished model, the other is the making of the model. Enjoy it for what it is YOUR HOBBY. :thumbsup:


----------



## RonH (Apr 10, 2001)

AMEN e-fan. I'm one of those who was watching then too and I've never heard it said any better. Thank you !!


----------



## nx01Rob (Mar 1, 2005)

Very well said!


----------



## enterprise_fan (May 23, 2004)

nx01Rob said:


> Very well said!


I don't post too often but I felt that it had to be said.


----------



## enterprise_fan (May 23, 2004)

Oh! And nx01Rob thanks for all your hard work on all your projects. It has saved all of us countless hour of research. (in the voice of Peter Faulk) "One more thing..... where are the rear photon torpedo tubes located?"


----------



## nx01Rob (Mar 1, 2005)

enterprise_fan said:


> Oh! And nx01Rob thanks for all your hard work on all your projects. It has saved all of us countless hour of research. (in the voice of Peter Faulk) "One more thing..... where are the rear photon torpedo tubes located?"



I posted it somewhere before, but the intention was that the rear torpedoes where from the little round port right betwen the impulses engines. We tried to make it logical with what existed so we didn't have to make a new hole on the ship. Everyone agreed, except that apparently if you frame by frame it, they actually come from the hangar bay phaser mounts. Someone in the chain etiher decided against it or didn't know. Even one of the writers was surprised it hadn't been done as discussed.


----------



## nx01Rob (Mar 1, 2005)

Oh and thank you for the nice compliments. I feel compelled as a model builder to help out where I can. If I would have had access( and the internet!) when I was younger to this kind of stuff, I would have really appreciated it. I will do the best I can to help out.


----------



## pcumby (Jan 24, 2004)

This has been one of the most enjoyable threads ever. The insight into the production of a CGI shot in a TV show is great. I loved the model, and appreciate the effort that went into building it and making it as accurate as possible to the intent of the original. I watch TOS in first run and to see the Connie again on the screen simply thrilled me.

Thanks, Rob, you made a lot of old guys like me very happy. Just please post some more renderings.


----------



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

Nx01 Rob,

I was trying to PM you but your PM box is full. 
I'll send you an email and cross my fingers.

If it helps, I just noticed that in the lower right hand 
corner of the PM page there is an option to download all your messages.

I used the plain text option and it works great!
I'm emailing myself a copy so I'll have one available at both work and home.
As the only possible negative thing I can think about downloading them is wanting to read a message and not being on the same machine you downloaded from. The self Email thing solves that.

Hope this helps, you're just too damn popular I guess! :thumbsup:


----------



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

nx01Rob said:


> I posted it somewhere before, but the intention was that the rear torpedoes where from the little round port right betwen the impulses engines. We tried to make it logical with what existed so we didn't have to make a new hole on the ship. Everyone agreed, except that apparently if you frame by frame it, they actually come from the hangar bay phaser mounts. Someone in the chain etiher decided against it or didn't know. Even one of the writers was surprised it hadn't been done as discussed.


Can't cover all the bases. But whoever did the overlay effect at the FX house kinda doubly screwed the pooch. In one shot it looks like they probably come from the phasers. As they pull away and fire the volley on the station, though, the dispersion pattern looks way to wide to have come from two launchers so close together.

But what the heck, the Defiant still looked Gorgeous.
And besides, it's just a TV show, right?[ducks and covers as he runs out of the room]


----------



## loneranger (Sep 5, 2002)

*My two cents...*

First of all, I'd like to chime in and tell Rob and Nova that their stuff looks great! It's obvious that you guys have a lot of computing horsepower behind you to be able to do what you do...not to mention an unlimited love for the Constitution-class design (as I do).

I can relate to the production dilemma of time versus money. I deal with it on a daily basis in my job, so I understand the problem of wanting to do more (or better) but being unable thanks to schedule or budget constraints.

As some other posters in this thread have mentioned, I also dabble a little in both physical and CGI modeling, and yes, many of the techniques are the same. When it comes to what people call "photorealistic" CGI images, though, I have to ask one question: To what are you referring?

There are many kinds of "photos," from the sharpest, high-quality portraiture to happy snaps somebody takes with a disposable camera. And there are almost all kinds of lighting involved as well. To say that something is "photorealistic" implies more than just saying the scene was shot with a camera. When you involve filmmaking techniques like bluescreen compositing, "photorealistic" takes on a whole new meaning.

Like, for instance, what kind of lens are you using? What type of film stock? Or, if it's video, what's your focal length? If you're rendering for TV or film, you also have to take motion blur into account, and it's different between television (30 fps) and film (24 fps). Also, film has more color saturation than videotape. There's lots to take into account when trying to create something "photorealistic," and it's no wonder that folks like Rob run up against that brick wall each week. To do it that way takes more money and time than a weekly TV show will allow. That he's able to do it at all simply speaks to his skill (and the skills of his co-workers) as CGI artists.

I'm working on a Big E of my own using Cinema 4D (on a laptop, no less), and I've discovered the pitfalls of trying to do "photorealistic" renders. For instance, all of my texture at this point (with just a few exceptions) is bitmapped, which makes for a pretty picture...when you're looking straight on at the subject. If it's turned to an angle, it blurs out, and destroys any illusion of realism. But modeled-in textures (such as the registry pennants and things of that nature) add to the size of the mesh, and when you're dealing with a Celeron processor and 256mb of RAM, you don't have the luxury of doing more than making sure your shapes are the correct size, contour, and relationship to each other (which I'd like to say I've done pretty well, IMNSHO  ). It's given me a new appreciation of what folks like Rob and Nova go through to create what they do, and it's also taught me a lot about physical modeling.

I do have some ideas about a modeled-in shuttlebay, though...


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Well I think the term "photorealism" at least in the world of visual effects is meant to describe something that looks like the real, physical object that it represents--without any of the tell-tale giveaways that its in fact computer-generated. That's even harder to do with something fictional like starships, where viewers inherently _know_ that the thing they are seeing is not real. The other problem with something like the original Enterprise is the fact that we, in CG are recreating a _model_ and not a real ship... and something that was filmed and lit really poorly. That look just wouldn't fit in to "reality" as in a real ship flying in space. Nor does it fit into the more modern look established by all the new Trek series.

So when one attempts to make the big E look like a real ship flying in a real space environment... people cry "ITS CRAPPY CG!!!" because it doesn't look like the big wooden model from the 60s that everyone is so familiar with. _THAT_ is what people are looking for, not a _real_ spaceship, because we don't know what that's supposed to look like.

In some ways its the CG artists Kobiyashi Maru--a no-win scenario. In a more open-minded sense, its an opportunuty to do something the TV artists of the 60s could only dream of: make a model of the Enterprise look and behave like a _real starship._ 

BTW, I made my Enterprise on a home built PC, 2.6GHz, 200GB HD, 1GB of RAM and an off the shelf video card. I built it myself for about $800. You don't need a lot of horsepower for modeling... for calculating dynamics and particle simulation and for rendering... that's a whole different story. :wave:


----------



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

loneranger said:


> As some other posters in this thread have mentioned, I also dabble a little in both physical and CGI modeling, and yes, many of the techniques are the same. When it comes to what people call "photorealistic" CGI images, though, I have to ask one question: To what are you referring?
> 
> There are many kinds of "photos," from the sharpest, high-quality portraiture to happy snaps somebody takes with a disposable camera. And there are almost all kinds of lighting involved as well. To say that something is "photorealistic" implies more than just saying the scene was shot with a camera. When you involve filmmaking techniques like bluescreen compositing, "photorealistic" takes on a whole new meaning.
> 
> Like, for instance, what kind of lens are you using? What type of film stock? Or, if it's video, what's your focal length? If you're rendering for TV or film, you also have to take motion blur into account, and it's different between television (30 fps) and film (24 fps). Also, film has more color saturation than videotape. ...


While I'm kind of wondering as to the reason for this question in the first place(I personally get the sense that 99.99999% of us including myself are in a general sense of stupified awe of Rob's talents),

I don't even recall the term "Photorealistic" being used too often in this forum. If it has I apologize for having missed it and being mistaken. But if I had to give a definition of photorealistic being used that way I'd have to say most people simply would mean that the object in question looks real - with all that that entails.

Most people thoroughly understand the limitations of time and budget.
Also I'd add that I didn't notice any flaws in the Defiant itself.

I did notice the chrominance and luminence levels looked different between the high def version and the standard def version. The model looked just as real, but the color intensity seemed different. Which I was curious about, but not that there was something wrong with either version. Just couldn't figure out what would cause such a thing.

Snafus like the torpedos happen all the time, but really had nothing to do with Rob.


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

NX01Rob, I am in awe of your work..period. As others have stated, to see the Connies on the small screen again, in something new, was a heart stopping moment for me. I have always been more of a fan of the technology of ST over the characters. Show me how to use the replicators and just turn me loose on the Enterprise and that is the last you'd see of me for quite some time! The only change I would make is to add a miniature of you in the "Remington Razor" space suits standing on the primary hull, waving to all of us jealous fans! Bravo Zulu!


----------

