View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Pow Galactic Ambassador
Joined: 27 Sep 2014 Posts: 3682 Location: New York
|
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2014 2:15 pm Post subject: Star Trek (TOS) FX Then & Now |
|
|
Been watching Youtube today with some nifty videos from the original Trek series.
They've put up episodes where you can see the differences between the original FX & the remastered FX.
The screen is split so you can view them side-by-side with the original FX on the left hand side & the newly remastered FX on the right hand side.
Last edited by Pow on Sat Aug 03, 2024 4:55 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bud Brewster Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013 Posts: 17558 Location: North Carolina
|
Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2014 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank God I have access to the Krell machine and can just wish for the link to that YouTube video and . . .
Wait, the Krell machine can't materialize links because they aren't "solid objects". Help us out here, Pow!
However, the fact that you found that on YouTube deserves an Honorable Mention, sir! _________________ ____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Last edited by Bud Brewster on Mon Aug 23, 2021 12:52 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bud Brewster Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013 Posts: 17558 Location: North Carolina
|
Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
________________________________
Here's a full page of the FX comparison videos Pow mentions above.
By the way, have you folks noticed that YouTube has converted all their thumbnails to gifs? This makes it hard for me to put a thumbnail with a YouTube link when I post one on All Sci-Fi.
Star TOS FX comparison _________________ ____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Last edited by Bud Brewster on Mon Mar 16, 2020 3:51 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gord Green Galactic Ambassador
Joined: 06 Oct 2014 Posts: 2985 Location: Buffalo, NY
|
Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 2:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Boy Bud, Your Krellian Reality Manipulator sure is SLOW!
Took five years to come up with the URLS? Better put Robby in maintainence mode and turn him loose to do a tune-up on that baby!
Only kidding! Thanks for the data! _________________ There comes a time, thief, when gold loses its lustre, and the gems cease to sparkle, and the throne room becomes a prison; and all that is left is a father's love for his child. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bud Brewster Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013 Posts: 17558 Location: North Carolina
|
Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
________________________________
I was amazed when our friend Brent Gair posted that he didn't like the enhanced versions of TOS because he felt like they jarred with the look of the old episodes.
Frankly I've always felt like the poor original special effects jarred with the lofty goals of this series, which was supposed to portray the future of mankind. The enhanced CGI special effects are exactly what the series needs to tell it's intelligent and imaginative stories.
That's why I watch series like Star Trek. I don't do it just to revisit my childhood.
Brent seems to want the series to remain a nostalgic memory from his younger days, similar to his devotion for Lost in Space, which I think is vastly inferior. Brent was apparently not inspired by Star Trek's vision of the future. He just wants it to remain a fond memory from his past . . .
Oh well. Different stroke for different folks, I guess. _________________ ____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
scotpens Space Sector Commander
Joined: 19 Sep 2014 Posts: 912 Location: The Left Coast
|
Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2020 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bud Brewster wrote: |
I was amazed when our friend Brent Gair posted that he didn't like the enhanced versions of TOS because he felt like they jarred with the look of the old episodes.
Frankly I've always felt like the poor original special effects jarred with the lofty goals of this series, which was supposed to portray the future of mankind. The enhanced CGI special effects are exactly what the series needs to tell it's intelligent and imaginative stories.
|
I don't think the original FX were "poor." They were the best that could be accomplished with the technology of the day and within the time and budget constraints of a weekly filmed TV series.
A lot of the computer-generated effects look cartoonish and some look no better than game animation. The CGI spinning energy effect in the warp nacelle domes never looks even close to the practical lighting effect on the 11-foot model.
I could give dozens of other examples where the new effects frankly suck, but I suppose it all comes down to a matter of taste. And de gustibus non est disputandum, to coin a phrase. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bud Brewster Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013 Posts: 17558 Location: North Carolina
|
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2020 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
scotpens wrote: | I don't think the original FX were "poor." They were the best that could be accomplished with the technology of the day and within the time and budget constraints of a weekly filmed TV series.
I suppose it all comes down to a matter of taste. |
First of all, you're right, it all comes down to a matter of taste.
As for the original FX for TOS, I contend that just because special effects are "the best that could be accomplished with the time and budget constraints . . . " doesn't automatically make them "good".
I wasn't very impressed with the FX when I was a teen in the 1960s, and I'm certainly not impressed with them now, after seeing the incredible FX that are common today.
I've noticed that some folks seem to reject FX that are CGI just because the are CGI. The new FX in TOS are supposed to be compatible with a 1960 series that, as you said, had "time and budget constraints". So, they compromised between 'absolutely real" and the "Toy Story" style.
I like the stylized CGI look of the FX in the enhanced TOS episodes — but then, I'm an artists, and I tend to like stylized artwork. And frankly I think the enhanced FX look pretty darn good — much better than the original FX.
_________________ ____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Eadie Galactic Ambassador
Joined: 14 Dec 2013 Posts: 1670
|
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2020 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But compare it to Lost in Space (CBS 1965 - 1968), which is currently on MeTV, the then effects of the space shots are poor.
Those old film & model makers work is of far superior quality. _________________ ____________
Art Should Comfort the Disturbed and Disturb the Comfortable. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
scotpens Space Sector Commander
Joined: 19 Sep 2014 Posts: 912 Location: The Left Coast
|
Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2020 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lost in Space did most of its FX using miniatures on flying rigs, rear projection, and other in-camera techniques. The Enterprise flybys and other space shots in Star Trek were done with bluescreen composites, which introduced grain and degradation of the image each time they were copied another generation. But I'll still take the original effects over the digital ones any day of the week.
I mean, look at the crappy low-res polygon mesh of the CGI Romuklingon ship in "The Enterprise Incident." Absolute garbage.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bud Brewster Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013 Posts: 17558 Location: North Carolina
|
Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2020 10:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
________________________________
I must admit, you certainly picked an example of an original FX that compares really well to the new FX.
But I'd hardly call the one on the right "garbage".
_________________ ____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
scotpens Space Sector Commander
Joined: 19 Sep 2014 Posts: 912 Location: The Left Coast
|
Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2020 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, like I said, all a matter of taste . . . |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bud Brewster Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013 Posts: 17558 Location: North Carolina
|
Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2020 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
scotpens wrote: | Well, like I said, all a matter of taste . . . |
I agree. And I appreciate your honest opinions.
I actually had to look up the phrase low-res polygon mesh, and I discovered that it had to do with the rendering of a curved surfaces using visible sections on flat surfaces which fit together like those used in a geodesic dome.
In other words, the surface of a curved shape would be not be smooth. According to the data I found, a low-res polygon mesh would look like this.
Frankly this has left me puzzled by your criticism of the enhance TOS special effects.
Sir, please explain to me what part of the image below is flawed by a 'low-res polygon mesh". All the various shapes — especially the sphere at the front of the ship — appear to be be smoothly rendered.
So . . . why is this "garbage"?
_________________ ____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Krel Guest
|
Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2020 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bud Brewster wrote: |
|
Seriously Bud, you can't see the flat planes in this image? Even with my eye problems, they stand out to me.
Look where the neck meets the main hull and the underside.
David. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bud Brewster Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013 Posts: 17558 Location: North Carolina
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2020 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
________________________________
I don't think this is a matter of our individual sharpness of vision, it's a matter of the basic assumption on which we differ.
You're assuming that those flat areas across the front side and the underside of main body of the ship are caused by a "low-res polygon mesh" — a new term that scotpens made me aware of.
I, however, can make a good case for the idea that they were done deliberately — a laudable effort to be consistent with the very angular nature of the Klingon design. It's not "sleek and lovely" like the Enterprise. It's lean, mean, and unfriendly, like something that would not feel pleasant to hold in your hand!
This is true for both the original model and the CGI version, although the CGI folks decided to render the flat surfaces with a "faceted" construction . . . something which was not included in the less detailed model.
If we look more closely at the faceted surfaces we can see that they go very well with the sharp-edged and angular nature of the ship's overall design.
The two slightly different angles shown in the images below seem to indicated a certain amount of individual shading and colorization applied to the facets.
This indicates that these aren't actually evidence of a low-res polygon mesh — they're intended to be metal plates which form the hull of the ship, with different patterns of rust (or whatever), as well as shadows based on the light source.
I believe the reason for this embellishment of the ship's appearance is based on the idea that Klingons don't go in for the kind of rounded elegance and clean hulls of the Federation's "pretty starships". The sharp edges and flat metal plates used in the construction of their ships are just fine for those bad boys!
But if you still think the main body of the ship has those facets just because of lazy CGI rendering, please note that the "neck" and sphere, along with the forward curve of the vessel's foremost portion, show no evidence of a low-res polygon mesh. Even the visible edge between the horizontal and vertical surfaces of the "bridge" is smoothly rounded.
]
All these well-rounded, curved surfaces argue against the notion that it's a low-res object based on an initial CGI "wire frame" which has too few facets to create curved surfaces.
The original model is relatively clean, featureless, and smooth — whereas the GI version includes convincing details such as the dark, rusty look, and those lighted windows!
Respectfully, gentlemen, I contend that you've misinterpreted an intentional detail in the design when you assumed they indicated of a sloppy job of CGI rendering. _________________ ____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Last edited by Bud Brewster on Fri Mar 20, 2020 5:06 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
scotpens Space Sector Commander
Joined: 19 Sep 2014 Posts: 912 Location: The Left Coast
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2020 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bud Brewster wrote: | If we look more closely at the faceted surfaces we can see that the facets go very well with the sharp-edged and angular nature of the ship's overall design. |
No, they don't. They're jarring and ugly.
I'll concede the possibility that the faceted look was intentional. But if that's the case, it makes things even worse!
Here's a photo of one of the original filming models. You can see that the front surface of the main hull is smoothly curved, not faceted.
The CGI work was originally deemed necessary to bring the effects up to a suitable quality for modern high-definition TV. That's all that should have been done. If I were doing the new effects, I would NEVER have the arrogance or presumption to redesign Matt Jefferies' classic Klingon battlecruiser!
Of course, that does bring up a point. If the relatively smooth model needed some details added to look believable on an HDTV screen, when does "adding details" cross the line into "redesigning" the thing?
Last edited by scotpens on Sat Aug 08, 2020 8:53 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|