Greetings!

Welcome to Scifi-Meshes.com! Click one of these buttons to join in on the fun.

TNG on Blu-Ray...coming soon

1356789

Posts

  • count23count23364 Posts: 783Member
    are you sure it's darker? Looks sorta fine to me, except that the nacelle is much more washed out by the key light, so the blue may be diffusing too quickly.

    I noticed that on a different shot tho, but i didnt wanna nitpick either. In the shot of the enterprise approaching the Q grid, even though the port nacelle is more obscured, the starboard nacelle is visibly darker.
    Formerly Nadesico.

    Current Projects:
    Ambassador Class
  • Chris2005Chris2005679 Posts: 3,097Member
    Could it possibly be the 2 foot model...

    606px-USS_Enterprise_2-foot_model_worked_on_by_Larry_Tan_and_Bill_George.jpg

    640px-USS_Enterprise-D_two-foot_model_set_up_for_shooting_at_Image_G_by_Gary_Hutzel.jpg

    Even then the lighting on the saucer rim doesn't match the original shot...
    AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
    Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
    1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
    32 GB RAM
    Windows 11 Pro
  • ComcoComco317 Posts: 1,281Administrator
    Chris2005 wrote: »
    Farpoint22.jpg

    Seems a shame they didn't just try to match the lighting from the original shot. The quality is obviously poorer in the original, but the lighting rig they've used in the redone shot looks...strange...

    I was going to say that it was "obviously CG", but if you throw them both into photoshop and line them up - it's a very...odd shot...The angle is matched almost to perfection and the lit windows line up perfectly, which makes me think "yep - definitely the same model and shame shot, just rescanned and re-composited. But then, if you take a close look at the deflector area - specifically at the top where it meets the neck, it changes shape quite a bit. And then at the lighting - especially the key light on the bottom engineering section, and I just can't figure out what they've done to reconstruct the shot.

    IRML - I thought the same as you, but if you throw them into photoshop and swing back and forth, you'll notice that the window count on the neck looks pretty well the same if you squint past all the blurry pixels. I think it's actually like that on whatever model they used.

    The only thing I can come up with for at least some of the discrepancies is that they've digitally changed the deflector area to hide an "accurate one". The funny thing is, to me at least, it is the new deflector that looks odd - not the new one. :)

    deflector.jpg

    (Images being auto-resized - right click and view in new tab to see them at correct, enlarged size).

    Note - pretty well all of the rest of the differences in shape you are perceiving between the two shots are a result of drastically different lighting rigs. The model itself, when laying the images over each other, does look to be the same shame apart from the deflector.
  • ComcoComco317 Posts: 1,281Administrator
    BTW, I pulled out my copy of "The Making of Deep Space Nine", published in 1994 to do some reading up on how they used to film the various passes that make up a final, composite shot of, say, the Enterprise. I came across this little gem -
    “In the planning stages of The Next Generation, an important decision was made that still affects Deep Space Nine today. The choice Gene Roddenberry and the production team faced was whether to do the visual effects for the new series using film techniques or on video. Video effects were faster and less costly, but only worked on the television screen. Because of video’s low resolution at the time, there would be no final negative print from which film versions of The Next Generation could be edited together for theatrical release in other countries.

    Ultimately, the decision was made to go to video, and Deep Space Nine continues that process today. Thus, although the resolution of the visual effects is much higher today than was possible in 1987, there are no final film prints of any episode of either series, and the episodes cannot be rescanned at the higher resolution necessary for high-definition television broadcast in the future.

    Theoretically, it would be possible to return to the original raw film and redo all the visual effects at higher resolution, but such a step would be the equivalent of putting the show through the complete postproduction process again. It will be much less expensive to wait for enhancement technology to be developed so the final video versions of Deep Space Nine episodes can be reprocessed rather than being remade.”

    Not withstanding the fact that Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens (writers of the book) are a little too optimistic on the future ability of computers to recreate image data that does not exist, it is very cool to see that, although - disapointingly - the decision was made to use video technology in the creation of the shows effects, they fully considered and had the forethought to appreciate that this would limit their ability to rescan into higher resolutions than TV one day.

    At the end of the day, when you consider that DS9 and TNG may never have been made or lasted more than a season if they had tried to do them on film, they made the right decision. The fact they're going back and, in the words of the quote above, "putting the show through the complete postproduction process again" pretty sweet. :)
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1804504 Posts: 11,157Member
    They probably didn't have the saucer windows lit because they weren't on the original. Remember, they're supposed to be going for total recreation (except the energy beam.)
    Chris2005 wrote: »
    The actually put the energy beam in the correct spot... :p

    Not really. It's an energy transfer, not a phaser blast. Nothing says energy can't be transferred from the spot it was on the original episode. Also, the only type of energy we usually see coming out of a phaser array is the destructive kind. To me, it looks a bit weird.
  • Chris2005Chris2005679 Posts: 3,097Member
    They probably didn't have the saucer windows lit because they weren't on the original. Remember, they're supposed to be going for total recreation (except the energy beam.)

    Not really. It's an energy transfer, not a phaser blast. Nothing says energy can't be transferred from the spot it was on the original episode. Also, the only type of energy we usually see coming out of a phaser array is the destructive kind. To me, it looks a bit weird.

    Even then, we'd still be able to see the unlit windows...

    Well, Picard did say "Lieutenant Yar, rig main phaser banks to deliver an energy beam."
    AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
    Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
    1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
    32 GB RAM
    Windows 11 Pro
  • MadKoiFishMadKoiFish9864 Posts: 5,335Member
    Deflector seems the same, just less chroma blur from video post. All of the hard elements exist just dark there so some if it appears changed. As for those rim windows I dunno what the hell, too much DNR?! Too noisy/blury at that edge so they redrew it and forgot to restore them? From reading up on the films on blu-ray there is a lot of focus issues from scene to scene. So this could be the same, not enough focus, some DOF creeping in on the rim etc. So they might have had to go in and hand work a lot of stuff. As for the shot itself The "tuning" on the lighting I think is a bit much.

    Windows, often you can see int eh originals the window lights will not match up with the ship, this I think is where this multi window look is coming from, the lit windows are comped in as a separate pass and back then it was often not an exact science. Seen this already on a few other cuts at trek movie or youtube, the windows chase the ship by about 2 to 5 frames.

    Reality of it all though anything has got to be better than the dvds.
    Each day we draw closer to the end.
  • Chris2005Chris2005679 Posts: 3,097Member
    MadKoiFish wrote: »
    Windows, often you can see int eh originals the window lights will not match up with the ship, this I think is where this multi window look is coming from, the lit windows are comped in as a separate pass and back then it was often not an exact science. Seen this already on a few other cuts at trek movie or youtube, the windows chase the ship by about 2 to 5 frames.

    I notice that too... they didn't use motion control?
    AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
    Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
    1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
    32 GB RAM
    Windows 11 Pro
  • homerpalooza67homerpalooza67228 Posts: 1,892Member
    Chris2005 wrote: »
    I notice that too... they didn't use motion control?

    they did. all the passes were shot with a motion-controlled camera pointing at a steady model. Comping it back in optically, especially on the tv-show budget, did not allow for precision fine-tuning i guess. And considering several of the camera shots were recycled throughout the series run - i think the Warp Jump pass was a 6-ft/2-ft comp, for example - can easily lead to one unnoticeable error in one episode becoming very noticeable when reused in every other episode for seven years.
  • MadKoiFishMadKoiFish9864 Posts: 5,335Member
    They did on the cams but your talking about a analogue method. I do not know what kind of tolerances they had back then either, but I am sure it was not an exact thing like it is with cg or later digitally controlled rigs.

    Also keep in mind back then a tv produced about 320X240 LPI if that. It was not until much later did we even have tvs that could muster a proper visible 480 vertical. So likely none of this was viewable back then.
    Each day we draw closer to the end.
  • Chris2005Chris2005679 Posts: 3,097Member
    Woo! TrekCore released some more screen caps...
    Farpoint10a.jpg
    Farpoint10b.jpg
    Farpoint10c.jpg
    Farpoint10d.jpg
    Farpoint10e.jpg
    AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
    Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
    1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
    32 GB RAM
    Windows 11 Pro
  • MadKoiFishMadKoiFish9864 Posts: 5,335Member
    Man that seems like an awful lot of filtering. And the warp glows. . . ouch, though I think someone complained about those already. But i have to say I have to see it moving. Staring at still images I'd just end up nitpicking it apart. When if in motion it probably wouldn't matter.

    http://tng.trekcore.com/bluray/exclusive_images/Farpoint/Farpoint10e.jpg
    oddly spoiler tag seems to have broke the img tags.

    http://tng.trekcore.com/bluray/

    Oh yeah that saucer detail loss is definitely due to over filtering, some sort of heavy bloom filters are being used, you can see it in the other images from that site, good example is the excelsior class in orbit with the D.
    Each day we draw closer to the end.
  • Chris2005Chris2005679 Posts: 3,097Member
    MadKoiFish wrote: »
    Man that seems like an awful lot of filtering. And the warp glows. . . ouch, though I think someone complained about those already. But i have to say I have to see it moving. Staring at still images I'd just end up nitpicking it apart. When if in motion it probably wouldn't matter.

    http://tng.trekcore.com/bluray/

    Oh yeah that saucer detail loss is definitely due to over filtering, some sort of heavy bloom filters are being used, you can see it in the other images from that site, good example is the excelsior class in orbit with the D.

    Yea, I want to see some small clips... images usually make it hard for a true first impression... except that they're crisper, etc.
    MadKoiFish wrote: »
    http://tng.trekcore.com/bluray/exclusive_images/Farpoint/Farpoint10e.jpg
    oddly spoiler tag seems to have broke the img tags.

    Shows up fine for me...

    One thing I never did understand is why in some shots of the 6 foot model, the warp nacelles blue glow goes all the way back:

    Farpoint25.jpg

    ... but in other shots, like here:

    Farpoint14.jpg

    The rear end is not lit blue...

    This also doesn't appear to be the same shot...

    TNG SD:
    farpoint1_113.jpg

    Generations:
    generationshd1421.jpg

    New:
    Farpoint10c.jpg
    AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
    Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
    1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
    32 GB RAM
    Windows 11 Pro
  • NanoGatorNanoGator1 Posts: 0Member
    I think the rear doesn't appear to line up because the plastic the used in there is curved, meaning it's thicker as it bends around, the and light's not getting through.
  • IRMLIRML253 Posts: 1,993Member
    it's actually to do with the copper ribs that are running around the luminous part, they're quite thick and they block the light when it's from a shallow angle

    you've also got to remember the surface is translucent, and lit from a tube inside, so it will be at its brightest in a line of sight between the camera and the tube
  • IRMLIRML253 Posts: 1,993Member
    http://tng.trekcore.com/bluray/exclusive_images/Farpoint/Farpoint10e.jpg

    this highlights my point about the bloom, looks fine on a dark background (far nacelle) but on a light background (near nacelle) it look awful, bloom does not darken things, that should be obvious
  • NanoGatorNanoGator1 Posts: 0Member
    That's exactly why I've always wondered why somebody would want a lens-flare-to-alpha plugin. The way renderers do it is actually correct, you just have to take two steps to composite instead of one.
  • IRMLIRML253 Posts: 1,993Member
    NanoGator wrote: »
    That's exactly why I've always wondered why somebody would want a lens-flare-to-alpha plugin.
    haha I used to wonder about that

    that's what this bloom looks like - a solid colour with a bloom shaped alpha, rather than the way it should be done

    I'm also seeing that BSG hallmark of lets add some bloom to everything and soften things up, which looks a bit nasty to me, I hope there's not much of that
  • count23count23364 Posts: 783Member
    Please tell me the "new" seperation shot is only a previsual and not the final, it looks so CG, there's improper shading an everything (and it looks like it's missing textures!)
    Formerly Nadesico.

    Current Projects:
    Ambassador Class
  • NanoGatorNanoGator1 Posts: 0Member
    Oh is that new one CG? It looks like the same window lights aren't on....
  • Chris2005Chris2005679 Posts: 3,097Member
    Nadesico wrote: »
    Please tell me the "new" seperation shot is only a previsual and not the final, it looks so CG, there's improper shading an everything (and it looks like it's missing textures!)

    The only angle that appears to be CG in the saucer separation sequence, is the shot from below the saucer...
    AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
    Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
    1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
    32 GB RAM
    Windows 11 Pro
  • IRMLIRML253 Posts: 1,993Member
    yeah I think cg on that one too, though for me it's done pretty well

    I don't know why they would need to change it though, they obviously have that in HD from generations
  • homerpalooza67homerpalooza67228 Posts: 1,892Member
    that one actually looks plastic to me. its definitely a cool sequence
  • Chris2005Chris2005679 Posts: 3,097Member
    that one actually looks plastic to me. its definitely a cool sequence

    Yea, but the windows aren't lit correctly, nor do they contain the solid lit color of the previous uses...
    AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
    Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
    1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
    32 GB RAM
    Windows 11 Pro
  • count23count23364 Posts: 783Member
    Chris2005 wrote: »
    The only angle that appears to be CG in the saucer separation sequence, is the shot from below the saucer...

    Yea, my bad, that was the angle i was referring to. It just looks like early-DS9 level CG, but i looked at hte expanded image on trekmovie and it wasn't as bad as i thought. Stupid compression.
    Formerly Nadesico.

    Current Projects:
    Ambassador Class
  • count23count23364 Posts: 783Member
    IRML wrote: »
    yeah I think cg on that one too, though for me it's done pretty well

    I don't know why they would need to change it though, they obviously have that in HD from generations

    I honestly thought that they'd stick to the "film master upstepping" process. They did for the rest of the scene, maybe that clip went missing (especially if it was reused in generations... tho i dont think it was, was it?)
    Formerly Nadesico.

    Current Projects:
    Ambassador Class
  • ComcoComco317 Posts: 1,281Administrator
    That middle shot is from Generations. My understanding is that they went back to the original ILM film used for that sequence in the TNG pilot and rescanned it. We were talking about this in a thread somewhere not long ago here on SFM. :)

    I agree though - the very fact it was rescanned for Generations may have something to do with the fact that either the film wasn't able to be located or that for some reason, part of the process of preparing the film for rescan for Generations was destructive and rendered the film unusable.
  • Chris2005Chris2005679 Posts: 3,097Member

    Holy crap! I can't wait for Season 1, much less the sampler due out this coming Tuesday!

    Sound is slightly off sync by about 0.2 seconds, so I'll fix that and upload a corrected one...
    AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
    Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
    1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
    32 GB RAM
    Windows 11 Pro
  • IRMLIRML253 Posts: 1,993Member
    why not just link the original
  • Chris2005Chris2005679 Posts: 3,097Member
    IRML wrote: »
    why not just link the original

    The original is from YouTube... it wasn't downloaded from another website... I just downloaded the video from YouTube and re-uploaded it... the original upload is off sync a little too...
    AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
    Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
    1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
    32 GB RAM
    Windows 11 Pro
Sign In or Register to comment.