Jump to content


Photo

A question on Star Trek TMP


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#21 Timothy Fransky

Timothy Fransky
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Other
  • Belleville, Ontario, Canada

Posted 04 October 2018 - 11:09 AM

The model doesn't, much. The camera does.

 

I'm aware.


  • 0

#22 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 20313 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 04 October 2018 - 04:14 PM

Spaceships don’t need to roll and bank in zero-G...

But forgetting that for a moment, you usually convey size in a transportation vehicle miniature by the sort of moves it makes, and the Enterprise is the size of an aircraft carrier, so you risk making it feel smaller if it moves too nimbly.

What a CGI model does allow is for the virtual camera to fly around the “big” spaceship with greater freedom, from near to far.
  • 0

#23 Timothy Fransky

Timothy Fransky
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Other
  • Belleville, Ontario, Canada

Posted 04 October 2018 - 07:16 PM

Spaceships dont need to roll and bank in zero-G...

But forgetting that for a moment, you usually convey size in a transportation vehicle miniature by the sort of moves it makes, and the Enterprise is the size of an aircraft carrier, so you risk making it feel smaller if it moves too nimbly.

What a CGI model does allow is for the virtual camera to fly around the big spaceship with greater freedom, from near to far.


I entirely agree. I would add that the CGI model is able to have a lot more moving parts, which should make it much richer character. But if they keep destroying her every movie, she can't really develop as a character. Now I'm definitely rabbit-trailing.
  • 0

#24 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 20313 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 04 October 2018 - 08:13 PM

The first decade though of CGI spaceships, there was such a high cost to detailing the digital model at a high resolution, that CGI spaceships either tended to lack texture or they avoided getting too close to them or they did everything at a low resolution.  The physical model of the Enterprise E in "First Contact" looked better than the digital version in "Insurrection".


  • 0

#25 Timothy Fransky

Timothy Fransky
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Other
  • Belleville, Ontario, Canada

Posted 04 October 2018 - 09:38 PM

Oh yeah, the most convincing CGI starship thus far has been the USS Kelvin from Star Trek 09. The scale and detail of that model were really excellent. I also loved Enterprise in Star Trek Beyond. That's the best she's looked since TMP. I hate that they destroyed her. She moved in a similar way to the Refit Enterprise as well. So much sci-fi model work (CGI or practical) lately gives me motion sickness. It's important to see the model clearly if the audience is to believe it.
  • 0

#26 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 12320 posts
  • Other

Posted 05 October 2018 - 04:07 AM

The first decade though of CGI spaceships, there was such a high cost to detailing the digital model at a high resolution, that CGI spaceships either tended to lack texture or they avoided getting too close to them or they did everything at a low resolution.  The physical model of the Enterprise E in "First Contact" looked better than the digital version in "Insurrection".

 

I'm not sure how much of that was really a limitation of the technology, and how much a failure of technique. Spaceships are, as far as anything's easy in CGI, easy, especially in the context of a major motion picture. I think the problems with the way Insurrection's effects look have much more to do with creative decision making. Particularly, there's way too much fill light, which is incorrect for space, and a huge proportion of shots have purplish nebulae in the background. The whole thing lacks contrast and punch. Early effects artists on Star Trek films understood the need for space to be black and the lighting consequences of that, which is why early ships tend to have lots of spotlights aiming at themselves.

 

The motion sickness issue was mentioned in the context of the (awful) film Stealth, which used CG to represent atmospheric fighter jets. I'm sure I saw a very cautiously-worded interview somewhere to the effect that there was a directorial desire to have the camera flying madly around, which of course is unrestricted with CG, to the point where the entire thing was a mess of motion blur.

 

I was recently asked how I'd do fighter jet effects for a TV show, given the high standard of current TV shows, and my first reaction was to make models - large models, of course, perhaps sixth scale. A 1/6 MiG-29 would be about ten feet long. Some shots in Top Gun were done with miniatures often simply being thrown from a cherrypicker and caught in a net.

 

Radio-controlled models might be useful, but I suspect much of it could be done with static miniatures on a clifftop. The models would be expensive, but for anything not involving explosions you could more or less just shoot them with the second unit and end up much less restricted in the number and variety of shots. CG could be used where necessary to remove supports and add things like wingtip vortices, missiles coming off rails, and so on. In my view this sort of approach has historically led to much more convincing work.

 

P


  • 0

#27 KH Martin

KH Martin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 263 posts
  • Other
  • Portland, Oregon

Posted 05 October 2018 - 08:34 AM

The first decade though of CGI spaceships, there was such a high cost to detailing the digital model at a high resolution, that CGI spaceships either tended to lack texture or they avoided getting too close to them or they did everything at a low resolution.  The physical model of the Enterprise E in "First Contact" looked better than the digital version in "Insurrection".

It's a real shame that the E-E miniature from FC never saw any further duty, except for being scanned. Outside of the Phoenix and the old Klingon Bird of Prey, the E-E is the only Trek miniature I've seen in person, on stage actually, when they were shooting the reveal of it coming out of a nebula. They had set photographs mounted on slides inside the windows, and it all really looked gorgeous. There are a few shots of a CG E-E in FC, when the ship goes to warp (which looks pretty nice as I recall) and a less successful shot of it coming out of the time warp, but FC is the last time the filmmakers remained predominantly miniature-oriented (though several Starfleet vessels in the early Borg battle are CG.)

 

DD did a few good CG shots of the E-E in NEMESIS, but most of that stuff only looked marginally better than the INS digital work to my eye. But DD was smart enough to go physical for the ramming scene.


  • 0

#28 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1763 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 05 October 2018 - 10:43 AM

So how did it turn out Adrian?


  • 0

#29 Timothy Fransky

Timothy Fransky
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Other
  • Belleville, Ontario, Canada

Posted 05 October 2018 - 11:22 AM

 

I'm not sure how much of that was really a limitation of the technology, and how much a failure of technique. Spaceships are, as far as anything's easy in CGI, easy, especially in the context of a major motion picture. I think the problems with the way Insurrection's effects look have much more to do with creative decision making. Particularly, there's way too much fill light, which is incorrect for space, and a huge proportion of shots have purplish nebulae in the background. The whole thing lacks contrast and punch. Early effects artists on Star Trek films understood the need for space to be black and the lighting consequences of that, which is why early ships tend to have lots of spotlights aiming at themselves.

 

The motion sickness issue was mentioned in the context of the (awful) film Stealth, which used CG to represent atmospheric fighter jets. I'm sure I saw a very cautiously-worded interview somewhere to the effect that there was a directorial desire to have the camera flying madly around, which of course is unrestricted with CG, to the point where the entire thing was a mess of motion blur.

 

I was recently asked how I'd do fighter jet effects for a TV show, given the high standard of current TV shows, and my first reaction was to make models - large models, of course, perhaps sixth scale. A 1/6 MiG-29 would be about ten feet long. Some shots in Top Gun were done with miniatures often simply being thrown from a cherrypicker and caught in a net.

 

Radio-controlled models might be useful, but I suspect much of it could be done with static miniatures on a clifftop. The models would be expensive, but for anything not involving explosions you could more or less just shoot them with the second unit and end up much less restricted in the number and variety of shots. CG could be used where necessary to remove supports and add things like wingtip vortices, missiles coming off rails, and so on. In my view this sort of approach has historically led to much more convincing work.

 

P

 

Yeah, I don't understand the need make the camera whizz around a model in any context. It's unpleasantly disorienting. If you're going to do that to an audience, you'd better have a good reason. I suspect the main reason for doing it is directors' vanity. They want to be remembered for doing something "cool" with the camera. If it doesn't help tell the story, it's a distraction.

Besides which, I don't think that's anything like what a fighter pilot would experience in a dogfight in standard gravity, let alone zero gravity. There's a Discovery tv series from a few years back that documented RCAF 410 Squadron in Cold Lake, AB. They followed a full training course for a small class of fighter trainees. The camera work in the CF-18s was impressive. It was disorienting to be sure, but after awhile, you started to think in 360 degrees. This would be very instructive to any director or dp wanting to shoot flight in space or otherwise.


  • 0

#30 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1229 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 05 October 2018 - 12:20 PM

I hated the CGI space battle camerawork in the Battlestar Galactica remake, all those shaky zoom-in shots and rack focusing. Then they copied that in STAR TREK NEW VOYAGES (which has awful cinematography throughout, especially compared to STAR TREK CONTINUES) and it was a turn-off.


Edited by Samuel Berger, 05 October 2018 - 12:21 PM.

  • 0


Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

Wooden Camera

The Slider

Visual Products

Glidecam

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

The Slider

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

rebotnix Technologies

Wooden Camera

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

Visual Products

CineTape

CineLab