Jump to content
Adrian Sierkowski

A question on Star Trek TMP

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have a look at the opening sequence of the 1973 Salkind production of "The Three Musketeers", you'll see a similar effect as Dartangian duels his fathers.

 

*EDIT* I couldn't find a YT clip of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Ritter Battery



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    Paralinx LLC



    Tai Audio



    Abel Cine



    Serious Gear



    Just Cinema Gear



    FJS International



    Rig Wheels Passport



    Metropolis Post



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    Wooden Camera



    Glidecam



    CineLab



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    G-Force Grips



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Visual Products


×
×
  • Create New...