11 foot model vs. CGI model

trekman1017

trekman1017

Well-Known Member
What are the differences between the 11 foot USS Enterprise and the CGI enterprise used in the remastered shots?
 
Far better realizm and a COOL factor!

You can tell when your looking at a model.
CGI just comes across flat and univiting.

To me anyways.

I use Star Trek Generations as an example.

First group of shots of the Enterprise B, come acrosss
great looking on screen, When they get to the ribbon, you can tell
the ship is now CGI. Just not the same look and feel to the scenes.
 
I think that the directs cut star trek motion picture is the first time I truly couldn't tell the difference between model work and CGI. ILM or whoever it was, did an amazing job matching the CGI work to the original models effects.
 
STTMP didn't use an 11' model. I think the cg shots in TMP are clear as a bell. The cg refit isn't even considered accurate.

There are huge differences between the models, I'll bet the shapes don't even match(they don't care, as long as it looks close, that's good enough).
They added a lot to the CG model, which the original didn't have. Such as, no Aztecing, and only panels are on top of the saucer. They change the window lighting in the CG ship.

Personally I think the use of real models will always be superior to the cg models. Mainly because cg come across as very sterile(everything is under control). Something real will come across as such, I have yet to see something cg match the special effects work of 2001.

But we can argue over it all day, it won't make any difference to how movies are being made today. Besides to me the shots of the E are only meant to enhance the story. I consider remaking such things typical of Hollywood these days. Redoing the special effects is purely a marketing ploy meant to separate you from your money.
 
^ I know that that is false, the CGI enterprise is structurally the same as the 11 foot, my question was pertaining to things like the aztecking and panel lines.
 
Are you asking about the remastered TOS episodes? The CG model has aztecing, and a bluer color. It was rendered at HD resolution, but the quality was very poor. It looked like a cartoon, sometimes looking like it was colored with a crayon. Also the CG shots have a very clean video look to them, they don't fit the live action at all. It's like the show cuts from live action to a cartoon and back again.

I'm so glad the Blu-rays give the option to see the original shots.

Same deal with TMP, the CG ship doesn't match the model.
 
Atemylunch said:
STTMP didn't use an 11' model. I think the cg shots in TMP are clear as a bell. The cg refit isn't even considered accurate.

There are huge differences between the models, I'll bet the shapes don't even match(they don't care, as long as it looks close, that's good enough).
They added a lot to the CG model, which the original didn't have. Such as, no Aztecing, and only panels are on top of the saucer. They change the window lighting in the CG ship.

Personally I think the use of real models will always be superior to the cg models. Mainly because cg come across as very sterile(everything is under control). Something real will come across as such, I have yet to see something cg match the special effects work of 2001.

But we can argue over it all day, it won't make any difference to how movies are being made today. Besides to me the shots of the E are only meant to enhance the story. I consider remaking such things typical of Hollywood these days. Redoing the special effects is purely a marketing ploy meant to separate you from your money.
Click to expand...


Works for me! Here, here.

Steve
 
Cg is a useful tool to make "impossible shots" possible.Its good in small doeses, a few minutes here and there,but films that utilize CG non-stop tend to suffer.This is not always true accross the board, but many times it is.Look at the Transformer films...virtually CG from start to finish.Aside from its poorly written scripts and inferior acting, staring at talking/wise cracking CG robots for 2 1/2 hours wears thin. As for the Star Trek universe and the new CG shots added to STTMP(for what it was) it worked as it was in small/quick scenes. CG will never equate to the depth or realisim a filming miniature can provide,and the re-fit Enterprise for STTMP is an excellent example.I don't care for films that are drowned in CG.It takes on a fake, generic look and feel and as hard as they try to convince "the viewer" of scope,mass,scale the worse it gets.Some hybrid FX shots that combine scaled models and CG offer a bit more to work with.Of course much of that depends on the talent of the CG &FX technicians as well as the right software(it can make or break a film) and of course,having a monster budget helps a great deal too. Peter Jackson's King Kong combined both techniques and it yielded *good* results.Not always flawless, but it also didn't hinder the film and for the most part,I thought it was pretty solid.Of course these are my opinions and observations,others might feel differently.
 
I personally think that the best thing they could have done for the remastered episodes would have been to attempt to locate the original effects film elements (bluescreen stage elements of the Enterprise, star backgrounds, planets and effects animation), scan them in, clean them up, and then digitally recomposite them at 4k. That way, we would have gotten all of the benefit of a first-generation composite with clean mattes and little grain or contrast build-up, while using all original 1960's material.

The CGI shots rarely came close to matching model shots. In fact, I counted only three shots total that were even remotely convincing (I'm being generous). They should have at least hired an art director to oversee the lighting and compositing of those CGI shots so that they would have approached the look of the original stage model, because without it, you end up with a cartoonish, video game look - which is exactly what we got.


E
 
i realize that this is my own editorial and that a model forum is probably the WRONG place to defend CGI.....but it took 75 years of cinematic history for models, matte paintings and puppets to get to the believable quality of Star wars. Whereas, CGI is still in it's infancy.

Comparing to the phantom menace to RDM's Battlestar galactica shows QUITE a leap in quality...
 
The CG work for the Director's Cut of TMP was done at Foundation Imaging. The original 8 foot model of the the TMP Enterprise was sent to FI's studio and used as reference for building the CG model. The CG model did use azteking on both the upper and lower surfaces of the saucer.
 
ok, Trekman, then I pose a question, why is the pylon interfacing the nacelle at the wrong spot just like the Ertl, they had to have used it for reference at the very least which is what I was saying. Now from what I know, this is not a fan produced TMP model, but in fact the model in question, just lousy rendering capability in cad software... all I'm going to say on the origins of this model though.
Remember fellow RPF'r, It is possible that there's always someone out there that has more info than you think, not a great idea to cast stones, just sayin:cool

Cheers,
Will
 
Last edited:
Firefoxm31, would you elaborate on the pylon/nacelle error you mentioned? I don't claim to be an expert on the Enterprise and I'm not sure what you're referring to.
 
I am also talking about the tmp special edition remake using the cgi enterprise Trekman. I'm no expert either but have studied the miniature a bit. I'm taking about the pylon interfacing the nacelle too low on the hump detail on the Ertl and CGI model as opposed to the filming miniature that has it interfacing the hump detail and nacelle main fuselage exact center, this lowers the height of the nacelle considerably. look at INTERFACE003 at the intersection as well as this Christies pic, hope this shows it ok

Will
 
Firefoxm31 said:
I am also talking about the tmp special edition remake using the cgi enterprise Trekman.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to cast any stones, but why are you talking about TMP models in a thread about the TOS models? Trekman asked about the TOS models and you started in on the TMP models (without even noting that you were talking about the TMP models)... so he wasn't casting stones either. :confused



Back on topic... there were two CGI models made. The first was quite accurate but took a long time to render. The second, while nice, is missing all sorts of details (including a bunch of windows). :eek

The best thing to do is to compare screen shots (like from TrekCore) with images of the 11 foot model. Most of the difference become noticeable when doing that type of comparison. :thumbsup

And Trekman, you were absolutely right... no AMT/ERTL models were used in making the CGI models you asked about in this thread.
 
dose any one have a map of the aztec pattern that I can use to help in painting a polar lights model to look like the remastered ship?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jennigirl
Styrofoam model ideas...
Replies
7
Views
318
JPH
JPH
sparkmatter
Advice on model kits to build with my dad?
2
Replies
23
Views
758
sparkmatter
sparkmatter
CosmicQuest
Motorizing model part - pick your brains
Replies
6
Views
473
CosmicQuest
CosmicQuest
chazzychaz
Maschinen Krieger Lunadiver stingray concept model.
Replies
5
Views
502
chazzychaz
chazzychaz
Keith
K7 Bluebird 1/43 scale model
2 3
Replies
50
Views
2,080
Keith
Keith
Back
Top