Space backgrounds in the old SW movies
- Thread starter ToNIC
- Start date
Hi ToniC,
the classic way to do those of course was to film a punctured black background that was lit from behind. You can zoom in or pan across that background. If you shoot several layers and superimpose them over each other, e.g. a zoom in or push in-pull out, you get the effect of the stars moving. So, one layer with slower movement in the background, one with faster stars in the midground and one with the fastest in the foreground will simulate depth.
That technique is most obvious in the old "Star Trek" series. On a side note, if you compare the Star Trek and Star Wars look of starfields, you will notice a difference in regards of the star movement. That difference was IIRC just a creative decision and kept for consistency throughout the series.
I am pretty sure that there is a documentary about that somewhere, but alas, I can´t find it :\
I´ll have a look at the old starlog magazines on sfx and vfx, maybe there´s something in them. But then again I am sure that Karl/Phase Pistol will chime in, or MicDavis or any of the "oooold guard" who grew up with those FX
Maybe even Don Bies ?
Michael
the classic way to do those of course was to film a punctured black background that was lit from behind. You can zoom in or pan across that background. If you shoot several layers and superimpose them over each other, e.g. a zoom in or push in-pull out, you get the effect of the stars moving. So, one layer with slower movement in the background, one with faster stars in the midground and one with the fastest in the foreground will simulate depth.
That technique is most obvious in the old "Star Trek" series. On a side note, if you compare the Star Trek and Star Wars look of starfields, you will notice a difference in regards of the star movement. That difference was IIRC just a creative decision and kept for consistency throughout the series.
I am pretty sure that there is a documentary about that somewhere, but alas, I can´t find it :\
I´ll have a look at the old starlog magazines on sfx and vfx, maybe there´s something in them. But then again I am sure that Karl/Phase Pistol will chime in, or MicDavis or any of the "oooold guard" who grew up with those FX
Maybe even Don Bies ?Michael
Thank you for the info, Michael
Hi ToniC,
the classic way to do those of course was to film a punctured black background that was lit from behind. You can zoom in or pan across that background. If you shoot several layers and superimpose them over each other, e.g. a zoom in or push in-pull out, you get the effect of the stars moving. So, one layer with slower movement in the background, one with faster stars in the midground and one with the fastest in the foreground will simulate depth.
That technique is most obvious in the old "Star Trek" series. On a side note, if you compare the Star Trek and Star Wars look of starfields, you will notice a difference in regards of the star movement. That difference was IIRC just a creative decision and kept for consistency throughout the series.
I am pretty sure that there is a documentary about that somewhere, but alas, I can´t find it :\
I´ll have a look at the old starlog magazines on sfx and vfx, maybe there´s something in them. But then again I am sure that Karl/Phase Pistol will chime in, or MicDavis or any of the "oooold guard" who grew up with those FX
Michael
Ahh! Multiplane. :cool
Star Trek is infamous for always getting it WRONG.. how many times have you seen the Enterprise approaching a PLANET... while STARS are whipping by all around? Lots of planets equipped with warp drive I guess. :lol
You can also do star effects by splattering black paint against white, filming it, and reversing the image.
In Star Trek you get the feeling of moving THROUGH the stars, like raindrops passing you... or like looking out a car window when trees and telephone poles close to you are whipping by quickly, while the farmhouse in the distance passes much more slowly. Actually this is NOT very "realistic", since the ship would have to be traveling MUCH much faster than the stated warp speeds... up to THOUSANDS of times the speed of light, for the stars to be moving like that. Even at a few hundred times lightspeed, the stars would barely move. They are THAT far apart. :eek
(and I won't even get into the fact that faster-than-light speed isn't physically possible, or that at high sublight speeds you get all sorts of visual abberations, a warped view, with stars bunching up ahead and behind you, and the redshift-blueshift effect which is like the Doppler shift of passing police sirens :lol )
So the Star Trek "look" is not at all realistic.
The Star WARS look however is more akin to a distant WALL of stars, which wheels around as your point of view changes. The models were filmed with computer controlled camera rigs, so the movements were very deliberate and repeatable. The star "wall" could also be filmed with corresponding movements for a very convincing effect.
An early film with very nice star effects is "Forbidden Planet" (1955). There are only a few shots of the ship in the very beginning, but the star movement is very nice.
Karl
Star Trek is infamous for always getting it WRONG.. how many times have you seen the Enterprise approaching a PLANET... while STARS are whipping by all around? Lots of planets equipped with warp drive I guess. :lol
You can also do star effects by splattering black paint against white, filming it, and reversing the image.
In Star Trek you get the feeling of moving THROUGH the stars, like raindrops passing you... or like looking out a car window when trees and telephone poles close to you are whipping by quickly, while the farmhouse in the distance passes much more slowly. Actually this is NOT very "realistic", since the ship would have to be traveling MUCH much faster than the stated warp speeds... up to THOUSANDS of times the speed of light, for the stars to be moving like that. Even at a few hundred times lightspeed, the stars would barely move. They are THAT far apart. :eek
(and I won't even get into the fact that faster-than-light speed isn't physically possible, or that at high sublight speeds you get all sorts of visual abberations, a warped view, with stars bunching up ahead and behind you, and the redshift-blueshift effect which is like the Doppler shift of passing police sirens :lol )
So the Star Trek "look" is not at all realistic.
The Star WARS look however is more akin to a distant WALL of stars, which wheels around as your point of view changes. The models were filmed with computer controlled camera rigs, so the movements were very deliberate and repeatable. The star "wall" could also be filmed with corresponding movements for a very convincing effect.
An early film with very nice star effects is "Forbidden Planet" (1955). There are only a few shots of the ship in the very beginning, but the star movement is very nice.
Karl
"Harry" referred to a machine that did optical compositing I believe. The ships are shot against blue/green/orange screen, so that the background can be dropped out. Then the star background is composited in. When this went awry you got "matte lines" and "blue spill".
k
k
Similar threads
