Star Trek the Motion Picture Filming Question

[IndyFanChuck]

Star Trek Experts,



Tonight the SyFy Channel is playing Star Trek The Motion Picture is on. I have a question about how they filmed something and I was hoping the members here could clarify for me.

With a shot of the Enterprise like this:

How exactly was a shot of the studio scale model done? I'm asking specifically about how this was shot on Star Trek the Motion Picture, not what they did on other movies, just TMP.



Secondly, on a shot this like:

It just looks to me like a close-up shot of a model with a light on it. I'm assuming it's more complicated than that, but am I wrong? How was this shot achieved.

I'm fascinated because I WANT to believe that with the technology we have today, we can recreate this kind of shot with a big enough model and a good enough camera AT HOME. Yes, I'm probably wrong and crazy, but you gotta have dreams. :lol

Can anyone shed a little light on how they filmed the Enterprise model for me? AND, what about still shot where the ship isn't moving. Is it that complicated a shot?




Thanks for letting me ask, I look forward to learning about the filming of the studio scale Enterprise model. :thumbsup

 

[DarkHelmet]

Believe it or not, they used motion control, just like the used on SW.

Pretty simple in today's technology. Just attach the models to rigs against a blue background, use the motion control, shoot your shots, then do your matte work.

The hardest part would be creating the mattes.

With todays digital cameras, especially the SLR's, it would be pretty simple to do at home minus the motion control.

 

[robn1]

Yep, just motion control. The TMP effects done by Doug Trumbul were shot in 65mm. A wide angle lens is usually used to make the models appear larger than they are, this can distort the image somewhat like the first shot you posted showing an elongated saucer.


Extreme closeups used a "snorkel" lens, kind of like a periscope. This makes it possible to get the lens close to the model without the bulk of the camera in the way. This was used for your second shot, the fly-by out of space dock. The model support can be seen as it passes in front of the dock structure here:



An array of small dental mirrors was set up under the ship to create all the little spot lights on the hull. Not the ship's own lights, but the space dock spot lights.

 

[CTF]

With todays digital cameras, especially the SLR's, it would be pretty simple to do at home minus the motion control.

Huh?

Sorry, but moco is still used, even with DSLRs... trust me.

 

[DarkHelmet]

Huh?

Sorry, but moco is still used, even with DSLRs... trust me.

I know, but not many home motion control rigs.

 

[Wes R]

I watched it the other day on scifi and i was amazed how well the effects still stand up. The same with alot of the older scifi movies, models always look better than CGI unless you do it right. I think the eye can still tell CG stuff is fake.

 

[Ozymandius]

CG today has gotten really good, especially at animating mechanical forms. The bigger problem I think is that we've lost a lot of the design elements. CG ships, even when perfectly photorealistic still tend to look fake because the designs don't make sense. Lots of weird shapes and long, spindly stuff thrown in for decoration that no model builder would ever do.

A good example would be the Star Trek reboot fim. The villain's ship is covered with these bristling spines, that while look sinister, are completley nonsensical. And the Enterprise itself is too swoopy and clean. There's no real detail to it, nothing that says real people buit it. Whereas a practical model looks like it could actually be buit, because it was actually built.

The pencil artists and designers can draw any kind of crazy thing they want, but it's the model builders that translate the design to 3 dimensions that make it look real and believable. Lose them, lose the believability.

Oz

 

[micdavis]

But remember PLENTY of movies abused visual effects just as effectively as CGI is being abused now.

It's just a tool. Don't damn the tool, damn the artist, or more than likely the penny pinching studio exec, who just thinks,"do it in the computer".

 

[exoray]

But remember PLENTY of movies abused visual effects just as effectively as CGI is being abused now.

It's just a tool. Don't damn the tool, damn the artist, or more than likely the penny pinching studio exec, who just thinks,"do it in the computer".

Well said, nothing wrong with CGI itself, it the cheap poor artistic, low budget abuse of it that sucks...

 

[Commander Max]

But remember PLENTY of movies abused visual effects just as effectively as CGI is being abused now.

It's just a tool. Don't damn the tool, damn the artist, or more than likely the penny pinching studio exec, who just thinks,"do it in the computer".

Tools are only as good as the people using them.

It seems to me these CG films take a lot more personal, than in the days of the miniatures.

 

[Jet Beetle]

Wait - so even TMP isn't REAL? I started doubting next gen but thought for sure TOS - Undiscovered Country was on the up and up.

 

[robn1]

Models are real, CGI is fake.

 

[YenChih Lin]

There's noting better than using a physical model. I would perferred it 100x times over a CGI ship.

 

[The Prop Stop]

and alot of the shots in TMP are reused in "The Wrath of Khan".

The cinefex on this is excellent...expensive though. The dvd should have some stuff about models in it too.

 

[Kennyd]

Whoops, double post.

 

[Kennyd]

There's noting better than using a physical model. I would perferred it 100x times over a CGI ship.

Couldn't agree more.

The cinefex on this is excellent...expensive though. The dvd should have some stuff about models in it too.

There are a few scenes of the model in the Directors cut version.
Or am I thinking of the video on YouTube ???? Been a while since I've seen it.

 

[robn1]

There are a few scenes of the model in the Directors cut version.

The CGI Enterprise was only used in shots that needed other changes made, like the V'ger interiors which were enhanced. Most scenes of the ship are the original model shots.

Yes, the Cinefex article was great, the first issue. I have it The only interview Trumbull gave on this film.

 

[Kennyd]

The CGI Enterprise was only used in shots that needed other changes made, like the V'ger interiors which were enhanced. Most scenes of the ship are the original model shots.

Yes, the Cinefex article was great, the first issue. I have it The only interview Trumbull gave on this film.

I know, overall it was a fine job My fav sci-fi film.

 

[Jedi2016]

CG today has gotten really good, especially at animating mechanical forms. The bigger problem I think is that we've lost a lot of the design elements. CG ships, even when perfectly photorealistic still tend to look fake because the designs don't make sense. Lots of weird shapes and long, spindly stuff thrown in for decoration that no model builder would ever do.

A good example would be the Star Trek reboot fim. The villain's ship is covered with these bristling spines, that while look sinister, are completley nonsensical. And the Enterprise itself is too swoopy and clean. There's no real detail to it, nothing that says real people buit it. Whereas a practical model looks like it could actually be buit, because it was actually built.

The pencil artists and designers can draw any kind of crazy thing they want, but it's the model builders that translate the design to 3 dimensions that make it look real and believable. Lose them, lose the believability.

Oz

That's a good point, Oz. (And this is coming from someone who does CG VFX).

One of the main "telltales" for me when watching a film, when I know that something is CGI, is not necessarily how the thing looks, but when I know for a fact that CGI was the only way to actually pull it off, that a particular shot simply can't be done practically.

I do agree that in most cases, practical looks better. Unless they totally screw up the camera work. I'm looking at you, Crystal Skull, and your "Lookit the teeny model" graveyard set.

 

[SSgt Burton]

models always look better than CGI unless you do it right. I think the eye can still tell CG stuff is fake.

I get what you are saying and agree for the most part...

But...


Rent "Zodiac" (Jake Gyllenhaal, Robert Downey Jr.) and try to pick out the CGI parts.

Yes there was CGI in that film. A lot more than you would expect.


Kevin