Flare Sci-fi Forums
Flare Sci-Fi Forums Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Flare Sci-Fi Forums » Star Trek » Starships & Technology » Aeroshuttle images (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Aeroshuttle images
Fabrux
Epic Member
Member # 71

- posted      Profile for Fabrux     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
- - -

--------------------
I haul cardboard and cardboard accessories
Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
Nim
The Aardvark asked for a dagger
Member # 205

- posted      Profile for Nim     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Very nice, but he really is sadistic, making the pics so small and so dark. Light grey, sky blue or white would be good background.

--------------------
"I'm nigh-invulnerable when I'm blasting!"
Mel Gibson, X-Men
Registered: Aug 1999  |  IP: Logged
Lee
I'm a spy now. Spies are cool.
Member # 393

- posted      Profile for Lee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think it's a good idea. All the ortho shots of CGI models I've ever seen against light backgrounds have looked wrong, somehow - as if being brightly illuminated in stead of against the darkness of space just highlights their flaws, their inherent fakeness, as it were.

--------------------
Never mind the Phlox - Here's the Phase Pistols
Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged
Captain Boh
Senior Member
Member # 1282

- posted      Profile for Captain Boh     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It would probably help if the ships just had more light on them.

And the Klingon ship should really be a D-6.
Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
TSN
I'm... from Earth.
Member # 31

- posted      Profile for TSN     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Any particular reason?
Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
Captain Boh
Senior Member
Member # 1282

- posted      Profile for Captain Boh     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because it doesn't really look like the D5 would have come between it and the D7.

And with its use in a TOS era image, it would make more sense for it to be newer than the D5 rather than older.
Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Timo
Moderator
Member # 245

- posted      Profile for Timo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OTOH, just seven D-ships during the glorious history of the Empire? The numbers need not really be chronological.

The D4 is IMHO a bit too subtle. Perhaps with a little more changes in the bridge area, a little more adjusting of the angle of the nacelles... Somehow, the D7 vs D4 pairing reminds me of the Old Cylons vs New Cylons (the obviously mechanical models, that is). I guess it's because of all those red lights on the D4.

In any case, the artwork is a delight to see. Now if we could get the two missing Starfleet vessels ("Iceland" and Sarajevo), and perhaps the rest of the Klingon models...

Timo Saloniemi
Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
bX
Stopped. Smelling flowers.
Member # 419

- posted      Profile for bX     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lee:
I think it's a good idea. All the ortho shots of CGI models I've ever seen against light backgrounds have looked wrong, somehow - as if being brightly illuminated in stead of against the darkness of space just highlights their flaws, their inherent fakeness, as it were.
This is all completely true. Which is why they ought to release two versions. So that the poor 3D nerd presently trying to figure out the borders and shapes doesn't wind up completely blind squinting at these low-rez, dark images.
Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged
Sol System
two dollar pistol
Member # 30

- posted      Profile for Sol System     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Canned rant about "dramatic" lighting in these sorts of images making me unreasonably annoyed and hateful.
Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
B.J.
Space Cadet
Member # 858

- posted      Profile for B.J.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've got no problems with the images, that is once I've bumped up the gamma in an image editor. [Big Grin]

B.J.
Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
bX
Stopped. Smelling flowers.
Member # 419

- posted      Profile for bX     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In the interests of eye health. PM me your email if you want a zipped Photoshop version where you can swap out the background color/image (3.5MB file).
Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged
The Mighty Monkey of Mim
SUPPOSED TO HAVE ICE POWERS!!
Member # 646

- posted      Profile for The Mighty Monkey of Mim     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How come the dorsal/ventral and fore/aft views don't seem to be to the same scale?

--------------------
The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jim NCC1701A
Member
Member # 1021

- posted      Profile for Jim NCC1701A     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Boh:
Because it doesn't really look like the D5 would have come between it and the D7.

And with its use in a TOS era image, it would make more sense for it to be newer than the D5 rather than older.
I must've come in late - and, apart from Broken Bow I haven't seen a single ep of Enterprise [Roll Eyes] - but what's a D5 look like?

--------------------
It's life Jim, but not as we know it...
Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
bX
Stopped. Smelling flowers.
Member # 419

- posted      Profile for bX     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
How come the dorsal/ventral and fore/aft views don't seem to be to the same scale?
I didn't do any scaling to the images. My guess would be that whoever was rendering these started out using 720X405, but decided they wanted a slightly larger image for the 3/4 views, set it for 768X432 and didn't set it back. Alternately they just felt like being difficult.
Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
- Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


© 1999-2024 Charles Capps

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3