Loved this episode. Can I just ask - Mojo might know - what was the Excelsior seen at the end near the mine called?
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
As far as precedent is concerned, one assumes it was named whatever the CGI model was named in a previous appearance (which may well have been whatever the CGI model was named in a even previouser appearance.)
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
So it could very well be the USS Hood or Valley Forge. I believe the last time we'd seen an Excelsior specifically labelled prior to "Author, Author" was "Tears of the Prophets". However, I thought Digital Muse did that show, so it might not be...
Mark
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Yeah, Muse did that episode, but it's not like the model was exclusive to them, right?
Mightn't it have been the Frederickson from Relativity?
Posted by Mojo (Member # 536) on :
Yes, that was Muse (most of DS9 was).
And I promise you, if the ship wasn't close enough to read the name, it was the same reg from the last show it was seen in :-)
Mojo
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
That's probably a more likely candidate, actually... It's also a more recent use than "Tears" anyway.
Mark
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Mojo, re ships that you name that are not necessarily defined in the script - like the Frederikson (who is that named after) how do you work out what to name them, I loved reading through the TNG Companion and read all of the ships that Okuda and co gave to ships, they all seemed to make sense - not just names out of someone's arse. Ever been tempted to name some in another Fed member's language?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Anthony Fredrickson was a scenic artist on DS9 and for ST7 and 8. Probably the ship was named for him.
Posted by TheF0rce (Member # 533) on :
That ship is probably the USS Overseer.
Keeping a careful eye on the mining station incase of a holo slave revolt. Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Heh, that just made me think:
"The crew of Deep Space Nine were always a little apprehensive when the U.S.S. Intendant docked". ;o)
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
I know of no shortage of people who'd be downright eager to dock with the Indendant.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
*raises hand*
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
ROFL Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I'll have the Intendant AND Kira thanks! With a side order of Dax... And some Leeta for dipping ;o)
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Mmmmm...canibalisum!
Well this could be interesting. Shall we try and track where the Fredrickson and other CG ships have been? If it was the Fredrickson in "Author, Author" then the same ship probably constituted all of the Excelsior class ships seen in "Endgame", and apparently it was also in "A Time to Stand" and "Relativity".
One thing though, I thought that the ships at the opening of "A Time to Stand" were all actual miniatures and not CG ships.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Endgame SPOILERS! thanks... Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Bugger!
Sorry, but it wasn't that bad though was it? it is a rather minor point, or so I thought.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mojo: Yes, that was Muse (most of DS9 was).
And I promise you, if the ship wasn't close enough to read the name, it was the same reg from the last show it was seen in :-)
Mojo
Personally I miss the days of physical models. They just looked more real no matter how close or what angle viewed from, unlike CGI which tends to be a bit pixelated or digital such as seen in Starship Spotter. Plus they took the time to actually give ships names and registries unlike CGI which either constantly reuses names or completely lack them.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
I feel sorry for people who have not yet seen Endgame...it aired last May... But I realize some places do not carry it for a while.
And I thought we agreed that the Excelsior in "A Time to Stand" was the Fredrickson? It was in the Encyclopedia (2.5) and the name and registry were visible in the epsiode.
[ January 26, 2002, 09:33: Message edited by: Veers ]
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Hobbes, I'm agreeing with you here. I'm still eagerly awaiting Unseen frontier - and that's not to say there have been some nice 'effects' in Voyager etc. I still feel that the models look more real. IMNSHO.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Plus they took the time to actually give ships names and registries unlike CGI which either constantly reuses names or completely lack them."
You do realize that almost every appearance of an Excelsior in TNG was labelled "NX-2000", right?
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Actually, I think it was relabelled once to be the Hood for Encounter at Farpoint, and then that stock footage was reused every subsequent time, albeit with different composited backdrops.
[ January 26, 2002, 10:22: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
That's correct - this is where we get "NCC-42296" from.
Mark
Posted by Phelps (Member # 713) on :
A lot of Starfleet CGIs used by Foundation and Muse were built for "Sacrifice of Angels" and related battle episodes, where the goal was to have a lot of ships fight and blow up, not be examined in closeups. I'm also told that high resolution models would have taken up too much processing power if used in such battle animations. If they wanted closeups and simple ship shots, they'd use motion control. Plus, there was a lot of stock footage from the first five seasons of DS9.
It would be a problem if such CGI's were reused on Voyager, which tends not to use motion control. However, Mojo seems to indicate that some of them were modified over the years. Another aspect that could be different about Voyager is this: Ron B. Moore, one of the show's VFX supervisors, complained that on Voyager, they were shooting space scenes at 24 frames per second rather than 30, as was done on TNG. The latter might look more real, but lacks a kind of a filmic quality.
[ January 26, 2002, 13:23: Message edited by: Phelps ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Odd... I thought someone said they had looked at the stock "E-D and Excelsior" footage and found that it was the 2000...
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I don't know THAT much about CGI model making *kicks slow computer* but, isn't it easy to replace the registries and names on a CGI model!?! I mention this since, we see a lot of ships with piecemeal registries - even in the calendars, Galaxies that still say NCC-1701-D and "Enterprise" etc. etc.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: I don't know THAT much about CGI model making *kicks slow computer* but, isn't it easy to replace the registries and names on a CGI model!?! I mention this since, we see a lot of ships with piecemeal registries - even in the calendars, Galaxies that still say NCC-1701-D and "Enterprise" etc. etc.
It depends on how the 3-D models are done. It's been my experince that some modelers use image maps for the name and registery while others perfer to model the lettering directly on the mesh. An image map is easy to switch and apparently the latter method is a bit more difficult to change.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Even when applying it as an image map, i have difficulty because i use ancient software.. i have to make sure it is dithered correctly so it resizes well and doesnt look pixellated or stretched, which mean that if i have to change a ships registry, i have to call up the original blank hull inage map, type in the new registry in the correct place (which is trial and error because ancient software doesnt show you where the text will land until you render), run a variety of photo effects so that it resizes smoothly, and then do some test renders, which usually mean starting over with the blank hull map again.
I nearly killed myself, once i modelled the Voyager Shuttle Fleet, and made sure that every shuttle carried a correct name of a shuttle that was on voyager. Maddening
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
That's what? 3000, 4000 shuttles? A lot of work.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Wasn't the sideways shot of the Enterprise and Excelsior-class SFX made after Farpoint? The one that's used in BoBW near the beginning? That might have a different registry (or not, since I don't think the Excelsior model would have been touched during those three years).
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Well, unless they really didnt bother to relabel the model, all of the stock Excelsior footage orginated in Encounter at Farpoint, with the Enterprise and Excelsior in orbit shot, and the alongside shot (that end with them swinging away from each other).. so this would mean all the Excelsior footage from EaF, WNOHGB, Tinman, BoBW was 42296 (or 2000 if they didnt relabel).
The model itself however should have been labeled 2544 for the appearance as the Repulse in 'The Child' (which i dont believe was ever reused as stock bacuse the ships were stopped, rather than in motion like the more versatile EaF footage). Of course I'm assuming they relabeled it since it was a new shot created specifically for that episode, which they did relabel the shuttle model 2544 for.
After that, i cant recall any 'new' Excelsior appearances up until 'Emissary' where it was the Melbourne.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Just to clear things up: There are TWO Excelsior stock shots we see throughout TNG:
1. USS Hood, NCC-42296. First seen in "Encounter at Farpoint", then afterwards as the Fearless in "Where No One Has Gone Before" and the Cairo in "Chain of Command", among appearances. The shot is a travelling shot with the Excelsior model on the STARBOARD side of the Enterprise, then it peels off and vanishes into the top of the screen as the camera follows the Enterprise from left to right. I'm fairly certain that this model is indeed marked as NCC-42296.
2. USS Repulse, NCC-2544. First seen in "The Child", and subsequently as the Potempkin in "Ethics", Admiral Hanson's flagship in "Best of Both Worlds", the Crazy Horse in "The Pegasus", etc. Contrary to the previous post, it *is* a travelling shot, following both the Enterprise and the Excelsior model from left to right - the Excelsior is first seen in an almost dead-on side elevation, and by the end of the shot we usually see the aft undercut. You can pick this shot out easily as it tends to be much more blue than the first shot, and the ship is travelling on the E-D's low PORT side. In its original appearance, this shot was complemented with another one seeing the Repulse's secondary hull and nacelles through the doors of the E-D's Shuttlebay Two.
Interestingly enough, on at least one occasion we've seen the show use BOTH shots to represent the same ship: one for when someone's beaming aboard, and the other for when the ship leaves. For this to be correct, the Excelsior class ship would have to be travelling in a parallel course, then for some reason switch to the other side of the Enterprise, travel along there for a while, and THEN leave. What's up with that?
Mark
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
A very excited helmsman?
Speaking of registries on ship models, I've seen some screen caps of the DS9 battle footage in various episodes, and I've noticed that it seems the Galaxy class ships are nameless and don't even have a number. What's up with that?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Often the CGI models had no names or regs on them.
[ January 28, 2002, 20:26: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
With the exception of the USS Galaxy, NONE of the GCS in DS9's sixth or seventh seasons had markings. As Mojo pointed out earlier, in Trek CG effects unless the model could have the registry clearly visible, odds are that they won't bother. Digital Muse did most, if not all of the GCS in those episodes, and obviously didn't.
The *story* reason behind that can be found in the DS9TM: Sternbach establishes that frequently at the shipyards they rushed lots of ships out without bothering to properly christen them with real names or NCC numbers. Odds are they had numbers, at least, but they didn't bother to paint the hulls properly. Isn't this roughly analogous to all the hundreds of small combatant vessels it the World Wars that only got a number?
Mark
[ January 28, 2002, 20:32: Message edited by: Mark Nguyen ]
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
That seems sorta...lame. No offense to the modelers, of course.
I mean, it's not like we can actually read the name or number clearly. They could have just used one medium sized name like "Venture" or "Trinculo" right?
Why wasn't this the case for the Mirandas and Excelsiors, too? They labeled the Majestic, Hood, and the Valley Forge...
[ January 29, 2002, 13:04: Message edited by: Ace ]
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
The Sitak and Majestic got labelled in all likelihood because they were front-and-centre and a missing registry would look a little jarring.
Stipes and Digital Muse went out of their way in "Tears..." to do ship names, based on the subsequent online postings and the general virtual self-backslapping.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
*sorry, accidental post*
[ January 29, 2002, 18:21: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
As for the combined use of the two stock Excelsior shots, the explanation seems pretty simple: After X hours of flight, the sunny sides of the ships began to get a bit hot, so the helmsmen nodded to each other over the comm line and performed a 180 degree roll in perfect synchrony...
The cameraman (with a side-mounted camera shooting at straight angles to the flightpath of his camera boat) sighed and performed a 180 degree yaw to compensate, then noticed that this would not only mean the ships were now going left when they had been going right in the previous shot, but also that he'd have to fly backwards the rest of the trip, sighed again, and piloted his little camera boat to the other side of the starship pair in a wide arc. And then the bastards rolled AGAIN.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)