Just two eency weency qualms... Firstly on McKinley... on the left-hand part of the station on 'top' against the background of Earth there is this round circle... it looks like a light - but it has a black ring around it - like it has been cut out from a black background picture... what is that thing?
And the second is the green running light on the Enterprise - well maybe the little red one too up near the bridge - you have these brilliantly lit lights, that don't seem to scatter any light onto the rest of the hull around them! They are in the shadowy part of the ship yet they are a bright light - but with no light cast on the surrounding hull...
Andrew
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
quote:Just two eency weency qualms... Firstly on McKinley... on the left-hand part of the station on 'top' against the background of Earth there is this round circle... it looks like a light - but it has a black ring around it - like it has been cut out from a black background picture... what is that thing?
Look at the dome of the crab-station... another glow that has been cut off... I suspect the render had a plain black background, and that the ship and the station were cut 'n' pasted over an Earth photo...aka a "rough draft" (like he said).
posted
You are correct, it was cut and pasted as a temp.
Although several interesting issues arise in an image like this. Theoretically, with a source as bright as the earth in the background, lens flares from the running lights and, in fact, the stars themselves would not show up on film, due to the reduced apeture of the lens (notice how you never see stars in any Nasa shots for the same reason). In fact, stars would probably never show up on film unless you did a long exposure, due to their limited brightness.
So, the question becomes, are we trying to mimic a scene that has actually been photographed by a camera in space, or are we simply presenting imagery, tailored as we see fit? This is actually a big debate in the world of CG. There are cleary plenty of arguments for both sides.
It even goes back to something I read during the 80s, when I read an interview with rotoscope animators who were putting sword and sorcery effects into the movie "Excalibur." The debate was whether or not to add lens flares into animation of very bright light sources (such as glowing balls or the clashing of two swords). Were they trying to make it seemed as if the event were captured by a movie camera, or just present the elements of the story, and thus making it seem more like a fantasy?
The answer usually is a little of both. If we were going for total reality in the McKinnley shot, we would see no stars, so running lights and no light coming from the windows on the ship (although you see them at night, do you ever notice the office lights inside a building during the day, in bright sunlight?).
If we did all those things, even though 100% realastic, the shot would look funny. If we didn't didn't try and match a few of the 'realism bits,' the shot would also look vaguely fake, so you have to carefully choose. If you choose the wrong bits, an audience will look at your shot and think 'that looks fake,' although of course they will not exactly know why they think that, they'll just know it looks wrong.
Thus describes one of the fine lines people in this business must walk.
I'll post a follow up later with some examples and more thoughts...
Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
I mean, we don't get lens flares and such, so if I was going for realism, I'd have left them out.
otoh, whatever makes the picture look coolest - I suppose the human eye would lose certain details in the glare... or not be able to see the ship at all, given how dark space is and how little illumination 'running lights' would actually provide - and can be finished on schedule. Must... have... book!
[ February 02, 2002, 12:44: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I think this picture needs more stuff, people, Sphinx pods, stations in the background. And the ship should at least have the beginnings of a name or a registry, to give it at least something of an identity. This way, it looks lonely, kinda like "Everybody else has gone out exploring, so what are you still doing here all alone?"
It's good, but isn't as artistically impressive as the sunrise picture from the calendar. By adding more detail you can take a chance and show what hasn't been seen due to budgetary/dramatic concerns -- a busier Earth space.
posted
Ok, ok, it's a temp. How am I supposed to know what else you're planning for it, especially since you've also said you spent quite a bit of time on this in your original post? Just commenting on what I see.
posted
OK about the cut-and-paste - and I understand what you mean about lights and brightness etc... it's just the jarring thing with the 'running light(s)' on the Enterprise pic is that the green one at the front there (and the little red one up top) are IN SHADOW... so they should cast some sort of light - not necessarily into the 'surrounds' above it like if it was misty... but onto the actuall hull... like when you put the christmas lights near the wall and the colour is not and EXACT reflection - but you still get that colour of the light hitting the wall... It just doesn't look right - especially when that section is in shadow... the light should fall onto the hull plating - even if just a little... Otherwise it looks like it is sort-of a round 'solid object' floating in the blackness of space - with nothing near it.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
But while I'm disappointed, any delay can really only be a good thing for the book -- I assume that gives you some more time to work on it?
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Since I live in Orange County, this gives me time to finish my TNG uniform.
On that subject, guys? A big part of the reason most fan-made unis suck donkey balls is that they're not even made from the right materials, tailoring notwithstanding. It can be a little expensive to make a proper (for example) TNG 3rd-season uniform from the correct wine-red-and-black suit-weight wool gabardine, moreso if you want to go even further with accuracy and make the sleeveless silk jersey undershirt.
But I'm one of those accuracy-nazis who like to make things more accurate than the prop, and all that's left for me is to figure out how the hell the waistband is meant to attach to the trousers...
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I think the best we can do is not to overdo the fanboy support thing, and just patiently wait it out. I'm sure Mojo's got it well in hand - if he needs something here, he's always asked for it and gotten it straight away.
Still, I think we need to give a lil' boost for Mojo right here. So, everyone:
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic