Topic: If you could get Paramount to CGI a model...
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
the different proportions are what makes me notice the difference..
i was real lucky, tonight i got to chill at my dads and watch cable so i saw some TNG on TNN.. i watched 'Conspiracy' and then 'Ensign Ro'.. the change is very noticeable, although even as late as 5th season they were still using gobs of stock footage of the old model. The main things i notice are the 1) deflector dish.. the old one seems lighter around the edges, while the new one is more shadowed. i wonder if that makes me interpret them as differently shaped or if they are additionally actually shaped differently. 2) the saucer, specifically the underside always looks so incredibly smooth on the old model. i only saw a couple of shots where the light caught the fact that there was painted on paneling. That's why it was necessary to exaggerate the panels, even though they arent truly to scale to the depth they were on the model. it was artistic license necessary for filming.
ok i sleep now
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Mojo: just one note. There is a difference between doing something right artistically and doing something right canonically. On these forums, we've tended not to modify what we've seen onscreen just because it looks better, is more realistic, because Gene Roddenberry intended it etc. It would be great to see this approach of yours in calendars and artwork, but I believe that technical publications such as the Starship Spotter warrant an approach that follows what we've seen onscreen more closely.
posted
i totally agree with that, Phelps. canon is canon, and canon is what is on the screen. things like starship spotter definitely need to show the "real thing".
posted
In something like Starship Spotter, I agree 100% - the ships should be exactly as we've seen them onscreen.
In the calanedars and Unseen Frontier, however, which is far more of a creative endeavor, I feel justifyed in excersizing a bit more 'artistic latitude.'
I mean, it *is* supposed to be my vision of Star Trek, just as other authors who write novels lend their interpretation. My book just happens to have pictures.
That being said, I'm going to great legnths to keep things as canon-conscious as possible. In fact, most of my 'modifications' to canon will be in areas they WANTED to go, but simply didn't have the time or money to explore.
Kind of like what we did with the Motion Picture DVD!
-------------------- "It speaks to some basic human needs: that there is a tomorrow, it's not all going to be over with a big splash and a bomb, that the human race is improving, that we have things to be proud of as humans." -Gene Roddenberry about Star Trek
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
There are going to be a LOT of double page spreads... however, I'm going to be designing them with the fold in mind, if that's what is concerning you....
posted
BTW, any chance you could do a B5 calendar or something also? I'd really like to see, in greater detail and from different views, the CGI interior of the Garden.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Courtesy of Mojo, "Here are 2 pics that show the dramatic differences between the 2 D models". I believe the top half is the 6' model and the bottom is the 4 footer.
Like the Defiant CGI, this picture is for our eyes only - please no spreading around! Thank you.
Once again, we thankyou for your contributions and trust, Mojo.
BTW, by Mojo's request I have now taken down the Defiant pic.
quote:Originally posted by Mojo: There are going to be a LOT of double page spreads... however, I'm going to be designing them with the fold in mind, if that's what is concerning you....
Mojo
Yeah, that’s my little gripe. Its a shame when such great images recede into spinal oblivion.
Any idea yet as to how big the book will be?
Oh and the chunkier Galaxy definatly looks alot more realistic. The sleek one just looks like a plastic model....strange that.
posted
just in terms of proportion, the 4 footer looks a lot better, IMO. i was watching some early TNG episodes that i downloaded off of kazaa yesterday, and because of this thread i really paid attention to the shape of the ship. i really noticed how skinny the secondary hull was and how much rounder the warp pylons were compared to later episodes. very cool.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic