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.
-------------------- I'm slightly annoyed at Hobbes' rather rude decision to be much more attractive than me though. That's just rude. - PsyLiam, Oct 27, 2005.
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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
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.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
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 ]
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
posted
Odd... I thought someone said they had looked at the stock "E-D and Excelsior" footage and found that it was the 2000...
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
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.
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
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
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
That's what? 3000, 4000 shuttles? A lot of work.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
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).
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
