Anyway, that's an interesting B5 vs. Trek thing - that you had more creative freedom on the former (and look at the results). I stand humbled.

Mark

------------------
"Why build one, when you can have two at twice the price?"

- Carl Sagan, "Contact"

------------------
Ian Hughes

Mojo, I think I met you several years back at a Shore Leave or Farpoint con in Baltimore. I was but a wee one back then, I could be wrong. I was at the Con with Dennis Bailey, and his son Russ.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
****
And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01

It's a large difference. When the battle was raging in SofA, I was thinking "wow, that looks really cool!". When the Starfuries were shooting at each other in "Severed Dreams", I was thinking "wow, the shit's really hit the fan here".

------------------
You know, when Comedy Central asked us to do a Thanksgiving episode, the first thought that went through my mind was, "Boy, I'd like to have sex with Jennifer Aniston."
-Trey Parker, co-creator of South Park

Please, PLEASE - when you have time - look over our discussions, because - with out blowing our own trumpet... we have a lot of the facts about Trek ships... nicely covered.

just a few things... Why weren't the First Contact ships as seen in DS9 improved... for more 'beauty' shots...

Why don't we get to see more 'beauty' shots of Ships... like we did of the E-D in Trek.

Why can't lighting be more 'realistic' in the CGI effects... i.e. the windows aren't just white... and the hull plating looks well repeated... its like its not something 'real'... but of course it still looks pretty good.

Do you have any info on the strange ships at the Start of A Time to Stand.

I feel that Trek ships (well the older designs) look more 'realistic' because they were originally physical models, and not just something made in a computer - hey I think the B5 effects were lovely... but having ships 'organic' seemed like a way to overcome the suspension of believe... that these were physical ships... or something

do you know what I mean?

Reguarding 'physical detail'... some examples from the Ships of the Line calendar were things like the Romulan War Birds... their hulls just seemed to be a 'smooth as a baby's bottom' making them look fake...

What was with the scaling of the UP ships... in the space docks. The Sabres were in space docks as big as the Galaxy class ships were...

Just about 'realism' the space dock on the very front cover... the Galaxy there looks nice and real (is tha tthe Challenger?) (except for the nacelle grills which just looked like alternating blue lines... there was not 'glow'... the glow from the nacelles didn't even interact with the surrounding hull... but with the spacedock... examples of 'fakness' is the structure directly above the bridge... it looks VERY fake - very "I made this from a few lines and then repeated a brown pattern over it" Also the curved lines of say the tubing on the spacedock... you can see the straight lines like its not a circular object but a many-sided polygon. Maybe there needs to be some fuzziness of perspective for distance?? I really don't know how to fix it - just what I see... but of course its nice.

The E-nil looks FAKE over the earth... like it is too crisp? or it looks like a plastic toy?? The first time I saw realism in the original Enterprise was with the E-nil from "Trials and Tribbl-ations" Its as if the ships lighting doesn't match the lighting from the sun... and that there is no blue light hitting the Enterprise from the Earth?? Again, with the lights... Its just a little complaint I have with CGI, and lighting - especially white light... is there anyway - of keeping it white... because we never really could see in those windows during TOS, but making them NOT look like they are just circles of white - like someone has put the erase brush over the picture... I know there is a little light haze/glow - but it still doesn't look like and actual light emerging from within the hull, but just a white gap in the picture...

I CAN say - I *LOVE* the Bussard Collectors on that TOS Enterprise picture... they are very realistic... the look like something you could touch (actually they look a lil bit more 'real' than the Galaxy's on the cover)

Again changing subjects - looking at the E-nil there... is it the 'all too perfect' lines of the model that make it look fake?? - anyone?

The Enterprise-E pic is lovely... but I have 2 problems... ok 3.

1. there is no real glow off the bussard collectors. (is it the sharp line, again, between light and dark (bussard and hull) areas?)

I've noticed this more since Insurrection... the hull plating on the EE... I can't seem to put my finger on it, but is it that - ok fair enough there are differences in reflections in different plates - but every second plate is not going to reflect light at the same brightness etc?? It looks a little to patterny?? Like someone has just got a paintcan and pressed 'fill with pattern' (of course you didn't but... you know what I mean)

Oh one last thing about the E-E is that YEAH! there are things inside the windows... but, well - again with the complete cut from light (the windows) to dark (the surrounding hull) shouldn't there be some more smoother transition?? not exactly a glow - because well, there is no atmosphere, but the lights not jsut going 'light->dark'????

The next picture... an inner ring shot of the Defiant and DS9.

1. DS9 is nice, but the lights on the inner surface of the outer (docking) ring aren't the correct shape - as to what is on the physical DS9 model. The hull plating looks too smooth, especially when in so close... I mainly talking about the cross over bridge in the bottom right and the inner surface of the docking ring again. But Beautiful again...

The Defiant looks lovely... EXCEPT! The deflector 'nose' is a different shape to the physical model - go to www.maximumdefiant.com - i think that's it - it has a lot of pics on the defiant...

Also, the bussard collector again - its so BRIGHT but there is not much throw-back light onto the surrounding hull... I think the word might be contrast?? Is that it??

The hull looks nice... but a little more detail, being this close would have been nice. VERY REAL though... it looks as if you could run your hand across the hull. But, well just a tad more detail wouldn't make it look as if you could just pick it up and it would fit in your hand... the distance from the 'observer' would be at least a 100m.

The Voyager, PERFECT! LOVE IT! Very real... looks like I could stand on the 'flight deck'

2 tiny points... 1. the red glow from the little holes on the impulse engines... again to 'different' in contrast... but the bussards are PERFECT this time... also the aft torpedo launchers could do with a tad more detail - they look a bit 'fake' compared to the rest of the hull.

I think the point I'm trying to work out about a lot of CGI hulls, is that they have to have a feel of randomness to them. Physical models work because well, the fibreglass - or plastic or what ever - sets in the mould - randomly... but a lot of CGI hulls have this 'perfect finish' which just never exists... except on the majority of the hull on this pic of the Voyager... its RIGHT!

The NEBULA CLASS!

dah dah daaaaah.

The saucer - nice

the nacelle grills - nice glow - but again just the 'lines'

I have BIG problems with the pod pylon (there's that hull fakeness again) (just the bit that is in the light and down near the 'rolla door' shuttle bay...

and the NASTY looking thing here is the phaser strip on the nacelle pylon... there is NO detail on it... actually and the phaser circular strip on the saucer... it has NO detail. The Galaxy and Nebula physical models do... they have little individual 'notches' which are the phaser BANKS... but on here and on the front Galaxy the strips are just grey lines... nothing else! ARRRRGH. they look really dodgey...

Oh and the 'bits and pieces' naming of the hull you did mention... but the "Bogue" or what ever looks a lot - to me like B-O-D-U-E... there is no crossbar on the 'G'.

The Klingon ships are lovely, but I think its the atmosphere that 'fuzzes' things up - giving a realism. Again though with the lighting contrast... the 'spotlights' on the 'wings' and the red 'engine glow' are TOO bright for the rest of the ship... I'm sure its a contrast thing...

If you're doing an 'art' type of book... for the next release... PLEASE do something about your landscapes...

ARRRRGH the 'rocks' on the Klingon picture look REALLY fake... like you'd just whipped them up in Bryce. Rocks have a fractal appearance... the closer you look they look the same... these 'rocks' have too many straight edges and repeating patterns. Has anyone seen the HORRIBLE new covers to the Kim Stanley Robinson Mars Trilogy yet? the lovely paintings have been done away with fake looking CGI...

Utopia Planitia...

1. Where have the 'dumbell' stations gone that were in the episode "Relativity"? the Space docks here look WAY to - fake... all those little white dots... for windows... no reflective glow from Mars... the one in the distance just looks so unrealistic.... like a big mass of polygons instead of a real structure...

The hull of those Steamrunners 'without bussard collectors' fine - they're being built? but no 'hull' plating would have those enormous big dark and light lines - another "tesselation" - how DOES that work? Plus, why would you put hull plating over the area a nacelle would go through?

Again, I'd just like to reapproach the topic of the smaller ships being in space docks and fitting EXACTLY the same as giant Galaxy class ships?? OK, they can be modular, but the WINDOWS would be too and it'd look quite strange?

The Borg pic is nice, but the Voyager hull looks too flat - no detail in this one?? Is it too bright a light??

Prometheus! FANTASTIC!

probs:

1. the nacelle grills could be a little bit more 'physical' but there is a nice glow.

2. the grey blocks on the nacelle pylons and 'shuttle deck' look very fake - they just look like someone has come along and stuck squares on... no physicality.

3. the pennant on the nacelles... isn't his a paint job on all the other ships... it looks to be etched in... and the {circle" behind the Starfleet Delta - is very polygonal.)

4. A good example of that 'hull repitition' with the tops and bottoms of the nacelles... there might be variation in the nacelle - but it is still perfectly flat - with perfectly straight lines... even the 'stretch marks!?!' look too perfect?

LOVELY LOVELY LOVELY picture though.

The Chaffee - sublime!

The Romulan ships again...

1. The hull I've mentioned - its too flat and no detail.
2.The top or 'crest' of the 'head' of the warbird against space... again, instead of a smooth round surface - we see that 'polygonal' several straight lines thing.
3. Those two giant lights on the underside of the top part of the warbird... its GOTTA be a contrast thing - but they stand out like bright blobs of white light... against the rest of the ship - and on each of the ships...

when you look at a light - there is usually a covering etc... this gives the light a LITTLE bit of texture... not just flat, white.

It reall does tick out.

Oh and something not really important... When repeating ships... why not alter each one slightly - you're using CGI after all... turn different lights on, on each ship... the 'bussard' glow in each ship is EXACTLY the same - what are the chances of that happening in nature...

Voyager from "Timeless"

nothing at ALL to say about the ship...
but the LANDSCAPE ERRRRRRGH! its ssooooooooooo fake...
those cracks and ridges... look so CGI... and those distant mountain peaks... look very cartoonish.

PHEW!

Now I HOPE that doesn't scare you off... I just wanted to get it off my chest...

They are the annoying problems that stick in my eye when I open the pages...

Oh, and please don't chalk my ramblings down to the utterences of a crazed Trekkie... I typed this out as someone who loves Trek, loves Star Trek and as a fan. Also who likes to help improve things. So please take these notes back with you as 'constructive critisism', 'fan feedback' or even just 'CGI admirer feedback'. And of course feed back as a 'star trek fan'

I rarely write long messages. And this one has been a doozy!

Thanks for listening.

AndrewR

------------------
"Yar, a lesbian? That girl had a sex drive! First, Data in Naked Now, then, in
Hide and Q, she hits on Picard! "Oh, if only you weren't the captain..." God! If
Denise Crosby hadn't left the series, she'd've slept with the entire senior staff by
now!" Jeff Kardde - March 7, 2001

------------------
"I WANT A POST VOY SERIES STAR TREK ORIGINAL MESSAGE WAS LOOKING FORWARD NOT LOOKING BACK."

-Darkstar

By and large, Rob and I agree with the vast majority of your 'realism' gripes. We look at the images and absolutely see things that can be improved and, slowly but surely, we're getting there. If someone decides to wave a magic wand and bestow upon us the time and money it would take to go in and retool every ship to make it perfect, we'd be all too happy to comply.

The bottom line is, when we create a shot, we want it to be cool. We want folks to go 'wow, that's neat.' If the detail on the ship is so bad that it looks awful, of course we'll rethink the shot. But if we feel that the model is 'good enough,' we would rather keep our cool scene than tailor everything for the detail on the model (especially when the folks who will even notice detail errors are few and far between).

Oh, and one point I *will* address just to show you how blurry the line between CG and real models is... that shot of DS9 in our calendar (the one which you said did not exactly match the real model) IS a picture of the real model :-)

Sincerely,
Mojo

Who are/were Jaeger and Mirecki?

I do have to agree with Mojo though. I'd much rather have "cool" than "anally acurate". Of course, if there's a runabout that's the same size as a Galaxy-class, then I might complain.

------------------
You know, when Comedy Central asked us to do a Thanksgiving episode, the first thought that went through my mind was, "Boy, I'd like to have sex with Jennifer Aniston."
-Trey Parker, co-creator of South Park

Ed Mirecki I believe was a model builder or a scenic designer, I'm not sure.

Unless of course you meant what were their names here, then I don't know.

Someone - Adam? - actually got Jaeger's email, and he was initially quite pleasant about replying. Then, a short list of questions was submitted - 10, I think - and great care was taken to stress that he shouldn't answer them if it was in any way inconvenient. He never replied.

*blushes* about the DS9 thingy/model thingy... The picture/reference pic I was thinking of was that 'generic DS9 pic we see everywhere' the one that I'm sure was done as a promo from before Emissary... anyway - I was thinking of that in my head and well - OK *BUGGER* you got me there ;o)

BUT! I DID like that DS9 pic

Thankyou for understanding a few of my 'gripes' Its glad to know someone KNOWS what I'm talking about and that I'm not going insane.

Oh and I agree, when a shot is COOL you have to go with it, rather than the smaller details.

I just wanted to get all those 'smaller detail' thingys off my chest... to someone who was 'in the know' or who could conceivably do something about it... Hopefully my ramblings will do some overall good... somewhere

OK, I'm tired.

And thanks for listening and... well, replying!

Andrew

P.S. When you need Starship info, again I'm going to praise the *freaks* that are on this board

Have you checked out some of the recreations of the Wolf 359 info etc. It'd be nice to see some of those ships in that 'pretty picture book' that is on the horizon ;o)

Andrew

------------------
"Yar, a lesbian? That girl had a sex drive! First, Data in Naked Now, then, in
Hide and Q, she hits on Picard! "Oh, if only you weren't the captain..." God! If
Denise Crosby hadn't left the series, she'd've slept with the entire senior staff by
now!" Jeff Kardde - March 7, 2001

------------------
"I never saw the TAS, there actually was sex on the bridge?"