kcampbel@uafhp.uark.edu (Keith Alan Campbell) (12/26/90)
To all you erstwhile renderers out there, and Mike Smithwick, (I talked to you at AmiExpo, Anaheim): How about collecting a few 2001: a space odyssey objects for rendering? We at Vision Quest just acquired our Toaster and I'm really interested in making up a few 24 bit images of some of my favorite imaginary spacecraft. Also, has anyone attempted to do any rendering of spacecraft from ST-TNG? From my viewing of Alan Hasting's demos at Anaheim in October, we should be able to approach some of the stuff done for TV. Also, in a more technical vein, does anyone have any ideas on how to make a realistic "panel" look where spacecraft skin has the appearance of being made up of interconnected panels of slightly varied colors? Don Kennedy Vision Quest (501) 521-0420 (501) 253-5264 email to kcampbel@uafhp.uark.edu
mark@calvin..westford.ccur.com (Mark Thompson) (12/27/90)
In article <5750@uafhp.uark.edu> kcampbel@uafhp.uark.edu (Keith Alan Campbell) writes: >To all you erstwhile renderers out there, and Mike Smithwick, (I talked to you >at AmiExpo, Anaheim): >How about collecting a few 2001: a space odyssey objects for rendering? We at >Vision Quest just aquired our Toaster. Nice, isn't it! >and I'm really interested in making up a >few 24 bit images of some of my favorite imaginary spacecraft.Also, has anyone >attempted to do any rendering of spacecraft from ST-TNG? From my viewing of >Alan Hasting's demos at Anaheim in October,we should be able to approach some >of the stuff done for TV. I have not yet started on spacecraft, but if anyone is interested in exchanging Lightwave objects, I am begining to amass a good sized library. >Also, in a more technical vein, does anyone have any >ideas on how to make a realistic "panel" look where spacecraft skin has the >appearance of being made up of interconnected panels of slightly varied colors No problem. Create a brush in your favorite paint program that is made up of little patches of similar color. If they are to be very regular you can make them one pixel each. Otherwise, larger less regular patches would be appropriate, maybe some overlapping. Then map this bush to your spacecraft surface with the appropriate scaling. You may have to break your object up into separate surfaces to get optimal results and be careful of which axis you specify for mapping. You could then add other details like hatches, planetary ID's, etc. by placing a detail polygon in the appropriate place and using a surface color map with a brush of a Federation logo (for example) along with a transparency map with the same brush to allow the surface below to show through wherever the logo isn't. >Don Kennedy +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Mark Thompson | | mark@westford.ccur.com | | ...!{decvax,uunet}!masscomp!mark Designing high performance graphics | | (508)392-2480 engines today for a better tomorrow. | +------------------------------------------------------------------------- +
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (12/28/90)
In-Reply-To: message from kcampbel@uafhp.uark.edu I don't know if you were implying that the ships from ST-TNG were computer generated or not, but that's the way I read it. They're not computer generated, they're done "the old fashion way," or, miniature photography. The first time I saw the show I thought differently, but that's because they're using video effects to put the ship in space rather than doing it on film...cheaper and faster. Sean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .SIG v2.5 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc RealWorld: Sean Cunningham ARPA: !crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc@nosc.mil Voice: (512) 992-2810 INET: seanc@pro-party.cts.com ____________________________________ // | * All opinions expressed herein | HELP KEEP THE COMPETITION UNDER \X/ | Copyright 1990 VISION GRAPHICS | >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
hastoerm@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Moriland) (12/29/90)
In article <6562@crash.cts.com> seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) writes:
!In-Reply-To: message from kcampbel@uafhp.uark.edu
!
!I don't know if you were implying that the ships from ST-TNG were computer
!generated or not, but that's the way I read it.
!
!They're not computer generated, they're done "the old fashion way," or,
!miniature photography.
!
!The first time I saw the show I thought differently, but that's because
!they're using video effects to put the ship in space rather than doing it on
!film...cheaper and faster.
!
Actually, from what I have read, all the space sequences were computer
generated. According to the mag devoted to ST-TNG at any rate.
--
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
"All usual disclaimers apply..." | Founder Of: Evil Young
// | Mutants For A Better Tommorow.
\X/ "Only Amiga Makes It Possible." | hastoerm@vela.acs.oakland.eduxanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (12/31/90)
hastoerm@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Moriland) writes: > seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) writes: >! In-Reply-To: message from kcampbel@uafhp.uark.edu >! I don't know if you were implying that the ships from ST-TNG were >! computer generated or not, but that's the way I read it. >! They're not computer generated, they're done "the old fashion way," >! or, miniature photography. >! The first time I saw the show I thought differently, but that's >! because they're using video effects to put the ship in space rather >! than doing it on film...cheaper and faster. > Actually, from what I have read, all the space sequences were computer > generated. According to the mag devoted to ST-TNG at any rate. Strangely enough, both may be true. There is a technology that uses the computer to "fly" the camera around the model or other object being filmed. It was used a lot to make those "streaks of light" flying logos several years back. For each frame, the computer would move the camera back, start moving toward the object (neon light letters were popular), open the shutter a bit before the midpoint, close it a bit after the midpoint (supplying the 'streaks"), stop the camera, back it up, step the midpoint toward the object, and do the next frame. Made some really spectacular ad logos. I suspect the technology is still in use. Similar technology has been used to do some of the space sequences from models, though I have no information on the ones under discussion. Point is, "computer generated" doesn't have to mean raytraced, unless you read more detail. Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (12/31/90)
In-Reply-To: message from hastoerm@vela.acs.oakland.edu I'm afraid not...I've seen clips of the production showing the filming of the models (they shoot them upside down!). The starfields and planets may be computer generated, but the Enterprise and other ships are miniatures. Sean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .SIG v2.5 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc RealWorld: Sean Cunningham ARPA: !crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc@nosc.mil Voice: (512) 992-2810 INET: seanc@pro-party.cts.com ____________________________________ // | * All opinions expressed herein | HELP KEEP THE COMPETITION UNDER \X/ | Copyright 1990 VISION GRAPHICS | >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
hastoerm@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Moriland) (01/02/91)
In article <6632@crash.cts.com> seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) writes:
%>The starfields and planets may be computer generated, but the Enterprise and
%>other ships are miniatures.
Hmmm. Okay. Seems kinda weird though. With todays 3D rendering
packages available on the bigger machines you'd think they'd skip the
models and just raytrace everything.
Saves trouble matching light sources and all.
-Moriland
--
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
"All usual disclaimers apply..." | Founder Of: Evil Young
// | Mutants For A Better Tommorow.
\X/ "Only Amiga Makes It Possible." | hastoerm@vela.acs.oakland.eduifarqhar@sunc.mqcc.mq.oz.au (Ian Farquhar) (01/03/91)
In article <4491@vela.acs.oakland.edu> hastoerm@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Moriland) writes: >In article <6632@crash.cts.com> seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) writes: >%>The starfields and planets may be computer generated, but the Enterprise and >%>other ships are miniatures. > >Hmmm. Okay. Seems kinda weird though. With todays 3D rendering >packages available on the bigger machines you'd think they'd skip the >models and just raytrace everything. This is going to surprise a lot of people, but it is still more expensive to create a 3D object description for a computer that looks as good as a model, as it is to build a couple of real models. This situation is changing slowly, but for something like a 13 episode TV series or a movie, realistic computer graphics are still an expensive model. This is why ILM and Co. still use models after Lucasfilm's massive investment in computer graphics technology. However, I wonder if, for a long running show, graphics aren't the best option. Many people may remember the BBC series Blake's 7, where they destroyed the main ship at the end of the third series. Although it was never acknowledged by the BBC, it was suggested that the reason they destroyed the ship was because pieces kept falling off the well-used model during filming. That problem is one that doesn't happen to computer graphics... -- Ian Farquhar Phone : 61 2 805-9400 Office of Computing Services Fax : 61 2 805-7433 Macquarie University NSW 2109 Also : 61 2 805-7420 Australia EMail : ifarqhar@suna.mqcc.mq.oz.au
hastoerm@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Moriland) (01/03/91)
In article <981@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz> ifarqhar@sunc.mqcc.mq.oz.au (Ian Farquhar) writes: ....[Stuff from other articles deleted].... %> %>This is going to surprise a lot of people, but it is still more %>expensive to create a 3D object description for a computer that looks as %>good as a model, as it is to build a couple of real models. This situation %>is changing slowly, but for something like a 13 episode TV series or a %>movie, realistic computer graphics are still an expensive model. This %>is why ILM and Co. still use models after Lucasfilm's massive investment %>in computer graphics technology. %> %>However, I wonder if, for a long running show, graphics aren't the best %>option. Many people may remember the BBC series Blake's 7, where they %>destroyed the main ship at the end of the third series. Although it was %>never acknowledged by the BBC, it was suggested that the reason they %>destroyed the ship was because pieces kept falling off the well-used %>model during filming. That problem is one that doesn't happen to %>computer graphics... Those were my thoughts on it. Yes, initially it would cost more because of the detail needed to achieve realism, but once you've got it in there you can just re-use it countless times without any extra effort outside of raytracing whatever you want it to do. For a long running series it would seem like the best way to go. -Morland -- | hastoerm@vela.acs.oakland.edu | __ | | | __/// Viva Amiga! | | Founder Of: Evil Young | \XX/ | | Mutants For A Better Tomorrow | "Single Tasking: JUST SAY NO!" |
a763@mindlink.UUCP (Scott Busse) (01/03/91)
The Enterprise flybys wer done using a motion controlled camera flying past a *very* large model of the Enterprise, something like 50 feet long. Before Star Trek, The Next Generation came on the air, Entertainment Tonight did some behind the scenes shots, one being at Industrial Light and Magic, where the big model is filmed. It sure is unfortunate that the transfer from the original film to NTSC introduces so much aliasing effect ( visible around the saucer section), but my brain shuts that out quite quickly... Scott
dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave P. Schaumann) (01/05/91)
In article <4317@mindlink.UUCP> a763@mindlink.UUCP (Scott Busse) writes: |The Enterprise flybys wer done using a motion controlled camera flying past a |*very* large model of the Enterprise, something like 50 feet long. Before Star |Trek, The Next Generation came on the air, Entertainment Tonight did some |behind the scenes shots, one being at Industrial Light and Magic, where the big |model is filmed. It sure is unfortunate that the transfer from the original |film to NTSC introduces so much aliasing effect ( visible around the saucer |section), but my brain shuts that out quite quickly... | |Scott ET also had a segment which showed that the dry-dock the Enterprise was shown in in the first few ephisodes of the season was computer generated...
andrey@beyond.cs.caltech.edu (Andre T. Yew) (01/05/91)
>>>>> On 4 Jan 91 20:04:00 GMT, dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave P. Schaumann) said:
DPS> ET also had a segment which showed that the dry-dock the Enterprise was shown
DPS> in in the first few ephisodes of the season was computer generated...
Actually, the dry-dock was modelled on a Mac II and printed out for
the construction of the actual model. There is no way images that good (what
you see on TV) can be computer-generated on Star Trek's budget.
--
andrey@through.cs.caltech.edu Andre Yew
131.215.128.1
--kdarling@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (01/05/91)
andrey@beyond.cs.caltech.edu (Andre T. Yew) writes: > Actually, the dry-dock was modelled on a Mac II and printed out for >the construction of the actual model. There is no way images that good (what >you see on TV) can be computer-generated on Star Trek's budget. Sounds right. A couple of the TNG special effects guys have been on the SCI-FI forum on CIS for quite a while now, and I'm pretty sure they said they do CAD models on their Macs first... but then always build a physical model. No idea what they use for controlling the camera angles tho. The inside jokes they tell about are funny, btw. Like putting "Dr Who" and other such names in those personnel lists you see go fly by on the Enterprise screens, and the Japanimation references in symbols, and one of them even played one of those corpsicles in the frozen Earth capsule. I can't remember if any of them own an Amiga, but I'll try to ask.
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (01/06/91)
In-Reply-To: message from hastoerm@vela.acs.oakland.edu You're probubly right. If you watch closely, alot of the segments showing the ship flying are the same from episode to episode. They could render a whole collection of views of the ship from different angles, in front of different colored planets, and then just use those throughout the series. I don't know how much miniatures (if you can call a 6ft long model a miniature) like this cost, so CG may or may not have been cheaper to produce. Sean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .SIG v2.5 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc RealWorld: Sean Cunningham ARPA: !crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc@nosc.mil Voice: (512) 992-2810 INET: seanc@pro-party.cts.com ____________________________________ // | * All opinions expressed herein | HELP KEEP THE COMPETITION UNDER \X/ | Copyright 1990 VISION GRAPHICS | >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (01/06/91)
In-Reply-To: message from a763@mindlink.UUCP I always thought it was very interesting that they shot the Enterprise upside down. I don't recall what the reasoning for this was, but I guess it was so that it would look larger on screen. Sean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .SIG v2.5 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc RealWorld: Sean Cunningham ARPA: !crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc@nosc.mil Voice: (512) 992-2810 INET: seanc@pro-party.cts.com ____________________________________ // | * All opinions expressed herein | HELP KEEP THE COMPETITION UNDER \X/ | Copyright 1990 VISION GRAPHICS | >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
dak@pro-graphics.cts.com (DAK Productions) (01/06/91)
In-Reply-To: message from seanc@pro-party.cts.com I believe its easier to shoot upside down for two rasons. 1. most of the shots are from just underneath the Enterprise so there's less hassel hiding supports of the model if it is supported from above(below) 2. Because of above, lighting is less problematic. Blue screen keying/matting is very sensitive to lighting requirements. Any problems avoidable in image aqusition are much more cost effective than "fixing it in post".
peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) (01/07/91)
In article <1990Dec30.160607.21571@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: > >Strangely enough, both may be true. There is a technology that uses the >computer to "fly" the camera around the model or other object being >filmed. Yes, this is called "Motion Control". And interestingly, in Germany there is a company that does this with - guess what - an Amiga! They have a 3D editor similar to Sculpt where you can put in the path the camera shall take and then this is processed. It was already used for some science fiction films (I think one was "Moonbase soandso" or similar). > For each frame, the computer would move the camera >back, start moving toward the object (neon light letters were popular), >open the shutter a bit before the midpoint, close it a bit after the >midpoint (supplying the 'streaks"), stop the camera, back it up, step >the midpoint toward the object, and do the next frame. Sorry for my bad English, I don't realize whether you already said it: The point is, the camera MUST NOT stop its own motion during the exposure of a single frame. Else you wouldn't get smooth movement. It's the same effect the new animation programs try to achieve through "motion blur". -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (01/08/91)
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) writes: >In-Reply-To: message from hastoerm@vela.acs.oakland.edu > You're probubly right. If you watch closely, a lot of the segments > showing the ship flying are the same from episode to episode. They > could render a whole collection of views of the ship from different > angles, in front of different colored planets, and then just use those > throughout the series. I don't remember where I learned all this stuff; maybe at SIGGRAPH; anyway, some more interesting information. You don't directly capture onto film the model "in front of diffeent colored planets". You film the model against a deep blue background that happens to look blacker than black when photographed (it reflects no wavelength the film happens to record). This is half your effort. It's also interesting in passing that the model hangs from a thread the same unphotographable color, though it is still, of course, opaque. Then you make a second, separate film of the backdrop, the "colored planet". Next, in the days when I learned this, came a very expensive hand effort called "matting", that blotted out a model shaped hole in each frame of this second film (with paint, I think). This could perhaps be done cheaper today with a computer process, since no raytracing is involved, but in those days, the matter was a highly paid, highly respected part of the film effort, and the success of the model parts of films was attributed in the trade primarily to the skills of the matter, not to the camera operators or model makers. Then the backdrop was exposed onto yet a third film with the matted area of course not exposed. Last, the film of the model was exposed onto the same film in a double exposure, fitting neatly into the unexposed area. This could be repeated to quite a few layers of complexity, reminiscent of animation cels in concept, but completely different in actuality since transparency and opacity change importance in the two methods. (This takes thinking about.) The more layers, the more expense, and the more matting needed. > I don't know how much miniatures (if you can call a 6ft long model a > miniature) like this cost, so CG may or may not have been cheaper to > produce. Well, you look at two curves, model makers salaries going up and cpu cycle costs going down, but you have to leverage your computer model builder's effort a lot before the curves intersect, even today. Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (01/08/91)
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) writes: > In-Reply-To: message from a763@mindlink.UUCP > I always thought it was very interesting that they shot the Enterprise > upside down. > I don't recall what the reasoning for this was, but I guess it was so > that it would look larger on screen. No, you could do that by moving the camera closer. Probably because you would want to point your camera toward the ceiling, which is easier to keep clean and unscuffed for a non-photographable background. So, you want to support your model from the ceiling, which puts the support out of site. Now if you hang your model from its belly, the model obscures its support. This has the additional advantage that the floor is now free of obstructions when you want your (possibly computer controlled) cameras to be able to move freely without hanging up their dragging cables on an obstruction like the support. You also get to point your camera away from these cables when you point your camera up. Purely speculation on my part. Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
witzany@sparc1.isgs.uiuc.edu (David Witzany) (01/08/91)
Ah, but you're overlooking the biggest reason for filming these objects
upside down: All of those flaw-seekers in the audience will be watching for
wires above the objects, when they're actually underneath!! :*)
--
Dave Witzany (witzany@sparc1.isgs.uiuc.edu)seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (01/10/91)
In-Reply-To: message from xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG When I said upside down, I didn't mean that it was suspended from the ceiling. The model is held on supports, at the regular level for stop-motion-models (whatever that is). The disk and nescelles (sp) are on the bottom, the camera shoots facing down, but I'd assume is flipped to give the proper perspective. This also gives them a very low angle of view (this is where I got the size theory). Possibly it it has a more stable weight distrobution this way. But it still looked funny :) Sean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .SIG v2.5 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc RealWorld: Sean Cunningham ARPA: !crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc@nosc.mil Voice: (512) 992-2810 INET: seanc@pro-party.cts.com ____________________________________ // | * All opinions expressed herein | HELP KEEP THE COMPETITION UNDER \X/ | Copyright 1990 VISION GRAPHICS | >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<