DS Forums

 
 

New Star Trek Series Coming in January 2017


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 28-11-2016, 13:40
Flash525
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,798
But let's not lose track that this thread is about a TV show. The very latest FX aren't going to be applied here. TV FX are generally a few steps behind the latest cinematic advances - so even from that perspective there will be plenty ongoing room for improvement.
Lets just agree to disagree, shall we?
Flash525 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 28-11-2016, 13:49
RebelScum
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 12,197
Lets just agree to disagree, shall we?
On the point you quoted? Sure, though I don't think many would dissagree that TV FX are generally behind the latest cinematic FX. But If you feel otherwise fair enough.
RebelScum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-11-2016, 14:38
blueisthecolour
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South
Posts: 10,848
I think at this stage we can still tell the difference, that's based on my own experience and also people I know IRL. Your own experience may be different.

But let's not lose track that this thread is about a TV show. The very latest FX aren't going to be applied here. TV FX are generally a few steps behind the latest cinematic advances - so even from that perspective there will be plenty ongoing room for improvement.
CGI hasn't become 100% photo realistic yet. I watched final fantasy kingsglaive at the weekend and that was extremely good (graphically, not as an actual movie ), but they still struggled with the facial expressions.
blueisthecolour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2016, 06:31
Flash525
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,798
On the point you quoted? Sure, though I don't think many would dissagree that TV FX are generally behind the latest cinematic FX. But If you feel otherwise fair enough.
Oh, I agree that tv fx is a little behind on cinematic fx, but I've already stated that (moving forward) fx in general will likely become cheaper.

I'm suggesting that we agree to disagree that fx is (or can currently already be) indistinguishable compared to a set piece. You disagree with that assessment, and that's fine, but I do feel otherwise, as I've stated.

With an unlimited budget, fx is, or can be just as good as a set piece, which erases the concept that fx has a long way to go yet.
Flash525 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2016, 08:11
RebelScum
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 12,197
I'm suggesting that we agree to disagree that fx is (or can currently already be) indistinguishable compared to a set piece. You disagree with that assessment, and that's fine, but I do feel otherwise, as I've stated.
We reached that stage yesterday on this point, not sure why you're still bringing it up.

With an unlimited budget, fx is or can be just as good as a set piece, which erases the concept that fx has a long way to go yet.
We're not talking about unlimited budgets we're taking about real life. In real life fx departments have fixed budgets so "unlimited", and your point, become completely meaningless. Sets are only a part of FX. There is a long way to go before we can't tell the difference between an actual human actor and a CGI character. Although you will no doubt also disagree about that.

Some things never change though, I remember having a similar conversation with someone in the mid 90s just after Independence Day came out.
RebelScum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2016, 09:01
Flash525
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,798
We reached that stage yesterday on this point, not sure why you're still bringing it up.
Because after I seemingly concluded that we had reached an impasse, you still felt the need to extend your reply to cover more than was needed?

We're not talking about unlimited budgets we're taking about real life. In real life fx departments have fixed budgets so "unlimited", and your point, become completely meaningless. Sets are only a part of FX.
It's not a meaningless argument though, is it? My argument is that special effects (CGI for locations) are more than capable of portraying something as real as a set. Budget is irrelevant; technology either enables it, or doesn't. Funding only applies when you're on a schedule.

There is a long way to go before we can't tell the difference between an actual human actor and a CGI character. Although you will no doubt also disagree about that.
You've just changed the argument here. We weren't on about characters, we were on about sets.
Flash525 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2016, 09:26
RebelScum
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 12,197
Because after I seemingly concluded that we had reached an impasse, you still felt the need to extend your reply to cover more than was needed?
Nope, i wrote:
I think at this stage we can still tell the difference, that's based on my own experience and also people I know IRL. Your own experience may be different.[
That was specifically about CGI sets, which I didn't raise again until you did. You then suggested to agree to dissagree about the wider topic of fx as a whole. You do seem to have a hard time keeping up with what's being posted.

It's not a meaningless argument though, is it? My argument is that special effects (CGI for locations) are more than capable of portraying something as real as a set. Budget is irrelevant; technology either enables it, or doesn't. Funding only applies when you're on a schedule.
It is meaningless because it's like saying if we had an unlimited budget we could cure all diseases, therefore we can now cure all diseases. You've clearly never heard of R&D.

[You've just changed the argument here. We weren't on about characters, we were on about sets.
No, if you can cast your mind to as far back as yesterday our discussion about CGI included a person walking into a room and sitting on a char scene and the audience not being able to tell the difference between real life and CGI. The conversation has been about special effects, all special effects.
RebelScum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2016, 09:57
Flash525
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,798
No, you wrote:
On the point you quoted? Sure, though I don't think many would dissagree that TV FX are generally behind the latest cinematic FX. But If you feel otherwise fair enough.
Keep Up!

It is meaningless because it's like saying if we had an unlimited budget we could cure all diseases, therefore we can now cure all diseases. You've clearly never heard of R&D.
Well that's a piss poor comparison. Some diseases simply aren't yet curable, whereas we already have all the special effects we need.

No, if you can cast your mind to as far back as yesterday our discussion about CGI included a person walking into a room and sitting in a char scene and not being able to tell the difference between real life and CGI. The conversation has been about special effects, all special effects.
We were obviously having two different conversations, as I was under the assumption you were talking specifically about the room, and the chair, not the person.


To put this as simple as I can; visual special effects of objects, explosions, settings and even animals to some degree I don't believe are capable of becoming anymore realistic than they already are. Computer-generated-people on the other hand is something different, but I wasn't initially on about that because we were comparing the special effects of a Trek show, and as far as I'm aware, nobody has attempted to run an all cgi-trek show.

Clear and simple enough for you? Feel free to disagree, I'm sure you have a post at the ready.
Flash525 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2016, 10:05
blueisthecolour
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South
Posts: 10,848
You guys are having an interesting debate.

I would argue that special effect will reach their limit once it is possible to create any scene fully in CGI and it be impossible to tell the difference from real life. Also the cost of doing so will need to be reachable for any commercial tv production.

We are getting close to that but, i'm sorry, we're not there yet.
blueisthecolour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2016, 10:09
Flash525
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,798
I would argue that special effect will reach their limit once it is possible to create any scene fully in CGI and it be impossible to tell the difference from real life. Also the cost of doing so will need to be reachable for any commercial tv production.
I'm not on about full CGI. I'm specifically on about what I've mentioned above; objects, explosions, settings and animals.
Flash525 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2016, 10:12
RebelScum
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 12,197
No, you wrote:Keep Up!
Note the "on that point you quoted"....was about fx as a whole.

Well that's a piss poor comparison. Some diseases simply aren't yet curable, whereas we already have all the special effects we need.
Now I'm really struggling to take you seriously.

We were obviously having two different conversations, as I was under the assumption you were talking specifically about the room, and the chair, not the person
Im not surprised, you have been consistently unfocused throughout the conversation.

B]To put this as simple as I can; visual special effects of objects, explosions, settings and even animals to some degree I don't believe are capable of becoming anymore realistic than they already are. [/b]Computer-generated-people on the other hand is something different, but I wasn't initially on about that because we were comparing the special effects of a Trek show, and as far as I'm aware, nobody has attempted to run an all cgi-trek show.

Clear and simple enough for you? Feel free to disagree,I'm sure you have a post at the ready.
Nah I'll just refer you to my earlier comment about having a similar conversation about fx back in the 90s after ID4. Rather than keep going round in circles for the next 20 years, perhaps we can leave if it for now an then pick up in 20 years and you can admit with some embarrasment how naive you were back in 2016.
RebelScum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2016, 10:17
blueisthecolour
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South
Posts: 10,848
I'm not on about full CGI. I'm specifically on about what I've mentioned above; objects, explosions, settings and animals.
But you'd agree that the technology behind even those things is continually improving and that they will eventually become entirely indistinguishable from real life. I mean we are really close to it now but no quite there - it's still possible to tell CGI from physical effects in many cases.
blueisthecolour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2016, 10:30
Flash525
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,798
Note the "on that point you quoted"....was about fx as a whole.
I'll refer you back to post #1029 where I've stated: I'm suggesting that we agree to disagree that fx is (or can currently already be) indistinguishable compared to a set piece. You disagree with that assessment, and that's fine, but I do feel otherwise, as I've stated.

You followed that with post #1030: We reached that stage yesterday on this point, not sure why you're still bringing it up. That was in reply to posts #1026 & #1027. I was happy to conclude at that point, but you seemingly couldn't let it rest and had to have the final word.

Now I'm really struggling to take you seriously.
If you removed your head from your rear-end, you may get some clarity.

But you'd agree that the technology behind even those things is continually improving and that they will eventually become entirely indistinguishable from real life.
I'd say some films are already there to be honest. I'll grant that we're not quite there with trying to mimic a person, but we're close, however, as already stated, elements of sets (or entire sets themselves), explosions, and some animals are already at that stage, and I don't see how they can be perfected any more than they currently are.

I mean we are really close to it now but no quite there - it's still possible to tell CGI from physical effects in many cases.
But not all?
Flash525 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2016, 10:56
RebelScum
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 12,197
I'll refer you back to bla bla bla..,
No, you agreed to disagree at post 1026, by quoting a post which was about fx as a whole. It's really not that hard to follow.

If you removed your head from your rear-end, you may get some clarity.
No need to throw your toys out the pram. Despite dissagreeing we were having a civilised conversation. If this how you want to proceed I'll leave you to it.
RebelScum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2016, 11:06
Flash525
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,798
No need to throw your toys out the pram. Despite dissagreeing we were having a civilised conversation. If this how you want to proceed I'll leave you to it.
A civilised conversation?

You do seem to have a hard time keeping up with what's being posted.
You've clearly never heard of R&D.
Now I'm really struggling to take you seriously.
Im not surprised, you have been consistently unfocused throughout the conversation.
Nah I'll just refer you to my earlier comment about having a similar conversation about fx back in the 90s after ID4. Rather than keep going round in circles for the next 20 years, perhaps we can leave if it for now an then pick up in 20 years and you can admit with some embarrasment how naive you were back in 2016.
I'll refer you back to bla bla bla...
Not obnoxious or sarcastic at all, are you?

You seem to be unable to accept that someone else has a different view to you, and thus they must be wrong for you are incapable of being. I've explained by position in my more recent posts, how convenient it is that you've overlooked them.

No, you agreed to disagree at post 1026, by quoting a post which was about fx as a whole. It's really not that hard to follow.
I've mentioned posts #1026 & #1027 here:
You followed that with post #1030: We reached that stage yesterday on this point, not sure why you're still bringing it up. That was in reply to posts #1026 & #1027. I was happy to conclude at that point, but you seemingly couldn't let it rest and had to have the final word.
It seems it is you, and not me, who has problems following. Maybe I should draw you a map or something...
Flash525 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2016, 11:24
RebelScum
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 12,197
A civilised conversation?

Not obnoxious or sarcastic at all, are you?

You seem to be unable to accept that someone else has a different view to you, and thus they must be wrong for you are incapable of being. I've explained by position in my more recent posts, how convenient it is that you've overlooked them.
Yet none of those things you quoted are untrue. You have been unfocused throughout the discussion. You have had a hard time keeping up with what's been posted, and your knowledge has shown to lacking. if these things make you feel uncomfortable I suggest you take an inward look rather than lashing out at me for stating the obvious. I've been happy to acknowledge we have different views, that's not going to stop me offering my own views. That's what discussion is. Don't confuse that with me being "unable to accept that someone else has a differing view". Happy to talk to you about Star Trek, reboots and even fx, but at this stage I feel you're more about arguing than discussing anything.
RebelScum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2016, 11:33
c4rv
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Essex
Posts: 16,218
I would say the effects in Westworld are pretty damm good, definitely the best for a TV show that I have seen and better than many movies.

And in terms of fully CGI, consider the new jungle book was fully green screen with only one actor, was filmed in a warehouse and yet completely feels 'real'.
c4rv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2016, 11:43
Flash525
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,798
Yet none of those things you quoted are untrue.
Yet your ... dialogue/mannerism is hardly as civilised as you claim it to be.

You have been unfocused throughout the discussion. You have had a hard time keeping up with what's been posted, and your knowledge has shown to lacking.
You keep saying that, when I don't think I do. You keep changing the discussion, and then misquote me.

I've been happy to acknowledge we have different views, that's not going to stop me offering my own views.
I would be interested at this point to know how you think the special effects (that aren't related to people) can be improved in the future, and how they're not perceived as real enough with what we are currently capable of. I can relate to the argument that people (in CGI) look like CGI, most of them anyway, but I can't say the same for other effects; I think they're at their pinnacle, and am curious how you think otherwise.

I would say the effects in Westworld are pretty damm good, definitely the best for a TV show that I have seen and better than many movies. And in terms of fully CGI, consider the new jungle book was fully green screen with only one actor, was filmed in a warehouse and yet completely feels 'real'.
Good examples.
Flash525 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2016, 12:34
GDK
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,881
You guys are having an interesting debate.

I would argue that special effect will reach their limit once it is possible to create any scene fully in CGI and it be impossible to tell the difference from real life. Also the cost of doing so will need to be reachable for any commercial tv production.

We are getting close to that but, i'm sorry, we're not there yet.
I agree with this. There's still a ways to go before CGI is 100% realistic. Convincing CGI shots in today's movies are carefully constructed, selected and constrained so photorealism is achieved. There are still limits on what can be modelled and the shots we see now are chosen to fit within those constraints. I would say development is still needed in the area of mathematical modeling of the physical properties of different kinds of materials, objects as they break, organic objects and especially human and animal movement.

That said for many of the shots we do see today, the only reason you can tell they're not real, but CGI, is because you know the can't be real. For example the Yorktown in Star Trek: Beyond.

What we see today maybe 95%-99% photo realistic, but there are other types of shot, other types of object that we just don't see in movies right now because they can't model them now.

For example: The flocking behaviour of the swarm of ships we saw destroying the Enterprise in Star Trek: Beyond wasn't possible till fairly recently as the maths of flocking behaviour hadn't been worked out. Going back to Terminator 2: Judgement Day, the chrome/liquid metal look was chosen because it was one of the few photo realistic things they could model and render back then.
GDK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2016, 12:35
RebelScum
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 12,197
Yet your ... dialogue/mannerism is hardly as civilised as you claim it to be.
This is an internet forum, tone, mannerisms etc perception is created by the reader. You could read a post in any number of ways based on how you happen to feel at the time.

You keep saying that, when I don't think I do. You keep changing the discussion, and then misquote me.
I haven't changed the discussion. I have been consistent throughout the conversation and it on screen for you and anyone to see.

[i would be interested at this point to know how you think the special effects (that aren't related to people) can be improved in the future, and how they're not perceived as real enough with what we are currently capable of. I can relate to the argument that people (in CGI) look like CGI, most of them anyway, but I can't say the same for other effects; I think they're at their pinnacle, and am curious how you think otherwise.
Well, you said you believe the fx in the marvel films are real enough, I personally don't and people I know don't either. If you do that's fair enough. However, the nature of the people who make fx will be to strive to make everyone not be able to tell the difference, so they will continue to work hard to achieve that, and fx will continue to improve as a result.

Also, as posted yesterday, taking the spacebase in Beyond as example. Rather than have the audience marvel at what they recognise as great CGI, have them genuinely not being able to tell if its CGI or an actual set. And yes size is a consideration, but that in itself where future advancents are, making backgrounds look real enough that despite the size they truly challenge the audiences perception. I know your counter argument to this was that credibility would be difficult given the size, but using this logic, it could be argued that given the destruction and spectacle in the marvel films, credibility is also difficult - yet you can't tell the difference between real & CGI.
RebelScum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2016, 12:53
The Amazing
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 322
That said for many of the shots we do see today, the only reason you can tell they're not real, but CGI, is because you know the can't be real. For example the Yorktown in Star Trek: Beyond.
Simple shots of the Enterprise entering spacedock in Star Trek III looked more 'real' than the Yorktown. Models and miniatures still have a huge part to play in special effects, in my opinion.
The Amazing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2016, 14:42
GDK
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,881
Simple shots of the Enterprise entering spacedock in Star Trek III looked more 'real' than the Yorktown. Models and miniatures still have a huge part to play in special effects, in my opinion.
In what way was the Yorktown unrealistic to you? Did you feel the same way about the CGI Enterprise as well?
GDK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2016, 16:30
JDF
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Angel Grove
Posts: 2,924

STAR TREK DISCOVERY; NEW CAPTAIN ANNOUNCED
JDF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2016, 17:41
Corwin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 12,601
Putting it in CAPS doesnt make the news any newer.
Corwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2016, 19:00
little-monster
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 30,156
More casting news
http://www.spoilertv.com/2016/11/sta...jones-and.html
little-monster is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 23:35.