In article
newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Steven L." earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>> In article <45cb8921$0$334$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
>> "Wouter Valentijn" wrote:
>>
>>> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>> In article
newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>,
>>>> "GeneK" genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Steven L."
earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote...>>>>>> Here's a video preview of the remastered "Doomsday Machine," which
>>>>>> will probably be broadcast this weekend.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think I've figured out what bothers me most about the CGI.
>>>>> It's the contrast. If I jack contrast up about 50%% on the new
>>>>> space scenes they start to look not too bad. Unfortunately,
>>>>> the contrast that makes the space scenes look better washes
>>>>> out all the other shots in the episode.
>>>>>
>>>>> GeneK
>>>> It looks terrible. It's like they've given up any pretense of making
>>>> it match the original footage, and they're just gonna make it look
>>>> like what it is: low end CGI.
>>>>
>>>> Our old buddies the nacelle caps are the worst they've ever looked,
>>>> the detail on the model is wrong, the Doomsday Machine is a dull flat
>>>> gray, and the restaging of the 2 shot from above of the Enterprise
>>>> and the Constellation is NOT an improvement.
>>> I agree 100%%.
>>
>> Hey Wouter!
>
> I'm still trying to pin down which bothers you more: the relatively
> poor (by today's standards) quality of the digital SFX, or the fact that
> they have re-interpreted and re-imagined the choreography of the scenes:
Both. The quality is so low that it wouldn't matter what moves they
used; it's still not stuff you can intercut with live action.
I do admit I like that one orbit shot where they start with the coming
at you and pan to the going away (although the move could have been a
lot better). So in that instance move trumped quality, but it's because
they were echoing old moves closely enough.
>
> Let's pretend for a moment that they had used the best state-of-the-art
> digital SFX rendering, from Pixar maybe. But they still changed the
> choreography so that the Big E is swooping around the screen like a
> fighter-bomber in a video game, rather than moving majestically like the
> giant stately "ship of the line" we were used to seeing. Would that be
> acceptable to you?
I doubt it. Obviously we'd have to see it, but the moves they're plottin
are downright amatuerish.
> Or does the re-imagining bother you at least as much
> as the substandard digital SFX?
Well, I quit watching with WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE, and while it
had terrible fx and moves, I .. damn. I can't choose. That outer shot
of the galaxy was as bad as the new barrier which was as bad as the new
moves.
As much as I hate to defend these guys, are they using the word
'remastering'? I thought it was 'enhanced'
-- which, while untrue -
it's actually 'degraaded' -- at least isn't calling it remastering.
