Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Possible retcon for Lost Tales?
Seafroggys
Ranger
in Babylon 5
You know, even to this day, Babylon 5 does not seem that dated at all (aside from the early CGI). Well, except for one thing....the monitors. They're all curved CRTs :P
Do you think that for the Lost Tales they'll make all the monitors Flat screens?
Do you think that for the Lost Tales they'll make all the monitors Flat screens?
Comments
Or maybe not.
Anyway, got LotR on DVD today together with Farscape Peacekeeper Wars. Also preordered Lost Tales through the firstones link :)
And who knows, maybe even those will seem old to some energy being who transfers visual information telepathically. :laugh:
well true I've always loved even the early CGI. But Season 1, you have to admit, does have some datedness to it, which has nothing to do with the fact that its good (because it is).
I agree. Even the stuff in season one has more "weight" than the space effects in the new Doctor Who. Who may have better models, but it doesn't have the cinematography to get away from that arcade game look.
Because it isn't photorealistic, you get the sense that we are looking on some recreation of past events, almost a documentary of Babylon 5, which was almost the point of view of the show, from some point in the future looking back.
Jake
I agree about the "timeless" aspect of B5's CG space shots. I wouldn't always say the same about a lot of the blue screen work, but the space stuff for sure. Mostly I think it's because the show is old enough now, that any feelings of the CG not looking "realistic" simply aren't relevant, in the same way that old game graphics just aren't worth complaining about. It was the best that could be achieved at the time, with their budget, and after seeing a few shots you can simply ignore the look of the CG and focus on the stories.
One of the main reasons the CG still works is because the animation and shot compositions are so solid. I think if either of those had been sub-standard, we wouldn't be looking back so fondly on the effects. Also, being fans, we're all obviously seeing the show through rose-tinted glasses a bit. When I re-watched the series a couple of years ago, the CG definitely didn't look as good as I had remembered it, but it didn't matter.
It's a good think the visual style of B5's space stuff had a bit more of a graphic quality. Even with the relatively limited technology the VFX team had at the time, it's pretty obvious to me that they weren't shooting for a "photoreal" look. "Toy Story" is going to look awesome for a long time. "Final Fantasy", well, not so much. Not that I'm saying B5 was cartoony, just that a small departure from realism is really helping the longevity of the CG.
B5 didn't have to be cheep with firing weapons if graphics were used at all.
The exploding ships didn't look so good, too much like chunks. People looked bad.
It did get better as time went on. :)
Because it isn't photorealistic, you get the sense that we are looking on some recreation of past events, almost a documentary of Babylon 5, which was almost the point of view of the show, from some point in the future looking back.[/QUOTE]
Spoiler: If the last few seconds of SiL are taken into account, then a recreation is exactly what B5 is. It's a dramatisation of real events that took place in the past made by ISN.
What I meant earlier was the swiftness of the combat. If you say look the Narn attack on the Centauri colony in season one, the fighters/cruisers seem to move slowly and then compare to the Thirdspace sequences (which were stunning) you'll see what I mean. I'm not saying its a negative thing but its an observation I've made rewatching the dvds.
The area where the cgi has aged though is where they use cg backgrounds with the cast added in. Never quite looked right. Shame green screen wasn't around then.
[/QUOTE]
I'll have to disagree with you there. TNG still looks far more real than B5's stuff. I'm right in the middle of going through TNG on DVD and season 1 isn't that bad visually. The model still looks good. Where it fails is the post-production process, mainly that everything was being done on video for the effects, so there is a lot of scan lines and black borders around things.
B5 being CG doesn't have this problem, but I still find TNG to be a lot more watchable at first glance. Consider also than TNG premiered in 1987 or so? Quite a bit before B5. I remember the first time I saw the Enterprise-D with people moving around inside the windows! Gah! It was amazing.
[QUOTE=Falcon1]
What I meant earlier was the swiftness of the combat. If you say look the Narn attack on the Centauri colony in season one, the fighters/cruisers seem to move slowly and then compare to the Thirdspace sequences (which were stunning) you'll see what I mean. I'm not saying its a negative thing but its an observation I've made rewatching the dvds.
[/QUOTE]
I think the VFX crew was going for a more realistic style of space animation in season 1. Slower, more planned out movements, etc. As the show progressed they switched to the more action based style of movement, which leads to cooler looking scenes.
[QUOTE=Falcon1]
The area where the cgi has aged though is where they use cg backgrounds with the cast added in. Never quite looked right. Shame green screen wasn't around then.[/QUOTE]
Well, that technology was definitely around. Blue screen back then. How do you think TNG was doing the viewscreen and all of those things? Again however, remember that B5 wasn't as high budget and they might have been using early compositing software instead of optical machines. Pulling a good key on a green or blue screen is a lot easier, or can be made a lot better anyway, today because of improvements in software algorithms and processor speed. The way things work is still almost the same, but these days the tools are a lot better, the machines a lot faster, and the artists have more experience to draw from.
I remember one episode in season one where Garibaldi and Ivonova rode the core shuttle in the teaser, and they actually looked green, because something had apparently gone terribly wrong in post.
The high-detail station interior they did for the Season 2 finale looked great, though. Leaps and bounds ahead of the one they were using. Of course, that was also the last time they used a core shuttle (except for the redone graphics on the pilot). Always so sad when they nail a recurring effect... then never use it again.
Good point on the slow effects. Makes sense actually.
Yeah bluescreen was around but it wasn't used as often on B5 as it was on TNG. At the end of the day they had to use cgi on B5 or it would never have be done to budget.
Oh god yes I remember that tube ride. Gives me the shivers thinking about it :p
In any case, blurry, cloudy planets, or a shadowless Epsilon 3? Doesn't really matter. I just think that at first glance, TNG definitely looks better than B5, and takes less "getting used to" as you're watching the series. Obviously there are budgetary and technical reasons for that, but it's something I've really noticed, especially with people who are new to B5.
It's not like it's anyone's fault, well, except for maybe Warners :p Just like today, I imagine the biggest thing that hurt some of B5's VFX shots was not having enough time, which of course means money. It's just a reality that sometimes shots get sacrificed to make others better, and artists rarely get the chance to make a shot all they'd like it to be.
And as mentioned above, B5's biggest problem was time. We were lucky by S4 that technology had advanced to the point where the studio could reasonably achieve effects shots like those seen in the end of the Shadow War and the Earth Civil War. The same improvement in effects allowed shows like Deep Space Nine to have equally epic visual backing (something which models would only barely allow for)
I'll have to go back and find that shot of Garibaldi and Ivanova in the core shuttle. There is always an explanation behind shots like that. Could have been a junior compositor and the shot simply slipped through quality control. Could have been a 2 hour rush job. Could have been a really badly shot green screen plate, and the software couldn't pull a decent key off it, and no time for roto. In any case, I've been in the situation before where you notice something wrong with a shot, but the compositor is working away on it, desperately trying to get it done because it has to be on a drive/tape and over to the final online session in 30 minutes. Sometimes there's just nothing you can do.
Anyway, what was this thread about? Oh yeah, monitors!
"Survivors." That was it. Ah, the one word title.
As far as I'm concerned, TNG became modern trek in Season 5. The style of photography is what we were able to identify as "Star Trek" for years to come. It wasn't until Voyager that the soft focus was finally dropped, but the lighting and camera angles were mostly preserved. Even Enterprise managed to keep much of the basic style established within TNG, though did shift away when it came to the use of wide angle.
TNG seasons 3-5 are definitely the gold standard of Trek for me, though I know many would strongly disagree.
Tbh B5 Season 2 on looked way better then TNG, though with Season 1 it was debatable at times (though the station at wide shots was way better then the Enterprise-D)
I know I'm on a B5 board here, but....wow.