Defiant Transporter room

[Einherjar]

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=315399&id=349086809809&ref=mf

There's not enough words in the english language to konvey just how awsome those pix are.

[MajorD]

Isn't it much too large?  With that kind of width for the room the pad could be made wider, it could be made linear instead of a circle.

http://www.ditl.org/index.php?daymain=/pagimage.php?bridgeimages&200&PHPSESSID=e47d7375a9e3a20e2142a3455690247a

[Einherjar]

Nah! The size have shifted between episodes so it's a good size.

[AricwithanA]

I'm all for new pics! 

The textures do seem a little flat and the model itself a little more edgy, but in the end I just wanna play so I don't care.  lol 

[MajorD]

Nah! The size have shifted between episodes so it's a good size.

Strange, I thought it stayed the same throughout the series.

[Darkthunder]

Strange, I thought it stayed the same throughout the series.

Nope. Even the size of the ship itself was in dispute between various episodes/seasons.

[Black Patriot]

Nope. Even the size of the ship itself was in dispute between various episodes/seasons.

Well the size changes in the ship are due to FX errors, whereas the transporter room was not, it was changed, probably after the set designer realized that it was too constricting. Personally I'd have made the actual pad larger, it didn't need to be the same size as a Galaxy class pad sure, but the size they finally ended up with feels too small, there are other ways to make the transporter look smaller without making the pad smaller.

[MajorD]

I feel like the room should be made fresh since it was changed, and this takes place further on. That way, the pad can be made larger.

[Poseidon]

Another great update.  Keep it coming guys!

[Vadek]

The ships size should of only changed twice,  the 1st Defiant, and the Defiant-A.

[Darkthunder]

The ships size should of only changed twice,  the 1st Defiant, and the Defiant-A.

Depending on the situation, the ship changed size. Sometimes it was big enough to fit inside the docking pylons at DS9, sometimes only the nose of the ship was able to fit. In both First Contact, and in the battle with the Lakota, the Defiant looked "shuttle-sized", other times it was as big as a Bird of Prey. The Birds of Prey themselves were constantly changing sizes as well.

[Vadek]

They did a Great job on the VFX, but making there mind up on ship sizes, is another thing.

[Black Patriot]

The ships size should of only changed twice,  the 1st Defiant, and the Defiant-A.

They're both the same size, and the most consistent and logical size for the ship is a length of 120m, as shown with the evidence here.

They did a Great job on the VFX, but making there mind up on ship sizes, is another thing.

In general, yeah they did, but there were always a few episodes that slipped through with slightly substandard FX, though nowhere near as bad as on TNG. Voyager and Enterprise also had some bad FX creep in, but for that show I'm more inclined to believe the production staff just didn't give a ****, since they didn't seem to care about characterization or well thought out stories.

Please watch your language.Jon

[Matt]

Well remember this was rendered in a game engine, so it will look different when ingame

[Jules]

In general, yeah they did, but there were always a few episodes that slipped through with slightly substandard FX, though nowhere near as bad as on TNG. Voyager and Enterprise also had some bad FX creep in, but for that show I'm more inclined to believe the production staff just didn't give a ****, since they didn't seem to care about characterization or well thought out stories.

TNG had no CGI at all, it was completely done with studio models (and not all of them where built in the same scale mind you.
The CGI defiant isn't the same as the studio model, it's stretched vertically. Don't realy too much on CGI for evidence in Trek, they screwed them up nice on more than one occasion out of various reasons. It's better to follow studio models than CGI if both exist, since studio models are better executed. Also, there are some things that don't sit well with studio models too (the one obvios example is the Excelsior model built by Greg Jein which is missing like 3/4 of the details the original one has).

[Black Patriot]

TNG had no CGI at all, it was completely done with studio models (and not all of them where built in the same scale mind you.
The CGI defiant isn't the same as the studio model, it's stretched vertically. Don't really too much on CGI for evidence in Trek, they screwed them up nice on more than one occasion out of various reasons. It's better to follow studio models than CGI if both exist, since studio models are better executed. Also, there are some things that don't sit well with studio models too (the one obvious example is the Excelsior model built by Greg Jein which is missing like 3/4 of the details the original one has).

FX is not limited to CGI, it extends to everything not done with a standard camera and model setup, such as phaser beams or shields. Perhaps the most used FX was the merging of a scene with more than two models. Because of the way models are shot with studio cameras they were almost always shot alone, and had to be composited with the other ships. That's where the scaling errors came from, because of budget reasons and technical limitations most models are made at the same size, so when they're composited back together in a scene there are often scaling issues. A good FX director can account for these, but mistakes will eventually happen.

Now we would assume that CGI would solve these issues, but often it doesn't, simply because of a lack of communication between the writers/producers and the FX staff, so the writers might state one length for a ship in dialogue, but unless the FX people are told then they have to make a best guess and shoot the scene. That's where most of the inconsistencies happened. The other time FX errors happen is when the FX staff has to rush something to get the show to air, usually because of poor planning by the producers, for example, the Prometheus from Stargate SG-1, it's first appearance was an incredibly bad model covered up with lots of motion blur, this was done because the model was literally made only a few weeks before the episode aired.

[Jules]

FX is not limited to CGI, it extends to everything not done with a standard camera and model setup, such as phaser beams or shields. Perhaps the most used FX was the merging of a scene with more than two models. Because of the way models are shot with studio cameras they were almost always shot alone, and had to be composited with the other ships. That's where the scaling errors came from, because of budget reasons and technical limitations most models are made at the same size, so when they're composited back together in a scene there are often scaling issues. A good FX director can account for these, but mistakes will eventually happen.

Now we would assume that CGI would solve these issues, but often it doesn't, simply because of a lack of communication between the writers/producers and the FX staff, so the writers might state one length for a ship in dialogue, but unless the FX people are told then they have to make a best guess and shoot the scene. That's where most of the inconsistencies happened. The other time FX errors happen is when the FX staff has to rush something to get the show to air, usually because of poor planning by the producers, for example, the Prometheus from Stargate SG-1, it's first appearance was an incredibly bad model covered up with lots of motion blur, this was done because the model was literally made only a few weeks before the episode aired.

Reread what I wrote in my previous post, you didn't get what I said. In Trek, when they turned CGI, they started making loads of errors, that's why it's better if for something both studio model and CGI exist to stick to the studio model. One nice example that I can think of now of these errors is the so called dark neck-back Galaxy class variant that some like to think of as a extra variant. It isn't, it's just a VFX screwup. Also, another regular example is that the CGI Defiant is stretched vertically (you can notice this by it's deflector being a lot "fatter" than in the credits which used the studio model all over).

[Aresius]

I agree with Jules, having a physical model is in any case far better than a mass of polies and trigons. The physical model is something you can touch, you can look at to think, to get inspired by. Beyond that, it can help you scale properly. Didn't anyone notice that the shows, films, whatevs done with models are far more realistical when it comes to scaling of different ships and different objects than the CGI-based shows, films, whatevs?

CGI may be great to allow making such wonderful ships like the Sovereign, the Insignia, the Scimitar, the Borg Unicomplex, and whatnot (games would be virtually nonexistant to start with...). At least the latter two would be nigh to totally impossible as models. With the Borg, scaling hardly matters though, everything is supersized. But what's in it beyond that? Imagination? You first need to render a scene to make a picture, you cannot touch it and wander across the surface with you mind or your hand.

[Black Patriot]

Reread what I wrote in my previous post, you didn't get what I said. In Trek, when they turned CGI, they started making loads of errors, that's why it's better if for something both studio model and CGI exist to stick to the studio model. One nice example that I can think of now of these errors is the so called dark neck-back Galaxy class variant that some like to think of as a extra variant. It isn't, it's just a VFX screwup. Also, another regular example is that the CGI Defiant is stretched vertically (you can notice this by it's deflector being a lot "fatter" than in the credits which used the studio model all over).

I didn't ignore what you said, but I did clarify that FX wasn't just CGI, it extended to the use of physical models too, which also had their share of errors. The Defiant used in the opening credits is CGI, one look at the main deflector is enough to see that, but it was probably a different model than what was used in other episodes. They did eventually replace the shitty CGI model that had been used for the first few CGI episodes, and after that it looked fine. I think that it's more accurate to say that they didn't properly plan for the changeover to CGI, which caused them to make mistakes, not that CGI itself is responsible.

I agree with Jules, having a physical model is in any case far better than a mass of polies and trigons. The physical model is something you can touch, you can look at to think, to get inspired by. Beyond that, it can help you scale properly. Didn't anyone notice that the shows, films, whatevs done with models are far more realistical when it comes to scaling of different ships and different objects than the CGI-based shows, films, whatevs?

OK, first learn how to construct sentences a bit better, it doesn't take much. Second, the difference between CGI and models is that models take a lot longer to plan and process, which gives the FX team more time to pick up bugs and errors, whereas CGI was pretty much just slapped together at the last minute. There also has to be the consideration of the production staff, who often create these problems by not communicating properly with both the FX people, which means that there's less opportunity for errors to be spotted. As a good example, look at the last FX shot of Voyager in the opening credits. That scene was done pretty quickly, by a different FX company that the rest of the series. You'll notice, if you look carefully, that there are some errors on the underside of the secondary hull. This is because of both a lack of communication between the original designers of Voyager and the FX team (most likely they never actually met and the whole thing was handled by the production staff, who were notorious for not giving a shit) and because the shot was rushed to completion.

CGI may be great to allow making such wonderful ships like the Sovereign, the Insignia, the Scimitar, the Borg Unicomplex, and whatnot (games would be virtually nonexistant to start with...). At least the latter two would be nigh to totally impossible as models. With the Borg, scaling hardly matters though, everything is supersized. But what's in it beyond that? Imagination? You first need to render a scene to make a picture, you cannot touch it and wander across the surface with you mind or your hand.

Not everyone needs a physical connection to things to drive their creativity. If we did then there would be no pure maths or quantum physics, since you can't touch the concepts for either of those. And scaling is important for the Borg, consistency is always something to strive for when it comes to ship size. Also, the Sovereign was made as a physical model originally, it's just cheaper and better to use a CGI model these days.

[Jules]

I didn't ignore what you said, but I did clarify that FX wasn't just CGI, it extended to the use of physical models too, which also had their share of errors. The Defiant used in the opening credits is CGI, one look at the main deflector is enough to see that, but it was probably a different model than what was used in other episodes. They did eventually replace the shitty CGI model that had been used for the first few CGI episodes, and after that it looked fine. I think that it's more accurate to say that they didn't properly plan for the changeover to CGI, which caused them to make mistakes, not that CGI itself is responsible.

I'm not a VFX newbie, so you don't need to explain stuff to me, k?. I was talking about CGI vs. studio models, not what is and isn't VFX.

The Defiant only had one CGI model, it is streched vertically compared to the studio model, and appears till the end of the series. The credits Defiant is the studio model, those scenes where done with studio models.

OK, first learn how to construct sentences a bit better, it doesn't take much.

Do not ever invoke anyone on his knowledge of a language against him. It is low, it is rude, and has nothing to add to the discussion but insults. Not everyone knows English well, nor it is their native language.