The CGI

[jenks]

OMG! The drone CGI was horrible in that episode! On a whole, I think the CGI has been pretty decent considering it's just a TV show. The one exception was the last version of SG-1's opening sequence, my god that was horrible!!!!!!!

You having a laugh? All we see now is crappy little yellow blobs, when they came out of the ground in Lost City they looked amazing.

[Freekzilla]

You having a laugh? All we see now is crappy little yellow blobs, when they came out of the ground in Lost City they looked amazing.

Yes it was a good laugh, thank you. But seriously, the way they looked in The Lost City was, meh, at best. Not to mention they looked about half their real size. They were also generated differently. They way they do it now is actually better, they just don't show it like they did in the Lost city.

[jenks]

Well I disagree, I think the drone CGI since Lost City has been awful.

[kirmit]

Yes it was a good laugh, thank you. But seriously, the way they looked in The Lost City was, meh, at best. Not to mention they looked about half their real size. They were also generated differently. They way they do it now is actually better, they just don't show it like they did in the Lost city.

Lol looked half their size? Excuse me if I'm wrong but wasn't the drones first ever appearance in 'The Lost City'? So as that came first anything since then is double the size they should be, not the other way around.

I disagree on this, each individual drone looked far more detailed than the ones they use now which are basically just yellow blobs. They also looked far better in mass, you could see every drone swirling and buzzing about within the stream, not like it is in Atlantis now.

Compare these:
http://www.stargatecaps.com/sg1/s7/7.../7x22_864.html
http://www.stargatecaps.com/sg1/s7/7.../7x22_885.html

To these:
http://www.stargatecaps.com/sga/s3/3...l/nml0472.html
http://www.stargatecaps.com/sga/s3/3...l/nml0474.html

Now it might just be the fact that there are alot more drones that it looks better in 'The Lost City' but they still haven't looked as good since.

[the fifth man]

One other thing I'm hoping for is a detailed look at Celestus, I've been really interested in that city ever since it's first and unfortunately only appearance.

I totally agree. I would love to get a better look at the Ori city.

[Freekzilla]

Well I disagree, I think the drone CGI since Lost City has been awful.

Lol looked half their size? Excuse me if I'm wrong but wasn't the drones first ever appearance in 'The Lost City'? So as that came first anything since then is double the size they should be, not the other way around.

I disagree on this, each individual drone looked far more detailed than the ones they use now which are basically just yellow blobs. They also looked far better in mass, you could see every drone swirling and buzzing about within the stream, not like it is in Atlantis now.

Compare these:
http://www.stargatecaps.com/sg1/s7/7.../7x22_864.html
http://www.stargatecaps.com/sg1/s7/7.../7x22_885.html

To these:
http://www.stargatecaps.com/sga/s3/3...l/nml0472.html
http://www.stargatecaps.com/sga/s3/3...l/nml0474.html

Now it might just be the fact that there are alot more drones that it looks better in 'The Lost City' but they still haven't looked as good since.

Perhaps, it's just perspective. I've done some SFX (limited), so I do see a difference, but not just in the straight foreward appearance. The ones from Lost City are of the "painted on" type, whereas the ones since are (mostly) actually modelled. The difference is, the painted on ones are masked in in post and don't actually interact with anything else on screen, while the 3d modelled ones can actually affect and be affected by the environment and items around that are also 3d models. The drones are supposed to glow and give off light. They do in both cases, but in the painted ones case, that glow isn't reflected in the surrounding environment. The "glow" you see around the hole in that one pic is just a light shining down from overhead, and you can easily tell that. Other than that one overhead light and their own internal glow, the LC drones don't give off any other light. And with that many, that dark "ice cave" should have been lit up and very bright and even pulsating as individual drones passed by the walls. They weren't. Whereas the ones after LC actually give off light, so as it passes an object, that object becomes illuminated by that light. Then, if you compare the way the drones move, the ones after LC were far better and realistic. Just look how they are while swirling around the Kull Super soldiers. It's almost laughable the way they look and move.

There is really no comparisson. The ones from LC were the best they could do then, for a weekly TV show. And the look of them was horrible, and geared to look good for the casual viewer, the "end users". Now, I will agree that the ones seen now are not perfect. They certainly have a flaw. They are way too bright and contrasty, causing them to look a little washed out and "like blobs". since I have done 3d before, I know exactly what is wrong, the light emission (brightness) level is too high, and the falloff is set too low. If they just fix that, they would look awesome. And since you are throwing out screen caps, here's a few others to consider:

http://www.stargatecaps.com/sga/s3/3...l/nml0473.html
You can see that this isn't just a blob, and that there is more to it than just the glowing section, but the "warhead" section of it is still too bright.

http://www.stargatecaps.com/sga/s1/1...l/102x504.html
This one shows a much better and defined outter shape. But is still too bright.

http://www.stargatecaps.com/sga/s1/1...l/101x182.html
Here's one for scale from Rising. Looks a bit bigger than what was portayed in Lost City.

http://www.stargatecaps.com/sg1/s7/7.../7x22_885.html
Come on, you think THIS above looks better than this below?
http://www.stargatecaps.com/sga/s3/3...l/nml0474.html
Talk about looking like blurry blobs. Yikes!

Maybe they look better on DVD. The LC versions have NEVER looked better than the ones used now, according to what I have seen in the non-DVD (live TV, VHS video tape and others) versions. Don't ask.

[Platschu]

They changed the drone's size for Atlantis. Try to imagine that Earth had mini drones.

[jenks]

Maybe they look better on DVD. The LC versions have NEVER looked better than the ones used now, according to what I have seen in the non-DVD (live TV, VHS video tape and others) versions. Don't ask.

Again, I disagree. The ones in LC look fluid, like the little jellyfish things were actually moving themselves around, the new ones just look like solid shapes buzzing around. To me they look crap by comparison, and I'd rather have the LC versions back any day.

[Freekzilla]

Again, I disagree. The ones in LC look fluid, like the little jellyfish things were actually moving themselves around, the new ones just look like solid shapes buzzing around. To me they look crap by comparison, and I'd rather have the LC versions back any day.

I guess it's perspectives. Some people still hold to the idea that records snd tube amplifiers sound better than CD's and solid state amps, mainly because they feel records and tube amps have a "warmer" sound. Even though this is contrary to the fact that solid state amps and CD reproduce the sound more accurately. You see, that "fluid look" is what gives it away for me. For me, it looks like it is trying to be too perfect. I'd rather the CGI look more realistic than visually perfect. But that's just my own personal opinion.

[Jumper_One]

I like both the fluid and solid look of the drones

[jhkplaya888]

well the budget for the film is 7 million i think, the average episode is 2 million, so the movie is about the length of two eps, so thats 4 million, so that leaves 3 million for cool effects etc

[1138]

Perhaps, it's just perspective. I've done some SFX (limited), so I do see a difference, but not just in the straight foreward appearance. The ones from Lost City are of the "painted on" type, whereas the ones since are (mostly) actually modelled. The difference is, the painted on ones are masked in in post and don't actually interact with anything else on screen, while the 3d modelled ones can actually affect and be affected by the environment and items around that are also 3d models. The drones are supposed to glow and give off light. They do in both cases, but in the painted ones case, that glow isn't reflected in the surrounding environment. The "glow" you see around the hole in that one pic is just a light shining down from overhead, and you can easily tell that. Other than that one overhead light and their own internal glow, the LC drones don't give off any other light. And with that many, that dark "ice cave" should have been lit up and very bright and even pulsating as individual drones passed by the walls. They weren't. Whereas the ones after LC actually give off light, so as it passes an object, that object becomes illuminated by that light.

The 3D modeled drones will not illuminate a real set any more than sprites. In order to illuminate the set, they can either use real lights on set or use a virtual set lit by a 3D lighting solution driven by the same animation as the drones themselves. The virtual set is then comp'ed back on to the real set. Either way, the illumination effect doesn't have anything to do with whether it's 3D modeled drones or not (sprites can be attached to particle systems and each particle can emit light which can light the virtual set). I'd be surprised if they didn't use a particle system to drive the animation in Lost City. The fact that it didn't light the set up means they just never went the extra mile to comp the lighting, not that they couldn't. It's very easy to link lights to particles.

since I have done 3d before, I know exactly what is wrong, the light emission (brightness) level is too high, and the falloff is set too low. If they just fix that, they would look awesome. And since you are throwing out screen caps, here's a few others to consider:

The proper term that they would use is likely surface "luminosity", not brightness/emission. They use LightWave for Stargate after all, not 3D Studio Max. And a lot of it isn't the luminosity out of the render, it's the post-processed additive glow, which tends to saturate the dynamic range on 8 bit per channel displays.

http://www.stargatecaps.com/sg1/s7/7.../7x22_885.html
Come on, you think THIS above looks better than this below?
http://www.stargatecaps.com/sga/s3/3...l/nml0474.html
Talk about looking like blurry blobs. Yikes!

The difference in resolution and image degradation between those two images makes any comparison invalid.

[kirmit]

http://www.stargatecaps.com/sg1/s7/7.../7x22_885.html
Come on, you think THIS above looks better than this below?
http://www.stargatecaps.com/sga/s3/3...l/nml0474.html
Talk about looking like blurry blobs. Yikes!

Erm yes, much better. Even though the second pic is of much better quality the first one still looks tons better. The second basically just looks like an ark of white lines, whilst the first looks like a stream of millions of these drones all moving differently. I agree with jenks the ones in LC look fluid, like jellyfish drones were actually moving around themselves, recent ones basically look just like any other energy weapon with the faint outline of the drone.

[the fifth man]

I like both the fluid and solid look of the drones

Same here. Both look pretty cool IMO.

[Freekzilla]

The 3D modeled drones will not illuminate a real set any more than sprites. In order to illuminate the set, they can either use real lights on set or use a virtual set lit by a 3D lighting solution driven by the same animation as the drones themselves. The virtual set is then comp'ed back on to the real set. Either way, the illumination effect doesn't have anything to do with whether it's 3D modeled drones or not (sprites can be attached to particle systems and each particle can emit light which can light the virtual set). I'd be surprised if they didn't use a particle system to drive the animation in Lost City. The fact that it didn't light the set up means they just never went the extra mile to comp the lighting, not that they couldn't. It's very easy to link lights to particles.

The proper term that they would use is likely surface "luminosity", not brightness/emission. They use LightWave for Stargate after all, not 3D Studio Max. And a lot of it isn't the luminosity out of the render, it's the post-processed additive glow, which tends to saturate the dynamic range on 8 bit per channel displays.

The difference in resolution and image degradation between those two images makes any comparison invalid.

Hmm, yes and no on some things. Whether it's done in 3d or not is important. Because, if they are taking the time to model the drones in 3d, then they are more likely to also do the lighting of them in 3d, them composited in, just like you said. What I mean is, by using 3d instead of sprites, it's easier to go that extra mile. Now, yes they could have attached lights to the particle system, but in my experience, that doesn't look as good, and I personally don't think it's as flexible.

Yes, I know it's called luminosity. I've played with LW before, not a lot because the interface is annoying. But not everyone here is gonna understand a bunch of terms, especially since a lot of those programs out there call them different things. I'm sure if you talk about the radiosity of something, people are gonna look at you all confused and befuddled. But if they know the saturation could be a problem, then they should have a fix for it by now. This isn't their first time doing this, they are professionals after all. I'm just a novice, and even I know you have to be carefull when doing effects/graphics that are going to end up on a TV.

Erm yes, much better. Even though the second pic is of much better quality the first one still looks tons better. The second basically just looks like an ark of white lines, whilst the first looks like a stream of millions of these drones all moving differently. I agree with jenks the ones in LC look fluid, like jellyfish drones were actually moving around themselves, recent ones basically look just like any other energy weapon with the faint outline of the drone.

Eh, to each his own. I think a lot of it has to do with the number of drones used, not just how they were done. I personally don't like the way they used to be done, and think they looked a bit silly when they were jellyfish like. Like I said before, great for their time and athat it was for a TV show, but they could do so much better now and more easily.