Question for Titon regarding DeSanto Project Big G

[peter noble]

Titon,

You have stated, on more than one occaision, that building a CGI representation of the Big G is entirely possible as long as the modellers have enought time to build it.

My question is this, if the DeSanto project had made it to the screen, would the Big G have looked like it originally did, or would there have been compromises regarding time and the limits of CG (ie rendering time, and other technical issues)?

Best,

Peter

[Titon]

Peter to be totally honest with you creating the Galactica 100% accurate is not possible. Rendering it would be a nightmare. What i've shown you and some select others took me about 3 weeks to flesh out. The main structure is very easy and once you build alot of the kit bash parts your ahead of the game. You see alot of the same parts are used on various TOS ships and they were simply altered, trimmed and fitted to the respective model.

Having said that yes it's feasible to complete the Galactica in a timely manner. If you had 10 modelors working on it i'm sure it would only take a few weeks to actually complete her. That's *IF* everyone had every single kitbash component built which is a daunting task in itself. Believe me i know.

As far as your question i believe the only way Tom would do a continuation would be if he could get the original Galactica somehow. Meaning it would have to be a spot on accurate model. I know he's asked how much of our stuff is made up and how much is accurately built. It's all accurate and that's what he wants. But he also realizes that some of it just isn't possible or feasable for that mannor.

You can render the Galactica in passes, then composite together to make the animation. In hollywood that's what's done nowdays anyways. Compositing is the key. First the ship is rendered, then the shadows, then the lights and so on and so on. Kind of *green screening* in a computer. That way when you assemble your animation in the appropriate program you have control of all aspects of the scene.

[Senmut]

Why not recycle stock footage of the original when feasible?

[peter noble]

Thanks Don,

I did wonder, because the Eden FX Big G looks good shape-wise but it's got nowhere near the anount of detail on it that the physical model has.

I can remember that they said they had to split the Borg city model up into different parts for Star Trek: Voyager because of the render time and I wondered how this would affect a model with the amount of detail the Big G has on it.

Best,

Peter

[Titon]

Why not recycle stock footage of the original when feasible?

Yes that's a possibility but again that's why alot of interest weakened during the TOS run. Filming live models is a daunting task and a huge time consuming endevour. It simply cost's to much money today and back then it was even more expensive. There's only so much stock footage.

In today's age wouldn't it be fun to see the inside of the Galactica's landing bays instead of the same old landing shot's? That's what's intrigueing. Or for that matter the *other* side of the ship?

The reason you very rarely got a shot of the right side of ship was because the landing bay on that side drooped lower than the left. But in saying that the right bay has different details on it than the left. Be fun to see.

Peter the Eden model was the best to date that i've seen in an animation. But only select details were correct and when you got a bottom shot there was hardly any details at all. Once the Galactica is completed you can elimanate details from the shot that are not seen. That's the key. Only render what is seen.

:)