Babylon 5 archive chat

Archive of the "Babylon 5" message base, discussing the CG and effects used in the series. Very interesting folder, full of info on NewTek, lightwave, the Screamer and the Amiga in general.



Subj:  Which version of LW?                  94-02-03 23:50:02 EDT
From:  LivWirProd
Posted on: America Online

   While I applaud the efforts of the animators on this show, it seems to me that the artifacts present in the pilot still exist in this series. I thought the poor anti-aliasing (flickering) was done away with in LW 4000- am I wrong? Seaquest doesn't seem to have this problem.
   Also, I personally don't like the high key lighting on the ships. Fill light may not be realistic in space, but the high key (only) lighting makes the ships look cheap some how. There just isn't enough depth of field to carry this off (cf. movies like "2010" for high key that works or the Star Wars films which use roughly a 2:1 ratio to light their models).
   BTW-I thought the matte paintings were pretty good as well as the ships' motion paths.
   Input anyone...?

Scott Simmons

Subj:  Re:Which version of LW?               94-02-04 01:27:48 EDT
From:  JKarts
Posted on: America Online

Considering they are in orbit around an "earth like" planet near a "sun" like star, I think the lighting they are using is appropriate. Just check out any recent NASA footage from any shuttle mission (the Hubble repair mission is an excelent example). The lighting in space is very contrasty, there is no ambient light to speak of except what the Earch gives off and what the shuttle itself reflects - and that is not really ambient light either.
I applaud B5 animators for creating what is a bit more realistic lighting  over what makes the best for the best studio "beauty shot."
Check out their motion bluring however, pretty strange - seems to be multiple "exposures" - about five or six, can't tell for sure, rather than true motion bluring. Gives it a kind of strobed look in fast action.
Also, check out the stars with fast camera pans. Soom kind of strange curving distortion seems to occure in the movement,
Overall, I think it looks pretty good, better in some ways than SeaQuest and far better than the ill fated Space Rangers. Remember that one?

--JK--

Subj:  high key lighting                     94-02-04 03:26:25 EDT
From:  Vanzo
Posted on: America Online

I overheard some comic-book officionados mocking the CGI in B5. I took a second look at the show & thought the image quality was very good...I don't know what their kick was...the animations are not exactly lit the way I would have preferred..artifacting seems either from overdone highlights or from maxed out ntsc colors. Has a very "video" look to it that could use some filter softening, perhaps some darkening or less vibrant colors too.

Otherwise, I'm very much impressed by the complexity and detail they pull off...even if their camera work could use more subtlety..

just me from my box,
s.vanzo

Subj:  Seaquest lighting                     94-02-04 03:36:08 EDT
From:  Vanzo
Posted on: America Online

The colors used in Seaquest(that I've seen) are all fairly dark, muted hues of blue & such. After all - its underwater! Their pallete must prevent most artifacting problems & make image quality all the more understated, as it should be - even though I don't give two hoots for the show in general..

Subj:  Re:Seaquest lighting                  94-02-04 19:12:58 EDT
From:  PDC Markus
Posted on: America Online

The SeaQuest shot are all done in heavy linear fog that extends to behind the camera.  This could account for some of the "edge" taken off the renders that make it look less like video.

Markus

Subj:  Re:Babylon 5 comments                 94-02-06 06:34:34 EDT
From:  Bubastis
Posted on: America Online

Some of the aliasing/motion blur problems that you see in B5 could be due to a few things -

1. Many of the shots you are looking at now were done some time ago. Certainly before Foundation Imaging had their Screamer to help out in the renderings. For this reason, they couldn't always use high levels of Antialiasing. This causes two things: more 'apparent' aliasing and less apparent motion blur (or the 'strobing' mentioned earlier). I think you will see some improvement as you see some of the more recent shows. (Foundation is currently working on #17ish)

2. There was/is a slight problem in LightWave where using antialiased image maps got 'too soft' when you applied any extra antialiasing. LW allows you to select 'Antialised Image' for any image map. If you select this and then use any level of Antialiasing in the final image, the detail in image maps would blur too much. Since Foundation uses many highly detailed image maps, they did not want to select 'Antialias Image' for the texture and therefore, you could see some more artifacting. This isn't noticed in seaQuest as much because seaQuest is always in fog (NonLinear, by the way). The most current version (beta) of LW addresses this issue.

J Gross
Amblin Imaging

Subj:  Re:Babylon 5 comments                 94-02-07 11:25:07 EDT
From:  PDC Markus
Posted on: America Online

Sorry, my mistake on the fog.

Markus

Subj:  "Battle On Five?"                     94-02-08 23:39:26 EDT
From:  MoonSun
Posted on: America Online

Off the subject (but amusing), the writer in On Location magazine refers to the series as "Battle On Five" (see Jan./Feb. page 55).

By the way, nit-picking aside, I find it hard to believe the level of animation coming off of a desktop computer system (ok, MANY desktop computers). Incredible.

Subj:  Incredible                            94-02-09 04:23:59 EDT
From:  Vanzo
Posted on: America Online

Agreed...

s.v.

Subj:  "wow" over Babylon 5?                 94-02-09 17:00:10 EDT
From:  LivWirProd
Posted on: America Online

For those really impressed with Babylon's CG, do you think  it's as good as or better than  models (as the sneak preview documentary claims)?

Scott

Subj:  Re:"wow" over Babylon 5?              94-02-09 19:02:11 EDT
From:  CMCarter
Posted on: America Online

Most certainly! The animation is better too!

Chuck

Subj:  Re:"wow" over Babylon 5?              94-02-09 21:02:46 EDT
From:  Vanzo
Posted on: America Online

Although I think(in general) that 3d camera work should be subtle(it really bothers me when the camera refuses to be stationary for atleast one moment!), the potential of 3d computer camera work is quite incredible(extremely complex yet smooth yaw, pitch & roll). I doubt that the camera work present in B5 could have been done with even the most sophisticated motion control camera.

As far as models go, I'm really surprised that the industry in general still uses such techniques...NOT to say that there isn't incredible work done with models..it just seems as though the plasticity, motion control & effects(including digital post techniques) achievable with CGI models makes a CGI approach much more viable.

BTW- When was the sneak preview documentary aired?

-s.v.

Subj:  Re:"wow" over Babylon 5?              94-02-10 03:20:33 EDT
From:  LivWirProd
Posted on: America Online

The "sneak" was aired the Tuesday night before the first episode aired here in Los Angeles. 

My background is in visual effects. I worked for a now defunct effects company in Burbank (one of the reasons they went under is that they woke up to the digital revolution too late. The old, optical process was just too long and unreliable. But this has more to do with pulling clean mattes on film than anything else.) I'm glad B5 is on the air and has so many proponents. I'm also glad that the show's CG (not to mention the stories) are getting better, as predicted. The flickering seems to have lessened if tonight's show is any inidcation. However, I don't share your opinions that its CG is better than traditional models (and I make my living at 3D CG). And there is absolutely nothing that are in its shots that a motion control camera cannot do- unless its to break the laws of physics. I guess my point is, that to me (and I may be in the minority here), the effects, while good, do not look real. I prefer the model look better. The level of detail on the real models is much higher, and the motion blur is exact (obviously). In short, real models look and act real because they are REAL. The texture maps on B5's ships are way too soft and the anti-aliasing of the composites is too hard-edged. And there is no depth of field. I don't think LightWave is there yet.

Again, my 2 cents.

Scott

Subj:  CGI antialiasing                      94-02-10 05:51:52 EDT
From:  Vanzo
Posted on: America Online

I agree with you on several points, particularly the aliasing problems which prohibit the detail your talking about...I wish working at film resolutions was always in the budget..two thousand or even one thousand lines on film..It'd be surely nice to see... Designing around such problems is often quite a hassle...

Depth of field is a good point - I hadn't realized that the images simply lacked atmosphere...not that there's much atmosphere in space, though..

s.v.

Subj:  Models & CGI                          94-02-11 01:31:03 EDT
From:  MoonSun
Posted on: America Online

I think there is a place for both models and CGI. There's no doubt that CGI is cheaper, faster, and more flexible, but models generally look more realistic to my eye (especially on the big screen). Of course, in the context of a TV show, CGI makes tremendous sense - resolution is not a  problem, and changes can be made very quickly (alot of bang for the buck here)!

In regards to B5, I think the things they are doing are truly great (effects-wise, that is)! My only real gripes concern the planet (not very convincing), and the matte painting of the interior of the ship (totally unconvincing. I've seen better paintings in restaurants). Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

Subj:  Re:Models & CGI                       94-02-11 05:06:03 EDT
From:  Stranahan
Posted on: America Online

1) LightWave has full depth of field controls, including focal length, F Stop and type of camera. It's very realistic - just watch Viper (yeck!, I know) - the flying camera is often CGI - there are some shots where you could never tell...done in LW, btw

2) My brother (a special effects guy) says that one reason B5 has a 'video' look is that they apparently rendre 30 fps, while the rest of the show is film at 24 fps...the LW effects on Viper, seaQuest, Star Trek:NG, X Files, etc usually aren't done this way...

Subj:  CGI the look                          94-02-11 11:53:45 EDT
From:  Mark040
Posted on: America Online

The look of the CG in B5 is not very realistic. It is too well lit. This said, it is probably totally appropriate. For the same reason (I would guess) you have large flaming explosions and loud engine noises. This is what the audience expects. I thought the lighting of the pilot was probably more realistic. Kind of gives it almost a comic book look. Had the SeaQuest been lit and rendered more realistic... we would see nothing. I think they both look great.

MarkS


Subj:  Stranahan                             94-02-11 20:16:26 EDT
From:  Vanzo
Posted on: America Online

>>
My brother (a special effects guy) says that one reason B5 has a 'video' look is that they apparently rendre 30 fps, while the rest of the show is film at 24 fps...
<<

I don't really  see how rendering at 30fps can give the show a 'video' look. It doesn't make much sense to me. It might look slightly different if the footage doesn't have to be converted from 24->30fps using the ol' 1-2 pulldown...

Did he mean that the CGI isn't put on film(rendered at NTSC resolution onto video) as opposed to the rest of the show??

please correct me...I'm pretty new at this..
s.vanzo

Subj:  Just Praise !                         94-02-12 01:03:09 EDT
From:  Philip 3D
Posted on: America Online

I'm glad that LW is getting alittle credit finally from the 3D community, after all the Seaquest bashing that went on.  I don't even work very much in LW but it's pretty obvious that LW is a contender.  Alot of other "nameless" PC 3D companies pick on LW constantly, but truth be told, they'd die for the kind acceptance and brass rings LW has garnered. 
1.) Models VS. CGI - I think it's clear, in general models look better ( when done correctly!!!) CGI have alittle ways to go I think.
2.) I agree that the planet needs alot of work, but in general the effects on B5 look great. But whats more important it meets a price performance point.  Let's face it, it's all about money. LW performs cost effectively while giving satisfactory results. Are there better ways to do the effects, better software, hardware ? Sure, but they're not necessay because, as I said LW meets it's price point.
3.) Lighting - Depth of field etc. -  I agree that there needs to be some fiddling in these areas to obtain better results and there are some softness problems. But I don't think SFX people should ever get too carried away with what is actually realistic, rather they should be concerned with what their audience thinks is realistic. Versimilitude is the key.

Philip Powell   

Subj:  Right Tool for the Job...             94-02-12 01:20:28 EDT
From:  DavidB367
Posted on: America Online

Just my 2 cents....

I feel that you have to use the right tool to get the effect your looking for.  The TNG/DS9 models are stunning and look very good, but some shots like SQ are very hard to do with models (view the Abyss director's cut on LaserDisk to see what had to be done for that).

My major problem with B5 is that the CG shots turn my stomach (not bad, just jerky and disorienting). 

With the new PPC computers coming out, it should get really interesting on what can be done, faster and cheaper in a few years on the Mac.

David

Subj:  Babylon5 and LightWave                94-02-13 03:09:21 EDT
From:  Crazy Larr
Posted on: America Online

I've been following this post sporadically, but I do find it interesting (the CG look great).
From what I remember (when the series was a pilot) they were using networked Amigas to to all of the CG using Newtek's LightWave 3D software.
For graphics of that level and for the time constraints of producing a show with that many CG, are they still using that set-up or using a mix of Amigas, Mac and SGIs.

From what I know LightWave is specifically made for the Amiga (with a toaster), not other platforms. Are they doing all of their modelling off the Amigas 68040 or are they using some sort of accelarator to speed up the modelling interactive process (more like an SGI).
I've also heard they were prototyping a specialized rendering board with four MIPS R4000 working in tandem. Does LightWave currently support anything other than the Amiga's own 68040?

RSM

Subj:  Re:Babylon5 and LightWave             94-02-13 04:58:43 EDT
From:  PDC Markus
Posted on: America Online

I think Babylon5 might be using Newtek Screamers now.  Can anyone confirm this?

Markus

Subj:  Re:Screamers                          94-02-13 05:43:01 EDT
From:  Vanzo
Posted on: America Online

I heard a while back(here in 3dsig) that they were the beta site for the Screamer...but that ain't no cold-hard fact coming from me...only hearsay.

for what its worth..
s.v.

Subj:  Screamers ???                         94-02-13 20:19:32 EDT
From:  Crazy Larr
Posted on: America Online

Are the Screamers board only for batch rendering (like the YARCs) or can they also be used from within LightWave for a more "interactive" modelling, texturizing and animation set-up experience?

Having four MIPS R4000 all working together should give performance comparable to SGI's (assuming) the Bus rate of the Amiga can handle the massive transfer of information.

RSM

Subj:  Re:Screamers ???                      94-02-13 23:21:42 EDT
From:  Vanzo
Posted on: America Online

I believe the Screamer is in the $10,000 ball park(equivalent to roughly 2 YARCs). Even though that is dirt cheap for four R4000's, all it can be used for is rendering. The hardware included may only be compatible with LightWave, in which case the Screamer is very limited. It would have been nice if they had such a monster for the Mac three years ago, but now - my bets are on buying several PowerPC's or a SGI rather than any more dedicated rendering hardware..

s.v. 

Subj:  Re:Screamers ???                      94-02-14 02:00:52 EDT
From:  AMANNING
Posted on: America Online

Don't forget DayStar should be coming out with a 4  601 chip accelerator, priced at less than $5000, I've heard. Also, the price for the Screamer I've heard apparently does not include RAM. What someone else told me is that a "functional" ( whatever that means) configuration for the Screamer costs between $15,000 - $18,000. But, this may be a somewhat moot point. My sources  tell me NewTek just went through MAJOR abandonment from top people including; vp Paul Montgomery, marketing guy Mark Randall, spokesmodel Kiki, product manager Daniel Kaye, and, most importantly, programmer's Ken Turcotte and  Steve Hartford. Looks like all the colliding ego's finally reached critical mass!  Uncalled for sniping aside, actually, I heard it was a serious dispute over porting to other platforms. Those who left thought that perhaps it was wise to go to platforms that had greater acceptance, not to mention better engineering. If anyone knows better/more correct information on this ground-breaking news, please post it/link me at once.

Subj:  Not Kiki!!                            94-02-14 02:24:06 EDT
From:  AFC John
Posted on: America Online

....she was the best (and corniest) part about NewTek and thier inhouse videos...:)


AFC John
3DSIG/MGR

Subj:  Goodbye                               94-02-15 02:01:34 EDT
From:  Stranahan
Posted on: America Online

I posted much of this to AManning privately, but the people who resigned and/or were fired from NewTek certainly weren't the only people arguing for NewTek to seriously consider other platforms. It doesn't take a rocket genius to figure out that the Amiga possibly MIGHT not be the platform of the 90s.

Everyone I talk to at NewTek knows this stuff, and of course, since they work there, they are in position to do something about it. The mood at NewTek seems much more upbeat then I seen it in over a year.

What bothers me is that those who left seem to be trying to grab credit for any future NewTek accomplishments and squelch any negative comment. They've already tried to censor my column in VTU.

I'm pretty optimistic about the future. Kiki or no, this should be an interesting NAB....

Subj:  Re:Goodbye                            94-02-15 15:11:09 EDT
From:  Threedelux
Posted on: America Online

Lee,
Ok the cat is out of the proverbial bag
Please clarify the the situation for those of us who have invested a lot of time and money and who's lively hood depends a great deal on this machine.
 -THREEDELUX-


Subj:  Re:Screamers ???                      94-02-15 18:33:42 EDT
From:  PDC Markus
Posted on: America Online

Right now the only thing selling Amigas is the European market and the Video Toaster.

It would seem that Newtek would make a killing if they had the Toaster available for the Mac and especially the PC.

I've heard it said that one of the difficulties in porting the Toaster is because it is tied closely to the Amiga custom chipset.  Is this the real poop?

Markus

Subj:  Goodbye                               94-02-16 17:55:03 EDT
From:  Stranahan
Posted on: America Online

Not too much more I can say - my column in the April issue of VTU deals with Paul's firing. In short, I say that I think it's a good thing.