- I have a question about that. When DS9 was seen in the first shot of "Strange Bedfellows", was it CGI there? Tough Little Ship 16:38, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Almost four month later, but could I get an answer? Tough Little Ship 20:24, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- It's been a while but I think so. --- Warp One 00:25, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain Star Treks won Emmy's (or something) for their CGI things, such as the Voyager crashing on the Ice planet in "Timeless" or the Borg super-city; those should be mentioned here, as well as I'm sure other things. Such as the CGI artists. - AJHalliwell 19:59, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Any chance of a page for traditional modelmakers? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 17:59, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)
CGI in TNG Edit
- I think what is meant is, there were no CG-ships in TNG, but there were CG-creatures, like Junior, or the Crystalline Entity. --Jörg 23:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Should this page be organized based upon what classes of starships/stations were created in CGI? Or at least have a separate listing for it, apart from the individual "appearances". Especially with the Dominion War battles, the list can be extremely long and somewhat incomplete if we were to list by ship name alone. Okan170 22:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
CGI models are really just a studio model created by a computer. I can only see this article covering new ships that were created for ENT and a few from VOY, as almost all CGI ships before that were "reused" from physical models. There is way too much overlap for both page to cover the topic without mentioning things twice. - Archduk3:talk 10:54, December 7, 2009 (UTC)
- Some shots in the last season of DS9 were also CGI(including the very last shot). While both articles are technically about models, I think that the difference in technology used to create them is significant enough to warrant having sepearate articles. I'm not entirely convinced these need to be merged, but I would not oppose it if this article was left as a redirect. --31dot 11:24, December 7, 2009 (UTC)
- A couple of months ago I already added a short paragraph into the section "studio models" covering CGI and as such I agree. However a bit of caution is required here, since this article also cover CGI creations of aliens, which do not fall under the heading "studio models" in my view. Maybe the heading of the article should be shortened to CGI...the article does need some expanding, though...Tough call, this one --Sennim 11:39, December 7, 2009 (UTC)
Rename to CGIEdit
While performing some finetuning on the article, I've gradually become convinced that not only a merge is not in order but also that the title of the article should be shortened to CGI. In my modest view CGI is a technology to produce special effects in the broader sense of the word. While it is true that, as of now, the main focus lies on ships, CGI is also used to produce landscapes, effects, aliens and space vistas, as is touched upon in earlier discussion points and in the article itself as another user has started a list of CG species.--Sennim 10:59, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
- I would tend to agree, since this could be expanded beyond "models" that way. - Archduk3 00:02, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
Difference between visual & special effectsEdit
This article seems to be highly erroneous, as I've read in several Star Trek-related sources (one of which is the official reference book A Vision of the Future - Star Trek: Voyager) that special effects are those that are created live, on the set, while effects that require after-the-fact use of computers (i.e., "CGI", as in this article) is classed as visual effects. This article makes no differentiation between the two types of effects, however! --Defiant 23:52, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
- You're so right about the difference between "Special Effects" and "Visual Effects", but I do take exception to your statement of being "highly erroneous". If you have taken the trouble of reading into the matter, as I have done, you'd have noticed that the distinction of VFX (Visual Effects) and SFX (Special Effects) came into being in the late 80's. Even a distinctive work like "Industrial Light & Magic; The Art of Special Effects" (1986) didn't use the term "Visual Effects", though much of the effects used by then could be designated as such. The point is this; the distinction came into being at the end of the 80's, early 90's of the last century (I challenge everybody to come up with a verified vfx mention before 1986). So please, do your homework, before you make such paternalistic remarks.--Sennim 23:43, July 8, 2011 (UTC)
This is a pre-cursor to a MA-nomination. I believe I've made comprehensible a technical subject in Star Trek terms that is digestible for non-IT people. I, as a non-IT professional was not looking for this article to write upon, but more or less was forced to do so because of my primary interest (studio models). Thankfully, I've found eloquent production staff comments, making CGI understandable for the common man (yeah, Adam Lebowitz). I am aware that there are 2 PNA-incompletes added (I know, because I placed them there), but in this case they are well, not exactly insignificant, but rather an inheritance from the original instigator of the page, which I could not ignore. I think is this case the PNA's are exceptions to the rule as they do not reflect on the main body of text...Your thoughts--Sennim 00:33, July 9, 2011 (UTC)
- If you believe you have expanded the article enough to address the PNA-incompletes you can just remove them. On the other hand, if you think there is more material to cover, then the tags should remain and the article should not be nominated as a Featured Article.
- One objection I have is the citations. While most of the article uses the style required by MA:CYS, the lists you speak of do not. In addition to being inconsistent with other pages, the current footnotes with manual numbering become messy whenever you add another entry to the list (e.g. this edit). This would have to be resolved before becoming a featured article.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 00:56, July 9, 2011 (UTC)
Dear Cleanse, thank you very much for your reaction. As for item one, you're correct. I cannot complete the listing as of now, since there is almost none behind-the-scenes info available of the last two seasons of VOY and the last three seasons of ENT. But that was my whole point, it does not diminish the main text, methinks. The listings are an afterthought so to speak (the 5% which even aren't mine). So does the incompleteness of secondary listings diminish the value the main article as a whole, maybe, but I am not convinced of that...Your second point: I've to admit, I'm not exactly sure what you mean, it might be that I'm just a ignorant non-AngloSaxon in this respect, but I thought I addressed this matter correctly in response to User:Defiant's revision of [as of 09:47, August 15, 2010]. Yet I could be wrong. That being said, I've been the only one who cared about the article since June 2010, when it was a mere 6 meg (and woefully inaccurate) and have kept it updated to its current 68 meg..., so who am I to talk...--Sennim 02:09, July 9, 2011 (UTC)
- So there is no doubt, let me say this. Sennim, this isn't meant to a personal thing, not a reflection on your efforts on the article. I'm just trying to point out where the article can be improved further. It has nothing to do with your race or English language skills.
- Regarding point one, this does not in any way diminish the value of the main body of the article. What I'm saying is that simply an article with incomplete sections cannot become a Featured Article. I know it's not always fair to those who contributed to it, but we look at the article as a whole. For example, I think I write good write-ups of Background Information for TNG articles, but the articles as a whole can't be nominated as an FA because of incomplete summary sections (of which I'm not very good at writing). You'll note that I don't have a single FA that is "mine" but I don't think it reflects poorly on my contributions to those and other articles. It's a community effort. Furthermore, you should not be under the misapprehension that FAs are the only articles considered worthwhile on Memory Alpha. There are many, many, great articles that fall short of becoming an FA on some hurdles that are hard to resolve.
- Regarding point two, I am extremely impressed with your efforts to reference the lists. What I was pointing out was that the citation style used was not consistent with MA:CYS (and the rest of the article). I meant that you should use the same citation style you use in all other articles, e.g. things like (Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion 3rd ed., p. 7). It's a relatively small thing, but FAs are meant to be be the best of the best, and should conform absolutely to policies. Furthermore, as I said, the manual footnotes have caused problems when someone inserts another entry. Using the recommended style would completely avoid that problem. –Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 03:35, July 9, 2011 (UTC)
- I agree; it would be a good step to change the citation method used. Also, some of the "facts" still look like they need a citation, such as the hyper-evolved Humans of VOY: "Threshold". Such citations will not only help this article, but also make it viable for those facts to be added to other pages (in that case, both the "Threshold" article as well as the one about hyper-evolved Humans).--Defiant 10:51, July 9, 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry; bad example, as I just discovered that there's already a citation for that on MA (specifically, Red Alert: Visual Effects Season 2, VOY Season 2 DVD special features). I'm not sure how to add it, though, because the currently-used citation method on this page is totally unfamiliar to me. And my main point remains; there's some others that look like they could do with a citation. --Defiant 10:56, July 9, 2011 (UTC)
Dear Cleanse, thank you again for your thoughtful comments...No worries, I'm not taking this personally. It did more or less solicited the reaction I was expecting, hence the peer review requested instead of a FA consideration request. Though I see your point regarding the first issue, I still consider the listing, which in all honesty might never be complete for the reasons I have stated, as merely illustrative rather than crucial. Not wanting to be petty (believe you me), but wasn't this approached differently if the list was not included from the get-go? As for point two, you're right insofar that it does not comply with the style I or others normally use. I have to admit that I was a bit disappointed that when I inserted an additional source I had to adjust all the refs (which although being a pain works, as long as I am the only editor, but messes things up for others), I had hoped that that would be automated. (perhaps something for the Wiki mods) But I do stand by the format chosen thus in this case, pure for aesthetic reasons. While standard citations work just fine in narrative bodies of text, in listings it just looks clustered like this. I think that good articles not only have to be good for their contents, but should also be pleasing for the eye, hence my reluctance to include those kludgy "galleries" as much as feasible. Just my two cents. Thank you again for your input...--Sennim 11:36, July 9, 2011 (UTC)
- With regards to the part about the Genesis effect being "the first CGI used in Star Trek", was it not also the first use of CGI in any movie? Wikipedia says that but I'm not sure what their source is....I'm sure there's documentation on that, if true, which could be added to this article.--31dot 00:57, July 12, 2011 (UTC)
- You're right and it has been addressed with other examples somewhat further in the article in the first paragraph of the "Software" chapter...Sennim 10:08, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
- So it is- and I now see why it is that way. This article is looking pretty good to me. :) --31dot 10:36, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
- You're right and it has been addressed with other examples somewhat further in the article in the first paragraph of the "Software" chapter...Sennim 10:08, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
Removal peer reviewEdit
After several weeks it has become clear that the article, good as it may be as peers have attested to, has no chance of a FA nomination due to the way it has been constructed...So I've decide to remove it from peer review and possible consideration for FA status. I do understand the reasoning behind it all, so no bad feelings here, honestly; Thank you all for your input...Sennim 02:22, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking of this article again, and I thought of two ways we could resolve the issues I brought up previously.
First, regarding the PNA-incomplete, if there genuinely is no more information whatsoever available, having such a tag should be removed. In its place, a note could be added that there is less information available on later VOY and ENT. If more information comes to light later, that's great, but at the moment it shouldn't be called incomplete if there isn't actually any more information to fill in.
Second, regarding problems with the list, why don't we use tables instead? A column labeled "Citation" could then use the proper style, and I think the end result would be much cleaner. For example, the beginning of the ships and stations list could be:
|Ship or Station||First appearance||CGI supplier||Citation|
|Refit-Constitution-class||Star Trek: The Motion Picture (The Director's Edition)||Foundation Imaging||Star Trek: The Magazine Vol. 2, No. 8, pp. 52-60.|
|Class F shuttlecraft||Star Trek: The Motion Picture (The Director's Edition)||Foundation Imaging||Star Trek: The Magazine Vol. 2, No. 10, pp. 24-30.|
- Dear Cleanse, thank you for your input. Regarding item 1, I personally would agree with you there. I might have missed a few, but any new additions have to come from gracious blog entries yet to come by for example Drexler or Eaves. I think your suggestion there is graceful. Regarding item 2, your suggestion there is equally graceful. I personally like to work with tables, but I can imagine it to be daunting for contributors who are less well versed in using these. Having worked with these, I know it still requires intense concentration as not to mess up layout for example...I too have given some thought to the citation issue and have stumbled upon an simplified version of the format I've used thusfar, which I think is also easy to use for novices or the casual contributor. It uses this format:
- <ref>["source"]</ref> followed by for example:==Footnotes, Reference sources or whatever title is fitting== <references />
- Carried over to your examples it translates into this:
- Refit-Constitution-class (premiered in Star Trek: The Motion Picture (The Director's Edition), built at Foundation Imaging)
- Class F shuttlecraft (premiered in Star Trek: The Motion Picture (The Director's Edition), built at Foundation Imaging)
- ↑ Star Trek: The Magazine Vol. 2, No. 8, pp. 52-60.
- ↑ Star Trek: The Magazine Vol. 2, No. 10, pp. 24-30.
- As I see it the advantages are these, it relatively easy to use for the casual contributor, it does not matter where in the list the sources are inserted, since the numbering is automated, additions automatically inserted and there is no limit to the number of references you put between the <refs>. Well these are my two cents, let me know how this strikes you, Regards--Sennim 10:19, August 19, 2011 (UTC)
I don't mind that, so long as you're following MA:CYS (except putting references in a footnote instead of brackets, of course). I still prefer the table though; I don't think its too daunting for new users and I think the raw text is easier to read and edit. Also, it would be sortable, so a reader can, for example, look for ships by the same company or that debuted in the same episode/film.
- I missed this, as I was on holiday over the weekend. I think the use of tables is a good idea and would personally opt for that over the other solution, though both are handy. :) --Defiant 12:23, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
I´ve adjusted the Species section as per your guy´s suggestion...let me know if this is what you had in mind...Sennim 02:17, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
CG/CGI model Edit
Is there a preference for CG model or CGI model, among the community? I have a slight personal preference for CG model, as (IMO) "computer-generated model" seems to be more accurate and make more grammatical sense than "computer-generated imaging model" or "computer-generated imagery model." However, Sennim clearly seems to prefer CGI model, for which I'm sure there are reasons. So, I'd be interested in seeing if anyone else has a preference and finding out what those reasons are/might be. --Defiant 12:30, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
- Dear Defiant, my sincere apologies for this late response as I've honestly missed this post. I'll try to elaborate my reasons for my preferred usage of the term "CGI model". As you have surmised, I did have my reasons to use the term, and they are twofold:
- The term "CGI" itself, has become a denomination onto itself. While originally an acronym for "computer generated Imagery/imaging", it is nowadays in general usage a self-contained term, much like the US special forces "SEALS".
- While I'm in agreement with your assessment of the grammatical awkwardness of the term "computer-generated imaging/imagery model", and which I, believe it or not, have taken into considerable consideration, I in the end, in conjecture with the above statement, decided upon my preference due to the fact that CGI is not constricted to models alone. While the article is admittedly extremely heavy on models, I've tried to make a point that logically (pardon the pun) not all CGI are models, in short, "All digital models are CGI, but not all CGI are models", a point I tried to make in the "Other CGI effects" section.
- The other CGI effects, I am referring to are for example cloud, water and vapor, created by particle-generator software-packages, in the early stages using fractals. Yet, though I have tried to make a point of it, specific Star Trek literature on these kind of effects is exceptionally rare, and going into specific technical details was and is beyond the scope of MA, makes it superfluous. Nevertheless, since this is the case, it was reason enough to have the original article title changed from "CGI model" to "CGI" (see talkpage), making it a concept article, which I still fully endorse. So, as a concept and not as a grammatically acronym, I have made the conscious decision to utilize the full "CGI" terminology, being a concept and not a grammatical construct. I do hope to have made my stance understandable--Sennim (talk) 02:58, November 20, 2012 (UTC)