• The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.

B5:TLT - New Logo and CGI

Wow, that is superb. They've done a spectacular job on the new models, everything just looks more realistic. Like the logo as well... Glad to see so many of the old ships have been recreated, more than makes up for loosing the original models.
 
That logo just looks perfect.. Even without the name you'd know what it was from the stripe and the backdrop.. And I really love the effects shot too - all that extra detail and layering (look at Epsilon 3!) and yet it's still so faithful to the original look.. :)

Thanks for linking that! :)

On the logo, it looks like Epsilon 3 in the background ... at least, there is a planet there with the right kind of nebula around it. If thats the case, the opening sequence may zoom past the logo and take us into the action.
 
I love that site; the little comments are great. Check out their assessment of docking bays on the Vorlon planet killer.
 
This is an excellent site for B5 ships (hope the owner doesn't mind me plugging it here :) ):

http://www.themadgoner.com/TMG/Sci_Fi/SciPages/Babylon5/Front_Page/Mark4_Build.htm
(just kidding ;) )

No, of course not. I’ll be padding it out with more or less canon information at some point in the future plus adding in the last few ships I missed.

As for the recently released pics. The Minbari Cruiser (Sharlin) and Centauri ship (Primus) do look way out of scale. But if you look to the left. The tower of that Hyperion looks like it is front of the Vree saucer. If it is, then that is another hell of a mis-match in scale, when compared to the original show. I really hope these are just quick promo pictures. Then again, maybe they are now finally the scale they where always meant to be. Have to wait and see I guess.


[edit]
I've just realised your probably referring to the owner of this site. <slaps head> doh.
 
Last edited:
Is it possible that the Primus is supposed to be behind the Sharlin and they just made a goof with the layering?
 
A layering goof like that, if that’s what it is, on what is basically a promo shot (even though its from jms’s private collection) is, to me a worrying sign of possible things to come. Same if it’s a scaling error.

I really really really really hope it isn’t.
 
[edit]
I've just realised your probably referring to the owner of this site. <slaps head> doh.

No, I did mean you.. Really love the site!! :) :)

I guess it's inevitable that with the models being rebuilt from scratch by another company after so much time some of the internal consistency will be gone, which is a shame, but then I guess we might not be seeing much of these ships anyway other than in this one scene (assuming it is a moving image and not just a promo shot)..
 
Yeah, I do seem to remember a “slightly” oversized Nial fighter sitting beside the Liandra in the car park during LOTR, as well as a few ships flying backwards. jms says he has more freedom and control with this than the later B5 offerings, so hopefully it works. So others will be made.
 
Looking at the SIL image Shabazz posted, was not the Shalin that big there as well ?

I remember Shalin's being huge compared to EA ships in In the Begining.

They can always use the 'Bird of Prey' lame mutiple models at different sizes based on one design excuse for Centauri ships ...
 
A layering goof like that, if that’s what it is, on what is basically a promo shot (even though its from jms’s private collection) is, to me a worrying sign of possible things to come. Same if it’s a scaling error.

I really really really really hope it isn’t.

The thing is, the models are supposed to be built to scale, and placing them in a 3D scene, the software (e.g. Lightwave, Maya, etc.) ought to take care of the relative sizing. So, if this was a frame of a scene, we should not come across this sizing problem. However, if it was a photo that was made say in Photoshop, that kind of error could come up, if somebody was just trying to slap something together to show the fans.

Based upon the sizing problems we're seeing, I think it's the latter, and therefore nothing to worry about.
 
Last edited:
On the logo, it looks like Epsilon 3 in the background ... at least, there is a planet there with the right kind of nebula around it. If thats the case, the opening sequence may zoom past the logo and take us into the action.

I wasn't aware that Epsilon 3 had a moon. The planet could be Earth.
 
KoshN said:
I wasn't aware that Epsilon 3 had a moon.

I don't think we ever saw Epsilon 3's moon, however in his very early online communications regarding B5, jms said:

BTW...the Babylon 5 station isn't just floating there. It's at the L-5
point in a binary star system between a moon and a barren, lifeless planet.
 
I don't think we ever saw Epsilon 3's moon, however in his very early online communications regarding B5, jms said:

It seems to me if there was a moon in orbit around Epslion 3, we would have SEEN it sometime over the course of 110 episodes (not counting Crusade) and six movies involving Babylon 5. My guess is that the moon bit was dropped.
 
The moon was shown in the original version of “The Gathering”. The special edition version has the scenes (two I think) removed. If you want to see it, check out the “Bits and Bobs” section of this web site, it shows some of the differences between the two versions.
http://www.themadgoner.com/TMG/Sci_Fi/SciPages/Babylon5/Front_Page/Mark4_Build.htm
(now I'm plugging it, lol.)


However, in the region 2 (uk) version of the DVD’s, in the season 1 episode “Soul Hunter” you do get a glimpse of it in a cut scene which someone forgot to remove.

Just to confuse matters the planet was originally going to be called “Euphrates”, it was to be located in a binary star system and the station was to be located at the L-5 point between the planet and the moon. Do a google with the name and jms and you’ll see the appropriate quotes.
 
Last edited:
The moon was shown in the original version of “The Gathering”. The special edition version has the scenes (two I think) removed. If you want to see it, check out the “Bits and Bobs” section of this web site, it shows some of the differences between the two versions.
http://www.themadgoner.com/TMG/Sci_Fi/SciPages/Babylon5/Front_Page/Mark4_Build.htm

I've been looking over the Bits & Bobs, and under "Visual Canon," you say:
Netter Digitals output ranged from not bad through poor to wtf in Crusade and the later films. It's a long and varied catalogue of errors, but if you look closely at their final attempt, "The Legend of the Rangers" there is something like a 800 metre Nial fighter sitting beside the Liandra and Valen in the car park, funnily enough I decided not to include this design on the site. All the ships overhead, plus the ridiculously oversized Maintenance Bots, are flying backwards, and that was them being careful. Surprisingly, Netter Digital went belly up after this film, for some reason no one else seemed to want to use them.

Netter Digital didn't do "The Legend of the Rangers." Gajdecki Visual Effects (GVFX) did. Netter Digital went belly up after Crusade. Certainly though, there was a surprising lack of QA/QC/oversight in the "The Legend of the Rangers" CGI. That whole project looked rushed, regardless of how much JMS denies it, and he denied it in direct reply to me.

Under Bits & Bobs "Example - CGI Errors," you'd be well served to include the Shadow Fighters that had slicer beams in Crusade "Patterns of the Soul" (from the flashback). How about the Excalibur main gun shot which misses the 60 km long Drakh mothership in "Each Night I Dream of Home" and yet the mothership still obligingly blows up?
 
Last edited:
Netter Digital did seem to have a 'quantity before quality' attitude, which I seem to remember finding slightly annoying at the time. But actually I think I prefer that they were ambitious and tried to do too much than if they'd held back and polished every shot, even if it did become more hit and miss.

And they were able to push things like motion capture and virtual sets much further than Foundation Imaging had. One of my favourite CG shots of all is the brief chaotic battle shot in Thirdspace, and there are some nice shots in In the Beginning as well.

GVFX did a good job too, I think. They got the basic look down, made hyperspace look a lot better, and improved things like texturing. The comet looks a lot better than anything that could have been done before then. The blunders they made with the giant fighter and the backwards-flying ships are definitely pretty dumb, but they aren't ones that I've noticed before, so I can just about see how they made it through quality control.

Atmosphere I'm sure will do an amazing job, based on their awesome track record.. :)
 
Atmosphere I'm sure will do an amazing job, based on their awesome track record.. :)

Oh I hope so. You've no idea just how much I hope so.

And I hope the QA/QC/oversight is there from the Babylonian end of things.
 
@KoshN

Yeah, I really buggered up the bit about Netter Digital and LOTR. You might guess from some of the stuff that was written I was getting browned off with the site at that point. It’s already changed and will be uploaded at some point. Those errors listed where just taken at random, I could have used others including the ones you mentioned, but I gave myself space restrictions. Don’t get me started on the Drakh mother ship, or Drakh ship scaling in general. When the forward parallel beams of the Excalibur hit one in a call to arms, it looks like it’s smaller than an Omega. Destroyers often look smaller than white stars and… and…. Anyway one of a few reasons why I didn’t get suckered into trying to make up stats for the ships.

For me, River Of Souls is where it all started to fall apart as far as quality went. Not so much in cgi but in general terms. Lochley in that outfit, nice, but definitely a sign that things where changing. The Dureena Naffel (spelling) character in crusade was originally meant to be a member of the Minbari warrior caste. Guess someone decided he wouldn’t look so good in leather.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top