The Trek BBS

The Trek BBS (http://www.trekbbs.com/index.php)
-   Trek Tech (http://www.trekbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?f=14)
-   -   ST:TMP Technical Details (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=233539)

Patrickivan December 21 2013 11:53 PM

ST:TMP Technical Details
 
I was reminiscing over the old TMP fly by. Listening to the music score and watching the detail differences between the original and HD, and it wasn't until I saw the HD that you can really appreciate the incredible detail and thought they put into the models.

Obviously the detail on this scene is from the giant sectional model they built.

Just this docking scene blows me away. How the mating receiver to the shuttle matches so exquisitely!

This is the HD Screen Cap from Trek Core.

http://patrickivan.files.wordpress.c...0381.jpg?w=450

This is the HD Screen Cap from Trek Core.

I should have posted the larger image. But if you to their page (4), you can see it more clearly.

And this is the standard version. The detail on the film is still great, but the screen cap doesn't have the detail I wanted to see.

http://patrickivan.files.wordpress.c...pg?w=300&h=126

I'd like to see more examples of this kind of thought.

But just this little scene alone makes it remarkable for me. Hence my remarks here. ;)

Forbin December 25 2013 11:24 PM

Re: ST:TMP Technical Details
 
I'm of two minds (no, not schizophrenic) (well, not much). On the one had, I LOVE techie stuff, and TMP-era tech is my favorite. On the gripping hand, I've always been a little disappointed that the TMP era's extremely detailed tech took away a lot of the mystique of TOS. The TOS E didn't have obvious hatches, docking ports, RCS emplacements, skin plates, and so forth. It made me think there was some wonderous tech under that seamless (grown?) skin. TMP took all that away and showed us what was under the hood, for good or bad.

Pauln6 December 29 2013 01:38 AM

Re: ST:TMP Technical Details
 
I'm trying to paint and light a 1:350 scale TMP refit. The detail was amazing. My favourite ship by a mile.

Patrickivan December 29 2013 06:13 PM

Re: ST:TMP Technical Details
 
I get what you mean, Forbin... I guess what I'm trying to convey about the models for filming, is that an amazing amount of thought seems to have been put into all the little details that we can't even see unless getting a frame shot. It's pretty impressive.

That said, one thing that started to bug me about post TOS, TMP, and TNG ships was the crazy amount things they just kept putting on ships to add more and more details.

TOS was sleek and very clean. TMP was a more tecky and artistic. TNG started off cooler (with it's colours, shapes, and details) but kept getting more and more cluttered as time went on, leading to Voyager, DS9, et c. Seemed unnecessary at times.

So there seemed to be a lack of cohesive design in ships (inside and out) as time when on.

Pauln6, I'm always hunting on the internet for TMP E model photos. Post them! I'm presently in the stages of building mine too.

Robert Comsol December 29 2013 10:41 PM

Re: ST:TMP Technical Details
 
^^ BK613 had posted two great links here. :)

Bob

Pauln6 December 30 2013 08:47 PM

Re: ST:TMP Technical Details
 
Quote:

Patrickivan wrote: (Post 9063277)
Pauln6, I'm always hunting on the internet for TMP E model photos. Post them! I'm presently in the stages of building mine too.

I'm only about a third done - just started on the shuttle bay but it's so fiddly.

I also snapped up a load of Citadel TMP figures from the 80s. Going to paint em too and have them in the foreground, including a few customs. I think I have enough for about 50 crew. I even did an Uhura head swap onto a security torso to make Thel'Darra (image left)

137th Gebirg January 9 2014 05:54 PM

Re: ST:TMP Technical Details
 
Quote:

Patrickivan wrote: (Post 9063277)
I get what you mean, Forbin... I guess what I'm trying to convey about the models for filming, is that an amazing amount of thought seems to have been put into all the little details that we can't even see unless getting a frame shot. It's pretty impressive.

That said, one thing that started to bug me about post TOS, TMP, and TNG ships was the crazy amount things they just kept putting on ships to add more and more details.

TOS was sleek and very clean. TMP was a more tecky and artistic. TNG started off cooler (with it's colours, shapes, and details) but kept getting more and more cluttered as time went on, leading to Voyager, DS9, et c. Seemed unnecessary at times.

So there seemed to be a lack of cohesive design in ships (inside and out) as time when on.

I suspect that, from TMP on, Trek felt it had to "keep up with the Joneses" on the visual effects front, with Star Wars having emerged as the arguably more dominant genre franchise of the day and providing some stiff visual competition (as well as marketing, merchandising and other new business models). The original art design of TOS simplicity was likely dismissed as "boring" and the rest is history. This is likely one of the reasons why all the Phase II designs (Enterprise, K'T'Inga, etc.) were revamped to contain massive amounts of detail to increase their "scales" on the big screen. To seal Trek's visual fate, ILM and Image-G got involved after the bath Paramount took on the TMP VFX and continued in the tradition of over-teching the ships, starting with the greeble-covered Reliant, shortly followed thereafter by the Excelsior and its Imperial Star Destroyer-inspired shuttlebay and the equally overgreebeled Spacedock, Merchant Vessel and Klingon Bird of Prey. Interestingly, only the Grissom seemed to retain the elegant simplicity of TOS (lending additional credence to the theory that it was an older vessel, along with its low registry number). Sad that it was so weak, underpowered and vulnerable to attack and met a quick death on screen with its mediocre Captain. In the context of this particular discussion, it's almost symbolic in a way...

Patrickivan January 10 2014 11:34 AM

Re: ST:TMP Technical Details
 
I was going to mention Grissom as I was reading your reply. It's funny also that it was one of the ships that made it so far into the future along with ships like the BoPs, and Excelsiors.

What's also funny is how the new trek E, a ship that I could like if not for some silly things (well things I find silly) is so loved, yet so devoid of all the greebles that everyone has come to love. I mean, the scale is too big for me (but whatever), and I absolutely hate the nacelles, and proportions of some bits relative to others, but there it's not over detailed unnecessarily. It has what it needs and doesn't go too far.

So maybe that will bring a small reprise to the over crazy looking ships (ignore the Vengence when you read what I'm writing ;) )

I think you hit it on the head that it was TMP E's little details that helped make the scale of the ship seem so large compared to the TOS E that didn't have any features real world views could relate to. But there's a fine balance in my opinion.

Robert Comsol January 10 2014 01:09 PM

Re: ST:TMP Technical Details
 
Quote:

Patrickivan wrote: (Post 9106810)
I think you hit it on the head that it was TMP E's little details that helped make the scale of the ship seem so large compared to the TOS E that didn't have any features real world views could relate to. But there's a fine balance in my opinion.

How is that? The exterior windows of the TOS E (and the vertical spacing in-between to suggest deck levels) conveyed a pretty good sense of size along with the exterior of the Bridge, IMHO.

Its lack of detail was partially owned to Matt Jefferies' design philosophy, but I'd think also to the low resolution of 1960's TV sets.

For the high resolution big screen they obviously couldn't resist to show off as many details as possible. Frankly, I don't really like the Aztec pattering because it created a patchwork look I wouldn't expect in 23rd Century ship building. And I think that, too, is one of the reasons why Grissom looked credible to pass as a vessel of the 23rd Century.

Bob

137th Gebirg January 10 2014 11:46 PM

Re: ST:TMP Technical Details
 
^^^ There was also the recent development and deployment of the space shuttle fleet at the time. I remember that Trumble or some others who worked on the refit paint job wanted to replicate the paneling and details that could be visible on a "real" spaceship. Between that and the Star Wars phenomenon, Trek really had no choice but to "up their game" visually.

Patrickivan January 11 2014 12:57 PM

Re: ST:TMP Technical Details
 
Quote:

Robert Comsol wrote: (Post 9106948)
Quote:

Patrickivan wrote: (Post 9106810)
I think you hit it on the head that it was TMP E's little details that helped make the scale of the ship seem so large compared to the TOS E that didn't have any features real world views could relate to. But there's a fine balance in my opinion.

How is that? The exterior windows of the TOS E (and the vertical spacing in-between to suggest deck levels) conveyed a pretty good sense of size along with the exterior of the Bridge, IMHO.

Its lack of detail was partially owned to Matt Jefferies' design philosophy, but I'd think also to the low resolution of 1960's TV sets.

For the high resolution big screen they obviously couldn't resist to show off as many details as possible. Frankly, I don't really like the Aztec pattering because it created a patchwork look I wouldn't expect in 23rd Century ship building. And I think that, too, is one of the reasons why Grissom looked credible to pass as a vessel of the 23rd Century.

Bob

The windows work now because we all have a better understanding how big TOS is supposed to be. At the time, those windows could have been 10' high for all we knew. And the changing bridge exterior confused things.

That said, I don't disagree with you on the backwards philosophy ST took on the futuristic sleep design ships took to more and more patchwork looking.

I was only stating that the thought put into the details in TMP were impressive. And that how there were visuals that were put in place that people could relate to in real life- AKA doors on the outside of the ship. And I don't think that really violated the simplicity of a Starship design.

What bugged me a lot about hull paneling is how it became more and more pronounced. And then in new Trek, watching the ship being welded together in little bits seemed absolutely insane. Hell, even now we build big sections of ships and THEN lego those sections together. But 200 years+ in the future with all their super tech and their welding little panels on a giant ship in patchwork? Just silly in my opinion and made it too contemporary for me.

Robert Comsol January 11 2014 04:57 PM

Re: ST:TMP Technical Details
 
Quote:

Patrickivan wrote: (Post 9110260)
The windows work now because we all have a better understanding how big TOS is supposed to be. At the time, those windows could have been 10' high for all we knew. And the changing bridge exterior confused things.

I think already general audiences back in the 1960's could get a good understanding of the ship's size just by watching the episodes
  • The interiors were approximately 10' high, so it stood to reason that the exterior windows, especially on the engineering hull, belonged to the corresponding deck levels
  • Recycling the footage from "The Cage" revealed the approximate size of the Bridge by the time of "The Menagerie". It was changed by getting lowered (displacing Deck 2) but didn't get wider
  • "The Galileo Seven" revealed the clamshell doors from within. Add to this many stern views of the ship, I think the size was visually clear
Quote:

Patrickivan wrote: (Post 9110260)
The thought put into the details in TMP were impressive. And that how there were visuals that were put in place that people could relate to in real life- AKA doors on the outside of the ship. And I don't think that really violated the simplicity of a Starship design.

I concur, I think the docking ports were an incredibly good idea to convey the size, because we saw these in real-size first (orbital complex) before watching the ship. Cleverly done.

Unfortunately, these doors somehow suggest the ship to be only 1,000 feet long while it's probably closer to 1,164' :(

Quote:

Patrickivan wrote: (Post 9110260)
But 200 years+ in the future with all their super tech and their welding little panels on a giant ship in patchwork? Just silly in my opinion and made it too contemporary for me.

Absolutely. And any ambitioned model kit builder will tell you that trying to recreate the Aztec patchwork pattering is a pain in the rectum. ;)

Bob

treknician1701 February 7 2014 05:38 PM

Re: ST:TMP Technical Details
 
The thing that I notice about this scene, every time that I watch STTMP is that the transport, carrying Kirk and Scotty has to go thru a pool of light, so that it can back up to the docking port. You can see the pool of light on the hull surface, and when it hits the one side of the transport, there is no shadow on the Enterprise hull surface, as you would expect there to be.

Or, is it just me?

Greg

Cookies and Cake February 7 2014 05:53 PM

Re: ST:TMP Technical Details
 
Quote:

treknician1701 wrote: (Post 9219583)
The thing that I notice about this scene, every time that I watch STTMP is that the transport, carrying Kirk and Scotty has to go thru a pool of light, so that it can back up to the docking port. You can see the pool of light on the hull surface, and when it hits the one side of the transport, there is no shadow on the Enterprise hull surface, as you would expect there to be.

Or, is it just me?

Greg

No, it's not just you.

It can only work if the point of view is almost in line with the lamp, or nearly coincident to it, and even in those cases, not really well either.

Here it is about to happen.

Tosk February 8 2014 11:34 AM

Re: ST:TMP Technical Details
 
Looks to me like the light is coming from below and is wide enough to hit both the pod and the side of the Enterprise...so the shadow caused by the pod could easily be way up high, higher than we can see in the frame.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.