View Single Post
Old June 19 2013, 02:24 PM   #240
Re: Kirk's Television Enterprise Deck Plans WIP

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
blssdwlf wrote: View Post
In your opinion. For all we know those support beams are meaningful but not in a way you imagined it to be.
In this case I hope that Doug Drexler is commenting in this thread rather soon. He interviewed Matt Jefferies and according to his 1970's Star Trek Posterbook article, Jefferies went for a "Hornblower Effect" and designed various items according to "identification by association" (and in my opinion did a great job doing so). To rationalize these blatantly obvious structural beams to be something else would be missing the target, IMO.
However I'm not rationalizing these structural beams as something other than structural beams. Only that they are supporting the structure in a way that you or I did not imagine it. (Read my comment - it doesn't say that they are not structural beams.)

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
blssdwlf wrote: View Post
But, since you are emphasizing screen accuracy and requesting feedback and these visual issues can't be hidden away with the overscan technicality then they do become legitimate questions, IMHO.
Fair enough. But I thought that the set of restrictions I communicated a couple of posts earlier had made it clear that although screen accuracy has a top priority / weighs in most, it doesn't mean screen accuracy at all cost.
From your set of rules:

Robert Comsol wrote:
To avoid another “Deck 5 Disaster” I established a couple of restrictions to submit myself to:
accuracy (compatibility with onscreen footage) always comes first (but obviously isn’t enough to produce satisfactory results)
areas not seen onscreen can be different from what we expect these to look like
results have to be credible and reasonable from a real life point of view (“would somebody capable possibly design it this way?”), e.g. turbo shaft network
1. Can accuracy always comes first?
2. Do you need to invoke an ineffective technicality like overscanning to put the ceiling height issue in the not onscreen rule to be able to claim that it is not onscreen and thus you can change it?
3. Can you still be always accurate (see your 1st restriction) and yet make your results seem credible to the way you think it should work?

Why not just simplify all your rules down to these two:
1. I'm going to start with what I see on the screen as a base.
2. I'll change what I need to change to make it fit my vision of how MJ would have built it.

It still would be an impressive bit of work and you wouldn't have me bugging you as much about screen accuracy
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote