^ However, in this picture, that sign is evidently much further aft from that red light. The sign is not at the bow end of the storage pocket at all, but rather seems to be somewhere more in the middle. ... Is this the problem you are referring to, Robert Comsol
Yes, it is! While I will agree with Maurice
that the camera lenses used somehow stretch the length of the embayment / whole shuttlebay, the proportions nevertheless stayed intact (straight lines) and the port side white sign is obviously not where the Star Trek Magazine
wants us to believe it is.
Something else I didn't consider previously: How did they supposedly manage to take such pristine close-up shots...back in the 1960's?!?
The black & white shots earlier in this thread (
- just can't help it, sorry) and the Richard Datin color shots had been taken from a noticable distance considering the size of the VFX miniature and focusing capabilities of 1960's consumer or average professional cameras (admittedly I'm not an expert, but suffice to say that I would have loved to have a digital camera back in the 1960's and 1970's with all of nowadays zooming and close-up capabilities). I think to take such close-up shots back in the 1960's would have rather required extremely professional camera equipment and lenses.
Here is the rare VFX shuttlebay picture Allan Asherman shared with us in his Star Trek Compendium
, apparently a shot of the miniature with shutlecraft model and (finally) door signs behind closed clamshell doors:
On the port side this picture took us beyond the limits of TV tube set's overscan and the edge of the original camera negatives.
I think this proves Maurice
's assertion that the other shots distort the length of the embayment but it's equally obvious that the edge of the embayment does not stop right after the large text sign as shown in Star Trek The Magazine
Furthermore, it is painfully obvious that the low resolution of the picture (someone please contact Allan Asherman for help) doesn't enable us to read the text of the large sign. However, we are able to realize that the word below the first line is much shorter than what the close up shot of the starboard side (with the blue lines running across) and the "Warning Fire" suggests!
For a complete
view of the decal sheet fragment (on Mr. Datin's website) and possible and genuine door sign candidates I refer to my comments here: http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=7722322&postcount=701
I feel we are looking at substantial evidence that the close-up pictures of the shuttlebay published in Star Trek The Magazine
are the result of a passionate, accurate and commendable attempt to faithfully recreate the original model, but the artist lacked reference materials to see beyond what was available from onscreen footage.
I do not know in what context the editors of the magazine presented these pictures. Where they told this was not the original model or didn't they want to know?
Anybody remember the Adolf Hitler Diaries Hoax? A renowned magazine got so over-excited with the idea that they might have secured exclusive (and expensive!) rights for publishing that they didn't care anymore to research and analyze whether that stuff was truly genuine. I wouldn't exclude the possibility that something similar had happened here.
After all, seeing what appears to be exclusive, previously unpublished and close-up photographs makes you want to believe
it to be true and genuine, but I'm afraid it isn't and instead we have to continue the search.