RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,250
Posts: 5,348,607
Members: 24,613
Currently online: 622
Newest member: Chairslinger

TrekToday headlines

MicroWarriors Releases Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Ships Of The Line Design Contest
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Next Weekend: Shore Leave 36!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

True Trek History To Be Penned
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Insight Editions Announces Three Trek Books For 2015
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

To Be Takei Review by Spencer Blohm
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Mulgrew: Playing Red
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Hallmark 2015 Trek Ornaments
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Funko Mini Spock
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

IDW Publishing Comic Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Fandom > Fan Art

Fan Art Post your Trek fan art here, including hobby models and collectibles.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 16 2013, 02:31 AM   #931
Workbee
Commander
 
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

^Yes, that makes sense about seeing the inside of the nacelles. Good catch.

IIRC, somewhere there was a series of a lot of B&W pictures taken of the model just before filming it in TMP. I have looked and have been unable to find them again. I imagine you are already familiar with those pictures, but just in case maybe there might be a good picture? Though as I recall, most of those were up close to capture specific details -- so the opposite of what we would need. What would be ideal is a good picture straight down the neck before the saucer was attached. Assuming such a stage existed.

I think someone will just have to track down the actual model with a set of calipers.
__________________
“I was wondering why the people who would never dream of laughing at a blind or a crippled man would laugh at a moron?” - Charly Gordon
Workbee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2013, 06:03 AM   #932
QuinnTV
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

I had this site bookmarked, but it's down so I'm using the archived version. A lot of angled shots, though.

http://web.archive.org/web/201305142...risePhotos.htm

Quick edit: Try this specific one: http://web.archive.org/web/200512020.../STMPent27.jpg
QuinnTV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2013, 10:01 AM   #933
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

Maybe this one is useful.
__________________
* * *
"If you wanted to get a good meeting... just go in and
say 'darker, grittier, sexier' and whatever."
—Glen Larson, 2010
Maurice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2013, 02:34 PM   #934
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: shore leave in La Baule, France
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

Albertese wrote: View Post
Sorry, Robert Comsol, I gotta go with blssdwlf on this one.
No need to be sorry. This is not about supporting a rationalization theory (I got one for later today regarding the interpretation of the TWOK torpedo bay footage).

I would just like to remind that the issue that started this discussion was not "how to exactly measure the max. width of the connecting dorsal based on pictures" but "would the dorsal's width in an orthographic drawing be 48% of the torpedo bay launcher's width or rather 59%?"

Let's have again a look at the latest wireframe graphics published.

On the left side we have exclusively stern views of the dorsal while the two on the upper right are bow views. Unfortunately the width of the torpedo bay launcher as a reference point is 67 mm (on my screen) on the left and 6% less on the right side.

All the three on the left are orthographic renderings while the three on the right are simulations of how they'd appear in pictures and the like with the inevitable distortions you get because objects further from the viewer will appear smaller / narrower than objects closer to the viewer (especially with a diagonal connecting dorsal in contrast to the "straight" conning tower of a submarine).

However, since we are looking at a basic "ovoid" dorsal shape the edge of the dorsal's bow is too narrow to "hide" the wider dorsal areas behind.

On my screen this orthographic rendering on the left shows the maximal width of the dorsal to be 37 mm, the "picture view simulation" on the top right takes the distortion into account and therefore yields only 29 mm (- 6% = 27 mm) where the dorsal rests on the torpedo bay because the maximal width of the dorsal is further from the viewer than the launchers of the torpedo bay - it therefore appears narrower than it is in relation to the observable width of the launchers.

Conclusion: The max. width of the connecting dorsal part (that rests on top of the torpedo bay) in pictures appears narrower than it would be in real life compared to the observable real life width of the torpedo launcher (reference point for measuring)



That the dorsal's width in the above picture near the torpedo bay roof measures "only" 56.7% (and not 59%) therefore doesn't come as a big surprise because the widest part of the dorsal is not near the bow and atop the torpedo bay launchers but further behind and at a greater distance from the viewer and/or camera.

Bottom line: Regardless whether the max. dorsal width is 59% (my estimate) the width of the torpedo bay launcher or 56.7% it most definitely is not 48% as the CGI TMP DE model orthographic rendering wants to make us believe.



@ QuinnTV & Maurice

Great pictures gentlemen, thanks! The one Maurice provided will help me immensely trying to reconstruct a decent top view of the torpedo bay.

But here is one from cloudster.com (hopefully back online soon again) that should be helpful, because it's a straight stern view of the TMP Enterprise's connecting dorsal.

Of course, since the bottom part of the dorsal (the black "photon exhaust" area) is closer to the viewer than the (diagonal) dorsal's upper part one could decide to take the picture with a grain of salt.

OTOH the upper part of the dorsal is rather close to the impulse engines and almost at the same viewing distance, so the width of the upper dorsal could be estimated or calculated by using the width of the impulse engines as a reference.
IMHO it nevertheless gives us a good impression that the TMP Enterprise's dorsal is wider than previously assumed.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2013, 05:20 PM   #935
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Albertese wrote: View Post
Sorry, Robert Comsol, I gotta go with blssdwlf on this one.
No need to be sorry. This is not about supporting a rationalization theory (I got one for later today regarding the interpretation of the TWOK torpedo bay footage).

I would just like to remind that the issue that started this discussion was not "how to exactly measure the max. width of the connecting dorsal based on pictures" but "would the dorsal's width in an orthographic drawing be 48% of the torpedo bay launcher's width or rather 59%?"
Bob, since there are other pictures that show a less than 59% ratio that would tell you that the methodology you used to arrive at 59% has a flaw in it.

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Let's have again a look at the latest wireframe graphics published.
My wireframes are there to illustrate the complexities of these shapes and perspective distortion. I hope you took the time to understand why the visual measurement is difficult with just screenshots with short focal length and short distances.

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
On the left side we have exclusively stern views of the dorsal while the two on the upper right are bow views. Unfortunately the width of the torpedo bay launcher as a reference point is 67 mm (on my screen) on the left and 6% less on the right side.

All the three on the left are orthographic renderings while the three on the right are simulations of how they'd appear in pictures and the like with the inevitable distortions you get because objects further from the viewer will appear smaller / narrower than objects closer to the viewer (especially with a diagonal connecting dorsal in contrast to the "straight" conning tower of a submarine).

However, since we are looking at a basic "ovoid" dorsal shape the edge of the dorsal's bow is too narrow to "hide" the wider dorsal areas behind.

On my screen this orthographic rendering on the left shows the maximal width of the dorsal to be 37 mm, the "picture view simulation" on the top right takes the distortion into account and therefore yields only 29 mm (- 6% = 27 mm) where the dorsal rests on the torpedo bay because the maximal width of the dorsal is further from the viewer than the launchers of the torpedo bay - it therefore appears narrower than it is in relation to the observable width of the launchers.

Conclusion: The max. width of the connecting dorsal part (that rests on top of the torpedo bay) in pictures appears narrower than it would be in real life compared to the observable real life width of the torpedo launcher (reference point for measuring)



That the dorsal's width in the above picture near the torpedo bay roof measures "only" 56.7% (and not 59%) therefore doesn't come as a big surprise because the widest part of the dorsal is not near the bow and atop the torpedo bay launchers but further behind and at a greater distance from the viewer and/or camera.
I don't think you realize why I picked the max width of the torpedo bay and the lowest part of the dorsal.

The max width of the dorsal will generally be visible while the max width of the torpedo bay will generally be obscured due to perspective. The lowest portion of the dorsal happens to be closest to the torpedo bay and thus closest in relation since a frontal view will make the top portion of the dorsal appear wider since it is closer to the camera.

This shows that the ratio is smaller than 59% and that depending on the focal length of the camera and the perspective distortion that number will fluctuate. 56% is just from this screenshot. If you do some more comparisons you'll see that number go up and down depending on the focal length and distance. Just a random sampling there is a photo from Mark Dickson/Mike Emery that is at 51.2% and I can find one in excess of 60%.

Since that number can fluctuate then the methodology of attempting to measure it with the forward or stern perspective shots will be inherently inaccurate.
__________________
My WIPs: TOS (and TFS) Enterprise / TOS Era Ships
Random Data: Starship Cargo Volumes
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2013, 05:34 PM   #936
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

Workbee wrote: View Post
^Yes, that makes sense about seeing the inside of the nacelles. Good catch.

IIRC, somewhere there was a series of a lot of B&W pictures taken of the model just before filming it in TMP. I have looked and have been unable to find them again. I imagine you are already familiar with those pictures, but just in case maybe there might be a good picture? Though as I recall, most of those were up close to capture specific details -- so the opposite of what we would need. What would be ideal is a good picture straight down the neck before the saucer was attached. Assuming such a stage existed.

I think someone will just have to track down the actual model with a set of calipers.
Yes - I have those photos from cloudster and they're great reference shots. Unfortunately they all come with some form of distortion

QuinnTV wrote: View Post
I had this site bookmarked, but it's down so I'm using the archived version. A lot of angled shots, though.

http://web.archive.org/web/201305142...risePhotos.htm

Quick edit: Try this specific one: http://web.archive.org/web/200512020.../STMPent27.jpg
Thank you QuinnTV! There are a couple of tell-tale signs that it will be problematic to analyze though. It's shot from a close distance (you can see the warp pylons are not "edge on" towards the camera and angled outwards) and the shadow and graininess will make it a little challenging as to what is visible and what is not on the torpedo bay or dorsal.

Maurice wrote: View Post
Thanks Maurice. I'll try and put something together for it.

@Bob and anyone else - if you use this photo, keep in mind that on the torpedo bay, past the connection to the secondary hull the roof of the bay tapers down so from this angle it will appear that the bay is widening towards the bow but it in actuality is not. (The roof of the bay curves up in the middle too.)
__________________
My WIPs: TOS (and TFS) Enterprise / TOS Era Ships
Random Data: Starship Cargo Volumes
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2013, 07:13 PM   #937
BK613
Captain
 
BK613's Avatar
 
Location: BK613
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

This page has some images that might also be useful (also has links to two other pages of photos):

http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=16470

There are still images up of the studio model at Christie's as well:

http://www.mutara.net/Christies/EnterpriseA.html

Fair warning: most of these images are huge (which is why I didn't link to any directly)

Hope they help. My first instinct tho is that the neck, like an airplane wing, looks thinner than it actually is...
__________________
-------------------
"The single biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place." - George Bernard Shaw
BK613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2013, 10:01 PM   #938
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

Maybe this is a dumb question... but why don't you guys use the actual measurements of the studio model rather than attempting to get this info from images? Based on that I get 57.6%, but I'm not sure if there is a reason for "re-inventing the wheel" in this case that I am missing.
Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2013, 11:38 PM   #939
Mytran
Fleet Captain
 
Mytran's Avatar
 
Location: North Wales
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

This may sound equally dumb, but is there a definitive source for the official measurements?
Mytran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17 2013, 01:12 AM   #940
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

Does anyone know who bought the big filming model?

AFAIK, there are several possible sources:
1. the big filming model
2. the small filming model used for TUC?
3. the CG TMP DE model
__________________
My WIPs: TOS (and TFS) Enterprise / TOS Era Ships
Random Data: Starship Cargo Volumes
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17 2013, 02:25 AM   #941
Kaiser
Rear Admiral
 
Kaiser's Avatar
 
Location: Boyertown, PA as of July 2011
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Kaiser Send a message via Yahoo to Kaiser
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

Theres a small one for TUC?

or do you mean that partial bit used on TWOK and TUC?
__________________
https://www.facebook.com/groups/112860258811333/ For all your Sci-fi ship model and mini goodness 3DS Friend code: 0731-4800-6817
Kaiser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17 2013, 02:51 AM   #942
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

Kaiser wrote: View Post
Theres a small one for TUC?

or do you mean that partial bit used on TWOK and TUC?
According to Mutara.net's coverage of the Christie's auction there was a small Ent-A.

I suppose it doesn't matter which movie but it made it onto film.
__________________
My WIPs: TOS (and TFS) Enterprise / TOS Era Ships
Random Data: Starship Cargo Volumes
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17 2013, 12:40 PM   #943
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: shore leave in La Baule, France
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

BK613 wrote: View Post
This page has some images that might also be useful (also has links to two other pages of photos):

http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=16470

There are still images up of the studio model at Christie's as well:

http://www.mutara.net/Christies/EnterpriseA.html

Fair warning: most of these images are huge (which is why I didn't link to any directly)
These images are . With that wealth of image detail it should be possible for an able CGI artist to render an orthographic reproduction with optimal accuracy. Of course it would be great if there were a possibility to scan-measure the original VFX model, but somehow I don't see that happening unless the owner is known and agrees to such an enterprise.

This leaves us little choice than to use pictures to arrive at estimates and approximations.



^^ Because the saucer is too close to the viewer / camera the proportions are distorted and the widest part / diameter of the saucer is "hidden" from our view. However, the greater the distance from the viewer / camera the distortion effect becomes increasingly less, enabling a comparison of two objects close to one another.

The same applies for the stern view shot, now in color, taken from my European TMP Promotion Portfolio:



There's obviously quite some distortion because of the camera lens used. Does it make the shot useless? No, because we are only interested in measuring the width of the impulse engines in relation to the width of the adjacent dorsal. If there would be a distorting effect stretching the impulse engines horizontally it would equally stretch the width of the dorsal.

However, given the diagonal nature of the dorsal and a slight distortion the further we move from the impulse engines away (because the bottom part of the dorsal is closer to us than the impulse engines) it's not possible to get exact measurements but a decent approximation / estimate.

The best front view shot of the VFX model I've thus far seen is this one: http://www.modelermagic.com/wordpres...1701-A-050.jpg

(again, the widest part of the dorsal is further behind and partially obscured by the front torpedo view)

To get a better approximation we should also pay attention to this shot, from the other source: http://www.mutara.net/Christies/deta...A/IMG_2044.JPG

and then consider this:

BK613 wrote: View Post
My first instinct tho is that the neck, like an airplane wing, looks thinner than it actually is...
I assume all of us have not grown up surrounded exclusively by trees and caves but surrounded by rectangular buildings, towers, vehicles and so on.

Consciously or subconsciously we measure distances and proportions of objects on a daily basis with "instinct" and most of us have gotten rather good at this based on practical experience.

So while a ruler or a computer can be a powerful ally to make the necessary dorsal width calculations, it does not replace this kind of experience.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17 2013, 02:51 PM   #944
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
However, the greater the distance from the viewer / camera the distortion effect becomes increasingly less, enabling a comparison of two objects close to one another.

The same applies for the stern view shot, now in color, taken from my European TMP Promotion Portfolio:
...
So while a ruler or a computer can be a powerful ally to make the necessary dorsal width calculations, it does not replace this kind of experience.
Since you're still fixated on using photos to make your measurements, then consider reading up on distance, perspective, field of view and focal length. None of the photos and screenshots available flatten the features of the ship because they're simply shot too close.

Just from both photo and 3D experience I can tell you that your visual estimates do not replace a good orthographic view of one such as the CG TMP DE version done by FI.
__________________
My WIPs: TOS (and TFS) Enterprise / TOS Era Ships
Random Data: Starship Cargo Volumes
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17 2013, 03:03 PM   #945
Albertese
Commodore
 
Albertese's Avatar
 
Location: Portland, OR
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

Shouldn't the orthos of the ship from DrexFiles be pretty good? If that's the one from the DE, then it should be, as they did have the original TMP model on hand to measure and put details from while they were making the CG version...

--Alex
__________________
Check out my website: www.goldtoothstudio.squarespace.com
Albertese is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
decks, interior, movies, tos

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:32 PM.

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