Galileo Restoration Update - Jan 2012

[Warped9]

Anyone who has worked with pencil knows that graphite is reflective and hence could easily blend into a surface under light. The lines were added, but only to the saucer, when the 11 footer was modified after WNMHGB for series production. Roddenberry is the one who wanted the lines to help give viewers a sense of scale. Didn't really work out since the lines were effectively invisible on '60's era low-res television. He'll, they're barely visible on DVD. But GR wanted them even over Matt Jefferies' objections.

Pencil was used because it would have been too costly and time consuming to have the lines engraved because it would have meant also reprinting and redoing all the saucer's details. And notice the rough nature of the three engraved concentric rings under the saucer.

The 11 footer wasn't a display model that could withstand up-close scrutiny. It was a filming prop that only needed to pass muster on low-res CRT screens, and that it did.

The engraved lines on the 1/350 kit are not as fine as R2 had hoped for, but neither are they as obtrusive as some make them out to be. If someone wants them totally gone for a smooth looking saucer than all it takes is some putty and sanding and paint and they're gone---nothing a decent modeller can't do.

Interestingly Gary Kerr addresses this very issue in the current issue of Sci-Fi and Fantasy Modeller #28. He has quite a lot to say about it.

Personally I've never liked the lines, but I can't deny that they were there. The best I can do, and still remain accurate, is minimize them.

[Forbin]

They ARE a but heavier than I'd hoped on the kit. But the again, engraved panel lines on even the best airplane kits are exaggerated over reality for the sake of illusion. I've come to accept it over 50 years of building models.

[Robert Comsol]

Here's another shot of the saucer top gridline detail. Notice the tiny Airfix astronaut and his moon vehicle for size comparison. Enjoy!

Bob

[Therin of Andor]

Robert Comsol wrote:

---

Here's another shot of the saucer top gridline detail. Notice the tiny Airfix astronaut and his moon vehicle for size comparison. Enjoy!

Cool!

I stand by my original comment that the current paint job on the model photographs very nicely. I'd been hearing the outrage about the "weathering" and "gridlines" added for the September 1992 celebrations - but, seeing it in person a few weeks ago, it was more subtle than I'd expected. And now, at least, I understand why so many model kits manufacturers over the decades felt the need to add gridlines.

The final paint job on the Galileo is destined not to please everyone, too.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

I stand by my original comment that the current paint job on the model photographs very nicely.

I believe that Ed's rationale (not intending to speak for him, but this is my recollection) for the intensity of some of the weathering was that for it to register to the degree that it did under high intensity lights used both for film and studio photography of the model in the 1960s it would have had to be darker and more pronounced than it appeared in those images.

I think that there's pretty wide agreement that he misjudged this. To acknowlege that is quite a different thing than the vituperative, absolutist ranting that discussing the 1991 restoration often evokes online.

[Warped9]

Except that it didn't look like that during the series' production.

[jayrath]

In an effort to help this Galileo thread be solely about the Galileo, and to avoid confusion, I've created a new post exclusively about the 11-footer. Concerned readers may care to share their views there, rather than here.

[Maurice]

I think it's funny that so many people seem hung up on the fact that the shuttle mock-up is not 1:1 scale with the interior, considering that such int/ext discrepancies are common in movies and TV. On another board there was a discussion of the typical downscaling of set pieces to make them affordable and able to fit into soundstages.

[ZapBrannigan]

Maurice wrote:

---

I think it's funny that so many people seem hung up on the fact that the shuttle mock-up is not 1:1 scale with the interior, considering that such int/ext discrepancies are common in movies and TV. On another board there was a discussion of the typical downscaling of set pieces to make them affordable and able to fit into soundstages.

The technical drawing efforts the I've seen, meant to reconcile the Shuttlecraft's interior and exterior, have shrunk the interior down to size. You lose a lot of headroom.

Blueprints for other things have gone in both directions:

The Space 1999 Eagle was done by Geoff Mandel at a length of 76 feet, resulting in an interior ceiling height of only 5.5 feet. Roberto Baldassari made his version 102 feet long, to fully contain the interior studio sets, but this put the eye-shaped cockpit windows far above the pilot seats.

Shane Johnson created a set drawings for the LIS Jupiter II, in keeping with the established size of the exterior, but he had to omit the entire lower deck. [He appended a nice lower floorplan with a note that it was for a proposed future version of the ship that would be much larger.]

Other, more recent Jupiter II plans have at least doubled the diameter of the saucer. This allows pretty much everything to fit inside, but the relationship between interior and exterior features gets thrown out of whack, especially on the top deck.

One of the most interesting and realistic reconciliations between interior sets and an exterior mockup (in this case, a backlot facade) is what Adam R. Jones did for the Bewitched house. He created a complete, working, buildable set of blueprints for this fictional house. It's at 1164.com.

[Robert Comsol]

I guess we could add a lot of other vehicles to that list (like "Forbidden Planet's" United Planets Cruiser C-57 D).

While working for TNG, Andrew Probert was quite aware of the issue and hoped that his TNG Galileo design would be a good compromise putting such contradictions to an end.

Instead we got the Shuttlepod cardboard box.

Bob

[Warped9]

I've already had my say on this in my own way:
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=142783
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showth...S+shuttlecraft
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showth...S+shuttlecraft



Briefly:

The 22ft. exterior mockup is obviously too small to hold an interior even remotely resembling what we saw onscreen. So at best all you can do is put something rudimentary into it. The exterior was made smaller so it could be more easily transported and more easily handled on set.

The interior set is impossibly large and if you scale up the exterior (to about 32ft.) to hold it you end up with an exterior too large to be properly accommodated within the Enterprise's hangar area.

The miniature seen in the hangar interior shots is also slightly too small while the flight deck itself is slightly too large.

The best is to compromise and there are clues in the series (most notably "The Galileo Seven") that the problem was recognized and there are hints the interior was meant to be smaller than what we were seeing. The interior set was made fullsize to accommodate the bulky filming cameras of the era.

The compromise I came up with several years ago was about 26-1/2 ft. The interior is scaled down some, but it's still immediately recognizable with only the loss of some headroom and some cabin length (and there was plenty to spare on the fullsize set). The exterior looks exactly the same as seen onscreen.

[Metryq]

VFX artists no longer need to worry about props that are "too big" to move around the set conveniently.

For those who may not realize it, the spaceship in the back yard is a CGI model created in Blender, which can also match-move the handheld camera.

[trevanian]

Would REALLY like to see that at higher rez. Reflections and depth of field look amazingly accurate to real-world.

Of course this skirts the whole issue of when you have something physical there it gives everybody on-set something to relate to in a way that imagination can't really deliver, even with SimulCam type on-set comps. Probably why there is so much more of a push to get away from greenscreen or minimize green in favor of getting more in-camera as of late. OBLIVION took advantage of 15K imagery -- 3 red cameras shooting panoramic sky plates -- to project backgrounds on-set in a way that looks unbelievably awesome and also at the same time provided all the lighting and reflection sources for the apartment in the clouds stuff.

[Metryq]

trevanian wrote:

---

Would REALLY like to see that at higher rez. Reflections and depth of field look amazingly accurate to real-world.

Match-moving has been around for years, now. Go to YouTube and search for "Blender match move" or "Blender camera tracking." Before Blender got its own built-in feature, third-party apps, like SynthEyes, could provide the motion data. Before this technology arrived, most composite shots had to be "locked off," meaning the camera could not move. Since modern movies are so dynamic and Steadicam a routine tool, composite shots need to move, too.

Of course this skirts the whole issue of when you have something physical there it gives everybody on-set something to relate to in a way that imagination can't really deliver

Match-moving does not mean there is nothing present on the set. For example, a couple of C-stands (used for lights) might mark the general location of the ship, or the door in the ship. For big creatures, such as the T-rex in JURASSIC PARK or Draco in DRAGONHEART, a production assistant with a simple prop on a pole might give the actors a common focal point for addressing the creature's face, etc. Or a spaceship might have a partial construction, such as a boarding ramp. It varies by production. The line between miniatures, composites and matte paintings has been blurred by computer technology. Sometimes it is now called "scene extension."

As for reflections, actual reflections from the location might be captured as a "light probe." A light probe is simply a chrome sphere. The camera shoots the image in the sphere, thus capturing at least 180 degrees, or a hemisphere of the surrounding area. That light probe is then applied to the CGI so that the computer object reflects the actual scene. Again, there are nuances and details to this technology, too. For example, HDR (high dynamic range) light probes can be used as full environment "light sources" when rendering the CGI. Watch the home video supplements for movies like one of the TERMINATOR movies, and you may notice someone on set with a chrome sphere on a pole. (Half the sphere might be a neutral gray.) Odds are that is a light probe sphere.

And what about all these poles and other things on the set? They can be erased in a number of ways with digital tools. Many of the creatures in the LORD OF THE RINGS movies, or the robots in I, ROBOT were played by real actors on set, interacting with the other actors. The creature and robot stand-ins are "erased" and replaced with CGI figures. While greenscreen stages are still in use, or sections of a location may feature small "flying" greenscreens, the current trend is to shoot on real locations. The technology makes it possible, and a real location makes everything easier on the actors.

The technology is amazingly sophisticated today, and available to the home hobbyist. Still, the high technology does not guarantee awesome results. The artists (and the directors telling them what to do) must still know their craft.

[Maurice]

I don't think Trevanian is unaware of the realities of VFX technology and it's capabilities/limitations. Call it a hunch. ;