I stand corrected. Electron-level or electrostatic controlled area luminescent steel, may be better. Hey, I'm not a scientist, or a science-fiction writer, eh. Never claimed to be, even though admittedly that was a pretty blatant science blunder on my behalf. I spend my time in different pursuits of knowledge these days. I'll leave the science area to those that do that well and better than I, and they can leave me to building cool science-fiction space ships and VFX. If I felt as strongly as the way you guys seem to feel in opposition to sci-fi and Trek being "wrong," I would most likely just chuck 'em, and stick with TDC, eh. deg
Actually, not so "fake" as you might think. There is no fill light in the rendering you referenced, only the obvious key light and a dim, red accent light below and slightly in front of the ship. What you're interpreting as fill light is actually reflected light off the ship's hull. Not to dispute the point you were trying to make, but I actually went to considerable pains with that shot to make the lighting realistic. The red accent was my one artistic conceit, which was intended to pick up the red fringe along the terminator between night and day on the planet below. That said, allow me the opportunity to add my praise to your efforts, Deg. As I've said on previous occasions, yours is undoubtedly the best of the "updates" of the old girl that still remains very faithful to the original design. For my own version, I made the choice to do something slightly more radical, but I salute you for the brilliance--and the beauty--of your own set of choices. Absolutely stunning work.
Oh no, thanks Alex. I like hearing other POVs, esp. when I am still in WIP phase. It's a big reason I post preview shots. I like input. I may or may not agree with it in accordance with my final call (as like you said, it is my baby), but I very much like the sharing of views either way. It's always nice to have other sets of eyes and hear other ideas, IMO, at least in regard to my own art. I feel it helps me bring about a better final finished model to listen with an open mind, and decide from there. I'm not artistically "proud" aka stubborn. I have no ego per se to bruise. And I don't think of myself as artistically infallible and/or beyond improvement. A part of my work depends on listening and considering other like-interested POVs, that I may have otherwise not seen or considered on my own, due to being to immersed in it (blinders), or just too plain dim-witted. Case in point, the point you (and others) have made in regard to the nacelle lights. Ya never know what may or may not come of it. But I'm always listenin' just the same, eh. Thanks again, deg
Thanks, bud. Feeling's mutual. I however don't feel your changes are "radical." I think they're, juuuust right, as Goldilocks once said about the porridge. Radical I would consider, say Gabe's, and definitely Ryan's for JJ. Yours, IMO, hits the sweet-spot of still old E, but neo-old-E. deg
Oh, and on the subject of self-illumination, I've wrestled with that particular conundrum myself. The USS Constitution model I did back in the day was lit by various hull lights in a manner similar to the TMP refit, but the sources of nearly all of them were floating out in space somewhere and not actually connected to the ship. In most cases, realistically located lights graze the hull at too oblique an angle to provide good illumination. For my own "updated" TOS Enterprise, I'm still debating whether or not to add self-illumination, though I'm definitely leaning in favor of it. I've done a few experiments and, unfortunately, I find myself running into the same problems as before, which is not surprising as the basic shapes are so similar. For example, the bow light that shines on the name and registry looks like it aught to come from somewhere on the front of the B/C deck module, but actually locating it there casts most of the registry number in shadow due to the curvature of the hull. It would actually be more effective to light the name and registry from a series of sources at the saucer's edge, but that just looks wrong compared to the way we've seen it done for all these years. The only alternative is to fake it with a magical, floating light source, though it helps to put a visible source somewhere on the hull that looks like it might be where the light is coming from. In cases like the registry number on the sides of the nacelles where you can't even fake it plausibly, my own rationalization would probably be some form of holography that allows the light source to be... "displaced," for lack of a better term. I have a ways to go yet before I get back to worrying about those particular details, though.
My own thoughts on "self-illumination" are a bit more... I know this will be shocking... technical in nature. My first thought is "why?" Seriously... what is the purpose of self-illumination? What FUNCTION does it serve? The idea of hull markings is reasonable... in case you come across a ship which is powered down, or are in a situation where there are several similar ships in a location and need a quick visual reference, or discover wreckage for that matter. But MOST of the time, you'd identify a ship not by visual markings but by some form of "IFF beacon." You'd seldom be within visual range in the first place. I can even deal with the idea of a few, crucial areas of "marked hull" having dedicated self-illumination, which you'd use only at certain specific (and undoubtedly RARE) times when you were in pitch-black and wanted someone closeby to be able to identify you visually. But MOST of the time... any "self-illumination" ought to be accidental in nature, rather than "by design." A sensor beam might also happen to make a hull marking in front of it visible, for instance. And... if you wanted to have "self-illuminated" markings, the most logical way to do it would not be by "spotlights and floodlights." Instead, you'd apply the markings in the form of "decals"... appliqués on the hull surface... with an electroluminescent substrate underneath the printed details. So, if you wanted to make your markings visible, you'd just put a tiny bit of charge through the substrate and the whole "decal" would glow. We know that TMP created the visual "standard" we're following, but TOS had nothing of the sort, and neither, really, did TNG. If you're really going to address "hull marking illumination" I'd be inclined to either stick with the "accidental self-illumination by other systems" concept, or go with the "self-illuminated decals" concept (which is easy to do in-texture, really), and then, only "turned on" when necessary.
I like your concept too, V. I am going to try a variation rig (as I don't really care for the look) ala the KELVIN but if I don't care for that either (I'll go with a more magical solution, as for the sake of aestethics, and chalk it up to unknown progression of science. It's only seems to be magic when you don't know what it is, yet. deg
I feel it's apparent, your thinking is clearly dominated, if not exclusive, to the left side of the brain, Cary. You appear to have no sense of the psychological value and purpose of aestethics, and the reasoning for its application, thus fulfillment of purpose in the human psyche. Hey, there are scientists, and there are artists. And then there are the balanced blend of the two. Neither one is right or wrong, just different. However, all contribute to what humankind envisions, and thus creates. That's the fact of the matter. deg
That's cool. Actually, on some ships I'm designing for a non-trek related sci-fi project, I'm going about it in very much that way. Not so much the self lit decals (though that is a cool idea) but rather having the lights be only in functional places. Like around the airlock "porch," that sort of thing. --Alex
Oh, and I do like your reasoning behind this. However, I just don't envision it looking any good, at all. "Reality" considered, glowing registries, strikes me as complete and utter cheesiness up on the screen. Just another occasion in filmmaking where reality is sacrificed for the pure sake of beauty and the value emotional impact. Not that good science (considerations) should just be mambe-pambe chucked out the window, but... Filmmaking is art driven by science, not science driven by art. Seems so many ignore that fact, or loose sight of it, or have no concept and understanding of it in the first place. deg
That's absolutely and totally untrue (and, to be honest, a bit insulting). I have a great deal of appreciation for art. "Art," however, is not the same as "design." These are two separate disciplines. There is no reason that the two cannot be blended, of course. This is often done. And as much as your statement would infer otherwise, I've done a fair amount of it myself. But when doing "design," it's the design which comes first. The "art" side is secondary. Similarly, when doing art (first and foremost) it's the art which comes first, and the design which comes afterwards. A great example of this would be the Statue of Liberty. There is a significant amount of engineering behind that statue, yet its principle function is as art. The TOS or TMP Enterprises are both supposed to represent "design" first and foremost, with "art" being secondary. The fact that they (mostly) work as design, yet still have artistic merit, is why they're among the most popular scifi designs ever created. Where latter-day Trek failed in ship-design has primarily been where they've treated it as pure art, without really paying attention to the "design" side of the coin. A starship is not a sculpture. Everything on it should be there for a reason. The exact arrangement of the "parts which are there for a reason" is what you then shift around to exercise the "artistic" bent. You suggest that I'm not familiar with the "psychological purpose" of art. But my point was about self-illumination of hull markings. Who, on board that ship, can even SEE those markings? "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear, does it make a sound?" What's the point of self-illumination, in a "real world" application, if no one can see it? This isn't about understanding psychology. It's about treating something as "real" or treating it as a wink to the audience in entertainment. The ONLY people who can see those "self-illuminated banners" on the nacelles are us, the audience. Yes, Trek isn't "real." We all know that (or at least I hope we do!). But entertainment is usually best when it at least "pretends to be real." Unless we're talking about Mel Brooks movies, staying "in-universe" is probably a good idea. My comments were about what function "self-illumination" would serve in-universe. If it doesn't serve one... it's basically the same as having the captain stop giving orders and start talking to the audience in the theater, isn't it?
It's obvious really. The ship is in a tunnel and the light on the nacelle is from an oncoming train....sheesh! All light debates aside, I love the work here, just beautiful.
My apologies if you took offense, Cary. That was not at all my intention. I was not calling you anything as a fact. I as merely sharing with you my own impression of your thinking, based on what and how you have written thus far. Perhaps the old adage; The writer fails to convey, not the reader fails to perceive. Perhaps so, perhaps not. Either way, that's how you came across to me. And that's all well and good, but an appreciation, is not also by default an understanding as well. One can appreciate something without possessing an understanding of it as to the nature of its disciplines and reasoning thereof. All that and "in-universe" musings aside, Trek is not real. Its only "reality" (and reason for being) is; it is and will forever be, entertainment, with its design, (as you correctly define it) being, to entertain, as art. Like the SOL you mention, it falls into art driven by science, not the other way around. And despite your in-universe musings, a starship is in fact, ultimately, a sculpture. A piece of art built and designed for the purpose of artistic expression, like any other sculpture to be appreciated, as art, and in this case, specific-based entertainment as well, with its pedestal or frame being the silver-screen, or TV. That is the only fact(s) of the matter. All other musing are moot as to the reality of just what and why a "starship" is or is not, at this point in time, and I might add, in the entertainment industry, where they only exist at this time. You can argue until you're blue in the face about the science and design of in-verse Trek, but in the end, the only real science and design you are ever really seeing, is the science and design of the art of filmmaking. And in that design, starships are self-illuminated, and sometimes by what is referred to in reality as; movie-magic. You can toss my facts out the window all you want for the sake of fun in-universe musing, that's your prerogative. However, it does not make the only real reality of just what design is actually going on any less factual. So even if you build a ship with electrostatically lit decals, it won't be any more "real" than a spot-light self-lit starship. The only difference will be (IMO), the spot-lit one will be much prettier and put more peeps in the seats smiling. That's the (filmmaking)science-driven artistically-inspired business fact of the matter. And without heeding that, we would never even be having this discussion. Still, dream big, brother. Dreams are good, IMO. deg
Magical floating lightsource is entirely possible in the Trek verse, just imagine the light being reflected onto a holograpgic mirror which extends from the lightsource fixture and bounces the light back to where its needed like the registry location.
LOL, and thanks sojourner (like that handle, BTW). And piddlely light positions aside, what I want to know is, who exactly is holding the camera out there in space (or hyper-space too) capturing all these starships on film? These are referred to as "Eye of God" shots in filmmaking. Is God then holding God flashlights on starships as well then? deg
In this case I think even Cary will be happy that there's somekind of technical explanation. As for the cameras, yes of course, bloody Federation police speed cams!
I'd like to think of the entire hull to be self-illuminating. Not much, but enough to be seen in the stark blackness of deep space. As for who sees it, well... first of all, most windows offer at least a little piece of the hull in the view. Psychologically, I would say it would keep the shipboard crew grounded, even when not in a star system; to remind them that they're a part of a bigger whole. Then there's the whole idea about Starfleet not sneaking around; they are soaring proudly in the depths of space. At the least, the visual scanners of other ships (even possible enemies) should be able to get a decent picture instead of merely a heat-related visual.