Photo request -- Enterprise hangar deck studio miniature
- Thread starter Professor Moriarty
- Start date
Do you believe what you are being told or do you believe what you do see? (to quote from one of my favorite scenes in Chicago).
The close-up shots of the embayments reveal these to be only half as long as the embayments in Richard Datin's pictures (or the one in Allen Asherman's Compendium with a shuttle takeoff).
This begs for explanation.
I don't know where Star Trek The Magazine got these pictures from, but publications are most assuredly not ultimate authorities:
- ILM-The Art of Special Effects claims that Earth Spacedock, the orbital mushroom (ST III), debuted in ST II. The ILM model builders created the Spacedock, so an ILM book should have known better.
- The Art of Star Trek claims that Andrew Probert's Ambassador Class (matte) painting of the USS Fearless was actually a pre-production sketch for the Enterprise-D. The Reeves-Stevens should have known better.
- Star Trek Sketchbook claims that the pressure schematic of the TOS Enterprise ("Day of the Dove") is the one from the bridge alcove (wrong) and wasn't there anymore during the shooting of the last episodes (terribly wrong). As a matter of fact "Turnabout Intruder" featured one of the best views of this Enterprise bridge schematic.
Actually, I misremebered. Two of the photos I posted came from Datin's own website;
And I see no discrepancies between the closeup photos and the shots from that site.
And I see no discrepancies between the closeup photos and the shots from that site.
I don't know whether this is the issue that Robert Comsol has or not, but I can see what might be a problem, here.
Regardless of whatever distortion there is from the lenses in the photos, and despite the problem of the page turn in the upper one, it would seem that the positions of the sign in the storage pocket can still be comparatively gaged by where it is relative to the corners of the storage pocket and relative to the red light immediately over the bow end of the pocket.
Is this the problem you are referring to, Robert Comsol?
^ In this picture and on the second page in it, part of the "WARNING FIRE" sign is directly under what looks like a red light. The section shown is evidently of the port side, and the sign is in what the FJ Tech Manual seems to call a "storage pocket". In this picture, that sign is apparently nearly at the bow end of the storage pocket.
^ 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.
Regardless of whatever distortion there is from the lenses in the photos, and despite the problem of the page turn in the upper one, it would seem that the positions of the sign in the storage pocket can still be comparatively gaged by where it is relative to the corners of the storage pocket and relative to the red light immediately over the bow end of the pocket.
Is this the problem you are referring to, Robert Comsol?
I suspect we're seeing an illusion created by a lot of odd angles and curves in a forced perspective miniature. The bays back walls appear to be flat or slightly curved but it's difficult to tell, the openings are trapezoids cut into a tapering cylinder, and the end walls with the hatches are at other angles still. When you move a camera around relative to such a thing you'll get all kinds of optical distortion.
Perhaps the difference in depth between the sign, which is inside the pocket, and the red light, which is outside on the wall, has something to do with it. Perhaps them appearing to be vertically aligned, in the first picture I referenced, is just an illusion, due to the particular vantage point that that photograph was taken from, and nothing more. Perhaps if we could see the photograph whole and flattened out properly, instead of partially rolled up as it crosses the page boundary, there would be more cues that they are really just aligned in space with the camera.
^ 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
Summary: 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.
Bob
I still think they're all pix of the same model and that there is not in fact substantial evidence to the contrary. Studying small or fuzzy images shot with different cameras and different lenses from different perspectives is bound to create apparent inconsistencies where there may not be any.
You posted the pics from Richard Datin's website www.startrekman.us and here is the corresponding text:
"A side view of the miniature reveals signage appropriate for the shuttle bay of the Enterprise. ... [the next page shows the signage sheet fragment] Several examples of the Flight Deck model signage."
Here, again, is the link to the website with the complete signage sheet (go to the end of the post from November 13, 2012)
The one thing everybody can immediately notice is that there is neither a "Warning Fire" or "Elevators" or "Fueling Station" among the signage sheet!
No either Mr. Datin (RIP) didn't know what he was writing about (would be in perfect sync with this retroactive "the creators didn't know what they were doing" manure) or the artist who recreated the shuttlebay miniature was just equally in the dark regarding the actual signage prior to 11-13-12 and therefore had to make it up.
If there is a better explanation I'm eager to listen.
Bob
"A side view of the miniature reveals signage appropriate for the shuttle bay of the Enterprise. ... [the next page shows the signage sheet fragment] Several examples of the Flight Deck model signage."
Here, again, is the link to the website with the complete signage sheet (go to the end of the post from November 13, 2012)
The one thing everybody can immediately notice is that there is neither a "Warning Fire" or "Elevators" or "Fueling Station" among the signage sheet!
No either Mr. Datin (RIP) didn't know what he was writing about (would be in perfect sync with this retroactive "the creators didn't know what they were doing" manure) or the artist who recreated the shuttlebay miniature was just equally in the dark regarding the actual signage prior to 11-13-12 and therefore had to make it up.
If there is a better explanation I'm eager to listen.
Bob
People make mistakes. People misremember things. The book "Inside Star Trek" proves this in spades. Is it easier to believe someone was mistaken about where some decals came from, or that someone built a near-perfect reproduction of a poorly documented miniature? I'd say the former. You clearly disagree.
I do photo shoots and photo manipulation for a living. IMO, what you're seeing here is the result of two shots taken at two different angles with different lenses. At this scale, a small movement equates to large visual differences. One shot is more compressed, ie: the camera was closer to the wall which is why you can also see the sides of the alcoves better. The difference in relative position of the sign and red light are easily explained by compression. Keep in mind that they are not on the same plane. The sign is inset.
I see nothing specifically inconsistent with these being photos of the same model.
I'm not sure I followed the whole issue that Robert Comsol is investigating (the port side is on our right in this view, right?), so this is probably not going to add anything, but I noticed that my personal scan of the Compendium photo is framed a little differently. Maybe it's my copy of the book, or the masking I used on the scanner, but if you A/B the two pics, you can see as you flip back and forth:
Last edited:
@ ZapBrannigan
In my Compendium the picture is rather tilted, I tried to adjust it (hence the white strip on the left hand side of my scan). Looking astern (in this shot) the port is to the right.
We can argue with camera lenses all day long, but one thing is clear: The scan on the previous thread page (much better than mine) of the original shuttlebay (we agree on that?) clearly shows that the upper red light (right below the two observation corridor windows) does not align with the large white sign as it does in post # 59 (the one with two blue vertical parallel stripes).
In order to achieve that kind of alignment the photographer of the original shuttlebay would have been forced to move all the way to the "starboard" side of the model, but this would have resulted in an overall perspective different than what we see in post # 59.
Here is a shot of the original TOS footage.
Bob
In my Compendium the picture is rather tilted, I tried to adjust it (hence the white strip on the left hand side of my scan). Looking astern (in this shot) the port is to the right.
We can argue with camera lenses all day long, but one thing is clear: The scan on the previous thread page (much better than mine) of the original shuttlebay (we agree on that?) clearly shows that the upper red light (right below the two observation corridor windows) does not align with the large white sign as it does in post # 59 (the one with two blue vertical parallel stripes).
In order to achieve that kind of alignment the photographer of the original shuttlebay would have been forced to move all the way to the "starboard" side of the model, but this would have resulted in an overall perspective different than what we see in post # 59.
Here is a shot of the original TOS footage.
Bob
I see what you're talking about now, thanks.
So the color close-ups might be a crafty re-creation, the kind of thing Greg Jein might have built for kicks.
Or maybe the signage on the original miniature got moved around between photos, as a work in progress.
If the ship were real, there's no way the hangar deck would ever be pressurized. Maybe they would have a retractable walk-thru tube that soft-sealed against the shuttlecraft door for boarding (like in Space: 1999). But they'd never pump so much air into that bay.
That HD grab from "Journey to Babel" is suh-weet!
You read the comments doubting Richard Datin's memory. Okay, the signage sheet contains some exterior texts that were applied to the 11-footer VFX model of the Enterprise, but I don't believe Mr. Datin confused Enterprise and shuttlebay.
The text signage contains exactly the kind of text you'd expect for a shuttlebay (where apparently the larger version below was intended and used for the shuttlebay text signs). Content and font style is vastly different from what we see on these close-up and full color shots.
IIRC there is sufficient episode dialogue to indicate that.
Indeed it is. I thought it would be useful inserting the real thing for orientation.
Bob
Onscreen we actually see people exiting and entering the craft in the hangar deck so it is what it appears to be.
I've long thought similarly as you've remarked. It would make more sense to have the shuttlecraft stored in a large area and then moved into a small (just large enough) chamber that's depressurizated for launch. Or you could do it like it's done on TNG where the craft passes through a force field that keeps the air in when the hangar door is open. In a more near future scenario you'd probably store the craft outside attached to the hull where you can access it through an airlock, but storing the craft inside does fit MJ's idea that things should be inside as much as possible to facilitate maintenance and repair for a starship in deep space.
The smaller depressurizable section makes the most sense to me, but of course I'm an admitted fan of the "keep it inside" mentality.
One might reason that the only reason to give the Enterprise a larger bay was the prospect of receiving but not permanently berthing larger vessels than her standard compliment of shuttles... or the need to launch several simultaneously or in rapid-fire short order.
One might reason that the only reason to give the Enterprise a larger bay was the prospect of receiving but not permanently berthing larger vessels than her standard compliment of shuttles... or the need to launch several simultaneously or in rapid-fire short order.
