Watch out with the heights of main actors as sometimes they wore heels to look taller. Shatner and Nimoy did so and I think Doohan and Kelley too. Good work btw, keep it up!
9 PDF
- Thread starter Robert Simmons
- Start date
Watch out with the heights of main actors as sometimes they wore heels to look taller. Shatner and Nimoy did so and I think Doohan and Kelley too. Good work btw, keep it up!
In my prep for actor heights list on IMDB I found that actors usually ( assumed ) did wear higher heels to make them appear taller. So I assumed a 1 inch addition to their true height but would it be on target with one inch heels normally worn. With the taller heels for TOS ( 2 inch? ) this would be a 1 inch variation on my measurments. I went with their recorded height had a standard 1 inch heel already in it so I went with that which would not be too far off. The earlier preliminary rough outline of the profile shows a 2 foot bridge height as per what Mytran has shared with me after some clean up digitally. I know standard step heights are 6 inches, thus why I revised on my model the transporter deck to 18 inches from 24. ( after that I thought it actually looked more in line with the TOS and Cage stills I compared against. ) I would expect Jeffries to do the same on the bridge to keep it uniform on his deck elevations concerning step height to keep it uniform. When I measured the actor's legs against the outer deck it hit precisely on 18 inches on both McCoy and Kirk. ( So if off any I would assume the 6 inch rule on standard step heights and went with that since it was a standard rule of thumb governing comfortable step heights. )
Mytran,
Here the photos to verify my step by step process coming to the 9ft 3 in for the inner face of the outer ring platform.
First off this is the 3rd sheet for stage 9 for "Journey To Babel" drawn by Steve Sardanis. Also shown in the ruler I built for the sheet which also exactly matches the sheets for "Charlie X" and "Balance Of Terror" since I believe the core floor plan was traced as a starting point for each following set of drawings.
And a close up of the ruler on the corridor 8 foot measurement. Drawing is not an enlargement so measurement is face to face and not line center to line center like the less crisp MoST drawings. Verifies at 8 feet better on the 2 preceding sheets drawn by Marshall since the lines are thinner. (My ruler was built on one of the other sheets. )
Now same ruler on the bridge to measure helm on the "Journey To Babel" sheet which comes in at 6 feet 6 inches or 78 inches.
Now the same ruler on the same sheet from radial bridge center to inner face of bridge platform.
Next is the McMaster Overhead with the Ruler measuring the helm.
Next is the Stage 9 floorplan printed in MoST blown up to 2x3ft poster size. Due to blobbyness of the enlarged lines measure from line center to line center. This is the measurement of the 8 foot corridor.
And the same drawing and ruler measuring the bridge center to the inner edge of the outer ring platform.
And the bridge plan printed in MoST blown up to 2x3 ft poster with it's accompanying ruler measuring the center to inner platform corner. It reads 9ft 4in which was printed at the time which makes me think McMaster worked from it as a source. This drawing totally disagrees in all other areas like platform depth and console measurements and radial degrees which are insconsistent and all over the map.
Last edited:
What a phenomenal effort.
I do question using actor’s height as anything other than a sanity check. It’s such a sloppy variable. We only kind of know the beginning figure (how tall the actor is) and then you compound it with other problems like “Are they standing kind of straight? Or slouching? Or leaning? Or in a scene with Shatner?” and of course “Are they wearing their lifts today?”
I do question using actor’s height as anything other than a sanity check. It’s such a sloppy variable. We only kind of know the beginning figure (how tall the actor is) and then you compound it with other problems like “Are they standing kind of straight? Or slouching? Or leaning? Or in a scene with Shatner?” and of course “Are they wearing their lifts today?”
Thanks guys. Didn't want to just let you accept my word for it, so ponied up the ruler pics to trust but verify.
Tallguy ( Bill )....As for the height even if I was off 1 inch with a taller heel it certainly would not be anywhere close to 2 feet listed on that early Jeffries profile drawing. We are talking measuring the height up to below the knee. So if off certainly by not much since it is a given that on their official height they wore a 1 inch minimum sole to boost their height for their resume for starters, and those boots would have thrown it only a additional inch at the most. ( assuming they wore heels all that time to keep their height out in public to maintain the illusion. If so then the skew would be negated to zero difference given those tall heel boots they wore in the show. ) In the shot Kirk was leaning but even at around his knee the difference was slight to not be any different if he was standing tall. If there would be any variation it would be from his waist to his shoulders. So no worry there. In the shot of McCoy I used he was standing upright. But I agree Bill I would have opted first for something else better we knew the measurement of and solid to measure the outer deck with. I can only work with what's there on film.
Mytran as for speculation why 9 ft 3 inches verses 9 ft 9 inches and the 2 ft elevation in the early draft Jeffries did, I know that what I measured even if off was nowhere close to 2 feet tall, and the radius may have been to after drawing it out on the floor and feeling out the space they most likely decided to tighten the bridge well up some due to it may have felt spread out for a possible TV set. Idea that you want the actors closer together to minimize camera movement and not having your actors further apart on a 1966- 3:4 240 or so resolution tv screen. Example....Ever notice the original Battlestar Galactica tv series where the actors are almost in each other's face in the same shot? ( Living Legend is a good example in the beginning of the episode where Tigh and Adama are talking. Nobody these days stand that close since we have bigger tvs with higher resolution so shot blocking is more loose and forgiving. )
Tonight I made the decision to redraw the clean up of the profile due to some of it was off when I traced on a full sheet of onion skin for transfering it. Some alignment issues I was not happy with. This may be due to several layers of paper and tape built up to interfere with a good even lay across the entire image. The onionskin composite is the final authority here so it's going to have to be redrawn. started on it tonight but it is too hot in that garage. I'll try to work on it during my breaks at work.
As well I am having a hard time focusing. got banged by a shopping cart in the grocery store yesterday and later discovered it just smashed the entire glass of my new iPhone 6. Pretty pissed right now. Hard to use without running the risk of glass slivers or cutting myself.
Tallguy ( Bill )....As for the height even if I was off 1 inch with a taller heel it certainly would not be anywhere close to 2 feet listed on that early Jeffries profile drawing. We are talking measuring the height up to below the knee. So if off certainly by not much since it is a given that on their official height they wore a 1 inch minimum sole to boost their height for their resume for starters, and those boots would have thrown it only a additional inch at the most. ( assuming they wore heels all that time to keep their height out in public to maintain the illusion. If so then the skew would be negated to zero difference given those tall heel boots they wore in the show. ) In the shot Kirk was leaning but even at around his knee the difference was slight to not be any different if he was standing tall. If there would be any variation it would be from his waist to his shoulders. So no worry there. In the shot of McCoy I used he was standing upright. But I agree Bill I would have opted first for something else better we knew the measurement of and solid to measure the outer deck with. I can only work with what's there on film.
Mytran as for speculation why 9 ft 3 inches verses 9 ft 9 inches and the 2 ft elevation in the early draft Jeffries did, I know that what I measured even if off was nowhere close to 2 feet tall, and the radius may have been to after drawing it out on the floor and feeling out the space they most likely decided to tighten the bridge well up some due to it may have felt spread out for a possible TV set. Idea that you want the actors closer together to minimize camera movement and not having your actors further apart on a 1966- 3:4 240 or so resolution tv screen. Example....Ever notice the original Battlestar Galactica tv series where the actors are almost in each other's face in the same shot? ( Living Legend is a good example in the beginning of the episode where Tigh and Adama are talking. Nobody these days stand that close since we have bigger tvs with higher resolution so shot blocking is more loose and forgiving. )
Tonight I made the decision to redraw the clean up of the profile due to some of it was off when I traced on a full sheet of onion skin for transfering it. Some alignment issues I was not happy with. This may be due to several layers of paper and tape built up to interfere with a good even lay across the entire image. The onionskin composite is the final authority here so it's going to have to be redrawn. started on it tonight but it is too hot in that garage. I'll try to work on it during my breaks at work.
As well I am having a hard time focusing. got banged by a shopping cart in the grocery store yesterday and later discovered it just smashed the entire glass of my new iPhone 6. Pretty pissed right now. Hard to use without running the risk of glass slivers or cutting myself.
Last edited:
Cool thread. Really cool.
Just a quick note: I fix iphones. Temp "fix" to your glass slivers is just some clear packing tape. One fat piece top to bottom is best. The screen will still be touch sensitive (I've done this dozens of times as part of keeping them together before I replace the screens) and will keep all those slivers from getting on you and everywhere else.
Just a quick note: I fix iphones. Temp "fix" to your glass slivers is just some clear packing tape. One fat piece top to bottom is best. The screen will still be touch sensitive (I've done this dozens of times as part of keeping them together before I replace the screens) and will keep all those slivers from getting on you and everywhere else.
Thank you. On both points. I'm planning on getting the glass replaced this weekend at a local repair shop.
Update: Decided to hold off on redoing the clean up on the console profile due to having something nagging at me. Today I thought I would shelve it for a bit to chase down some things MGagen and I have been discussing over the phone about various things concerning a 36 degree segments and 35.5 segments with a 40.5 degree viewscreen platforms. I noticed something when checking my folder for viewscreen shots and Up till now I have been open to either but setting on the fence undecided. After today I am clearly decided on the 35.5 / 40.5 bridge for the following reasons…
1. When I was sifting through the images for the viewscreen I came upon this one which showed the ceiling seams inboard of the viewscreen and not straddling it. Felt this was a important clue. Discussed it with MGagen and I felt I needed to find stills where the platform seams matched the exact position inboard at the foot of the viewscreen.
2. After finding several images which show this I took the 35.5 / 40.5 bridge platform map I ruled out and drew the viewscreen overlap on both sides and took a ruler to it. It hit 10 feet exactly on the nose. This clinched it for me and worked out the necessary model build orthos for the screen applying the Journey to Babel 3rd sheet Stage 9 floor plan measurements for the bridge viewscreen. ( the bottom plate / foot from front to back plate in the Journey To Babel bridge plan is 1 ft 3 inches. McMaster has that at 1ft 5 inches. I'll go with the Babel measurement and see how it looks on the model. I have always felt the McMaster viewscreen plans were too deep in setting the backplate of the viewscreen.
3. Had it dawn on me since this image was taken from across the bridge and not close the horizontal measurement would make a ruler also that could be used for vertical and used it to check the vertical height of the edge of the viewscreen wing which yielded 7ft 4 inches. So I trust that since that is a solid that can be measured against horizontally and vertically. Which also means I will have to overhaul the onionskin composite to factor in the additional 2 inches in bridge height. I felt the console profile needed one or two more inches to give me more room to work out the aspect ratio of the overhead monitor frames, but was too uncomfortable changing the bridge height unless I had something more concrete to measure against. As of today I do now. I plan to build a viewscreen in 1/12th scale to the drawing I just did. I am going in to fine tune some angles to finess it out. But I am very comfortable with what I now have as a solid starting point. I just didn't expect it to force me to revise the console profile since all the vertical specs were to 7ft 2in and not 7ft 4 in. But I am very exighted about this since the wide retangular viewscreen has always eluded fans like what we saw in TOS and not like those seen in plans after TOS. I think we will finally see that elusive retangular viewscreen real quick. I plan to model this as immediately as soon as possible to see how these measurements and second viewscreen model hold up against TOS stills. and if it needs tuning then it will be minor if at all. )
1. When I was sifting through the images for the viewscreen I came upon this one which showed the ceiling seams inboard of the viewscreen and not straddling it. Felt this was a important clue. Discussed it with MGagen and I felt I needed to find stills where the platform seams matched the exact position inboard at the foot of the viewscreen.
2. After finding several images which show this I took the 35.5 / 40.5 bridge platform map I ruled out and drew the viewscreen overlap on both sides and took a ruler to it. It hit 10 feet exactly on the nose. This clinched it for me and worked out the necessary model build orthos for the screen applying the Journey to Babel 3rd sheet Stage 9 floor plan measurements for the bridge viewscreen. ( the bottom plate / foot from front to back plate in the Journey To Babel bridge plan is 1 ft 3 inches. McMaster has that at 1ft 5 inches. I'll go with the Babel measurement and see how it looks on the model. I have always felt the McMaster viewscreen plans were too deep in setting the backplate of the viewscreen.
3. Had it dawn on me since this image was taken from across the bridge and not close the horizontal measurement would make a ruler also that could be used for vertical and used it to check the vertical height of the edge of the viewscreen wing which yielded 7ft 4 inches. So I trust that since that is a solid that can be measured against horizontally and vertically. Which also means I will have to overhaul the onionskin composite to factor in the additional 2 inches in bridge height. I felt the console profile needed one or two more inches to give me more room to work out the aspect ratio of the overhead monitor frames, but was too uncomfortable changing the bridge height unless I had something more concrete to measure against. As of today I do now. I plan to build a viewscreen in 1/12th scale to the drawing I just did. I am going in to fine tune some angles to finess it out. But I am very comfortable with what I now have as a solid starting point. I just didn't expect it to force me to revise the console profile since all the vertical specs were to 7ft 2in and not 7ft 4 in. But I am very exighted about this since the wide retangular viewscreen has always eluded fans like what we saw in TOS and not like those seen in plans after TOS. I think we will finally see that elusive retangular viewscreen real quick. I plan to model this as immediately as soon as possible to see how these measurements and second viewscreen model hold up against TOS stills. and if it needs tuning then it will be minor if at all. )
Last edited:
Ok here is the results of yesterday's work. Both are in the same scale. Pictured on the left is the pure McMaster plan view screen and on the right ( thanks to MGagen's 40.5 degree viewscreen platform and 35.5 degree console information he has provided....) the results yesterday's research ( 9 PDF ) and building it today. In a rush I did not rule out the border frame of the boundries of the image area like I did on McMAster, and there is a 3 inch width shortfall in the screen when compared to the TOS still I used that will need to be taken out of the wings. But to me it feels more like it should, especially after shooting it on camera and knowing what it should look like. I'll be revising yesterday's drawing to correct the 3 inch width shortfall in the face of the viewscreen later today.
Comments?
Comments?
Last edited:
I think this is a break through which validates MGagen and his friend who both came up with the 35.5 / 40.5 bridge. As well seeing the viewscreen look more like it should after building it to me is huge confirmation that they are both correct concerning bridge symmetry. My condolences to anyone who has built a 36 degree in the round bridge since that any bridge built to that symmetry cannot accommodate the dimensions of the viewscreen I built yesterday. ( unless you want to cut 3 1/2 inches out of each adjoining wall to the viewscreen forcing to rebalance the detailing on those 2 walls AND raise the height of the everything above the deck of the entire outer bridge ring 2 inches taller. ) Just to back up and trust but verify so there is no question. Step by step as Mytran likes to show it.
First checking the bottom front of the viewscreen from the deck edge to ensure accurate placement or the length of the screen could be brought into question. First checking this measurement on McMaster which is 4 ft 3 inches.
Next showing the 1966 Matt Jeffries drawing printed in MoST which shows this measurement at 4 ft even.
Next checking this same measurement on the 3rd Stage 9 sheet "Journey TO Babel' which reads 4ft 3 inches. THis is the one I am using as my baseline for everything.
Next is the McMaster width of the viewscreen which reads 9 ft 5 inches end to end at the face.
Next image is the footprint of the viewscreen based off the conbined research of the over lap of the platform seams and MGagen's 35.5 / 40.5 symmetry input. It is 10 inches but the ends of the ruler are not laying flat making it appear not hitting exactly at 10 inches. It does if I held it down on both ends but I needed hands to hold the camera.
Next is a overhead looking down showing the base of the viewscreen and the platform seams running inboard the ends just like in the stills I observed. This shot is to establish position and length which is 10 inches which matches the orthos I posted 2 days ago.
I'll be getting the corrected model and orthos to scan and post officially in the next couple of days.
First checking the bottom front of the viewscreen from the deck edge to ensure accurate placement or the length of the screen could be brought into question. First checking this measurement on McMaster which is 4 ft 3 inches.
Next showing the 1966 Matt Jeffries drawing printed in MoST which shows this measurement at 4 ft even.
Next checking this same measurement on the 3rd Stage 9 sheet "Journey TO Babel' which reads 4ft 3 inches. THis is the one I am using as my baseline for everything.
Next is the McMaster width of the viewscreen which reads 9 ft 5 inches end to end at the face.
Next image is the footprint of the viewscreen based off the conbined research of the over lap of the platform seams and MGagen's 35.5 / 40.5 symmetry input. It is 10 inches but the ends of the ruler are not laying flat making it appear not hitting exactly at 10 inches. It does if I held it down on both ends but I needed hands to hold the camera.
Next is a overhead looking down showing the base of the viewscreen and the platform seams running inboard the ends just like in the stills I observed. This shot is to establish position and length which is 10 inches which matches the orthos I posted 2 days ago.
I'll be getting the corrected model and orthos to scan and post officially in the next couple of days.
Last edited:
Ok I am to the point where I can start churning out some hard measurements after verifying the footprint of the viewscreen. This is the page for the bridge outer ring platforms minus the 2 for the viewscreen. I'll see if I can get started on those tonight. THis is just a preview with my camera but it should serve getting the core essential info out immediately to begin building a 35.5 / 40.5 bridge. My goal is to have the platforms, railings and inner deck thresholds, and the viewscreen drawn and ready to scan for my friend by the end of the week to post here. I know these drawings are bare but I will go back and fill in the additional drawings and info later on. This is to just to get the ball rolling.
Last edited:
And the camera preview of the viewing screen platforms combined together.
Last edited:
Thanks Mytran. This is how all of it will be served up. As long as my handwriting is easily legible then we're good. Before it is all said and done I may or may not get all the detailing to finish everything out for the entire Stage 9. If I decide to go that route people can use Feek61's stuff. But at least the general build information will all be here when completed. Haven't made a decision yet on which way I will go on that.
What a week. Finally got my iPhone glass repaired....$160 hit. After dealing with that I'm taking a night off. Hard to believe people can make a living repairing broken cell phone glass, and that it seems to be a steady business. A whole new service industry that did not exist 20 years ago.
What a week. Finally got my iPhone glass repaired....$160 hit. After dealing with that I'm taking a night off. Hard to believe people can make a living repairing broken cell phone glass, and that it seems to be a steady business. A whole new service industry that did not exist 20 years ago.
Well, done, Robert. I am in awe of your industriousness.
It's nice the see another independent verification of my findings. I know it amounts to a hill of beans in the grand scheme of things, but I love knowing the little idiosyncrasies of the sets. Particularly when it illuminates the working methods of the original production crew. You are doing yeoman work with all of the sets, not just the bridge; and I am following with close attention.
Cheers,
M.
It's nice the see another independent verification of my findings. I know it amounts to a hill of beans in the grand scheme of things, but I love knowing the little idiosyncrasies of the sets. Particularly when it illuminates the working methods of the original production crew. You are doing yeoman work with all of the sets, not just the bridge; and I am following with close attention.
Cheers,
M.
TY. I wouldn't short change your and Petri Blomqvist's contribution. I'll add his name to the sheets for the bridge when I scan them since he also did the same as you. Anything that is affected by changes in the bridge symmetry will have both your names on them...which is pretty much the entire bridge. You both deserve the credit. The information you presented from your study was 1/2 the key lynchpin that freed up the additional space for the viewscreen to where it now looks right. ( that and the additional space of the ends of the screen overlapping the seams on the platform. ) and it is borne out on all 3 Stage 9 blueprint sheets in the symmetry, 4 if you count the Stage 9 floor plan printed in MoST. I admire your humility but what you have contributed is a rather substantial insight that has gone unaddressed or ignored for close to 50 years. A rather significant achievement to better understanding better what that bridge actually was verses a close approximation on paper all these years. So far I have definately identified 4 reasons for the difference between why until now nobody hasn't been able to make fit the 16:9 feel like viewscreen like seen in TOS....1. The additional 3 inches you gave me with the new bridge symmetry that McMaster didn't have since he was straight jacketed into the space limitations of 36 degree wedge symmetry, 2. Shallowing the backplate to give it more space horizontally....and 3. Minor...McMasters vertical measurements were off and too tall vertically in the image area working against matching the 16:9 feel like like viewscreen we all know from childhood. I couldn't have made the breakthrough in successfully matching the TOS screen dimensions without those 3 inches you gave me....and 4. The screen overlap on the platform seams which made up the difference.
Last night worked on the adjusted ortho drawings of the viewscreen. Since the side wings were shortened a inch and a half each I decided to remeasure the spacing for framing the side displays. Now that I have hard measurements I can measure against on the viewscreen I can use parts of the viewscreen to measure other areas for placing markings. Checked through the viewscreen stills folder and narrowed down stills from Changling and Spock's Brain to use for that. I'll be doing that and finishing the drawings tonight then start on building it to see if the new version of the screen looks spot on. All that should be a couple of evenings till that is finished.
Last night worked on the adjusted ortho drawings of the viewscreen. Since the side wings were shortened a inch and a half each I decided to remeasure the spacing for framing the side displays. Now that I have hard measurements I can measure against on the viewscreen I can use parts of the viewscreen to measure other areas for placing markings. Checked through the viewscreen stills folder and narrowed down stills from Changling and Spock's Brain to use for that. I'll be doing that and finishing the drawings tonight then start on building it to see if the new version of the screen looks spot on. All that should be a couple of evenings till that is finished.
Last edited:
Tonight's update. Here is the second drawing with the 3 additional inches horizontally to the viewing area of the main screen.
Decided to make sure I made the correct changes before finalizing the drawing. Using the still from The Changling I took the vertical measurements from Spock's Brain 080.jpg and applied them to the wing detail which I made a trace of.
I then hit the calculator and made a ruler. This is the measurement check to verify the ruler.
I then used the ruler to measure the horizontal width of the wing plate which was 1 foot 8 inches. It looks off due to camera angle is not dead centered over ruler.
I then checked the drawing I am currently working on with the corrections and measured it. The wing measurement is 1 ft 8 inches. So I am comfortable now finishing out detailing the main viewscreen drawing. I finish it tomorrow and begin work on the model of it hopefully Friday.
Decided to make sure I made the correct changes before finalizing the drawing. Using the still from The Changling I took the vertical measurements from Spock's Brain 080.jpg and applied them to the wing detail which I made a trace of.
I then hit the calculator and made a ruler. This is the measurement check to verify the ruler.
I then used the ruler to measure the horizontal width of the wing plate which was 1 foot 8 inches. It looks off due to camera angle is not dead centered over ruler.
I then checked the drawing I am currently working on with the corrections and measured it. The wing measurement is 1 ft 8 inches. So I am comfortable now finishing out detailing the main viewscreen drawing. I finish it tomorrow and begin work on the model of it hopefully Friday.
Last edited:
Just so the chronology, and methods are clear:
I noticed the non-symetrical wedges on the stage blueprints.
Knowing Petri had built a digital bridge, I communicated my findings to him and asked if he thought the set was actually like this, or if it might be a drafting error. He replied that he had already run into a similar issue when trying to angle match his digital model with screen caps of the bridge. He could never get it to fit until he enlarged the screen wedge and reduced the others a bit. We had both arrived at the same conclusion independently from different directions; I, from a close examination of the studio drawings, he, from a photogrammetric study of the screen captures.
I later examined the preliminary Jefferies wedge sketch and two features jumped out at me: 1) There were no angles specified -- all angles emerge from intersecting length measurements. 2) The wedge as designed would not complete a circle if all ten wedges were the same. At least one wedge would have to be wider. This suggested to me the reason for the drafting method: Stage carpenters are not engineers -- it's easier to be accurate over large distances with ruler and square, than with a protractor. Any slight shortfall or overage due to rounding out the blueprints to regular inch-based increments would be cumulative. Best to leave one wedge to be "built to size" to close the circle after the rest were completed. Obviously, the viewscreen wedge was the one.
On a humorous note, I had a similar experience with another ST drawing. After decades of looking at the Jefferies hangar deck side view in TMOST, I finally noticed something that had been staring me in the face all along: The drawing represents a forced perspective set design, not the "real hangar." All those years poring over it and I had never cottoned on to the fact that the lines converge toward the aft end not because the chamber is tapered, but because it is changing scale! The observation galleries are the giveaway. They diminish in size and get closer to the deck as they progress aftward -- a clear indication that the set design was intended to use forced perspective to look larger than is was. (This does not mean the actual miniature set was built this way, it wasn't.) As far as I know, no one else had ever commented on this odd feature of the hangar drawing.
Sometimes the nose on our own face is not so plain after all...
M.
I noticed the non-symetrical wedges on the stage blueprints.
Knowing Petri had built a digital bridge, I communicated my findings to him and asked if he thought the set was actually like this, or if it might be a drafting error. He replied that he had already run into a similar issue when trying to angle match his digital model with screen caps of the bridge. He could never get it to fit until he enlarged the screen wedge and reduced the others a bit. We had both arrived at the same conclusion independently from different directions; I, from a close examination of the studio drawings, he, from a photogrammetric study of the screen captures.
I later examined the preliminary Jefferies wedge sketch and two features jumped out at me: 1) There were no angles specified -- all angles emerge from intersecting length measurements. 2) The wedge as designed would not complete a circle if all ten wedges were the same. At least one wedge would have to be wider. This suggested to me the reason for the drafting method: Stage carpenters are not engineers -- it's easier to be accurate over large distances with ruler and square, than with a protractor. Any slight shortfall or overage due to rounding out the blueprints to regular inch-based increments would be cumulative. Best to leave one wedge to be "built to size" to close the circle after the rest were completed. Obviously, the viewscreen wedge was the one.
On a humorous note, I had a similar experience with another ST drawing. After decades of looking at the Jefferies hangar deck side view in TMOST, I finally noticed something that had been staring me in the face all along: The drawing represents a forced perspective set design, not the "real hangar." All those years poring over it and I had never cottoned on to the fact that the lines converge toward the aft end not because the chamber is tapered, but because it is changing scale! The observation galleries are the giveaway. They diminish in size and get closer to the deck as they progress aftward -- a clear indication that the set design was intended to use forced perspective to look larger than is was. (This does not mean the actual miniature set was built this way, it wasn't.) As far as I know, no one else had ever commented on this odd feature of the hangar drawing.
Sometimes the nose on our own face is not so plain after all...
M.
I recognized the drawing as being in forced perspective ages ago. When was it this lightbulb came on for you?
On the hangar somewhere in the late 70's early 80's I did notice it on the model in the show, but did not even think about when looking at the drawing. I would expect anyone with a trained eye towards model miniature making and special effects to notice it. For me it was as you say the galleries over head which made me notice.
