I recognized the drawing as being in forced perspective ages ago. When was it this lightbulb came on for you?
I first posted about it back in '02 on TrekBBS, SSM & Hobby Talk. No one at any of the boards had noticed it before.
M.
9 PDF
- Thread starter Robert Simmons
- Start date
I first posted about it back in '02 on TrekBBS, SSM & Hobby Talk. No one at any of the boards had noticed it before.
M.
Ever since I first saw that drawing in MoST in 1974...I think...it was 3rd grade for me....I have always viewed that drawing as a conceptual POV perspective drawing. *( See bracketed comments at bottom of posts as relevant as to why. ) I never mentally registered it as a forced perspective target drawing for the model. Since I was into ships ( sailing, modern ocean liners and that year Star Trek and the enterprise ) I was doing plan profile drawings and some various large cardboard models from shows to emulate what I saw. I dabbled with perspective architecturally from looking at some of my fellow students art books, but I disliked doing perspective drawing due to me it was much harder than doing plan drawings where everything is laid out along up or down. It would be 8th grade when my art instructor Mr. Pyle held my feet to the fire with our daily drawing assignments which were anchored in perspective drawing. So early on with that drawing I understood it to be a perspective drawing, but never a forced perspective drawing. Kudos to you MGagen for noticing that and pointing that out. But the model for me was easy to spot when I wanted to be a model effects miniature maker after Star Wars came out and Battlestar Galactica came out.
( I didn't get MoST until way later in life since when my fellow classmates...the rich kids who had their own money to spend...owned it and there was a spirited contest who had more Star Trek stuff and they eagerly brought what books, models and other Trek stuff to school in oneupsmanship which I benefitted from having access to. It helped educate me as to what was out there for the show to spend my lawn mowing money on. We even had in 3rd grade in class at our desks a argument that nearly got ugly with us arguing over the color of the Enterprise was blue, green or white since Aaron Cole brought his Enterprise model to school painted in a Blue Angel gloss blue and some of us laughed at it and him. I was one of them. That was in 3rd grade in 1974 us having this argument contrasting it with similar discussions I've seen full grown adults have on numerous discussion boards over the past 20 years. Well Jeff Brittian won that owning the most Star Trek contest against Aaron Cole and David Summers and a couple of others I don't recall their names....Jeff even had the blue communicator walkie talkies the instant they came out and he and the others played with them on the school playground during recess....you can tell I was jealous but thought it was cool at the same time. Bragging rights sent to those who had the most and let others look at it as proof. To me it was cool they were letting me have access to stuff I didn't own...yet. )
( I didn't get MoST until way later in life since when my fellow classmates...the rich kids who had their own money to spend...owned it and there was a spirited contest who had more Star Trek stuff and they eagerly brought what books, models and other Trek stuff to school in oneupsmanship which I benefitted from having access to. It helped educate me as to what was out there for the show to spend my lawn mowing money on. We even had in 3rd grade in class at our desks a argument that nearly got ugly with us arguing over the color of the Enterprise was blue, green or white since Aaron Cole brought his Enterprise model to school painted in a Blue Angel gloss blue and some of us laughed at it and him. I was one of them. That was in 3rd grade in 1974 us having this argument contrasting it with similar discussions I've seen full grown adults have on numerous discussion boards over the past 20 years. Well Jeff Brittian won that owning the most Star Trek contest against Aaron Cole and David Summers and a couple of others I don't recall their names....Jeff even had the blue communicator walkie talkies the instant they came out and he and the others played with them on the school playground during recess....you can tell I was jealous but thought it was cool at the same time. Bragging rights sent to those who had the most and let others look at it as proof. To me it was cool they were letting me have access to stuff I didn't own...yet. )
Last edited:
Still plugging away. Slowed down when working out the sizing and framing of the lights and their covers beneath the viewscreen. So disregard what you see on that in the drawing since I am still in the middle of working that out to where it looks right. And a couple of oppsies in writing down the wrong measurements, correct the wrong placement of B detail top row lights, and a few measurement notations still to add. Other than that...it's ready to be scanned. Tony was put on notice Friday that hopefully Monday I'll have 3 sheets for him to scan.
Last edited:
Ok...corrections made and lower light detail finished. Listed light colors and a short list of light blink sequence from an episode I don't remember which. I plan on later on updating the blink list with more from the episodes later on. But for now it's ready to be handed over to be scanned tomorrow morning. I'll building a model of it in the next few days.
Last edited:
>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.)
1. As said, actual miniature set was not FP, as proven by cited dimensions' correspondence to the angles of the aft of the secondary hull.
2. Matt's side and end views as printed in TMOST do feature a tapering, but to take this as implying those drawings imply an original (i.e., prior to construction) intent of building an FP miniature set is to suggest a subsequent (never to my knowledge seen or referenced) set of drawings NOT featuring FP was subsequently drafted by someone -- Matt or Datin -- from which the miniature set was built.
3. As *I* have pointed out previously -- to no response whatsoever -- the downward slant of the corridors (likewise their diminishment in height) can be explained in a manner other than that of a drawing depiction of a[n unbuilt FP "set"]. A hanger (miniature or not) in which the corridors did NOT taper both in floor-relative position, and corridor height, would result in said corridors being positioned "higher" along the hangar's aft hemispherical outline (i.e., just forward of the doors) than along the (nonexistent) "front wall."
I'm not sure if this is clear from my phrasing, so imagine two cross section drawings, one of the forward wall, one of the aft (just forward of the doors). These two-half circles share the same equator (floor level) but are of different diameters. A horizontal line connecting the floor level height of the larger circle will intersect the aft circle a greater number of degrees "upward" along THAT circle (via a protractor) than does the floor level intersect the fwd (larger) circle. Thus, a hanger built with non-slanting, non-tapering corridors will (if filmed from the forward position) appear to show said corridors going "uphill" (relative to their intersection points along the 2 circles).
Visually, this would be confusing. PRACTICALLY (in terms of an actual ship/set/hangar deck) this would mean the aft most part of the corridors (in fact the "control gondolas") would physically occupy an impractical portion of the smaller, larger section of the aft circle.
Speculative conclusion: NO FP miniature set was EVER contemplated. Matt's TMOST-printed drawing represents the hangar miniature AS BUILT, the slanting/tapered corridors of which serve both an aesthetic and practical purpose.
Measurements of the corridors on Matt's side view reveal they are not too short to stand in at their aft most point (though their overhead height would be quite low). As for the control gondolas, those offer sufficient height for a seated position…which, given they'd be accessed by their own dedicated ladders, would be quite sufficient.
Comments, Mytran?
1. As said, actual miniature set was not FP, as proven by cited dimensions' correspondence to the angles of the aft of the secondary hull.
2. Matt's side and end views as printed in TMOST do feature a tapering, but to take this as implying those drawings imply an original (i.e., prior to construction) intent of building an FP miniature set is to suggest a subsequent (never to my knowledge seen or referenced) set of drawings NOT featuring FP was subsequently drafted by someone -- Matt or Datin -- from which the miniature set was built.
3. As *I* have pointed out previously -- to no response whatsoever -- the downward slant of the corridors (likewise their diminishment in height) can be explained in a manner other than that of a drawing depiction of a[n unbuilt FP "set"]. A hanger (miniature or not) in which the corridors did NOT taper both in floor-relative position, and corridor height, would result in said corridors being positioned "higher" along the hangar's aft hemispherical outline (i.e., just forward of the doors) than along the (nonexistent) "front wall."
I'm not sure if this is clear from my phrasing, so imagine two cross section drawings, one of the forward wall, one of the aft (just forward of the doors). These two-half circles share the same equator (floor level) but are of different diameters. A horizontal line connecting the floor level height of the larger circle will intersect the aft circle a greater number of degrees "upward" along THAT circle (via a protractor) than does the floor level intersect the fwd (larger) circle. Thus, a hanger built with non-slanting, non-tapering corridors will (if filmed from the forward position) appear to show said corridors going "uphill" (relative to their intersection points along the 2 circles).
Visually, this would be confusing. PRACTICALLY (in terms of an actual ship/set/hangar deck) this would mean the aft most part of the corridors (in fact the "control gondolas") would physically occupy an impractical portion of the smaller, larger section of the aft circle.
Speculative conclusion: NO FP miniature set was EVER contemplated. Matt's TMOST-printed drawing represents the hangar miniature AS BUILT, the slanting/tapered corridors of which serve both an aesthetic and practical purpose.
Measurements of the corridors on Matt's side view reveal they are not too short to stand in at their aft most point (though their overhead height would be quite low). As for the control gondolas, those offer sufficient height for a seated position…which, given they'd be accessed by their own dedicated ladders, would be quite sufficient.
Comments, Mytran?
TBH, the shape of the Flight Deck miniature was discussed elsewhere on the BBS a while ago so I was just going with that (I'll try and find a link). Also, I've been out of the country for a few days, so I didn't have access to these:
The conical shape of the bay was made to match the shape of the aft secondary hull, of course. In the pictures above, the lateral "support" beams taper to match this shape, but the gallery/gondola units are visibly on the same, flat horizontal plane.
I don't have an answer for why the FP sketch exists, but it doesn't seem to relate to the miniature as finally built - of course, that wouldn't be the first time that happened!
The conical shape of the bay was made to match the shape of the aft secondary hull, of course. In the pictures above, the lateral "support" beams taper to match this shape, but the gallery/gondola units are visibly on the same, flat horizontal plane.
I don't have an answer for why the FP sketch exists, but it doesn't seem to relate to the miniature as finally built - of course, that wouldn't be the first time that happened!
Mytran thank you for these photos. I always assumed if the furthest away gondolas appeared smaller in series shots then it was a forced perspective on the model. These pics here clearly show otherwise.
Pages scanned. Waiting till after family is asleep to post them and link to them.
Pages scanned. Waiting till after family is asleep to post them and link to them.
Scans for 9PDF Release 1.0. Click on image and it will come up in photobucket. And then on the bottom right click on download. Enjoy and comment freely if there is anything else you guys might think I should add. More details will be added later on the platforms. Color info and more blinking order will be added to the viewscreen. after this I'll be turning back to working on the outer ring profile resizing it to 7 ft 4. And then the consoles and then the overheads above the consoles.
Last edited:
I forgot to mention if you try to drag and drop the image in my post or in photobucket it will look like crap. In photobucket after you clicked on the picture in my post if you have a Mac click on the download button on the bottom right to get the high Rez version that is good. If you have a PC in photobucket look for the options menu button to click for the download option.
I think I'll have to consider image hosting through flikr to bypass this hassle. As the releases progress in time the images will be assembled into a current PDF. New releases will be released a few pages individually then added to the PDF
I think I'll have to consider image hosting through flikr to bypass this hassle. As the releases progress in time the images will be assembled into a current PDF. New releases will be released a few pages individually then added to the PDF
Last edited:
And yet, the drawing in TMOST has clear, converging features, while the Miniature Set does not. Either such a drawing was prepared and we haven't seen it, or Datin built the set on his own without such.
Yes, you have proposed that the REAL galleries and control booths were meant to get shorter and lower to the deck as they progress aft. But if that were the case, then the set as Datin built it has forced perspective details intended to be viewed from the OPPOSITE end. Otherwise, since he did make the corridors and control booths a consistent size and deck level all the way aft, the aft details must necessarily look too large when viewed from the FORWARD end. That is plainly not the case.
As the photos posted by Mytran clearly show, the hangar as built, (in respect to the galleries, control booths and alcove heights) is very consistent with the explanation of the TMOST drawing having FP details that have been factored out during construction. The only question is whether all of the interior hangar wall taper was meant to be a FP detail or only some of it. Datin seems to have retained all of it, while rectifying the rest of the details. Of course, this may be a concession to ease of filming. Most sets of square rooms are built non-square in order to open up the camera-facing side, just like a stage set. No one would maintain that the opposite left and right walls of Lucy and Desi's REAL living room are not parallel. But the walls of the I Love Lucy living room set certainly are not...
As for what MJ actually had in mind for the hangar, I submit that the best source for that is the man himself. There is a drawing by Jefferies that is beyond doubt a true, undistorted cross section of the "actual hangar" and its galleries and booths with no question of forced perspective elements. It is this one from his Phase II Enterprise drawing:
It pretty well settles the diminishing, slanted galleries question. Alas, the question of whether the interior space meant to be a frustum or a cylinder is still debatable. He doesn't seem to indicate the ceiling line of the hangar, only the exterior of the hull. The case seems stronger for the frustum camp, but I admit to falling in the cylindrical camp because it gave me room to put something behind the alcoves in my scale Enterprise 3D model. YMMV.
M.
Thank you. Error correction...the notation for the top of detail B to deck below on page 3 reads 6ft 10 inches. It should read 5 ft 7 inches. It has been corrected on the page and will be scanned again and posted in the next week or two. Caught it while building the model from the plans.
>Yes, you have proposed that the REAL galleries and control booths were meant to get shorter and lower to the deck as they progress aft. But if that were the case, then the set as Datin built it has forced perspective details intended to be viewed from the OPPOSITE end.
I'm saying Matt's drawing shows a taper in order to vertically/"rotationally" POSITION the galleries & control rooms for a reason other than FP. We've no drawings of Datin's as-built set, and my skills don't permit photo analysis of its elements to confirm their having neither tilt nor taper (which to my eye they appear NOT to, as Mytran says of the B&W image of the miniature's aft).
FP, I maintain, was never (or rather, to be Mytranically-precise, "quite possibly not") meant incorporation into the hangar "set" from a time dating to Matt's renderings. And whether or not Datin's work had tilt or taper, it was by his own claim (in his Trek magazine -- title eludes me -- interview, which someone ought to post online for reference) in NO way FP, being as how it was originally (per his construction orders) meant to split longitudinally for filming from the side (which he says was not done, presumably to save $).
The least expenditure of time and $ on Datin's part would have entailed the use of Matt's plans (none other being drafted by Matt OR Datin)…which IIRC jibe with Datin's cited miniature dimensions/angles…with Datin discarding the tilt/taper aspects on account of their SHOWING the viewer both tilt and taper HAD the hanger been shot (as a temporarily halved miniature) from the side. Which would look damn peculiar. IF not stupid.
Matt's Phase II drawing is lovely, interesting, and only tangentially relevant to the TMOST hangar's origins. Its galleries neither tilt nor taper due the fact(s) that
1)the "real" (miniature) hangar galleries didn't do so, and
2)whatever the reason for Matt's TMOST drawings' tilt/taper, they'd become by that time "overridden"
If my "imposition" of a distinction between Matt's drawings of 2 hangars seems extreme, consider that his TMOST renderings are of a hanger of a different heights/length ratio (a longer hangar), the angles of whose exterior walls precisely reflect those of the ship's aft end. Which is to say, the TMOST renderings reflect a hangar that would, as rendered, fit into the TMOST Enterprise…albeit NOT into the blacked-out space Matt "inserted" into his ship cross-section cutaway. Said (rendered AND built, IIRC of the latter) hangar's fw'd wall would fall fw'd of the nacelle pylons' aft edge.
By contrast, Matt's Phase II rendering reflects a shorter, stubbier hangar space than that of the TMOST ship…an alteration in proportions made "official" with the hangar miniature & set of ST V.
ST V's hangar is small & cramped & (to my eye) ugly, in contrast to the lengthy and expansive TMOST hangar. The latter fits into a 1000-odd foot refit, the former into…well, I've played THAT song to tears.
I'm saying Matt's drawing shows a taper in order to vertically/"rotationally" POSITION the galleries & control rooms for a reason other than FP. We've no drawings of Datin's as-built set, and my skills don't permit photo analysis of its elements to confirm their having neither tilt nor taper (which to my eye they appear NOT to, as Mytran says of the B&W image of the miniature's aft).
FP, I maintain, was never (or rather, to be Mytranically-precise, "quite possibly not") meant incorporation into the hangar "set" from a time dating to Matt's renderings. And whether or not Datin's work had tilt or taper, it was by his own claim (in his Trek magazine -- title eludes me -- interview, which someone ought to post online for reference) in NO way FP, being as how it was originally (per his construction orders) meant to split longitudinally for filming from the side (which he says was not done, presumably to save $).
The least expenditure of time and $ on Datin's part would have entailed the use of Matt's plans (none other being drafted by Matt OR Datin)…which IIRC jibe with Datin's cited miniature dimensions/angles…with Datin discarding the tilt/taper aspects on account of their SHOWING the viewer both tilt and taper HAD the hanger been shot (as a temporarily halved miniature) from the side. Which would look damn peculiar. IF not stupid.
Matt's Phase II drawing is lovely, interesting, and only tangentially relevant to the TMOST hangar's origins. Its galleries neither tilt nor taper due the fact(s) that
1)the "real" (miniature) hangar galleries didn't do so, and
2)whatever the reason for Matt's TMOST drawings' tilt/taper, they'd become by that time "overridden"
If my "imposition" of a distinction between Matt's drawings of 2 hangars seems extreme, consider that his TMOST renderings are of a hanger of a different heights/length ratio (a longer hangar), the angles of whose exterior walls precisely reflect those of the ship's aft end. Which is to say, the TMOST renderings reflect a hangar that would, as rendered, fit into the TMOST Enterprise…albeit NOT into the blacked-out space Matt "inserted" into his ship cross-section cutaway. Said (rendered AND built, IIRC of the latter) hangar's fw'd wall would fall fw'd of the nacelle pylons' aft edge.
By contrast, Matt's Phase II rendering reflects a shorter, stubbier hangar space than that of the TMOST ship…an alteration in proportions made "official" with the hangar miniature & set of ST V.
ST V's hangar is small & cramped & (to my eye) ugly, in contrast to the lengthy and expansive TMOST hangar. The latter fits into a 1000-odd foot refit, the former into…well, I've played THAT song to tears.
David as interesting as the hangar discussion is, it is not relevant to 9 PDF since is about the full size sets and not a filming scale model. MGagen made a comment on this and it doesn't need to become a argument derailing this thread. As mentioned earlier the hangar topic has it's own previous designated thread which would be better fully explored there. Exercise good netiquette please.
Absolutely true, and I apologize for the hijack, as I should have earlier (if not in fact foregone my post entirely, or put it elsewhere). I'll have to run a search for the hangar thread (anyone have a link handy?).
Again, my greatest compliments to YOUR work. Your recent posts of comparison/contrast bridge studies are fantastic. Would that Michael McMaster was still with us...
Again, my greatest compliments to YOUR work. Your recent posts of comparison/contrast bridge studies are fantastic. Would that Michael McMaster was still with us...
Thanks Robert, that's the one! This post lists the miniature dimensions specifically:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=8632279&postcount=143
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=8632279&postcount=143
Just a note...when I mention the McMaster plans being off. I in no way am besmirching the man or his work. I view his bridge plans as a excellent starting point and not a end say all destination. From my study on this he spent little time examining the original articles and used from what I understand the best tools and publicly published and available reference to him at that time. If he were alive today I think he would be motivated to take advantage of today's digital technology and released video and a greater wealth of material on video and the stage 9 plans to fine tune and over haul his bridge plans. So I think at least what I am doing tightening up the plan dimensions to all known material would be done anyway by him. I am trying to imagine how much money and effort Mike did burn in photographing what bridge pieces he had access to and taking measurements during his time with them. Essential to begin a project like his bridge plans. I would expect a studio to have archived in some form as complete as possible the actual construction plans used to build all the sets and models. To me it is smart to hang on to stuff like that to show at least what they spent their money on as part of studio history. But since evidently nothing like that exists to this day what I am doing might fill that role to fill in the blanks to serve that purpose as a favor for the studio and fans.
Well said - we are in an extremely fortunate position these days to have easy access to so much information, not to mention forums like this to exchange ideas instantaneously! Our counterparts in the 1970s would leap on such innovations to aid them, I've no doubt
