deg3D_TOS.5 Enterprise

[deg3D]

A few images:

1.) Here's the plasma in the bussard collectors from a "Ships of the Line" calander a few years back:

2.) The "phaser turret" or "ion pod" on the big TOS Enterprise model:

3.) and on the MR TOS Enterprise:

1.) I never cared for the non-vane look on TOS E myself. Fine for NX-01, but never saw the point of just knocking the vanes off TOS E.

2. and 3.) Oooooooooh, the (infamous) E nipple you mean. In my opinion that was never a turret per say, and I never remember Jefferies or TGBOTG ever referring to it on drawings or in words as being such. I could be incorrect of course, but there is nary a "making of..." Star Trek book that I have not read cover-to-cover.

On the older shots, I just feel some folks think they see something there (that isn't really), and that may have spawned the idea of it, which given your later pics, the idea seems to have proliferated into some of the newer incarnations and/or interpretations.

I have sO many shots of the original filming model, old and with the whore's make-up/paint-job she now has to suffer with at the Smithsonian, and there is nothing that comes close to the definitiveness of your later shots, where it was actually built on as part of E.

Of course on TOS-R they still didn't use the ion pod as the phaser turret:

Here's a link to a very high resolution image of TOS-R Enterprise that shows the ion pod: http://www.trekmovie.com/images/newent1.jpg

Man, finally seeing it up close (thanks for that link) the TOS-R E is not a very good model IMO. It's OK, but man it lacks IMO. And it's adding detail and theory that contradicts (IMO) the industrial working design layout of E. And more illogical (big pet-peeve of mine with models) concepts on E. There's not even any emitters where their beams are coming out. They just repeated TOS' fudging, but in the 21st century now. Tsk tsk. Remastered? Re-bastard more like it, LOL.

And they almost did it! Sona mobile or some such was about to. That never happened though. So when the iPhone came out, I just figured someone would make a case that would be TOS-o-riffic.

Still keepin' the dream alive.

If you're considering blue as the main color for your nacelles, might I suggest some orange accents either around the edges or in the center as an accent color? Perhaps blue as the overall color of the 'plasma' with orange being some sort of reaction taking place. Since the main color of the original nacelles was orange it makes sense from an 'evolutionary' point of view and the colors just look good together in general anyways.

Well Venardhi, good points, thanks for sharin' 'em.

However, I feel using too much multi-color will only land me back at, or too close to anyway, to the TOS original Christmas-tree efx. I am trying to extrapolate a progression sure, and I think with the blue/white/hints of aqua it falls nicely in-line with the dominate saturated blues of the nacelles in TMP refit. My blue will be less saturated though, falling in-line with the softer less saturated peach color of the original TOS bussard effects. Going too saturated IMO, they start to look almost cartoonish to me now (case-in-point, why I don't like my first red bussard efx). Saturated red worked back in the day, but not so much for me these days.

However, I have worked out to have some slight reddish tones (de-saturated as well) showing up on the metal of the vanes themselves, adding a touch of color variation. I feel the warm tones do well to imply perhaps some heat being generated from the plasma churning, then onto and showing up on the metal vanes. Again, not red-hot, just very subtle, and just enough to keep the blue from taking over completely, and thus becoming too mono-tone, which, IMO, equals visually boring. My first rejected blue bussards test shows this idea of one color being too dominant, and too saturated as well (thus a bit cartoonish IMO).

I am a firm believer in the "less-is-more" approach when trying to obtain conceptually realistic results. There is always a logic behind all that I do. So rest assured at least, that nothing is ever just thrown in without any thought behind it first.

Thanks for you thoughts and Trek-Talk guys. Again, I really appreciate you taking the time to share them with me.

LLP,
deg

 

[deg3D]

Oh yeaaaaaaaah, I forgot to mention something else that is on my mind E-wise. One other thing I don't care for on Trek mesh (models for layman), both non-canon and on-screen canon as well, is the way they light the interior(s), and thus portholes.

I mean my God, does every deck and room in E have a friggin' halogen arch-light spot-light as the lighting apparatus / source?

Taking a look at a skyscaper or even walking outside one's own house at night leaving the lights on inside will give one the proper realistic idea of how a starship would look around the portholes/windows.

That always cracks me up, when I see it (and now my wife too, now that I pointed it out to her). I mean, upon shipping out, does StarFleet issue all its crew-persons uber-super-StarFleet sunglasses or what?

deg

 

[deg3D]

On the subject of whether a starship capable of the things the Enterprise is will have hull plating is another matter. Given the energy output of warp engines, the level of computational power, transporter technology and scanning technology shown in TOS, it's within the realm of TOS possibility to "beam" the entire Enterprise into existence as a single piece.

Oh, and before I forget this; OK then. But, along those lines, why not just come up with a method to gather and channel enough power to transport anyone or anything to any place in the universe?

Why have starships at all?

Opps, there goes the show, or at least it then gets called StarGate.

Never-mind.

deg

 

[GilmourD]

On the subject of whether a starship capable of the things the Enterprise is will have hull plating is another matter. Given the energy output of warp engines, the level of computational power, transporter technology and scanning technology shown in TOS, it's within the realm of TOS possibility to "beam" the entire Enterprise into existence as a single piece.

Oh, and before I forget this; OK then. But, along those lines, why not just come up with a method to gather and channel enough power to transport anyone or anything to any place in the universe?

Why have starships at all?

Opps, there goes the show, or at least it then gets called StarGate.

Never-mind.

deg

I thought it had been addressed that the energy requirements to replicate an entire ship were extraordinarily huge and impossible given even late 24th century technology.

 

[MGagen]

I mean my God, does every deck and room in E have a friggin' halogen arch-light spot-light as the lighting apparatus / source?

I'd like to suggest a possible real-world interpretation of the lighting we see in the original series space shots. Two objections can be dealt at once with a little thought; namely, overly bright portholes, and overly bright exterior hull.

I'd like to suggest that what we are looking at is the 23rd century equivalent of high speed film or light amplification. The ships hull is actually lit from all directions by the light of the surrounding stars. This explains the overall brightness and lack of shadows. The same "exposure" that would allow a ship to be seen in interstellar space would also greatly overexpose the interior lights; hence, all rooms that are lit at all seem to be blazing with light.

The only problem is that any orbital shots should feature only dark port holes (at least on the lit side of the ship). An exposure that would properly reproduce the daylit side of a planet would necessarily make normal interior room lighting look dark and gloomy.

But at least this explanation makes the deep space footage make a little more sense as is.

M.

 

[deg3D]

I mean my God, does every deck and room in E have a friggin' halogen arch-light spot-light as the lighting apparatus / source?

I'd like to suggest a possible real-world interpretation of the lighting we see in the original series space shots. Two objections can be dealt at once with a little thought; namely, overly bright portholes, and overly bright exterior hull.

I'd like to suggest that what we are looking at is the 23rd century equivalent of high speed film or light amplification. The ships hull is actually lit from all directions by the light of the surrounding stars. This explains the overall brightness and lack of shadows. The same "exposure" that would allow a ship to be seen in interstellar space would also greatly overexpose the interior lights; hence, all rooms that are lit at all seem to be blazing with light.

The only problem is that any orbital shots should feature only dark port holes (at least on the lit side of the ship). An exposure that would properly reproduce the daylit side of a planet would necessarily make normal interior room lighting look dark and gloomy.

But at least this explanation makes the deep space footage make a little more sense as is.

M.

That's a very nice reason-out M., but I feel, in reality, it's just another case of going with an efx that looked cool at the time, esp. TOS days (and carried on from there for tradition's sake), when all they did was throw a lamp behind some clear Plexiglas and call it a day, looks great, let's move on.

I would rather, for myself anywho, (as I love progress/change over tradition that may not hold up any longer), go with adjusting for more modern rounded realistic sensibilities and/or perceptions, rather than trying to explain why basically a primitive efx take (advanced for the time) should still be applicable. But that's just me.

Good take on it though.

deg

 

[Shaw]

The only problem is that any orbital shots should feature only dark port holes (at least on the lit side of the ship). An exposure that would properly reproduce the daylit side of a planet would necessarily make normal interior room lighting look dark and gloomy.

I'd say that the same argument would work in orbit too, specially considering that none of the planets we saw in TOS had distinguishable day and night sides. The effects shots were pretty much like what would have been seen on a starship's view screen... a computer enhanced composite image based on all of the ship's sensors rather than just what the human eye would be able to see.

In fact, visible light information might be the least amount of information seen. Today our submarines can identify other subs based on sound and sonar echos... even to the point of telling the difference between a sub and a sub with it's torpedo doors open.

Or consider our satellite views for weather information. Do we see "realistic" views of the Earth from space at night, or enhanced views so that we get the important information we needed?

I would hope that best information would trump realistic views when displaying information in the future. After all, even though the displays look like big TVs or movie screens, their purpose was to get the work of running a starship done.

 

[GilmourD]

I dunno if any of you guys have watched recent productions, but I've actually been watching New Voyages/Phase II on my 42" Sharp Aquos 1080P LCD TV lately. Yeah, I know that the DVDs are 480p, but it's still fairly clear with an upconverting DVD player.

Anyhow, my point is that if you look closely at the more recent models, there's detail inside the windows. They look like well-lit rooms, more like what the windows of a skyscraper look like from a distance, rather than just some crazy light coming out. I haven't gone back and looked at any of the recent TNG movies, but I think they may be the same.

 

[deg3D]

Interior detailing efx are generally a more recent addition in VFX, esp. w/Trek ships (my TOS.5 E has them). Just a sign of the times of striving to make VFX models more realistic. I believe the TNG practical models went with traditional TOS-like lighting techniques for the most part. I could be wrong, but that's what was being done at the time, and that's what the effect looks like to me, the bright-white over-lit ports/windows.

Interiors these days are done in a lot of different ways, from building the actual geo, to compositing in real set footage (nod to 2001: ASO for that). Generally from a distance all one has to see is the representation of different variations of color and levels of light and shadow to give the impression of something actually being behind the ports/windows. Illuminated maps are generally fine for this. And there are techniques for setting them up, so that as the camera moves passed the ship, or visa-versa, you get the illusion of the change of perspective as well.

Moving in closer, if a shot called for it, you would have to go with more expensive (time-wise, building-wise, render-wise, and/or match-move/compositing-wise) to achieve a level of detail that a given shot would require to pass, up-close, as being close to realistic these days.

deg

 

[JBElliott]

On the subject of whether a starship capable of the things the Enterprise is will have hull plating is another matter. Given the energy output of warp engines, the level of computational power, transporter technology and scanning technology shown in TOS, it's within the realm of TOS possibility to "beam" the entire Enterprise into existence as a single piece.

Oh, and before I forget this; OK then. But, along those lines, why not just come up with a method to gather and channel enough power to transport anyone or anything to any place in the universe?

Why have starships at all?

Opps, there goes the show, or at least it then gets called StarGate.

Never-mind.

deg

Well there have been stories in the various incarnations of Star Trek that has dealt with that. In one James Blish novel (Spock must die!) I think they did something with ultra long distance transport that split Spock into two beings, one human and one Vulcan. I confess I haven't read it since the eighth grade though.

I seem to recall some TNG (or maybe it was Voyager?) where the crew was part of a test of some system to transport an entire ship several light years in an instant.

Finally, in Enterprise, wasn't there an episode with the guy who invented the transporter where it was suggested that the curvature of space made long range transportation impossible?

See, so you can still beam a starship together and it's still necessary since beaming has too many limitations.

 

[JBElliott]

On the subject of whether a starship capable of the things the Enterprise is will have hull plating is another matter. Given the energy output of warp engines, the level of computational power, transporter technology and scanning technology shown in TOS, it's within the realm of TOS possibility to "beam" the entire Enterprise into existence as a single piece.

Oh, and before I forget this; OK then. But, along those lines, why not just come up with a method to gather and channel enough power to transport anyone or anything to any place in the universe?

Why have starships at all?

Opps, there goes the show, or at least it then gets called StarGate.

Never-mind.

deg

I thought it had been addressed that the energy requirements to replicate an entire ship were extraordinarily huge and impossible given even late 24th century technology.

Given the power output of the warp engines shown in the show, the computer power shown and the fact that live beings (much more complicated that starships) are routinely transported all the time in TOS, it all adds up to being able to "replicate" or beam in a full starship (or at the very least large parts of it). There's nothing in TOS that says it can't be done and all the level of technology they show suggests it is.

 

[deg3D]

Well there have been stories in the various incarnations of Star Trek that has dealt with that. In one James Blish novel (Spock must die!) I think they did something with ultra long distance transport that split Spock into two beings, one human and one Vulcan. I confess I haven't read it since the eighth grade though.

I seem to recall some TNG (or maybe it was Voyager?) where the crew was part of a test of some system to transport an entire ship several light years in an instant.

Finally, in Enterprise, wasn't there an episode with the guy who invented the transporter where it was suggested that the curvature of space made long range transportation impossible?

See, so you can still beam a starship together and it's still necessary since beaming has too many limitations.

If I recall, that was VOY, and wasn't Barclay associated with that project (w/Troi even making an appearance at some point too), like a transporter beam through a wormhole, but all they could end up doing at that point was sending and receiving transmissions...

deg

 

[JBElliott]

I mean my God, does every deck and room in E have a friggin' halogen arch-light spot-light as the lighting apparatus / source?

On a slightly different topic, why would Starfleet need spotlights on the outside of the ship? Surely by the 23rd century they'd have invented self luminescent material. That is the hull of the ship itself would be luminescent and need no spotlights. The degree to which TOS Enterprise is illuminated in deep space with no spotlights is consistent with the idea of a luminescent hull.

 

[deg3D]

Oh, and before I forget this; OK then. But, along those lines, why not just come up with a method to gather and channel enough power to transport anyone or anything to any place in the universe?

Why have starships at all?

Opps, there goes the show, or at least it then gets called StarGate.

Never-mind.

deg

I thought it had been addressed that the energy requirements to replicate an entire ship were extraordinarily huge and impossible given even late 24th century technology.

Given the power output of the warp engines shown in the show, the computer power shown and the fact that live beings (much more complicated that starships) are routinely transported all the time in TOS, it all adds up to being able to "replicate" or beam in a full starship (or at the very least large parts of it). There's nothing in TOS that says it can't be done and all the level of technology they show suggests it is.

Sure sure, I'm totally with ya my friend. I still like hull palting though.

deg

 

[deg3D]

I mean my God, does every deck and room in E have a friggin' halogen arch-light spot-light as the lighting apparatus / source?

On a slightly different topic, why would Starfleet need spotlights on the outside of the ship? Surely by the 23rd century they'd have invented self luminescent material. That is the hull of the ship itself would be luminescent and need no spotlights. The degree to which TOS Enterprise is illuminated in deep space with no spotlights is consistent with the idea of a luminescent hull.

Again, I think that's just a product of production, with no thought given (or at least not much as it's not really relevant as a consideration), as you have to be able to see the ship for simple narrative story-telling and for drama's sake.

Plus, I feel using stuff that viewers have an associative connection with helps -- bridge -- the gap for reality's sake, and makes the show more believable to the general audience, as the average person for the most part does not even consider the proposed tech or the speculative tech of what they are seeing. That is the realm of the uber-Trek-geek (myself included in that description).

deg

 

[JBElliott]

Sure sure, I'm totally with ya my friend. I still like hull palting though.

deg

As you say, it's a matter of taste.

 

[JBElliott]

Again, I think that's just a product of production, with no thought given (or at least not much as it's not really relevant as a consideration), as you have to be able to see the ship for simple narrative story-telling and for drama's sake.

Plus, I feel using stuff that viewers have an associative connection with helps -- bridge -- the gap for reality's sake, and makes the show more believable to the general audience, as the average person for the most part does not even consider the proposed tech or the speculative tech of what they are seeing. That is the realm of the uber-Trek-geek (myself included in that description).

deg

I'm not sure the audience would balk at the ship being illuminated in deep space. Just as they don't balk when they see the laws of physics being broken in almost every scene in Star Trek. So just show a lighted ship that's pretty and leave it at that. Let us uber-Trek-geeks worry about how things work and sell us technical manuals. The treknobable that came about so much in TNG was something I heard Roddenberry wanted to stay away from. Kirk just fliped open his communicator and talked, he just pointed the phaser and fired and so on. He didn't spend a minute and a half expounding on how the communicators subspace tranceiever and duotronic circuits allowed for it all to happen.

So I think I agree with you that the illuminated ship and lack of hull plating in TOS was something that was done in production with no real thought of any "plot points." Having said that, we can discuss how those things would work in the Trek universe and whether they look nice or not.

 

[deg3D]

Indeed, Trek-Talk is uber-fun IMO.

And oh yeah, I agree, an audience would not balk at an illuminated ship in deep space, quite the contrary, I think it's expected as a sci-fi given at this point, even if the ship is traveling faster than light, LOL.

My wife (who loves Trek, in a regular type of way) once asked me (and she is a very intelligent woman with a Master's Degree in literature and language arts, physics is just not her thang), she asked me in a sincere matter-of-fact tone, as to the ISS, Why don't they just turn on the gravity like on Star Trek?

Oh Honee...

We still laugh about that one to this day. But hey, mutual love of TOS Trek is actually what sealed the deal for us as a couple. After she passed a lil' TOS test to prove she wasn't just smoozin' my Trek-geek. She passed with flying colors , so, I married her shortly after that, 9 years ago. Been Trek-like bliss ever since.

deg

 

[deg3D]

Right. In true "To boldly go where no one has gone before" Trek fashion I have redone the bussard efx, finally arriving at a result I am quite pleased with.

As with E and/or Trek art I fully expect the usual breadth on reactions/opinions; Some will love it, some will like it, some won't care one way or the other, and some will hate it. Can't please all the peeps all the time eh. But, at the least, I finally like to efx, and in addition I am quite happy to be going in a new fresh direction with it, as I love change/evolution of ideas.

The stats and orthos shots have been updated in their original post (as well as all the detail shots on my website).

Hope you enjoy her as much as I do.

deg

 

[MadMan1701A]

I think that looks great. What color are those blades, there? Maybe they would stand out a little more if they were a darker blue or even green. I really like the way it turned out with the blue bussards. I may need to re-texture my enterprise with some blue or green ones. You may have inspired me to make a Romulan captured constitution class.

-=Madman1701A=-