Donny's TOS Enterprise Interiors

[Donny]

The study on the tube angle based on a 2 foot elevation at the panel base and the top of the tube hitting the 7 foot elevation on the panel came to a 53 degree from horizontal angle on the Jeffrie's tube. This would give you the oval you are looking for.

Interesting! I assumed it was at a 45 degree angle, I'll do some tests tonight and see how well the 53 degree angle works! Thanks!

Also, your model looks great. I was curious about the black plaque, however, as it is not present in the reference photos you posted. Is that accurate, or your own addition?

It's accurate to The Ultimate Computer (see here), but I'll probably take it down, since it's not there in Season 3, AFAIK. I was just throwing signs around the other day after I made them to see how they looked. Their placement isn't final.

There are no shots of it from the other side so I think you are as good as you can get. As always, looks fantastic!

Good to know. Before I checked this thread this morning, my next step was to send you an email and ask if you knew of any reference shots of the other side. Thanks!

 

[uniderth]

I think on the bottom two reference pics you can see two vertical rectangular protrusions above the "crossbar".

 

[Jedman67]

The nice thing is that this means you can do what you want AND make it look exactly as it did on screen.

Make the other side unpainted plywood. that'll turn heads!

 

[Robert Simmons]

When I started researching the Jeffrie's Tube I was confronted with a problem. There were no dead on shots from the front of it in season 2 and 3. I then figured even though they moved it and changed the tube from season 1 to season 2 I felt that any season 1 reference would be fair game as a close starting point. I searched my image archive and came up with this shot as a starting point since it defined 1/4 of the face of where it intersects with the wall. I traced it and just relaid it over a quartered grids to build out the entire face of the oval. Since it is a first season shot I figured it would be close not expecting it to change that much when it was moved to the new location in season 2.

http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/1x07/whatarelittlegirls221.jpg

I'll try to scare up other shots I used for reference for the tube face. I think there were 2 or 3 more I referenced when working on this.

 

[feek61]

I'm sure the angle of the Jefferies Tube was 45 degrees or close to it. Compare the angles in the below screen cap to the plant-on's inside the tube; the 45 degree angle nearly matches the pipe while the 53 degree angle is far off. These pipes would have run parallel to the pipe (or it would have been impeded by the curvature of the tube).






The Jefferies tube on the original blueprints scale out at exactly 36" in diameter so at a 45 degree angle according to CAD, would make the opening on the wall at 50.9" inches which scales out just about right.

CAD also says that the step box is about 16" in height

 

[Robert Simmons]

Feek the image you are showing angle is 3/4 view which make the angle of the tube and pipes appear shallower than throwing a line against a dead profile of the tube. In the pic above I linked to shows a profile face of the tube ellipse consistent with a 51 degrees. I had a friend scientist who is familiar with charts and tables look at this and it is what he came up with. Concerning the image you show here any less than square the further you move away from it becomes more questionable as far as precision goes. Anything less than dead on square is a rough approximation at best with the error increasing the more you move from dead on to 3/4 view. Automatically throwing a line against one of the pipes with 45degrees on it is not a confirmation and is a bit misleading. I am providing him my data. So are you. There is often a huge difference in "as planned" verses "as built" I've noticed in a number of instances where original plans for TOS do not match what is seen on screen. And I would not have noticed the differences in the cross comparisons if I wasn't acetate tracing to see if they matched to what is on screen. Let's see what Donny comes up with when he sifts both our inputs.

 

[feek61]

I totally understand about skewed perspective and I have been doing this for a very long time. I understand where you are coming from; no disrespect intended but the CAD doesn't lie. If the angle of the Jefferies tube was 51 degrees the high part of the oval would be 57" tall; if the angle were 53 degrees; the high part of the oval would be 60" tall. Both of those measurements are too high. Besides the more straight on you would be looking, the more (higher degrees) the apparent angle of the plant-on (straight on would be 90 degrees) so there is no way even from the view I noted that the degrees would be LESS than actual; it would be more (between 51 degrees and 90 degrees). It would ONLY be 51 degrees if you were looking at it from 90 degrees from the side which is impossible because of the wall; any other angle would increase the apparent degrees of the internal plant-ons. The fact that it is showing almost a perfect 45 degrees means it could not be any more than that (maybe a bit less).

For example; hold a pencil at a 45 degree angle in front of you. If you are looking at it from the end; it appears to be at 90 degrees straight up and down but if you look at it from the side it appears to be 45 degrees. Any view of it except perfectly from the side would increase the apparent angle but it would never be below 45 degrees so it would be impossible on the Jefferies Tube to show anything less than the degree at which the tube is angled (the angle of the plant-ons inside). It would be impossible for it to be 51 degrees because the apparent angle in the screen cap above would NEVER be be below what the actual angle was; hence it would be impossible for the tube to be at a 51 degree angle and be able to measure a 45 degree angle from any vantage point.

I totally disagree with your statement regarding "Anything less than dead on square is a rough approximation at best"; that may have been somewhat true 40 years ago but is simply NOT true with todays computing power and software. We can get very precise measurements from a variety of angles if there are a just few known dimensions of elements in the photograph. As Donny has done here; these sets can be virtually recreated and the sizes computed to near perfect sizes. Again, no disrespect intended; I admire your work but I just disagree with your conclusions here.

 

[Robert Simmons]

I'm not here to fight. Computers are effective tools. So are applications. But they are only as accurate as the values We put into them. Here is some basics you and I I hope can agree on. 1. The face of the ellipse will tell us the angle. 2. The angle will then determine the height of the top and bottom intersects of the tube to the wall. 3. The height of that value will determine where to place that hole in the wall when cross comparing height to TOS stills. Different angles will mean different values in conflict as to what to input into CAD. The software is not measleading. But it can often appear to validate incorrect values. I am not saying you are incorrect. What I am saying is this application that you and I are engaged in as a skilled art requires we draw from all sources of reference to cross validate or reject based on if it matches what we see on screen and the stills. Feek ( William ) you are a man after my own heart in doing this stuff. But you and I fall prey to not enough camera coverage was done to nail down these gray areas where there is litttle to draw upon as a guide. But I consider all of us fortunate that there was more than plenty coverage done to make us fall in love with it. It's Donny's model. If he builds it from my input or yours is fine. And if he comes up with something completely different that is fine too. If you asked for input I would happily provide it. Same in reverse I would and do welcome any input. Same for Donny or anyone. But in the end what you build is yours and yours is the final word when it comes to your stuff.

 

[feek61]

I couldn't agree more; we both have a passion and trust me; I am always willing to learn and I hope the same is true of you. You did not address my analysis of the angles which has nothing to do with software, input or calculations; it's pure fact. Unless you are looking at an angle perfectly from the side; it will ALWAYS appear to be greater than actual. Taking my pencil example above; here is a photo of a pencil held at 45 degrees looking at it from the side:


If I rotate my hand the angle of the pencil in the photos appears to increase even though it is still at the same 45 degree angle as in the first photograph:


If we photograph the pencil 90 degrees to the side of the first photograph; now the pencil appears to be straight up & down; even though it is still at a 45 degree angle:


So by simply rotating my hand I have changed the apparent angle in the photographs from 45 degrees to 90 degrees even though the angle really never changed. No matter how much I rotate my hand the pencil would NEVER appear to be below 45 degrees; always more than 45 degrees. In the screen cap above as you noted it is not perfectly from the side but at approximately a 3/4 view which is why it would be impossible for the Jefferies Tube in the photo (from that camera angle) to show anything less than the angle that it actually was. The maximum angle it could be would be about 45 degrees. Again, this is not depending on any software, input or calculations; it's just fact. I appreciate your passion but to ignore basic facts discredits your work. We all think we are correct but in the face of facts you have to be able to accept that perhaps you are in error. I have been there many times just not this time, lol. Did you account for lens distortion in the photo you posted from WALGMO? To get that shot they would have used a wide angle lens which would distort the shape of the oval. That may be where the issue is.

Take care,
Will

 

[Robert Simmons]

I am willing to consider everything. That was my point. I was hoping to convey to not write me off without considering what I mention as well. The things you mention I was aware of and had factored them in the process when I was sifting this. And being aware of them I did not feel obligated to respond to them. Not responding to the points was not ignoring or dismissing them. I don't feel the need to cite the whole alphabet from the beginning of ABCD when you and I are hanging out in the MNOP area. Not necessary. Does not invalidate you by not addressing it. But not addressing it is not my ignoring that input either. Now your mention of the shot not being square in the image I linked to is a valid point. When looking at the steps in the image they are virtually dead level with the camera frame border of the image which leads me that the image is a virtual dead on square to the camera despite being in the Left field of the shot. I am operating on the understanding that in studio camera set up the camera is to be leveled before shooting. So if step tops are exactly parallel to the top and bottom of the frame of the image it is a safe to conclude the image is level and dead on square to the camera and that the camera is level and the tube face is accurate and trustworthy to use it as reference to build the rest of it's face and determine from it the angle the tube is. I looked at it as possibly the best face on screen cap from TOS for the Jeffries tube. At a glance I felt it was more square to represent a close to true profile than a 3/4 shot of a angled tube and the bars within. One thing I think merits mentioning the face on shot of the tube we both know has a wider panel face. Most likely they cut the tube at the panel meet to marry it with a narrower panel when they moved it. I generally assumed they did not rebuild the interior of the tube and that the angle ...and thus the face of the elipitcal profile would be the same. So reversing that I think if the elliptical face shape can tell us the angle from it. I had my scientist friend send me a chart of eliptical faces that had the degrees they translated to. I'll see if I can dig that up tonight.
We're both wanting to help get to the bottom of what it was. I have been unavailable to review my archive to provide any other reference. Family birthday party today so time for replies and research is sparse. For me the best way to resolve issues is to just build the stupid thing and see where it is off and make corrections. And that is a headache when having to make multiple passes on the same item.

 

[Donny]

So, I spent the entirety of yesterday modeling the tube and its myriad components, constantly checking against screenshots, and I have to agree with Feek61, the tube is at 45 degrees. I tried the 53 degree angle and it made the opening much taller than it should be. It was also very evident when checking against screencaps of the pipes and my models that 53 degrees isn't correct.

Just my two cents.

Oh, and pics coming soon. I'm rather proud of the job I've done on the Jefferie's Tube, which is a TOS set I've never attempted to build until now!

 

[Robert Simmons]

Thank you Donny for at least looking at it. It does present a bigger opening 5 feet even.

 

[Tallguy]

Oh, and pics coming soon. I'm rather proud of the job I've done on the Jefferie's Tube...

Brave words on a Trek forum.

 

[Donny]

Regarding the 45 degree topic, here's my build to further demonstrate the fact that it seems likely the tube was, in fact, at 45 degrees.
Here's feel61's early pic analyzing the angles of the Day of the Dove screencap:

And here's my build, with a camera placed roughly in the same position, with a field of view of 60 degrees, which was the standard field of view from which many of Trek's scenes were filmed.

I know my build isn't perfect, but I feel that this may be more evidence that the tube was at 45.

 

[137th Gebirg]

Yep, looks dead-on, as usual. 45 degrees it is, then!

 

[Jedman67]

@Donny this may help; from the ENT episode In a Mirror, Darkly, they built a considerable amount of the TOS sets.

(full album HERE)

 

[Donny]

@Donny this may help; from the ENT episode In a Mirror, Darkly, they built a considerable amount of the TOS sets.

(full album HERE)

The dimensions are off and the greebly layout is completely different, but in theory it could just be ANOTHER tube somewhere on the ship

 

[feek61]

@Donny this may help; from the ENT episode In a Mirror, Darkly, they built a considerable amount of the TOS sets.

(full album HERE)

Honestly, the amount of time and effort that Donny's has put into his work far exceeds anything they could have devoted to when recreating the sets for "Enterprise." Those sets look good and it was great fun seeing them on screen but they are in no way accurate to the original sets except in the most fundamental ways.

I know first-hand the amount of time (years) and research Donny has put into these; a studio would never pay someone the amount of money for the level of research he has devoted to this project.

 

[Donny]

Honestly, the amount of time and effort that Donny's has put into his work far exceeds anything they could have devoted to when recreating the sets for "Enterprise." Those sets look good and it was great fun seeing them on screen but they are in no way accurate to the original sets except in the most fundamental ways.

I know first-hand the amount of time (years) and research Donny has put into these; a studio would never pay someone the amount of money for the level of research he has devoted to this project.

You're too kind! But yeah, this is YEARS of research, along with the participation of members on this thread, that have helped me achieve accuracy in this build. A television production studio probably had a few weeks tops to research and construct the sets for that episode. I mean, unless they had the original set schematics? But either way. Now that I'm in a content producing industry, I know the real pressures of time and money constraints!

 

[UssGlenn]

but in theory it could just be ANOTHER tube somewhere on the ship

Well in this case it's a completely different ship, The Defiant.