Well, yeah, that too. Since it wasn't the Enterprise, they took a few liberties in streamlining and polishing up the original set designs.
Donny's TOS Enterprise Interiors
- Thread starter Donny
- Start date
My favorite story from In a Mirror Darkly was how they decided to put labels on the bridge buttons. They knew it was different but they also figured they needed the extra detail. But when they filmed them (even in HD, right?) the labels all disappeared! Ha! So now I always think "What if those labels were all there in 'real' life?"
Now I figure any detail that couldn't be seen on a 25" color TV screen from 1966 is fair game!
Chiming in on a topic I've done just about no research on (other than a vague memory of conic sections from high school): Knowing the Jefferies Tube is cylindrical, wouldn't a given angle produce a specific height / width ratio of the opening in the wall? So if you have the size of the opening correct then doesn't the angle of the tube fall out automatically from that?
Now I figure any detail that couldn't be seen on a 25" color TV screen from 1966 is fair game!
Chiming in on a topic I've done just about no research on (other than a vague memory of conic sections from high school): Knowing the Jefferies Tube is cylindrical, wouldn't a given angle produce a specific height / width ratio of the opening in the wall? So if you have the size of the opening correct then doesn't the angle of the tube fall out automatically from that?
Yes, the sizes were noted in post #2527
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.
Donny, why the difference in .... foreshortening? Not sure the right optical terminology. I know that longer lenses compress the depth in the scene, and your CG image looks different in this regard. Any idea why?
Ah, yes. I need to adjust the field of view of my camera. I thought I had it pretty close but now looking at it today, it's evident I'm off by a bit.
Yes, if you have a good camera match, you can then make a cylinder the width of the opening and then rotate it until the way the cylinder intersects with the wall is the same as the opening's vertical. You'll have your angle then. From eye-balling Donnie's *amazing* progress I'd say he's got it.
Maybe you have already seen these, but Trekcore.com has just released a great set of photos of The Original Series Set Tour in Ticonderoga, NY. Here are some fairly detailed and accurate-looking photos of the Jefferies Tube. They also extrapolated the other side of that box at the bottom of the tube.
Well, I think it's good as is, but it would be cool to see if you can match the shot closer. The pipe with the stripes overhead looks like it's reversed from the reference. And a light shining down from the tube would be cool. 
Thanks! Yes, the guys at the Set Tour did a great job at re-creating the Jefferie's tube, and I've been using pictures of their build as reference, checking it against actual screencaps and making more accurate changes where needed.
Totally not done yet! Everything you've seen of the corridors so far is a work-in-progress.Well, I think it's good as is, but it would be cool to see if you can match the shot closer. The pipe with the stripes overhead looks like it's reversed from the reference. And a light shining down from the tube would be cool.
I do appreciate the research and due diligence that Donny is putting into his sets. All of them.
Here's something I dislike about modern Trek (post-1969): In my mind, the TOS Jeffries Tubes were entryways to the struts holding the warp nacelles and corresponded to the angle of said struts. In other words, had Scotty continued up that awkward staircase, he'd have ended up in the Nacelle.
Post-1969, Jeffries Tubes were...All. Over. The. Damn. Ship. and seemed to serve almost no purpose (do you really need an entire system of hidden hallways when you could just place everything under the deck plates, in the walls, and on the ceilings of the regular corridors???).
Here's something I dislike about modern Trek (post-1969): In my mind, the TOS Jeffries Tubes were entryways to the struts holding the warp nacelles and corresponded to the angle of said struts. In other words, had Scotty continued up that awkward staircase, he'd have ended up in the Nacelle.
Post-1969, Jeffries Tubes were...All. Over. The. Damn. Ship. and seemed to serve almost no purpose (do you really need an entire system of hidden hallways when you could just place everything under the deck plates, in the walls, and on the ceilings of the regular corridors???).
Well, to turn the critical eye back on TOS, why would a big access tube up the struts just terminate in a regular hallway like that? Why not have more pipes and equipment that continues out of it, into some kind of engineering space?
The TNG Jefferies tubes are useful for storytelling purposes, because they're a what-if... what if the turbolifts are down or we need to get around something, or look like we're working hard at our jobs.
Donny, I know it's a WIP, but I meant that it'd be nice to see a closer match to the reference image while you're working on it, so any discrepancies can be seen easier. Sorry if I was confusing on that.
The TNG Jefferies tubes are useful for storytelling purposes, because they're a what-if... what if the turbolifts are down or we need to get around something, or look like we're working hard at our jobs.
Donny, I know it's a WIP, but I meant that it'd be nice to see a closer match to the reference image while you're working on it, so any discrepancies can be seen easier. Sorry if I was confusing on that.
- although they soon spread...
We could call that, Jefferies Spread.
I know that's how Franz Joseph depicted them. Is there ever any evidence in the show for that? (And is there evidence against it?) I've never heard that put forward anyplace other than those plans.
For me the large angles power tubes seen behind the Engineering wall/screen are the base of the nacelles. It makes sense to have that massive hardware doing something that important instead of being a partial view of the Impulse Engine as shown in the TOS Deck plans.
Either way, it would not fit position of the Jefferies tube angled up through the pylon. If the Jefferies tube did go up the pylon it does not make sense for it end in just a hallway outside Main Engineering, there should be some hardware going up the pylon as well, something impressive to power or support the warp nacelle.
Either way, it would not fit position of the Jefferies tube angled up through the pylon. If the Jefferies tube did go up the pylon it does not make sense for it end in just a hallway outside Main Engineering, there should be some hardware going up the pylon as well, something impressive to power or support the warp nacelle.
TOS already had that covered - if the turbolifts go down, you use the corridors and the triangular ladder shafts to get around.The TNG Jefferies tubes are useful for storytelling purposes, because they're a what-if... what if the turbolifts are down or we need to get around something, or look like we're working hard at our jobs.
So before I post shots of the finished corridor and Jefferies Tubes, I've decided to go ahead and model the turbolift. BUT, I couldn't be content with just modeling the insides, so I decided to model the entire damn turbo-car, inside and out. Here's what I've got working for the exterior (forgive the fact that there isn't an inside yet).
As stated before, like most of the materials for this build, I'm going for a slightly more used and worn look (most of the sets were pretty worn and dirty towards the end of the series). I want these turbo-car exteriors to look slightly weathered, as if they've been pulled in an out of maintenance several times during the Enterprise's long run. As a matter of fact, I'd like to add a"Turbo-Car Maintennace" area somewhere in the ship....
Thoughts?
As stated before, like most of the materials for this build, I'm going for a slightly more used and worn look (most of the sets were pretty worn and dirty towards the end of the series). I want these turbo-car exteriors to look slightly weathered, as if they've been pulled in an out of maintenance several times during the Enterprise's long run. As a matter of fact, I'd like to add a"Turbo-Car Maintennace" area somewhere in the ship....
Thoughts?
