Galileo Restoration Update - Jan 2012
- Thread starter Search4
- Start date
I think it's funny that so many people seem hung up on the fact that the shuttle mock-up is not 1:1 scale with the interior, considering that such int/ext discrepancies are common in movies and TV. On another board there was a discussion of the typical downscaling of set pieces to make them affordable and able to fit into soundstages.
The technical drawing efforts the I've seen, meant to reconcile the Shuttlecraft's interior and exterior, have shrunk the interior down to size. You lose a lot of headroom.
Blueprints for other things have gone in both directions:
The Space 1999 Eagle was done by Geoff Mandel at a length of 76 feet, resulting in an interior ceiling height of only 5.5 feet. Roberto Baldassari made his version 102 feet long, to fully contain the interior studio sets, but this put the eye-shaped cockpit windows far above the pilot seats.
Shane Johnson created a set drawings for the LIS Jupiter II, in keeping with the established size of the exterior, but he had to omit the entire lower deck. [He appended a nice lower floorplan with a note that it was for a proposed future version of the ship that would be much larger.]
Other, more recent Jupiter II plans have at least doubled the diameter of the saucer. This allows pretty much everything to fit inside, but the relationship between interior and exterior features gets thrown out of whack, especially on the top deck.
One of the most interesting and realistic reconciliations between interior sets and an exterior mockup (in this case, a backlot facade) is what Adam R. Jones did for the Bewitched house. He created a complete, working, buildable set of blueprints for this fictional house. It's at 1164.com.
I guess we could add a lot of other vehicles to that list (like "Forbidden Planet's" United Planets Cruiser C-57 D).
While working for TNG, Andrew Probert was quite aware of the issue and hoped that his TNG Galileo design would be a good compromise putting such contradictions to an end.
Instead we got the Shuttlepod cardboard box.
Bob
While working for TNG, Andrew Probert was quite aware of the issue and hoped that his TNG Galileo design would be a good compromise putting such contradictions to an end.
Instead we got the Shuttlepod cardboard box.
Bob
I've already had my say on this in my own way:
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=142783
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=215626&highlight=TOS+shuttlecraft
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=242510&highlight=TOS+shuttlecraft
Briefly:
The 22ft. exterior mockup is obviously too small to hold an interior even remotely resembling what we saw onscreen. So at best all you can do is put something rudimentary into it. The exterior was made smaller so it could be more easily transported and more easily handled on set.
The interior set is impossibly large and if you scale up the exterior (to about 32ft.) to hold it you end up with an exterior too large to be properly accommodated within the Enterprise's hangar area.
The miniature seen in the hangar interior shots is also slightly too small while the flight deck itself is slightly too large.
The best is to compromise and there are clues in the series (most notably "The Galileo Seven") that the problem was recognized and there are hints the interior was meant to be smaller than what we were seeing. The interior set was made fullsize to accommodate the bulky filming cameras of the era.
The compromise I came up with several years ago was about 26-1/2 ft. The interior is scaled down some, but it's still immediately recognizable with only the loss of some headroom and some cabin length (and there was plenty to spare on the fullsize set). The exterior looks exactly the same as seen onscreen.
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=142783
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=215626&highlight=TOS+shuttlecraft
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=242510&highlight=TOS+shuttlecraft
Briefly:
The 22ft. exterior mockup is obviously too small to hold an interior even remotely resembling what we saw onscreen. So at best all you can do is put something rudimentary into it. The exterior was made smaller so it could be more easily transported and more easily handled on set.
The interior set is impossibly large and if you scale up the exterior (to about 32ft.) to hold it you end up with an exterior too large to be properly accommodated within the Enterprise's hangar area.
The miniature seen in the hangar interior shots is also slightly too small while the flight deck itself is slightly too large.
The best is to compromise and there are clues in the series (most notably "The Galileo Seven") that the problem was recognized and there are hints the interior was meant to be smaller than what we were seeing. The interior set was made fullsize to accommodate the bulky filming cameras of the era.
The compromise I came up with several years ago was about 26-1/2 ft. The interior is scaled down some, but it's still immediately recognizable with only the loss of some headroom and some cabin length (and there was plenty to spare on the fullsize set). The exterior looks exactly the same as seen onscreen.
Last edited:
VFX artists no longer need to worry about props that are "too big" to move around the set conveniently.
For those who may not realize it, the spaceship in the back yard is a CGI model created in Blender, which can also match-move the handheld camera.
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEDC4T-WfRw[/yt]
For those who may not realize it, the spaceship in the back yard is a CGI model created in Blender, which can also match-move the handheld camera.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Would REALLY like to see that at higher rez. Reflections and depth of field look amazingly accurate to real-world.
Of course this skirts the whole issue of when you have something physical there it gives everybody on-set something to relate to in a way that imagination can't really deliver, even with SimulCam type on-set comps. Probably why there is so much more of a push to get away from greenscreen or minimize green in favor of getting more in-camera as of late. OBLIVION took advantage of 15K imagery -- 3 red cameras shooting panoramic sky plates -- to project backgrounds on-set in a way that looks unbelievably awesome and also at the same time provided all the lighting and reflection sources for the apartment in the clouds stuff.
Of course this skirts the whole issue of when you have something physical there it gives everybody on-set something to relate to in a way that imagination can't really deliver, even with SimulCam type on-set comps. Probably why there is so much more of a push to get away from greenscreen or minimize green in favor of getting more in-camera as of late. OBLIVION took advantage of 15K imagery -- 3 red cameras shooting panoramic sky plates -- to project backgrounds on-set in a way that looks unbelievably awesome and also at the same time provided all the lighting and reflection sources for the apartment in the clouds stuff.
Match-moving has been around for years, now. Go to YouTube and search for "Blender match move" or "Blender camera tracking." Before Blender got its own built-in feature, third-party apps, like SynthEyes, could provide the motion data. Before this technology arrived, most composite shots had to be "locked off," meaning the camera could not move. Since modern movies are so dynamic and Steadicam a routine tool, composite shots need to move, too.
Match-moving does not mean there is nothing present on the set. For example, a couple of C-stands (used for lights) might mark the general location of the ship, or the door in the ship. For big creatures, such as the T-rex in JURASSIC PARK or Draco in DRAGONHEART, a production assistant with a simple prop on a pole might give the actors a common focal point for addressing the creature's face, etc. Or a spaceship might have a partial construction, such as a boarding ramp. It varies by production. The line between miniatures, composites and matte paintings has been blurred by computer technology. Sometimes it is now called "scene extension."
As for reflections, actual reflections from the location might be captured as a "light probe." A light probe is simply a chrome sphere. The camera shoots the image in the sphere, thus capturing at least 180 degrees, or a hemisphere of the surrounding area. That light probe is then applied to the CGI so that the computer object reflects the actual scene. Again, there are nuances and details to this technology, too. For example, HDR (high dynamic range) light probes can be used as full environment "light sources" when rendering the CGI. Watch the home video supplements for movies like one of the TERMINATOR movies, and you may notice someone on set with a chrome sphere on a pole. (Half the sphere might be a neutral gray.) Odds are that is a light probe sphere.
And what about all these poles and other things on the set? They can be erased in a number of ways with digital tools. Many of the creatures in the LORD OF THE RINGS movies, or the robots in I, ROBOT were played by real actors on set, interacting with the other actors. The creature and robot stand-ins are "erased" and replaced with CGI figures. While greenscreen stages are still in use, or sections of a location may feature small "flying" greenscreens, the current trend is to shoot on real locations. The technology makes it possible, and a real location makes everything easier on the actors.
The technology is amazingly sophisticated today, and available to the home hobbyist. Still, the high technology does not guarantee awesome results. The artists (and the directors telling them what to do) must still know their craft.
Trevanian's second paragraph suggests some familiarity with the subject. My response was intended for others. The video you posted was a nice supplement, yet still glosses over some of the basics, such as reflections from the real location, whether actors must totally imagine what they are looking at, or have some reference points on location, etc.
Hey, that's the "Vanguard" model that's sold ar DAZ.
http://www.daz3d.com/vanguard
Never seen it placed within a "real world" environment. Neat!
Sincerely,
Bill
http://www.daz3d.com/vanguard
Never seen it placed within a "real world" environment. Neat!
Sincerely,
Bill
Oh, cute. So the guy probably really did "order" it online. 
Check out the Sci-Fi Air Show.
^^^Those eagle pictures were just awesome....Thanks. 
I have started a White House petition to re-restore, preserve, and move the 11-foot, original Enterprise model to the Museum of American History, a more fitting home for the ol' girl.
Sign at the link below. It is not public until there are 150 sigs. Publicize this and share the link if you agree with the idea. Be well!
http://wh.gov/pewY
Sign at the link below. It is not public until there are 150 sigs. Publicize this and share the link if you agree with the idea. Be well!
http://wh.gov/pewY
That is cool!
I'd love to be able to do something like that once I get more practiced with 3D modelling.Similar threads
