planet/globe size

[Maurice]

The reason you shoot the elements separately is to
a) allow different setups and lenses, and to make model of different scales work in shot
b) it allows you to move only the camera rather than the model. This is preferable because of you moved the model relative to the studio lights the shadows would shift around, and if you tried to move the Enterprise a nacelle might wiggle, etc., totally destroying the illusion.

 

[alchemist]

The reason you shoot the elements separately is to
a) allow different setups and lenses, and to make model of different scales work in shot
b) it allows you to move only the camera rather than the model. This is preferable because of you moved the model relative to the studio lights the shadows would shift around, and if you tried to move the Enterprise a nacelle might wiggle, etc., totally destroying the illusion.

Yes, terrific and correct points! But with regards to b), they did move the model for orbital insertion shots. Specifically, the 11-foot model was filmed rotating as the camera was dollyed-in. This allowed the Enterprise to appear to move into, and then assume, orbit (once composited, of course).

 

[Praetor]

The 11-foot model couldn't be moved (excluding dismounting) other than tilting or rotating, right?

 

[trevanian]

The 11-foot model couldn't be moved (excluding dismounting) other than tilting or rotating, right?

I'm pretty sure they had the ship mounted on a pan/tilt head, that would let it pivot in place. Doing a tilt with something that heavy up top would probably be fatal to the model and anybody under it.

Even with later motion-control, you still usually do move the ship on the simplest axis if there is a compound curve kind of move ... the camera does the rest of it, though.

 

[alchemist]

Yes, the 11 foot model, on its stand, was placed on a camera mount called a Worrall geared head:

http://worrallgrindingco.com/founder.htm

 

[Praetor]

Ah, so any shots that would seem to indicate the model was tilted (i.e. the head-ons) would probably just mean the camera was tilted while the motion control was being done...

 

[Ronald Held]

This is all helpful, for which I am planning to have an explanation in a few days.

 

[alchemist]

Ah, so any shots that would seem to indicate the model was tilted (i.e. the head-ons) would probably just mean the camera was tilted while the motion control was being done...

Well, as DS9Sega said, they really tried to minimize moving the model while the camera was rolling in order to cut down on "wiggles." But that being said, the model was indeed tilted upwards for head-on shots prior to the camera rolling. See, for example, the classic scene of the Enterprise leaving orbit and seemingly coming towards the camera. For that shot, the model was first tilted upwards and the camera then dollyed-in and tilted upward as the film rolled. I have some behind-the-scenes pictures of this that I'll dig up tonight.

 

[Praetor]

^Oooh, spiffy. Thanks!

I'll freely admit that most of my knowledge of motion-control filming techniques is in the realm of 'Star Wars' and later productions, so this is all very fascinating to me.

 

[trevanian]

Ah, so any shots that would seem to indicate the model was tilted (i.e. the head-ons) would probably just mean the camera was tilted while the motion control was being done...

Well, just to be specific here (esp because the other poster really did his homework with finding the head used to mount the thing), it isn't motion control at all. There are no repeat passes. The lights on the ship and the ship itself were all shot on one pass, usually against blue.

They couldn't do exact repeat passes, as this was not a motorized operation with a memory system, though I suppose you COULD come close in stop-motion mode, assuming you had each incremental move marked out on the floor for every frame, and for the movement of both the camera and the ship.

 

[Praetor]

^Ahh, that makes sense then if it's not 'true' motion control. I'd assumed it wasn't computer operated and that they did the lighting in the same pass, but hadn't quite put together the fact that it couldn't be automated and thus wasn't repeatable in any way.

 

[trevanian]

^Ahh, that makes sense then if it's not 'true' motion control. I'd assumed it wasn't computer operated and that they did the lighting in the same pass, but hadn't quite put together the fact that it couldn't be automated and thus wasn't repeatable in any way.

2001 had a crude motorized system that let Alcott and Veevers do repeat passes, but it was strictly a linear, straight-line operation using selsyn motors.
Y'gotta figure that if Kubrick didn't have mocon on that (or invent it), nobody was going to have it yet.

 

[Praetor]

Are you saying they did repeat lighting passes for 2001? I didn't know that if so.

 

[trevanian]

Are you saying they did repeat lighting passes for 2001? I didn't know that if so.

It was just two passes, one for the beauty pass and one for the rear-projected live-action in the windows. They did this on still cutouts (via a contraption called the sausage factory) and on physical models.

They didn't do much conventional matting because Kubrick wanted as much as possible first-generation, so they roto'd the stars in after having folks hand-draw mattes for every frame of the ships. So you had a first generation image of the ship and a first generation starfield, and the roto matte of the ship to hold the stars back.

 

[alchemist]

Sorry to interupt the discussion of 2001, but here is the promised picture of the tilted Enterprise against the blue screen:

Note that the top plate of the Worrall geared head is angled back to show the underside of the saucer. This would have been done prior to the start of filming (also, there is no one on the floor cranking). Note also the dolly tracks on the left side for the camera for "dollying-in."

Best,

Dave, "The Other Poster"

 

[Praetor]

Good lord, seeing the big E tilted like that is remarkable.

 

[alchemist]

Good lord, seeing the big E tilted like that is remarkable.

Yeah, isn't she beautiful!

 

[Praetor]

Truly indeed!

 

[Michael]

It's a beautiful ship! It looks so gracious.

 

[Ronald Held]

Great tilted ship shot. Too bad I cannot use it.