Links?
Proper views of STXI ships
- Thread starter Timo
- Start date
Links?
Actually they've invented a process for extruding such data, called (say it slowly now) geometry.
Here's the page with the Enterprise orthos. I couldn't find the Kelvin online, so later today I'll post my image on my Box.net site.
http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=19314
Another inaccuracy I noticed with the Mayflower model (besides the rollbar), is that the film version had the "spine" that the Kelvin had protruding from the rear of the bridge (only without a shuttlebay hull).
Tobias's images are the best you can get so far, as they are based off of the views from the film's "art of" book, so they can be as official as possible to the film's sources.
Ablative_Oberth
Lieutenant Commander
I don't get the obsession with tiny stripped down scouts. You're beyond explored space you'll want to carry as much STUFF and as many experts as you can. Extra shuttles, extra gears, additional sensors, experts in many many fields...
I have no problem with a giant scout ship with 1,000 people aboard. They are all out boldly going, finding interesting stuff and radioing back home for another ship to come out and take a closer look.
I have no problem with a giant scout ship with 1,000 people aboard. They are all out boldly going, finding interesting stuff and radioing back home for another ship to come out and take a closer look.
Thanks! Richter's done a brilliant job on the Enterprise.
Tobias's work on that model is extraordinary.
Given that the Enterprise, for example, was actually scaled up during post-production I would not be surprised if there are no drawings or schematics of these ships in existence that correspond to the actual models in precise detail. Designing these things was probably iterative.
In other words, there is no "right" answer to be had.
Given that the Enterprise, for example, was actually scaled up during post-production I would not be surprised if there are no drawings or schematics of these ships in existence that correspond to the actual models in precise detail. Designing these things was probably iterative.
In other words, there is no "right" answer to be had.
In these newfangled whachamacallem modern days, "drawings" is not what I'm after at all. It's the finished products, the onscreen CGI constructs, the "real" starships, which can now be brought to our screens in all their original and exact glory by pressing a few buttons. The paper trail is more or less irrelevant when the end product could be made accessible as such. (at reduced resolution, and flattened to three-views, but still.)
...Although it probably won't.
Timo Saloniemi
...Although it probably won't.
Timo Saloniemi
It was changed/changing in pre-production, not post. There's a chart from 2007 in the art book giving the size as 1200m, and there's also concept art of the ship with lots of much smaller windows. Although the exact size probably wasn't set until after the movie's release, it was "vaguely enourmous" almost from the get-go. The CG model in the shipyard scene was scaled down to fit, so the people on the hull don't fit in the exposed decks.
The idea the ship was 366m then upped at the very last minute is bunk. It was all over the place, all the time and more often bigger than not.
Yes, and you cannot design precise detail into a model without knowing the scale - "all over the place" won't cut it whether that's "roughly twice the size" or "roughly the same size except for this bit over here (ala the hangar deck, for instance, or the airlocks)."
As for rendered orthos of the finished model - what's the point, unless you're going to try to do some work from it? Admiring the art is better done in the movie itself, and if you want a reference work then drawings are still superior to rendered images.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
Unless it's Star Wars, such things don't sell all that well these days...unfortunately.
ETA: What REALLY isn't getting any "love" are the shuttles...we get what, 5 or 6 types in the film and no one has done up any of them...
Last edited:
All too true.
There are some tasty re-imaginings of the original TOS Galileo around, however the nutrek shuttles seem to have stayed off the artistic radars out there.
Last edited:
^ Which is a shame, because I thought they looked pretty sharp. John Eaves released some of the concept art for the Kelvin shuttles on his blog, but other than that I haven't been able to find anything on them either.
Just sayin: in films, starship design is about art and aesthetics, not technical consistency. Modelers will design ships based first and foremost on appearance and style, which has alot to do with how that ship will appear when filmed next to other ships. If the ship needs to be bigger, they render it bigger; if it needs to be smaller, they render it smaller.
Yes you can. People do it all the time, and in the history of trek it has BEEN done a number of times. Both with physical models and their CG counterparts, we've seen a number of ships designed in one scale redressed and puffed up to a much larger size: the Maquis Raider and the Nightingale, for example, both began life as two-person craft only to be scaled up to much larger designs later on. The same happened with the Kazon fighter, which started out as a small fighter and later showed up as a cruiser-sized craft. Likewise, there's the famous scaling problems with the Defiant and the Bird of Prey; in the former case the scale of the ship was apparently never fully understood even by its designers, and in the latter case the original scale of the ship was well defined by its designers but totally ignored by absolutely everyone else.
Just sayin: in films, starship design is about art and aesthetics, not technical consistency. Modelers will design ships based first and foremost on appearance and style, which has alot to do with how that ship will appear when filmed next to other ships. If the ship needs to be bigger, they render it bigger; if it needs to be smaller, they render it smaller.
All of which, of course, is the antithesis of designing in precise detail - for which one needs to establish scale. What I said is correct, and offering examples of using models out-of-scale is no argument at all to the contrary.
Consider it akin to collecting dead butterflies, I guess.
The drawings won't be superior for reference, though, because they will be wrong. Unless they are drawn through from the rendered originals, that is. Thus, one can't write down "the ship is 785.7 meters long" in a reference work even after deciding (perhaps arbitrarily) that the bridge windows are 1.3 meters high, which annoys the nitpicking tech fan to no end.
Strange enough. Although 5 or 6 types? We have the Kelvin shuttle in two colors, plus two 2250s designs. What else is out there?
Timo Saloniemi
That doesn't follow. All existing drawings of the TOS Enterprise are "wrong" but are superior reference tools, for most purposes, to photographs of it.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
There's two different shuttles I see in the Kelvin evacuation sequence, two in the Hangar at the academy, and then one more seen later on that looks a lot like the Trek IV shuttle from the glimpse I got of it, so that's 5.
I don't have access to the movie right now or my image files taken off line or I'd be more specific.
Not really. It turns out--with space ships, at least--that any particular surface detail on any particular model can easily become a totally different detail on a larger design without anyone noticing a thing. Hence the same model for a Klingon bird of prey that was originally designed as a 130 meter ship doesn't look all that unusual when filmed right next to the Enterprise-D.
For the NuEnterprise, the same type of design/redesign cycle could (and apparently DID) start with a basic shape and surface details designed in a totally different scale; those same details don't look all that out of place in the present scale UNLESS they are actually presented to us as being in a particular scale and then reappearing later in another one.
