Self illumination experiment

[Gepard]

The caps on the nacelles? Would like to see what those add.

I was not under the impression that the spheres on the back of the nacelles were illuminated.

 

[BK613]

The caps on the nacelles? Would like to see what those add.

I was not under the impression that the spheres on the back of the nacelles were illuminated.

Actually wired for lights, no.

But I was always under the impression--growing up watching TOS--that, given the high contrast between the white spheres and the gray caps/ black of space, they were meant to be. An painted, optical trick, like that fourth rectangle on the top of the saucer.

Regardless, still an amazing bit of work. Keep it up.

 

[Albertese]

Yeah, it seems like I remembered reading someplace that the intention was that the aft end caps were meant to be lit, but that actually lighting that part of the model didn't work out for whatever reason. I agree that the fact they were painted white, like the forth rectangle, could imply an intent to represent at least a soft glow.

--Alex

 

[blssdwlf]

^^ Looks great! Fantastic, in fact!

Two questions and one suggestion.

The dome above the hangar? The caps on the nacelles? Would like to see what those add.

The upper and lower surfaces of the cut-throughs on the secondary hull where the pennants are could house vanity lights as well. as opposed to a distant spot.

The dome above the hangar could illuminate the nacelles (inside facing portions). That's what it did on my quick test. The front caps would throw red forward but the rear caps I didn't think were lit.

Interestingly, the topside saucer running lights on the primary hull are far enough outside that they could be aimed back and light up the outside facing portions of the nacelles. The bottom saucer running lights could be aimed back and light up the sides of the secondary hull.

 

[blssdwlf]

A variation on the spots

 

[BK613]

Man this thread is full of some epic goodness!

 

[Professor Moriarty]

Interesting. In the end though, I think these experiments only underline the necessity for radiosity when rendering space scenes. Yes, your direct illumination is realistic because in space there is no atmosphere to scatter light sources (so that surfaces in shadow still at least have some indirect bounce lighting)... but I kept wanting to holler "turn the lights up!" while looking at these images.

It may not be realistic, but a tidge of atmospheric scattering goes a long way for "selling" the scene.

 

[Albertese]

And in that vein, why would anything in space ever "glow" (As in being photographed though a diffusion filter, a la TNG warp grilles) without having atmosphere to scatter the bright light? Answer: it looks good on screen!

--Alex

 

[Gepard]

Interesting. In the end though, I think these experiments only underline the necessity for radiosity when rendering space scenes.

Well, strictly speaking, mine does have radiosity -- there's just no key light source to allow enough indirect illumination for us to see a damn thing.

 

[Warped9]

This great! I really like your initial images. I don't care for any vanity lighting, though as on the TMP refit. I've never cared for it.

 

[SonicRanger]

VOY did something like this in "Night," and I liked the effect:

http://voy.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/5x01/stv_night_062.jpg
http://voy.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/5x01/stv_night_065.jpg
http://voy.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/5x01/stv_night_142.jpg
http://voy.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/5x01/stv_night_221.jpg

 

[Gepard]

This great! I really like your initial images. I don't care for any vanity lighting, though as on the TMP refit. I've never cared for it.

Well, if you want secondary lighting bounces in deep space, they gotta come from somewhere.

 

[Warped9]

This great! I really like your initial images. I don't care for any vanity lighting, though as on the TMP refit. I've never cared for it.

Well, if you want secondary lighting bounces in deep space, they gotta come from somewhere.

What I mean are those spotlights with the sole purpose of illuminating some part of the hull.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

Yeah, self-illumination just isn't very realistic.

 

[Gepard]

What I mean are those spotlights with the sole purpose of illuminating some part of the hull.

Right. And by what I said, I meant if you want secondary bounce illumination, you first need a primary light source that can scatter off the hull and give a bit of fill. Hence, the spotlights.

 

[Guartho]

Yeah, self-illumination just isn't very realistic.

What does a smoking smiley wearing a helmet have to do with this discussion?

 

[Redfern]

That's just a "hot link" disabler. Copy the URL into the browser address window and you'll see a fighter jet being refueled by a larger aircraft possessing lights seemingly serving no other purpose that to illuminate the fuselage. (But given its purpose, those extra lights are probably a safety feature since the fighter must pullin so close.)

Sincerely,

Bill

 

[Ziz]

That shot also isn't fully pitch black night like it is in outer space. There's ambient light bouncing around in the atmosphere that's helping to illuminate the planes regardless of any self contained lighting.

 

[Guartho]

Still get the smoking dude in my Firefox, but I finally saw it pasting into another browser.

 

[Ziz]

The easiest way to bypass the no-link filter is to put a ? at the end of the URL after you paste it to your address bar. Then hit Enter/Return and the pic/page should show up.