Despite Matt Jefferies sketch the final miniature wasn't built as a forced perspective miniature. However, it was built to a different scaled size than the one they used in TOS-R
TAS made real....
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
That's interesting. I think I know the drawing you're talking about (the one in "The Making of Star Trek"?), but I'm sure I'd read somewhere years ago the miniature set WAS forced perspective! Ah well, there you go!
There was a discussion about it a few years ago on this board (somewhere!) and in the end someone used a computer overlay to show (amongst other things) how the lines of the observation galleries ran parallel to the ground, not sloping which they would be if it was FP. There was other stuff too, but it's all pretty conclusive IMO.
The dimensions for the model were also released in Datin's book which shows that while the model was slightly narrower one end than the other, it was only enough to match the tapering end of the secondary hull.
The Jefferies' elevation of the hangar is in forced perspective but why he drew it that way remains a mystery. It wouldn't have saved any cost, because it would have been more complicated to build even if it required slightly less materials. Maybe he thought the model wouldn't look convincingly deep w/o forcing the perspective?
Agreed. Today we can build 3D models of the shuttlecraft bay without forced perspective and it looks just fine as viewed aftward from the forward hangar wall. Truth be told you pretty much have to be situated more forward of the forward hangar wall to get the familiar view and perspective and conveniently eliminate the wall and pretend it isn’t there. That might have been part of what MJ was thinking when he drew the cutaway view of the hangar, and since then everyone has accepted the idea the bay should be that long when in “reality” it wouldn’t be that long to fit where it’s supposed to fit within the ship’s secondary hull.
Note in MJ’s cutaway drawing of the Enterprise the hangar does not extend underneath the support pylons wherein a long hangar deck as shown in his larger hangar cutaway would extend under the pylons. And note that Franz Joseph (in his Constitution blueprints) basically took MJ’s hangar cutaway as is resulting in it extending under the pylons in contradiction to MJ’s cutaway of the Enterprise.
Sorry to be late to this discussion, but I was the one who pointed out, way back in 2002, that the TMOST hangar drawing incorporated forced perspective elements. At the time, I suspected it might indicate that the miniature set was also constructed in the same manner. Later evidence from Richard Datin himself showed that the set was constructed in normal perspective.
Here is Jefferies original TMOST side view:
Here is the same drawing, as I "undistorted" it:
Here is the original MJ drawing, overlaid at scale, on the MJ TMOST cross-section of the ship:
As you can see, the drawing can in no way me made to fit into the ship. The entire scale of the thing is way off.
But if we compare Jefferies' TMOST ship cross section, which only shows the hangar compartment, with his Phase II cross section, which depicts a scale hangar interior that looks like the original TOS-E hangar, you can get a truer idea of what he had in mind:
Here was my 2002 proposed "real" hangar:
Since then, I have incorporated a hangar into my scale TOS-E 3D model. As Warped9 pointed out, you can get a fairly reasonable image that evokes the original series footage with a properly fitted hangar, but only if you use a wide enough lens and place your viewpoint forward of the hangar bulkhead. As long as you can peer into the set through an invisible fourth wall, you're in business...
WIP from 2013:
Complete:
We now return to your regularly scheduled thread...
M.
Here is Jefferies original TMOST side view:
Here is the same drawing, as I "undistorted" it:
Here is the original MJ drawing, overlaid at scale, on the MJ TMOST cross-section of the ship:
As you can see, the drawing can in no way me made to fit into the ship. The entire scale of the thing is way off.
But if we compare Jefferies' TMOST ship cross section, which only shows the hangar compartment, with his Phase II cross section, which depicts a scale hangar interior that looks like the original TOS-E hangar, you can get a truer idea of what he had in mind:
Here was my 2002 proposed "real" hangar:
Since then, I have incorporated a hangar into my scale TOS-E 3D model. As Warped9 pointed out, you can get a fairly reasonable image that evokes the original series footage with a properly fitted hangar, but only if you use a wide enough lens and place your viewpoint forward of the hangar bulkhead. As long as you can peer into the set through an invisible fourth wall, you're in business...
WIP from 2013:
Complete:
We now return to your regularly scheduled thread...
M.
What I love about your renditions is I see it as a pre-cursor to Starfleet shuttle designs in the future: the movies and TNG designs. This is some nice work so far, Warped9.A thought exercise.
The top view is the original configuration. The middle view is the original stretched 5 percent. The bottom view is the original stretched 10 percent.
I think I'm on the right track. The only other major change I would make is to flatten the upper surface of the hull so it isn't angled forward or not angled as much. I would also move the nacelles upward. Personally I think I like the middle view best--I think it has a nice visual balance.
A major issue I have with the onscreen version is the proportions are too exaggerrated. The aft end is far too angled for a credible setup for a rear acces hatch. And the bow section is simply far too pronounced. Like the view of the Enterprise's hangar deck it ends up coming across as ridiculously oversized.
I haven’t forgotten, folks. The day job has been a little taxing lately and sometimes leaves me somewhat unmotivated in the evenings.
Additionally this design is really bugging me as I can’t seem to make it work to my satisfaction. While my previous efforts have had merit (if I may say so) they still don’t really click in evoking the onscreen TAS version. And yet that version looks silly as a 3D object meant to be something belonging to the TOS universe (in my opinion).
I’m not giving up. I’m just frustrated.
Additionally this design is really bugging me as I can’t seem to make it work to my satisfaction. While my previous efforts have had merit (if I may say so) they still don’t really click in evoking the onscreen TAS version. And yet that version looks silly as a 3D object meant to be something belonging to the TOS universe (in my opinion).
I’m not giving up. I’m just frustrated.
Fortunately - you're not on a schedule - since you aren't getting paid for this! 
Some positive progress, folks...so far. I hope to have something of substance to show soon—maybe a day or three.
I have decided to modify my first attempt with this design (from some years ago). Scale wise it will be a bit larger than my original version and there will be some tweaks to evoke the original TAS version more, but it will differ in some ways as well.
I have decided to modify my first attempt with this design (from some years ago). Scale wise it will be a bit larger than my original version and there will be some tweaks to evoke the original TAS version more, but it will differ in some ways as well.
No problem. Work has priority.
I've found that myself. Despite making sure to find 'me time' during this ongoing pandemic after family responsibilities, this month, the creative urge is lacking.
Looking forward to seeing your newest version of this troublesome travelling mode!
It mightn't seem like much, but what you see here is the result of a lot of thought and something like a fifth attempt to get it right. This is the port side of the main hull of the ship. It's not quite finished and there is more to go before it takes finished form, but it does show a major element of how this design is taking shape. It shows my attempt to reconcile conflicting design elements on the TAS design while also trying to make it look more real world and convincing in three dimensional form.
It will sport a more pronounced bow section than what is generally seen on Trek shuttlecraft designs, but it is tempered significantly compared to the original TAS version.
It will sport a more pronounced bow section than what is generally seen on Trek shuttlecraft designs, but it is tempered significantly compared to the original TAS version.
Very interesting, and adds a bit more detail, but not enough for me to rethink my interpretation as a more “real world” vehicle. It’s interesting how this schematic differs in some detail from the final onscreen version, notably no familiar sensor dish at the bow. I must say I like the schematic version better, at least in profile and top plan view, but the bow elevation view looks ridiculous to my eyes.
Thanks for sharing.
Last edited:
Thank you Maurice!
I've been looking for larger versions of these pictures forever.
And yes they were indeed sold by Lincoln Enterprises back in the day.
And Thank you Warped9 for all your great designs!
Merry Chriskuanzukkah and Happy Festivus to all
I've been looking for larger versions of these pictures forever.
And yes they were indeed sold by Lincoln Enterprises back in the day.
And Thank you Warped9 for all your great designs!
Merry Chriskuanzukkah and Happy Festivus to all
Last edited:
Similar threads
