That Starbase 11 wall chart - noe in slide form
- Thread starter ChallengerHK
- Start date
Really? it looks the same to me.
The 8 in 1718 looks thinner and rounder than the 8 in 1685, which looks thicker and flatter to me. That’s what I’m seeing.
Thank you for doing this! Really does look like 1831 to me, unless there’s a blob of film grain exactly where the sliver of daylight should be.
Agreed.
I will let people play around with it before making a 100% determination. Someone might be able to do a better color balance than the shop did. It does look like there is a "slight" band of lightness to make it a 6 vice an 8. Looking at it on my phone screen does make it look more like a 6 than a computer screen does.
Last edited:
Unless they happened to have big-ass wall-size digits handy (e.g. from the model shop), then I imagine they probably did it by hand off of a transparency projection or similar.
Next step: I need to look and see how far into "big-ass" a standard set went and try to compare against scaling of these, just to satisfy that question.
My two issues with this:
1. Jein had fresher film stock and concluded it was 1631. I would look for bleeding around other digits.
2. The width is as it would be for 1631 meaning they'd have had to have put the six in place but manually closed it into an eight, e.g. to cover a boo-boo. But, see #1.
I see NCC-1631.
I am willing to chalk it up as bleed through. The top numbers don't have the same prospective as the lower ones and are more crushed together causing the bleed through. On image Star Trek_00022A, I think is a strong case for 1631. IMO I think all are 17XX and 16XX.
If you look at the below you can see what I am talking about in how there is not hard line for it to be an 8. Only thing I did was correct the perspective.
Actual dropbox location. Only thing I did was correct the perspective.
www.dropbox.com
If you look at the below you can see what I am talking about in how there is not hard line for it to be an 8. Only thing I did was correct the perspective.
Mn4ilcTActual dropbox location. Only thing I did was correct the perspective.
Dropbox
www.dropbox.com
Last edited:
I would say that the person used stencils for the alphabet letters and numbers.
I originally saw 1831 as well, but looking at the width of the confirmed "8" in 1685, the various "6"s on the chart are noticeably narrower. I'm very swayed to it being 1631
Yes, the top loop of the "6" has bled into the bottom loop but there's still a hint of the gap there, on the inner right side. But that's far less conclusive than the width of the other "8"s and the straightness of the centre bar.
Yes, the top loop of the "6" has bled into the bottom loop but there's still a hint of the gap there, on the inner right side. But that's far less conclusive than the width of the other "8"s and the straightness of the centre bar.
Last edited:
Agree. Viewed in isolation, one could make a case for '8' but, in situ, with the other numbers on the chart considered, it's '6' for me.
