YARN
Fleet Captain
Is this the only way?
The 11 Footer E flaws, shoddy construction or by design?
- Thread starter darkwing_duck1
- Start date
Is this the only way?
Thanks, that whole thing was TLDR - some of us are sneak-browsing during work, and short posts work best for that!
Perfect, thanks!
Well, actually, yes. But also, not going to happen.
C'mon, how awesome would that be? REAL Enterprise FX after 43 years? Again, not going to happen. But again, awesome.
He talks about the modifications made for the third season. But there's a grand total of one new shot of the Enterprise in the third season. (Yes, I know, I'm suddenly the "FX shot police".) I'd really like to hear from anyone who was there about what went on with the 11 foot miniature in 1968-1967. So far no success...
No - in terms of "proving" anything it leaves out a number of factors. These silly hypotheticals are just that. So again, no.
I had thought it could prove that you can get the existing paint job to look on screen like it did. But I suppose that would just "prove" that you know how to light an Enterprise model to look like the original series regardless of how it's painted. Fair enough.
Exactly. There are also, among other things, matters of film stock, exposure and all of the post-processing involved in getting to final composites.
In "The Making Of Star Trek" Roddenberry alludes in passing to the difficulties involved in working with effects houses that were used to doing certain things in certains requiring more money and time than Trek had. One thing that certainly appears to be true is that most composites of the Enterprise were done in a less than ideal fashion - the elements appear to be printed through several generations in many cases. The visual documentation you've posted online clearly demonstrates the wide variations in things like color correction that occurred when several different effects houses were delivering the material under different circumstances at different times.
As Joe_Atari noted and you discussed in your "on screen reference thread:"
Given that it's unlikely all of the necessary reference material on precise lighting equipment, timing, lenses and all of the associated tech and processes even exist upon which to base a recreation of a given shot, the "set it up in front of a bluescreen, light it the same and see" proposal is arrant nonsense.
YARN
Fleet Captain
If we really wanted to simulate the original shooting conditions, I don't see why it would be so hard to approximate it. It is not like knowledge of how television was filmed in the 1960s has passed out of memory. One could research and find what sort of lights, what sort of film, what sort of processing, and so on. Even if the results did not offer surgical precision (the original shots had a bit of variance themselves!) this would not really matter so long as the basic look of the model could be reverse engineered this way.
Also, there are plenty of B/W and color pictures of the model from the 1960s which also offer a guide to what the model looked like when it was on screen.
Look gang, it's not like we are trying to figure out what Jesus looked like by speculating from what we think we know about what Galilean Jews of the era looked like.
We have the model. It still exists. We know how film ages. We have in-depth technical knowledge about filming techniques, lighting, lenses, film stock, etc. People who worked on the show have written memoirs, given interviews, and (many) are still alive to give answers to these questions. We have pictures of the thing. We even have moving pictures of the thing!
This isn't an epistemological black-hole, but a rather mundane technical problem. What archeologists wouldn't give for problems this easy!
"What did King Tut look like back in the day?"
"Well, here are some press photos, here is King Tut himself (with some green weathering added), here is some film of King Tut doing his Pharaoh thing, here are some people who did Tut's makeup, these are the cameras they used to take his picture, etc."
Also, there are plenty of B/W and color pictures of the model from the 1960s which also offer a guide to what the model looked like when it was on screen.
Look gang, it's not like we are trying to figure out what Jesus looked like by speculating from what we think we know about what Galilean Jews of the era looked like.
We have the model. It still exists. We know how film ages. We have in-depth technical knowledge about filming techniques, lighting, lenses, film stock, etc. People who worked on the show have written memoirs, given interviews, and (many) are still alive to give answers to these questions. We have pictures of the thing. We even have moving pictures of the thing!
This isn't an epistemological black-hole, but a rather mundane technical problem. What archeologists wouldn't give for problems this easy!
"What did King Tut look like back in the day?"
"Well, here are some press photos, here is King Tut himself (with some green weathering added), here is some film of King Tut doing his Pharaoh thing, here are some people who did Tut's makeup, these are the cameras they used to take his picture, etc."
So, what's this about "errant nonsense"?
YARN
Fleet Captain
Arrant means extreme or unmitigated.
Errant means straying from a proper course.
You can plug either one in and still understand the meaning of the sentence. They are, after all, related terms:
Origin of ARRANT
alteration of errant
First Known Use: 14th century
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arrant
alteration of errant
First Known Use: 14th century
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arrant
They are different (regardless of etymology), but in this case it's a difference without a distinction. In either case, we know we are not speaking of a flattering or benign form of nonsense.
Technically speaking, "arrant" would be the more accepted/recognizable way to deploy this phrase, but what we have here is much less a violation of understanding and much more a simple "gotcha!". Since the meaning is still plain, however, the question (for what it is worth) still stands as a challenge.
Du
du
du
Another thread bites the dust.
du
du
Another thread bites the dust.
Speaking of the heavy weathering on the restoration, more recent pics I've seen from various sources, seem to consistantly show less obvious weathering compared to early pics taken just after it was done, which seemed consistantly more obvious. Could this be that it is (hopefully) fading a bit? Or, is this more likely due to just different cameras and lighting conditions etc. Is there any way to know (short of bugging EM about it)?
Just take several long looks at the model in the behind the scenes pictures. Does that ship look anywhere near as overwrought as what Miarecki did?
I think what we have here is a gross error is estimating how much or how little the stage lights combined with the film stock and camera speed effected how the ship looked on film compared to how it looked to the ol' Mk I eyeball, and my estimation is that when all was said and done, how she looked on film, depending on the shot in question and how it was processed, is pretty much how she looked "in person."
I think what we have here is a gross error is estimating how much or how little the stage lights combined with the film stock and camera speed effected how the ship looked on film compared to how it looked to the ol' Mk I eyeball, and my estimation is that when all was said and done, how she looked on film, depending on the shot in question and how it was processed, is pretty much how she looked "in person."
Oh there's no question EM overemphasised the weathering.
And I agree, I think some of the still color photos we have from behind the scenes give a pretty good idea of what it looked like "in person" back in the day.
But I don't think how she looked on motion picture film is a very reliable gauge to how she looked "in person"?
And I agree, I think some of the still color photos we have from behind the scenes give a pretty good idea of what it looked like "in person" back in the day.
But I don't think how she looked on motion picture film is a very reliable gauge to how she looked "in person"?
That is one lucky ship....
It's more for the sake of comparison. Ed's stance is that to achieve that look on film, the detailing had to be horribly overdone. The candid shots say otherwise. Why he didn't take those candid shots into account, only he can say.
A reasonable assumption for an experienced effects artist, I suppose - but shouldn't he have realized that the model was NOT going to be under studio kleig lights and on film, but in a softly lit gallery viewed by the naked eye?
