As noted earlier, the ship changes back and forth too frequently, sometimes within a single episode, which would be extremely unusual unless there is one basic shape which is being distorted/replaced with fake footage. There is no evidence of the Enterprise-D having such ability to reorganize its structure in an instant.
The correct shape of the Galaxy-class
- Thread starter Boris Skrbic
- Start date
As noted earlier, the ship changes back and forth too frequently, sometimes within a single episode, which would be extremely unusual unless there is one basic shape which is being distorted/replaced with fake footage. There is no evidence of the Enterprise-D having such ability to reorganize its structure in an instant.
To be fair, the way the models are shot distorts them much more than any details of their construction. And on the original VCR-standard material it's not that easy to argue "this is the 4-footer! That is the 6-footer!" if one doesn't a priori know that there exist two different models; it's all attributable to differences in lighting and shadowing and camera positioning unless we choose to insist it isn't. Just look at the two screencaps on Drex Files: choosing identical angles and lenses would remove the seeming difference in dimensions or detailing (even though it so happens that certain angles and lenses would be incompatible with the smaller model).
Really, painstaking researching of model dimensions is often an inferior tool for describing the supposed spacecraft, because models are fakes: they take shortcuts, they introduce smoke and mirrors, false perspectives, painted detail that mimics raised detail and vice versa, etc, etc. A perfect replica of the main TOS photographic model would make for a piss-poor "Constitution class starship", for example, considering how shoddily the model was built and treated and how asymmetric it ended up being when shot.
It shouldn't be difficult to believe in an unchanging E-D that is somewhere between the existing models, since nothing obvious was changed from model to model. The E-E, OTOH, had distinct changes built in, and there we have to believe in some sort of a refit (even though we may choose to disregard the slight change in secondary hull shape, which would be a massive in-universe change, and merely accept the new weapons, new pylons, new neck structures and other in-universe trivialities).
Timo Saloniemi
Really, painstaking researching of model dimensions is often an inferior tool for describing the supposed spacecraft, because models are fakes: they take shortcuts, they introduce smoke and mirrors, false perspectives, painted detail that mimics raised detail and vice versa, etc, etc. A perfect replica of the main TOS photographic model would make for a piss-poor "Constitution class starship", for example, considering how shoddily the model was built and treated and how asymmetric it ended up being when shot.
It shouldn't be difficult to believe in an unchanging E-D that is somewhere between the existing models, since nothing obvious was changed from model to model. The E-E, OTOH, had distinct changes built in, and there we have to believe in some sort of a refit (even though we may choose to disregard the slight change in secondary hull shape, which would be a massive in-universe change, and merely accept the new weapons, new pylons, new neck structures and other in-universe trivialities).
Timo Saloniemi
I like the graceful shape and smooth lines of the original 6 foot model, but I like the coloration and detail of the 4 foot model. It would be wonderful if some talented artist could somehow combine the two, making a version of the 6 foot model with the coloration and detail of the 4 foot model.
You can always tell the 4-footer from the drastically out-of-scale hull plating on the saucer. The ship is typically photographed from a (fictional) 1/2 to 1 mile distance. The surface should always appear smooth from that distance due to the ship's size. (as the 6-footer demonstrates)
There are no "circular" features on the Enterprise D. Mr. Probert's design consists of a series of ovals of various proportions played off of each other. Even the Main Bridge is oval-shaped. I've always thought that using organic-inspired ovals for such an obviously mechanical device as a space ship was a stroke of design brilliance. I think Mr. Probert was trying to demonstrate that Federation technology was approaching high art by the 24th century. Sadly, this idea seems to have been abandoned after Mr. Sternbach's Voyager - an obvious cousin to the Galaxy Class.
There are no "circular" features on the Enterprise D. Mr. Probert's design consists of a series of ovals of various proportions played off of each other. Even the Main Bridge is oval-shaped. I've always thought that using organic-inspired ovals for such an obviously mechanical device as a space ship was a stroke of design brilliance. I think Mr. Probert was trying to demonstrate that Federation technology was approaching high art by the 24th century. Sadly, this idea seems to have been abandoned after Mr. Sternbach's Voyager - an obvious cousin to the Galaxy Class.
Fortunately, the Wayback Machine has saved Gabriel Koerner's images of his LightWave model from "These Are the Voyages". There've been heated discussions about some of the details, but the model is still significant for being canon, HD and inspired by both of the main contenders. (However, obviously that isn't enough to make it the correct answer to the question posed in this thread.)
http://web.archive.org/web/20070306091630/www.gabekoerner.com/ship/
Koerner said in a TrekWeb post:
Last edited:
Unfortunately I cannot say I was a fan of Mr. Koerner's rendering. While it is an vast improvement on the model used in DS9, and has wonderful detail on the upper surface of the saucer section, it just doesn't quite look right to me. It mostly comes from the saucer edge being so squared off rather than smoothly rounded, but the engineering hull also seems wrong somehow. This also brings up another matter i have always wondered about - why are the saucer impulse engines engaged? On TNG, they were only ever used in case of saucer separation, but on DS9 and in this case, they are shown as being used during normal operation. I wonder why this is the case.
If one is to determine a "true" or "correct" shape for a ship whose various visual representations contradict one another, then should one also attempt to resolve as many contradictions as possible between interiors and exteriors? One example is the theoretical size and location of Ten Forward, given the upper and lower sets of windows along the probably-too-thin saucer rim, plus the underside life boat hatches.
Just saying...
Just saying...
There are various sensor pods, dishes, other equipment, and panels all over the ship that can be deployed or not, as needed for experiments being run by the science departments or for general sensor expansion during hostile encounters. Also, sometimes you are seeing the ship distorted to varying degrees by the varying energy levels in the navigational shields, main shields, and warp field.
There, all done. I'm going to lunch now.
There, all done. I'm going to lunch now.
Yes, of course.
This is seriously stretching it. "Enterprise, transform!"
This is better, but I wouldn't dismiss the possibility of faked footage either. After all, we regularly see repeating stock footage which clearly cannot be taken seriously on closer examination.
Because he already possessed a measure of awesome?
Would certainly be an amusing photoshop though... 
This.
The existing official blueprints are, I believe, drawn to match the six-foot model's contours as are the excellent Ed Whitefire blueprints. The six-foot model itself was built very closely following a set of design drawings by Andrew Probert which had been approved by the producers.
The four-foot model is an abberation inaccurately representing the design.
The four-foot model is an abberation inaccurately representing the design.
Last edited:
Chick_McGeester
Lieutenant
Man I really like Gabriel Kroeners E-D. I also like his updated original Enterprise. Someone should give that guy a job in tv/movies...
He's a professional CG/VFX artist. His E-D was made for Enterprise, in fact, and he's worked on Serenity, Battlestar Galactica, and Speed Racer.
Watched an episode of TNG yesterday (can't remember which one, it had Q in it though) and there was an edit form the 6 footer to the 4 foot monstrosity. As continuity errors go this was a biggie. 6 footer all the way for me.
I suppose a logical way to figure out which is 'canon' as such, would be to tally up screen time per model, the one with the most wins. I should imagine the 6 footer would win out.
I suppose a logical way to figure out which is 'canon' as such, would be to tally up screen time per model, the one with the most wins. I should imagine the 6 footer would win out.
Was it True Q, the one with Amanda Roberts, who Q was trying to convince to join the collective? At one point they played hide-and-seek, and stood on the stardrive's hull.
↑ This. ↑
Ten Forward simply doesn't fit in the six-footer at the given scale (since it wasn't devised until that model had been in use for a year or so). That's why the four-footer's rim was thicker, and that has to be considered if we're wondering about "what's canon".
