I don't quite buy into the prominant display of the hull plating. If you look at any relative sized contemporary naval vessel (military/ tanker) from a distance where you can comfortably take in the entire vessel in your field of vision, you can see that the hulls look fairly smooth. Especially with a new paint job. You can see some plating in some cases, though it's faint, and you don't really get the detail of the plating until you get really close.
Agreed. Now, in TMP, the hull-plating variation was really pretty subtle (almost impossible to make out from some lighting conditions, and most obvious when in "highlight.") This is something that's pretty common when dealing with real sheetmetal... no two panels of sheetmetal have the exact same grain structure, so they don't look quite identical. I've always taken the super-subtle panel detail from TMP as though it was intended to give us a "raw sheet metal" effect... though I know that some folks (including A. Probert) would prefer for the hull to be made of some metal/ceramic composite.
The ideal is not for this to be visible except when viewed from close-up, and even then only under very specific, high-intensity lighting conditions. But having it be visible (as seen in TMP) does give a sense of reality that flat appearance failed to provide. The problem is that with later versions (including the partial repaint of the 1701(r) as well as the second version of the 1701-D model), this got overemphasized, and it became an extremely obvious "paint scheme" rather than the super-subtle detail that's almost unnoticable but which tricks the eye into thinking it's seeing something real.
The heavier the contrast between panels is, the less "real" the ship looks to me. Subtle detail... almost subliminal, really... is what makes me see "big and real" in a ship. That's why the 1701-E design never looked "big" no matter how well the ship was presented on-screen (and overall, I do like that design... my main quibbles on the 1701-E are with the underside of the p-hull and the silly paint scheme!).
I don't think the paint would be liquid in the 23rd century. Hell, something along the lines of a powder coating/ electroplating of some sort, would be more plausible. Or even that the plating materials would already be replicated with the colours infused or applied to the materials in question.
I'm not sure that these would be mutually exclusive. Different processes, as we all know, have different advantages and disadvantages. Liquid paint, for instance, is a far more effective sealant, while processes like powder-coating gives a more uniform coating over large areas. Individually-tinted materials (or specialized coatings on individual panels, applied prior to final assembly) also could apply. I doubt that we'll ever see any of the above simply go away... and in particular, if you were talking about a material which was applied as a protective coating (where gap-filling is a major positive) I'm sure that liquid application would remain the best solution.
So the issue really comes down to "what's the purpose of the coloration," doesn't it?
I think those kind of details should be left to close up views. The ship looks cleaner- more realistic (as compared to what I said about about ships). As far as cool factor goes, when did clutter ever become the definition for detail as opposed to simplicity? More of 'something' does not equate to detail in some cases.
Absolutely correct. It's a very odd conceit... that "more greebly detail = more believable/modern" when in reality, everything is just the opposite. Cars... aircraft... naval vessels... personal electronics... everything! The more advanced stuff is typically the stuff with the cleanest, least cluttered lines.
A great example would be in aircraft design. Look at early aircraft... say, the Sopwith Camel. There is a lot of visible detail on the exterior,and virtually every piece of operational hardware is exposed. Now, look at, say, the F-22 (which I was fortunate enough to get to work on for a while)... there are almost no exposed pieces of technology on the ship...everything (including embarked ordnance) is internal. (To fire a missile, you have to open the bay within which the missile is stowed... momentarily increasing your radar cross-section and momentarily harming your aerodynamic behavior).
The idea that "more exposed detail = more believable/more advanced" is really an outgrowth of the "2001/Star Wars" filmmaking style. It illustrates just how powerful filmed imagery is... not what reality actually is.
