Unseen TOS....

[Warped9]

I was also trying to think in somewhat practical terms. Matt Jefferies wouldn’t have had a lot of time to design something elaborate. But he would have had a fair idea of what might be cobbled together reasonably quickly in the studio workshop with pieces of wood and odd bits affixed to the basic shape then touched up with some paint and maybe decals scavenged from a couple of model kits. I tried to think of what I could conceivably build in my own garage with more limited resources than the Desilu workshop. Mind you that would be offset by something I would have far more off than the Desilu workshop: time.

This miniature would be seen onscreen for but a few seconds with maybe the vague idea of reusing the miniature sometime in a later episode. Hell, this could possibly even be reused as the Woden in “The Ultimate Computer” which would make more sense than repurposing the Botany Bay.

 

[tesral]

I like the idea.

Something to consider. How large is a Liberty ship compared to say a Baltimore class heavy cruiser. These are the terms many of the guys working TOS would be thinking in. 673' long 17,000 long tons, vs the Liberty ships at 441' 14,245 long tons.

I've got a physical model with a vaguely similar look.

 

[BK613]

Jefferies demonstrated in his Botany Bay design the use of modular cargo containers so I would like to think that he would include that concept in whatever design he might have come up with. The Port of Long Beach* was only a stone's throw from the studio after all.

*(Shipping company SeaLand Services started using containerization in the Port of Long Beach in 1962 with several piers being built and expanded in the 1960s to accommodate the new shipping methodology.)

 

[Warped9]

Well, although I didn’t conceive it as such the pods beneath the main section might be swapped out for something a bit more mundane in shape. Indeed when I eventually get to the Woden I could easily modify the existing Antares model as an alternative to working up a clean sheet design. The way the sequence was filmed in “The Ultimate Computer” you don’t get a really good look at the Woden so “hastily” modifying an existing miniature would be a reasonable cost saving approach.

 

[BK613]

@Warped9 Added some background info to that post.

 

[aridas sofia]

This latest is reminiscent of Probert’s take on a TNG-era starship tender.

https://66.media.tumblr.com/dede4e538aa589cfe5b889b46d1e8aff/tumblr_ncfwo8Z8UR1rzu2xzo2_1280.png

 

[Maurice]

Well, although I didn’t conceive it as such the pods beneath the main section might be swapped out for something a bit more mundane in shape. Indeed when I eventually get to the Woden I could easily modify the existing Antares model as an alternative to working up a clean sheet design. The way the sequence was filmed in “The Ultimate Computer” you don’t get a really good look at the Woden so “hastily” modifying an existing miniature would be a reasonable cost saving approach.

FWIW they could have just used a painting of a ship, given how briefly it is seen.

 

[Henoch]

Was all ships originally seen in TOS models, only?

 

[Warped9]

Was all ships originally seen in TOS models, only?

To the best of my knowledge, yes. Obviously no cgi then. Of course, throughout the series they reused existing footage to depict other ships, but that footage was of existing models.

 

[tesral]

Was all ships originally seen in TOS models, only?

To the best of my knowledge, yes. Obviously no cgi then. Of course, throughout the series they reused existing footage to depict other ships, but that footage was of existing models.

Yes, in the dark ages physical models were the only way to get something on film. If you saw a ship, there was a miniature.

 

[Warped9]

Physical models have mass. Along with their imperfections that telegraphs to the human brain. The Enterprise filming miniature was a rather large 11ft. miniature and in tandem with the way it was filmed that created a convincing sense of great size. Very few cgi models manage that effect. Certainly the cgi models of TOS-R never convey that sense of size.

The large filming miniature Seaview of Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea achieved the same convincing effect.

 

[BK613]

One huge issue with a lot of CGI is that very little thought is given to emulating the camera. The entire model is in sharp focus, or the perspective distortion doesn't match the level of detail that can be seen, etc.

 

[Warped9]

Like anything else cgi is an evolving tool. It’s very useful in many applications but, at least presently, it’s not always the best solution for specific applications. Cgi as convincing as a physical model is possible, but it requires time and effort and thus money.

 

[BK613]

Not to mention emulating the expertise of a cinematographer.

 

[fireproof78]

As the great Phill Tippet would say when CGI was becoming more and more prominent, "The computer wants to you." There is little restriction in side the computer so it is easy to forget those cinematography and physical visual effects rules.

 

[tesral]

As the great Phill Tippet would say when CGI was becoming more and more prominent, "The computer wants to you." There is little restriction in side the computer so it is easy to forget those cinematography and physical visual effects rules.

In animation, nothing happens by accident. So you get no serendipitous occurrences IE happy accidents that physics of light and matter might give you. You have to think it all out.

On one hand Bugs Bunny will not scratch his ass ruining the take. On the other hand you get no ad-libed physical acting like Indiana Jones shooting the guy in "Raiders of the Lost Ark".

 

[publiusr]

That's why I collect odd bits of plastic--try to put found shapes together. CGI I think are best for planet weather, spooks, etc.
$k and motion smoothing should only be for nature documentaries, dreamscapes, etc.

 

[tesral]

That's why I collect odd bits of plastic--try to put found shapes together. CGI I think are best for planet weather, spooks, etc.
$k and motion smoothing should only be for nature documentaries, dreamscapes, etc.

The greeble box. A modeler's essential

 

[Warped9]

Progress on the Antares has been a bit slow recently thanks to real life. But I continue to plug away when I can. Please stay tuned.

Designing these things under the parameters I set out is...interesting. A big challenge is fighting the temptation to consider ideas utilized years later that could not have been a consideration during TOS’ production.

When designing something new there is also the temptation to “show off” for lack of a better term. The temptation to layer in a level of detail that otherwise would not have existed. We know that very detailed miniatures were possible back in the day, best evidenced by the miniatures of 2001: A Space Odyssey, but that was under greatly different circumstances of a feature film with generous budget and time frame. Furthermore that level of detailing would be appreciated on the big screen. However, Star Trek did not have such time and budget AND a high level of detailing would not have been really appreciated on smallish 24 in. CRT televisions. It’s also safe to say no one back then was thinking that one day large size high resolution televisions would be available to appreciate high detail on 1960’s era television miniatures.

To that end I think this is where many fans’ TOS era designs misstep in layering too much detail to make their model look more convincing. Hell, I’ve done it myself. It’s a difficult temptation to resist. Indeed we see 3D models apply TMP level detailing to TOS era designs (like the TOS E) to make them more in line with what would come later.

That isn’t the goal here. I’m trying to work out something that looks right, or as right as I can so that it echoes Matt Jefferies’ sense of design language and aesthetic. Part of that effort is speculating on how something could be made with the resources at hand and what limitations could affect design.

Forgive my rambling here...

 

[Albertese]

....

To that end I think this is where many fans’ TOS era designs misstep in layering too much detail to make their model look more convincing. Hell, I’ve done it myself. It’s a difficult temptation to resist. Indeed we see 3D models apply TMP level detailing to TOS era designs (like the TOS E) to make them more in line with what would come later.

....

I think it's uncharitable to describe this impulse as a "misstep." Art changes with the times and the idea of dressing up older designs so it fits a later sensibility is entirely natural and valid. The exercise of creating a new design that agrees with both Jefferies' work from the 1960s and later styles popularized by ILM is in itself an interesting creative challenge.

That said, I think what you're doing almost fits the process of experimental archeology, where you are trying to create a design while imposing limitations from a given historical period. This too is a fascinating creative exercise which I'm following with great interest. One thing I've been thinking of on the back-burners of my brain lately is the idea of going the other direction and backdating later designs to look like how Matt Jefferies or Wah Chang might have approached them. What's a TOS Klingon Bird of Prey look like? Or a Jefferies Cardassian cruiser?

But all these directions are valid creative explorations.

--Alex