Unseen TOS....
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
One last comment on this one--I just noticed this (and I'm sure I'm not the first): The hull of the Jefferies streamliner shuttle looks like a giant-size type-1 hand phaser.You mean this? I worked on this quite some time ago, but it's not completely finished as I wanted to show it in a landed configuration with a gangway door open. I reconceived it as a 2-deck runabout.
https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/m...dth-down/775?cb=20130815105628&path-prefix=en
LOL - in profile I thought the aft section looked like a Type-2 phaser
But now I can't unsee either one. 
I’m trying to resist adding too much detail. You can find yourself always wanting to add more and losing sight of the objective: to fashion a miniature that could be built from scratch within a reasonable time frame, and certainly faster than how long it’s taking me to build the 3D model. 
I’m starting to add the hull markings and I’m pondering what registration to give it.
I’m starting to add the hull markings and I’m pondering what registration to give it.
Wow!!! So cool, yeah, please finish this when you have time. I think it was a beautiful design by Jefferies and what you did is sooooo faithful IMO.You mean this? I worked on this quite some time ago, but it's not completely finished as I wanted to show it in a landed configuration with a gangway door open. I reconceived it as a 2-deck runabout.
PREACH!I’m trying to resist adding too much detail. You can find yourself always wanting to add more and losing sight of the objective: to fashion a miniature that could be built from scratch within a reasonable time frame, and certainly faster than how long it’s taking me to build the 3D model.
The best touch are the two (saddle/) tanks on the underside of the main hull that echo the two nacelles above. Perfection itself.
Even though certain other designs are still far ahead I have already begun thinking about how this design could be reused to depict a different ship. In the least the underparts could be removed and replaced with something else to depict a merchant vessel like a freighter, either with a large cargo area or an assembly that connects to detachable cargo containers.
Part of me itches to add more detail, but this is a miniature that would be seen only briefly onscreen, so such extra detail would be largely pointless. This is a miniature meant to look acceptable on a 1960’s era television rather than current high definition imagery.
Part of me itches to add more detail, but this is a miniature that would be seen only briefly onscreen, so such extra detail would be largely pointless. This is a miniature meant to look acceptable on a 1960’s era television rather than current high definition imagery.
That's a VERY nice repurposing of an unused design. That would have been cool to see onscreen, TOS or TAS!You mean this? I worked on this quite some time ago, but it's not completely finished as I wanted to show it in a landed configuration with a gangway door open. I reconceived it as a 2-deck runabout.
What thread is that from?
Still working out details. Seems I'll be home for awhile given I'm temporarily laid off until our store reopens for more than curbside pickup so I'm hoping to get some more modelling done...between getting some things done around the house and yard now that Spring is here.
This isn't meant to have any real grace, majesty or elegance to it like Starfleet's frontline ships. This is supposed to convey the idea of something packed with equipment, but little spare room for crew and their comfort. I wanted it to have something of a submarine feel to it without actually resembling a sub. These kind of ships can be built or configued for multiple purposes--some more slanted toward planetary survey, some toward transport and/or bulk cargo.
I honestly cannot say Matt Jefferies could have come up with this, but I hope it's overall design language could seem like something he could have done and that this wouldn't look out of place in TOS as a smaller, older and less elegant workhorse.
Given this would have most likely have been a static miniature (no lights) I’ll colour it that way since it would be seen only for a brief moment (if that) onscreen. Afterward I can add lights to it.
Definitely got a Starfleet/Federation merchant look, and the basic hull layout does look like something that could been quickly built if they had done so back in the day. Nice work as always @Warped9
Here we go. I'm looking at perhaps a few small finishing touches, but the objective is to have something that could be convincing as a TOS design.
There are no lights on this model. Everything is painted on as if were to be an actual physical miniature. It could appear onscreen as a long shot as seen on the Enterprise's main viewscreen or perhaps even in the same frame as the Enterprise similar to what was done with the Botany Bay.
There are no lights on this model. Everything is painted on as if were to be an actual physical miniature. It could appear onscreen as a long shot as seen on the Enterprise's main viewscreen or perhaps even in the same frame as the Enterprise similar to what was done with the Botany Bay.
Last edited:
Sexy bro...Damn sexy!Here we go. I'm looking at perhaps a few small finishing touches, but the objective is to have something that could be convincing as a TOS design.
There are no lights on this model. Everything is painted on as if were to be an actual physical miniature. It could appear onscreen as a long shot as seen on the Enterprise's main viewscreen or perhaps even in the same frame as the Enterprise similar to what was done with the Botany Bay.
Brilliant!Rendezvous with the Antares.
The Antares "goes away."
One minor quibble, but do the light sources agree in the side by side shot? I know the studio model was probably lit from various angles, it's the slight shadow being thrown forward from the Enterprise starboard nacelle strut that's not visible on the Antares that's throwing my eye off.
But as I couldn't even begin to attempt this in a month of Sundays, please feel free to ignore me.
Amazing work, Sir!
I could attempt the side shot again. It’s hard to match the lighting angles. The best way to achieve a seamless shot would require a 3D model of Enterprise as well and render them together sharing the same lighting sources. Also, as it’s lighted, the Enterprise wouldn’t be casting any shadows on the Antares. The Antares could also use a touch more film grain and its angle is slightly off.
The size of the Antares’ impulse engines is a coincidence as I was just trying to size them right figuring they couldn’t be too small.
I was really tempted to light the windows and various lights, but since that wouldn’t have happened for such a miniature on TOS I opted to just painting those details and hope they could show off when filmed, or in this case rendered.
Based on the apparent scale I figure they could get away with an Antares miniature 3-4 ft. in length to film it alongside the 11 ft. Enterprise. If they made the Antares only 2 ft. then they would have to film it a bit different, a bit more in the foreground, to make it look a bit larger.
The size of the Antares’ impulse engines is a coincidence as I was just trying to size them right figuring they couldn’t be too small.
I was really tempted to light the windows and various lights, but since that wouldn’t have happened for such a miniature on TOS I opted to just painting those details and hope they could show off when filmed, or in this case rendered.
Based on the apparent scale I figure they could get away with an Antares miniature 3-4 ft. in length to film it alongside the 11 ft. Enterprise. If they made the Antares only 2 ft. then they would have to film it a bit different, a bit more in the foreground, to make it look a bit larger.
Last edited:
Similar threads
