# Painting the Refit (ST:TMP)



## Gunstar1

This thread is meant to be a guide for painting the Enterprise as seen in 
Star Trek: The Motion Picture

Accuracy is the name of the game here as far as discussion goes. Of course anyone can make posts in the forums about how they painted their model. Duplicating the paint job would be impossible so there will always be choice and interpretation in our own renditions - but this particular thread is meant to be a resource (like the "refit inaccuracies and fixes" sticky) based on how the ship was actually painted and actually looked. 

As far as painting schemes for the other movies, other threads should probably be started for these other variations to avoid confusion - the TMP paint job, completed by Paul Olsen and regarded by many as some of the best work done on a studio miniature, is the goal of this thread - ST:II through the present does not really apply (as far as reference material, though there are a few exceptions). And in regards to reference material, it seems that the only images that are legitimate are screencaps from TMP, promotional images before production of ST:II, and the black & white images on Cloudster's website. If anyone has access to other images, maybe you could post them here as well!


I've had the pleasure of conversing with Paul Olsen over the past couple months about how he painted the ship (to clarify various statements on his web site) and this is essentially how he did it:

The surface (as it was before Paul started painting it) can be divided into 4 categories:
1. White primer (most of the plastic body)
2. Blue plastic (molded inserts - front edges of pylons, dorsal front & top, nacelle front ends etc)
3. Green Engineering areas (Secondary hull forward, strongback, stripes on dorsal, stripes on inner pylons)
4. Exposed/lit areas (warp grilles, intakes, deflector, exhausts etc etc)

The only areas that Paul applied paint to was #1 - to the white primed surface.

What he applied was 4 pearlescent lacquer paints: blue, green, gold, red - and that's the order in terms of what colors were used most (blue most, red least) though coverage would be best described as Blue 100%, Green 80%, Gold 75%, Red 70% (this will makes sense further down)

There is no gloss and matte finish flip-flopping going on. Area #1, after pearl colors are added, is really all gloss (well, more like a satin finish) and the rest (2,3,4) are matte finish.

Attached is a pdf that briefly describes and greatly simplifies what Paul did.
(the paneling is based on a saucer deflector grid section seen in a screencap from TMP - most of the smaller panels are accurate, though hastily put together in Adobe Illustrator as I was merely putting it together for Paul to look at as a point of reference)

You could start by covering the entire white surface with a very very light layer of blue.

Then the basic aztec pattern would be applied (also lightly) with green. There is a little bit of variation to this, depending on what part of the ship you are painting. Of note: The underside of the back end of the secondary hull and the shuttlebay doors have no paneling. Both areas are sprayed freehand in sweeping strokes going up and down the long axis using all colors (the vertical axis for the shuttlebay)

For the smaller paneling it gets fun.

In the pdf, steps 2-7 really represent maybe 50 (guestimate, but I need a big number to get the point across) applications of paint. First thing to note, you can't get by with just one frisket for each color. One grid area (as represented) is not the same as the next, or even the next 3 over in the same row (in the deflector grid). Also, as the different layers get added, all 4 colors are used and at various intensities such that some panels will stick out more - sometimes a particular panel may be several layers of the same color (this explains my comments above on % of paint coverage - % of surface area covered - such that, for example, there is only about 20% of the white surface that has no green whatsoever...there may be areas - half of the 80%, let's say - where there is only a very very faint amount of green, the rest is more visible). Because the applications are all very light (some more so than others) it takes a lot of time for just one grid space. A LOT. 

Paul used a combination of friskets and tape (for the smallest areas and those tricky compound curves). Almost all of the panels are painted independent of each other (depressing, isn't it?) - allowing for greater variation in intensity and color. The only situation where you can actually "spray all at once" is for the basic aztec pattern. Paul did not cut out friskets to cover, for example, a whole column of the saucer deflector grid.... he cut friskets of the individual PANELS (he spent a week doing JUST that. A week. Cutting friskets. Don't forget... he used a lot of tape besides.) That's one frisket = one panel. Paul told me "zillions". The bright side is that a particular frisket could be used alot.

The panels are only partly defined by the larger aztec pattern. Some panels are simply subdivisions, others stretch to cross and cover both green and blue patterns. The panels vary in shape from square all the way to very thin rectangles. The pylons, dorsal, and nacelles get more complicated in terms of shapes. The smaller paneling does overlap - eg a red panel might partially lay on top of part of a gold panel. The overlapping has a method to it though: you will not find 2 corners of one panel in the middle of another panel - usually at least one edge is shared if there is obvious overlapping (see pdf)

The effect of putting the paint on like this leaves a very smooth sheen - no matte finish anywhere on the white hull. In other words, the aztec is not a gloss and matte flip flopping pattern. Some of the black and white cloudster images demonstrate how glossy the ENTIRE ship is.
Depending on the angle and room lighting, it will sometimes look essentially white - the aztec and paneling are meant to be more of a "seasoning" of the base coat - like mostly transparent nylons.

As defined at the beginning of this post, the area (#1) is essentially glossy/satin, while the green areas (#3) are matte, and the blue (#2) are sort of in between, closer to matte.

I think this is enough to get people scrambling to their photo resources and take a second look at what is going on in that incredible paint job.

let the discussion begin! (hopefully with some postings of pictures that we haven't seen yet, or better yet links to where people are storing pictures)

Interested in hearing how people want to deal with this (if they are crazy enough like me!)

Gunstar1


----------



## SteveR

Thanks for the research, Gunstar1. Your hard work is appreciated. :thumbsup: 

So the ship is basically "evenly uneven" in its aztec colouring? I mean, can we assume he had no plan to bias the saucer toward cool colours, the secondary toward warm colours ...?

If the matte/gloss issue is laid to rest, the Cloudster B&W shots may be easier to interpret, with the values in the photos more consistently representing specific colour tints. That said, do you think there's any chance of approaching some sort of correlation between B&W value and colour? Say, assuming panchromatic film, the darker colours might be blue, with the lighter colours being gold ...?


----------



## Raist3001

------


----------



## Gunstar1

Paul said that the whole ship tends toward the cooler blue tones (green included) as they are the primary aztec makeup - though he did not want to say that the gold and red were merely accents. Looking at a screencap might help you.......

Star Trek TMP Screencaps 

(These are screencaps I made with the intent of studying the paneling, as well as some promo images.)

......it's my current opinion that the secondary hull is a little warmer but BARELY. The analysis I first posted applies to the whole ship (remember the percentages, 100, 80, 75, 70) so there is a good mix but the mix tends to be a little cooler.

I think color can be inferred (is that the right word, or even a word?) from the black & white pictures.... this is what I think needs to be done:

- experiments with the various ways to switch an image from color to black & white to best represent regular B&W developing (I will eventually get to that in photoshop)

- using screencaps and promo images, match the correct colors to some of the B&W pics (the panels)

- then map out as best as possible the rest
But it must be taken into consideration that because these are pearlesccent, they invert depending on the lighting, which is why we would need color references whenever possible (it can be difficult to interpret the color image as well!)


----------



## SteveR

Thanks again, Gunstar.

Call me crazy, but screencap TMP092 suggests that there are different reflective values on the primary hull aztec, right below the "NCC" in particular. I interpret the dark portion as being matte, and the bright bluish portion as more reflective, reflecting the dental light below (angle of incidence/reflection).

I realize that Paul is da man and I have great respect for him, but if the surface is of a uniform sheen, how can we account for the difference in values in the section below the "NCC"?


----------



## Griffworks

An excellent resource! Thanks for sharing your research. This is what The Hobby should be about - people working together, sharing information and just enjoying themselves. :thumbsup:


----------



## Gunstar1

The issue of the sheen flip flop is the very reason why I talked to Paul Olsen in the first place, and I had him look at the screencaps as well. In the past I was doubtful that matte & gloss flip-flopping was involved. I could always find a picture of one panel that seemed to not reflect, and then another picture of the same panel where it did reflect. Paul was very adamant that all he put on was the 4 pearls and NOTHING else - no additional matte or gloss finishes, and he confirmed that every last millimeter of the white hull was indeed covered many times by the pearls. The effect is a result of the properties of the pearl paints. I think it will take people experimenting on this with actual paint (doing a similar method with no matte or gloss) and document it for us to fully grasp the effects of doing this kind of paint job/dealing with this kind of paint - and figuring out what is the best paint out there for the job.....

Part of his explanation ...... remember, the angle changes the effect for pearls to the point of this comparison : "red pearl is to green pearl" as "matte is to gloss". Depending on the angle of light, you could change that relationship to as "gloss is to matte"...... in other words, you should always be able to find some angle of light that will reflect on any panel ....

Also there are more intensely covered areas that will reflect more. There are different properties to the different colors as well - hence the need for a painting demonstration of just the 4 pearls....


----------



## SteveR

Hmm ... time for some tests, then!


----------



## Pidg

Gunstar, I completely agree with you, but it also means that an exact copy is impossible. As different pearl paints have different amonts of reflective material contained therin, and light absorption is based of the wavelength of the color in nanometers, you will never get a match, even using the same manufacturer paints, as batch lots of paint will differ slightly. Even the way the particles align in the substrate as the paint cures will change the look. Has anyone ever had to do a paint repair on a metallic car ?. Getting the pattern to match requires a real expert. That's my two cents, but I really would love to hear more about techniques people have tried to reproduce this look. I remember one posted here done with nail polish, that looked interesting.

Mark.


----------



## marc111

Thanks alot for all of the great info. A small suggestion, the overlapping PDF might be easier to see if the colors were brighter.

You have sent me back to looking closely at the screencaps again comparing these new thoughts to the patterns and effects seen there.

Good Work,
Mark


----------



## starseeker

This is a great thread. Thanks for starting it. Paul Olsen is just a wonderful, kind guy for taking time answering our questions. Last year I asked him about his paint job and part of his reply was: "I airbrushed the entire ship, including the hull or main fuselage (the "cigar shape) and the engine pods...there was what Andy Probert called the "engineering section" which was only a vertical bit on the dorsal dish support that was painted by Ron Gress in "Railroad" colors...paints specially made for model railroaders. No pearlescent paints were used on that section...it was a flat sage green... I used friskets (stencils made of 5 thousandths acetate sheets) for the whole ship...combining various shapes and sizes of friskets over each other to create a layered effect, which also made the colors really pop and pearlesce...unfortunately, they could not light the ship brightly to really show off the pearl paints because the light "kicks" from the gleaming paint would have made it impossible to "pull a matte" (isolate the ship) from its background, so a star field or planet could be dropped behind it cleanly....hence it was shot in low light, which didn't do the paintjob justice."

I think I pulled this quote from the Starship Modeler site: "I would say AT LEAST twice as many man hours went into the preparation of the surface than my finish, which took me six months, working 5 to 7 days a week, upwards of 16 hours a day! Over the course of six months, I probably averaged 12 hours per day, 7 days a week..."

Obviously, this wasn't a job; this was a labor of love. They're lucky they found Mr. Olsen.

No question: there is never going to be an "accurate" repro of the E's paint. Even if we were to put in the thousands of hours or could find the original, forgotten paints. And also as the original no longer exists for us to reference. But that does take a lot of pressure off. 

Something I'm still trying to find info about: "The underside of the fuselage" [the fantail] "was sprayed free-form with no friskets, using all the colors and going back and forth along the length of it in "rays" to make it look like energy was flowing from there."
I've never seen a photo of this area on the original refit. Does anyone have one or know of a link?


----------



## Gunstar1

Here's a b&w comparison -
I have not found any color images besides screencaps (see link a few posts above).
It's obvious though that there are no painted panels present (refit). Because it looks solid (and because of what you can see in the screencap), I believe that it's essentially lengthwise bands layered over each other, such that an application of the blue, for example, would leave some lengthwise gaps (but very soft gradient shifts) that would then be filled in by the next color, and the process would repeat many times


----------



## Raist3001

------


----------



## PixelMagic

Pretty cool, Raist. I like it. Although, for my own model, I don't think I want so many colors. Maybe a more sublt color variation, almost grey.


----------



## marc111

Tony,
First, thanks alot for trying out a test paint effect and sharing.
Your pictures are really interesting. From the pictures it looks like you used the green overcoat to create the background for the blue aztec to show through. I.e. the background was green over the blue overall coat. This gives some significant green shading to the background. 

After seeing your test I went back and looked at the screencaps. My impression is that perhaps the opposite was done. i.e. the green was used to greate the aztec and the blue left as background. I suggest this because the coloration is predominantly blue in the screencaps. (See the caps as the underside of the saucer goes past.

This might make a good test on another segment to see.

Let us know what you think.

Mark


----------



## Gunstar1

Yeah, that's looking great Tony -
Another test to consider is comparing different densities of each of the 4 colors - like creating a gradient scale for each color, and then seeing how they interact with each other....

One thing to think about for the apparent onscreen colors of the pearls - 
the final shots in the film are in relatively low light (the green pearls onscreen look more like dark gray).... also, what happens if you add a bit of blue to the green pearl to take the yellows out (I don't have any pearl paints onhand myself, yet) in order to cool it down a bit more?


----------



## Raist3001

------


----------



## Raist3001

------


----------



## Opus Penguin

Thanks for these tests Raist! I wish I had the time and money to try and run these tests myself. However, your research is invaluable. I want to get mine as close as to what the studio model is described to have looked like myself, so I am closely following this thread.

BTW - on the cloudster website, the model is described as being a shiny white color with these pearlescent colors adding to the effect. Basically in real life it looked white with these other colors only visable when the light caught it (and even then barely visible). The pictures you show have more bolder pearlescent colors. Is it possible these shadings are even more subtle on the studio model than what you provide in your pictures?


----------



## Raist3001

------


----------



## Opus Penguin

It would be interesting to get Paul Olsen's opinion on your test to see how accurate it may be. From what he describes you actually may have it dead-on. However, since he was the one who painted the original, he would be able to say how accurate you were in the variations. Is there anyway someone could show him the pictures and get his opinion?


----------



## Gunstar1

I probably could, given that I've been discussing this stuff with him for a long time now....

BUT - I think we might need to give him a broader sampling (as opposed to just one paint job) because, as he agreed with me, 30 years is a long time to remember all the details.... it took me a couple of months to get some of the info from him. As he put it - it was just a job. (albeit a job that he wished he would have taken hundreds of photographs of)


----------



## uss_columbia

^ Painting the Enterprise can't ever be "just a job!" (At least at first. It may have become a job during the long tedious weeks of it. But then at its completion it would be back to being more than just a job, I would think.)

In his own words:


> BRRRRRINNNNGGG! "Hello?"
> 
> "Paul, it's Ed......how would you like to paint the Starship Enterprise?"
> 
> There was only one answer to THAT question. I will always be indebted to Ed for that one wonderful phone call...it got me the greatest gig going, and shoed me into the movie business.


----------



## Gunstar1

"just a job" ---- I was quoting him from a conversation I had with him 3 weeks ago. Further context: it was in reference to the fact that he doesn't have answers to everything even though he painted it (30 years ago) - just like us, he also would like to have color pictures of the Enterprise. (also his words)

So as folks are thinking that it would be great to send Paul Olsen images of our paint jobs, he would probably say "that's a great paint job/interpretation/representation" rather than "oh yeah - that's how I did it" - he can really only relate his methods (and that is why I have been picking his brain), not the final product. All he has on that (final product) is his memory from 30 years ago. Can anyone here remember exact shades of color from 30 years ago? 

But I think that all our combined efforts with observation, research, and experimentation could give us the blueprints for getting as close to the "real thing" as possible. Even Paul said he can't replicate the paint job. He made a lot of decisions in the painting process according to his artistic instinct. It's like when I used to "replicate" Winslow Homer watercolor paintings. You can study techniques of the artist and other artists, but all you have to go off of is a CMYK print of his painting, and as an artist you need to make decisions on how best to approach the "apparent" original as well as projecting what the original is meant to be. We need to assemble the best "source" image (observation & research) possible and have the best techniques (experimentation) figured out so that we can each approach the Enterprise (as it's meant to be) as best we can.


----------



## uss_columbia

Sure. We don't expect him to remember all the details from almost 30 years ago. It's cool he's willing to share what he can remember!


----------



## Raist3001

------


----------



## Griffworks

I think you underestimate yourself, Tony.


----------



## Raist3001

------


----------



## marc111

I think I agree with you Tony, the iradescent powders look really good. Iwould like to go back to one of my comments. 








As I look at the screen caps it seems to me that the background of the pattern, the Black in the above pattern is the basic blue background and the white is where the green and blue would overlap. 

Looking at your experiment it seems to me that you did the opposite of this and have the green in the black areas. (Am I correct?) perhaps you might want to try one this way.



Regards, 
Mark


----------



## Raist3001

------


----------



## Gunstar1

I'm confused - you are only painting the secondary pattern over the green OR the blue? It should be both - the secondary pattern covers the entire surface (the secondary pattern is many layers thick - built up with many very light patterns, some lighter than others - see first post in this thread) 

You can see this in the screencaps as well.

TMP Screencaps 

For quick reference, check image 109.


----------



## Raist3001

------


----------



## Raist3001

------


----------



## Opus Penguin

Just so I am not confused, and following this thread correctly, are you saying in the screencap 109 the dark grey areas are pearl green (not sure what the light grey would be), the white areas pearl blue, and the overlapping (almost gold colored) areas are pearl red ? That is how I am guessing it if correct. I understand they all overlap but I am trying to get a better sense of the color pattern.


----------



## Gunstar1

I'll post a detailed analysis of that area later this afternoon.

....make that later tonight.


----------



## Raist3001

------


----------



## marc111

Raist3001 said:


> Hi Mark. Thanks for including that photo, it will make my explanation easier
> 
> In the picture, think of the black areas as the template. I first spray my white base coat, then I sprayed a blue pearl over this. I then lay my template (Black areas/Aztek Dummy). The templates cover a portion of of the blue coat. I then spray my main aztec using a green pearl. My secondary aztecs are sprayed over the green (which is the white sections in your picture) thus breaking up the main green pattern.
> 
> So.....the black (in the picture you provided) on my experiment is blue, and the white sections are green. It is in the white sections that my secondary aztecs were sprayed.
> 
> We are basically just dealing with a positive and negative image.
> 
> I believe what you are trying to say is that my main aztecs should be BLUE and not green, and the blue is what should be broken up by the secondary pattern. Is that correct? I will be experimenting with that set up tonight  Thanks Mark.
> 
> Stay tuned


Thanks for the explanation Tony. In answer to your question yes that is waht I was trying to suggest.

I suggest also taking a look at TMP 240 as well as a reference.


----------



## Raist3001

------


----------



## fiercegaming

Tony you maybe right with your last thought about cutting out each individual piece. I just got an email back from Paul early this morning concerning the paint...here is what he had to say if anyone is interested.


> Nick....
> 
> The color choices were random, but I tended to favor the cool colors---blue and green---and used the warmer colors more for effect and to punch out a panel or door section or vary the color4 on a blue or green panel...that kind of thing...but there wasn’t much in it one way or the other. The idea was to make the ship look like an opal. Just keep that in mind and you won’t go wrong. I hardly had any panel that was just one color (unless they were really tiny ones)...usually a mixture of colors and some panels stronger than others in terms of how many passes of paint I made on each of them. It was all instinct. Some panels faded from one color to another. The only way you can do this is to do what looks good to you. But I strongly urge you to test your colors, your spray technique, etc, on scrap bits of plastic until you are happy with your results.
> 
> I spent 3 or 4 days playing with the colors and getting the hang of them before I started painting...and remember, I was an experienced illustrator and airbrush artist by this time and very comfortable with all the ins and outs of airbrushing. The only way you learn that is by doing.
> 
> Always remember with airbrushing....easy does it. You can always ADD color....you can’t take it away. Very light passes and build up your colors. And you may want to go back and revisit panels...so leave them all a bit underdone so you can go back and goose them up.
> 
> Good luck!
> 
> 
> Paul


"I hardly had any panel that was just one color". This tells me if we want to come close in the look Paul had we may need to cut out each shape as Tony suggested. By the way nice tests Tony!


----------



## SteveR

My current interpretation of the primary hull screencaps is this: divvy up 70-90% of the positive aztec, but divvy up only 10-30% of the negative aztec. Flop for the adjacent panels, and repeat with variations.

As a result, in most panels, one "phase" aztec is relatively clean, whereas the "opposite phase" aztec is divided up into smaller panels.

I also think that blue was the main tint on the primary hull.

Just my opinion ,,, 

fiercegaming: thanks for forwarding Paul's advice.

Tony: nice tests! How long do you think it would take for you to do the whole ship?


----------



## Opus Penguin

I agree ... very nice tests. It is looking even better. Perhaps from Paul's suggestion above, adding more the cooler colors will have it down with some minor warmer colors. Boy, when I attempt this I suspect I will be pulling my hair out.


----------



## Gunstar1

B&W Pics 

I disagree that one aztec pattern has more paneling than the inverse -
Especially of note is the image (in the link above) looking from the side - upper right in the picture is a grid where the light is hitting it just right so that all you see is small paneling - and lots of it.
I think that the light plays tricks (on any photo or screencap) such that though the paneling is totally covering the entire surface (not just 70% of one pattern and 20% of the other) it takes just the right angle to really see everything.
In the other picture (looking from the front) you can see several grid boxes where the positive pattern is broken up, and then in the next box over the negative pattern is equally broken up.


----------



## Raist3001

------


----------



## Gunstar1

4 layers of 100% paint coverage with each color, no. Many layers of various coverages/transparencies, yes. At least that's what Paul Olsen says. And that's why it's so hard to figure out what's going on in any pictures we have. I've not yet seen anyone try and do multiple and varied layers like this yet. (of course I'm very appreciative of people doing tests at all)


----------



## Raist3001

------


----------



## SteveR

By the way, I used to be a professional photographer, and I've shot a fair bit of product. So I'm used to looking for, creating, and reducing specular and diffuse highlights. 

Sorry, I still stand by my statement. Maybe I'll rephrase it: if some panels didn't have a dominant aztec shape visible, we wouldn't see an "aztec" at all, just a random set of little panels _all over the ship_. The B&W screenshots just show some panels with _no_ aztec, but they also show some _with_ an aztec shape.

My point is: if, in a grid segment, the positive aztec was broken up just as much as the negative aztec, then we wouldn't see any aztec shape at all. Therefore, on _some_ grid sections, the "breaking up" is applied more to one aztec shape, and less to its opposite in that grid section, since we can see a discernable aztec shape there.

I am willing to revise my estimates: maybe half of the grid sections show a prominent aztec shape, (at least) half do not (as you've pointed out). But we all _see_ the aztec shapes in various places, otherwise it's a collective hallucination.

So what would cause an "aztec" shape to stand out from its surroundings in a B&W photo? Since film only records reflected light, there are our choices:
- different value (light/dark) of paint colour
- different reflectivity

So maybe the breakup within the discernable aztec shape consists of paints that have a different value or reflectivity from those in the more broken-up section?

Or ... the aztec was painted by Zuzana Swansea before Paul got to it, yes? So do we know how that was painted? Flat/satin? Maybe Paul's paints which covered the entire hull, still show the effects of the original aztec underneath?

Maybe that's the theory that covers all bases: 
1. Zuzana's aztec was matt & satin white.
2. Paul applied paints of a uniform sheen (as he wrote) over the original aztec in small panels.
3. Any sheen differences (which _I_ see, at least) are the result of the original matt/satin aztec showing through a series of sort-of random coloured panels painted by Paul.

Just a theory ...


----------



## Gunstar1

1. Zuzana had the idea of the design. She "lacked the skill for airbrushing" and so the job (in it's entirety) was given to Paul (and his helpers). Zuzana applied no paint. Paul applied all the paint (to the white surface) - and confirmed that he painted on the aztec pattern (WITH PEARLS) - and painted it first - as shown at the beginning of this thread.
2. THERE IS NO SATIN OR GLOSS OR SEMIGLOSS FLIP-FLOPPING WITH A LESS REFLECTIVE SURFACE. Paul confirmed this and that he covered the white surface with MANY LAYERS OF VARIED INTENSITY (mostly very light) OF 4 PEARLS. What we see, as far as the surface playing tricks on us, is a result of the varying reflectivity of the 4 pearl paints and the layering and the different intensities of individual panels.

Everything above is what Paul told me.

I'm not saying: "oh, did you realize there's some grid areas with no aztec"
I meant to use those areas as an example of how what you see all depends on the angle of light - such that there are angles where the aztec itself does not stand out very much but some smaller panels do, but then, change the angle of light and PRESTO! - now you only see the aztec and not much of the paneling break-down. The TMP screencaps ---- look at the beauty pass the ship does at the end just before final warp - as the underside passes above, you can see the change happening with the angle of light changing - one moment, an aztec may have a very discernable rectangle in gold, then half a second later that gold rectangle is invisible.


----------



## marc111

Just for clarification on the discussion when you use the terms positive and negative azrtec... Could someone define (with a picture, feel free to use the one I posted on page 2) what is meant by each so we do not misinterpret.

Thanks,
Mark


----------



## Opus Penguin

marc111 said:


> Just for clarification on the discussion when you use the terms positive and negative azrtec... Could someone define (with a picture, feel free to use the one I posted on page 2) what is meant by each so we do not misinterpret.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mark


Mark, I have been following what you posted earlier in the thread, so if it isn't correct I am not sure which is which now. I am assuming the darker aztec is the positive whereas the lighter is the negative (not including all the individual panelings which we are following here) ... am I wrong on that?


----------



## starseeker

Mr. Olsen doesn't mention anyone else painting the E except for the primer prep people and the person who painted the green "strongback", and he seems quite scrupulous on giving credit where it's due. 

He says: "The panels on the dish were an Aztec motif... Each panel had the same Aztec design, but was broken up in different ways with differing patterns and colors." 

In STTMP+II whenever the E catches light, as far as I can see the reflectivity of its surface seems the same all over (high?) gloss.

I read a comment somewhere (does anyone know the source?) that overall the TMP E appeared to the eye (despite all the colors) to be the whitest of white miniatures. If that's true, it should give some idea of the subtlety of the opalescent coats of paint Mr. Olsen gave it.


----------



## uss_columbia

^ You're probably thinking of Phil Broad describing it as white (on cloudster).


> What Color is it?
> 
> This is a question often heard among fans of this ship. Having seen it with my own eyes I can tell you with authority that the ship is white overall. Not different shades, just white. The panels which appear to be different shades are actually just different amounts of gloss or flat finish, the basic color underneath is white. Some of the panels also included a pearlescent finish which introduces a reddish cast when seen from certain angles. There are some areas that have different colors, most trim colors were light blue and medium blue with red pin stripes and yellow boxes where phaser banks were mounted. There was also a very very light blue dusting applied in some areas, almost like weathering. This was particularly visible on the forward portions of the engine nacelles.


----------



## starseeker

No, not that. Someone describes it as brilliant white or the whitest thing he's ever seen. Something like that. I'll see if I can search it out. Mr. Olsen describes his finished work as looking like a giant opal. The above quote makes me think that Phil Broad might be describing the an overpainted E, with just a bit of the pearl left. ???


----------



## starseeker

And, he says, rapidly grinding to a halt, see if I can tell which of the E's 3 paint jobs he was talking about.
Which reminds me, there was another thread 2 to 1 year ago re the colors of the E, which did a great job in sorting out the variations from paint job to paint job, esp a summary post by Krako. So far this thread has focused only on the original Olsen painting.
The B&W pictures BTW: do we know for certain that they are of Olsen's original or could they be of the matted down for filming variation. And would that make any difference in the variations between gloss between the aztecs?


----------



## uss_columbia

He was quite specific that they were taken shortly after ST:TMP.


> The photos seen here in the B&W gallery were taken by me shortly after the first film had wrapped up production. You will notice in these shots that the ship appears real even in these poorly lit photographs, a testament to the ultra-high quality of the builders efforts.


----------



## Gunstar1

This thread, called " Painting the Refit ST:TMP " is meant to be a tool/resource for us to approach Olsen's paint job as best we can - this is the basis (undercoat, that is) for subsequent re-paintings of the studio model, and this thread would remain more intelligible if it was devoted to the original. (see initial posting)

There's nothing stopping others from starting threads on paint jobs for the other movies.


----------



## starseeker

Yes, just wanted to mention the other threads on other variations. This is a great thread on the Olsen paint job (the Only paint job that matters over here) and I especially like the color/masking analysis/experiments. Learning a lot. Thanks!


----------



## Raist3001

------


----------



## uscav_scout

Raist...your work rivals that of ILM! Any coments that you may have (to me anyway) seems as if from a master instructor or something. No I'm not kissing up, I don't do that (I'm a freeking Drill Sergeant) I call a spade a spade and coulf care less what people think about it. 

For you military types, I got a counseling packet about an inch thick just on my cussing out the recruits!

Back to the model stuff

Glad I got this info BEFORE I started to paint! still a little confused on the strong back is it green or blue or somewhere in between. In the movie it looked gray. Of course I cant afford a HD TV on a SSG (E6) salary. 

Has anyone seen the A. Probert paint job, the one witht he red lines around stuff? Just currious.

RECON


----------



## starseeker

Too early in the morning: duplicate post. See below. Sorry.


----------



## starseeker

The strongback is one of those questions that was dissected to death in one of those other threads. Now do you think I can locate either other thread to provide a link??? Sigh. But someone reading this knows where it is/they are, I'm sure. [Edit:]
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=114719&highlight=strongback
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=1417734&postcount=13
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=110686&highlight=strongback
Also: woke up just now with the thought in my head that I forgot to make the point in my previous post that was going to be the point of my previous post, possibly because it was such a small one. But anyway: 

Then those photos Do show the E after Mr Olsen's paint job was dulled down for filming. If I remember correctly, didn't they use talcum powder or some such? If that's the case, you wouldn't think it would adhere that evenly that well, esp with a lot of handling, or possibly even have been applied all over the E - perhaps just to those portions that were on camera - and that might explain dissimilarities in the reflectivity and possibly the opacity in the photos that we see.

Also: this thread is (I say again, a great) attempt at figuring out how the E was originally painted, using the original painter's methods. But what he did isn't quite how the E appeared on screen in TMP. That was with non-Olsen final addition of a (talc?) dullcoat to knock down reflectivity and negate much of what he says he had done. I'm personally going for the opal stone Olsen E look, but since he's one of the only people to have ever seen it, and no one recorded it as it was at the time, it's going to be pretty much a matter of guesswork as to whether I've achieved it or not.


----------



## Gunstar1

The B&W photos show it to be highly reflective.

Talcum powder?
Paul said that the solution (for TMP) was to shoot in low light, which is why the ship looks so dark in TMP and not in the other movies.


----------



## starseeker

I'm sure I read on a thread somewhere here (and I've just skimmed thru a few but boy are there a lot of threads on painting the E) that it was also dusted with something to cut the reflectivity, as well as shot in low light. Hardly a definitive statement but maybe someone will read this who's heard the same thing and remembers where. Sigh.


----------



## d_jedi1

umm.... I believe it was in the director's commentary on Star Trek II...
then again I may be wrong


----------



## Fly-n-hi

Raist,

I might have missed it but what brand of paints did you use on your test Model?


----------



## TrekFX

I know I keep dragging these movies and stuff out but they may point in an interesting direction. I based most of my tests on that shot in ST:TMP showing the saucer underside with the lower front spotlight switching on, observing the changes in the appearance of the paint patterns. I also looked at various still images where the saucer is at an oblique angle vs. more direct perspectives. You all know where to look to find these.

I see a final paint pass creating a “positive” and “negative” main aztec. Under that, a number of sub-patterns. I did the following tests on the old ERTL kit to establish if I was on the right track:


Beauty passes in need of a SteadyCam

http://members.aol.com/trekfx/1701_refit_paint.avi



Outakes, and the real Parawhatever Pictures mascott making a rare public appearance!

http://members.aol.com/trekfx/AztecOutakes.mov



Some background on my effort

http://members.aol.com/trekfx/RefitAztecDevelopment.jpg

http://members.aol.com/trekfx/Refit_Friskets.jpg
(PS: It’s standard interference blue pearl, not “flip.”

Paints used were a base of Tamiya flat white; simplified sub-patterns are Future acrylic with gold pearl (Pearl-Ex brand powder) with Tamiya flat base added to vary the sheen. I also added small amounts of blue paint to offset the yellowish hue created by the pearl pigments. The final “Main Aztec” was shot with Future and blue pearl. I don’t know if the actual miniature’s main pattern was done in pearl or just a clear overcoat of a different sheen. My final result seems to be a compromise between the brilliant “opal” look of the actual ST:TMP miniature shot in full light and the dulled-down ST II look.

As far as what the ST II crew did to dull the finish, I think I read somewhere "dullcote" which implies the Testors product. Who knows... they may have used anything! It sure left quite an orange-peel surface obliterating much of the fine quality of Mr. Olsen's craftsmanship.

Sure do enjoy these threads!


----------



## Opus Penguin

TrekFX said:


> I know I keep dragging these movies and stuff out but they may point in an interesting direction. I based most of my tests on that shot in ST:TMP showing the saucer underside with the lower front spotlight switching on, observing the changes in the appearance of the paint patterns.


These look very good!!! Any chance of providing a template somewhere for each layer and what colors you used for each layer, with instructions on how you were able to achieve this effect? I would even be willing to pay for some type of painting instruction manual.


----------



## X15-A2

I hadn't looked at this thread before because I had no intention on ever attempting to recreate the paint scheme of the original E refit however, after reading through the posts, I now think that it might even be possible for me to do (not exactly of course but I think that I might be able to make something passable).

When it comes to remembering the paint scheme that I saw when I took those photos (Cloudster site), I have the same problem that Mr. Olsen has, it was a very long time ago. I have always remembered the "strongback" area as being painted in shades of blue, rather than green but if Mr. Olsen says that it was green then I would have to defer to his opinion. Funny how the memory works.

If anyone has questions for me now, fire away.

Phil


----------



## Opus Penguin

X15-A2 said:


> If anyone has questions for me now, fire away.
> 
> Phil


Phil,

Do you remember the surface being like Paul Olsen described it, basically in different layers of pearlescent colors but overall white? You described on your site that it was different shades of white but that goes against what is described in this thread. I am just curious if what Paul describes could also be accurate to what you saw.


----------



## X15-A2

You didn't read my page very carefully, from the text there regarding what color is the ship: "This is a question often heard among fans of this ship. Having seen it with my own eyes I can tell you with authority that the ship is white overall. Not different shades, just white."

So, I'm in line with everyone else it would seem. 

Phil


----------



## fiercegaming

starseeker said:


> I'm sure I read on a thread somewhere here (and I've just skimmed thru a few but boy are there a lot of threads on painting the E) that it was also dusted with something to cut the reflectivity, as well as shot in low light. Hardly a definitive statement but maybe someone will read this who's heard the same thing and remembers where. Sigh.



Yeah I remember that too, don't remember where ethier. That was for TWOK though wasn't it. In the motion picture they just shot in low light.



> You didn't read my page very carefully, from the text there regarding what color is the ship: "This is a question often heard among fans of this ship. Having seen it with my own eyes I can tell you with authority that the ship is white overall. Not different shades, just white."
> 
> So, I'm in line with everyone else it would seem.
> 
> Phil


Phil I thought when you said that that you were talking about the A and not the refit? I've probably mistaken though.


----------



## Opus Penguin

X15-A2 said:


> Not different shades, just white."
> 
> So, I'm in line with everyone else it would seem.
> 
> Phil


Ah. I did misread that. Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## fiercegaming

Many don't remember though that in the TWOK they used a lot of the same shots as in the motion picture so the paint job didn't change in those obviously. Anyway I will see what I go about doing with pauls paint job (some tests etc), but that will be awhile from now...still working on lighting at the moment.


----------



## Gunstar1

X15-A2 said:


> If anyone has questions for me now, fire away.
> 
> Phil


Here's a Q: (all in regards to the B&W pictures you took when ST:TMP just finished)

1. What do you remember about the underside of the hangar area? Paul says that he sprayed it freehand with the pearl paints, length-wise.

2. The overall color is white, but what about the sheen? Many of the pictures show the entire surface to be pretty reflective. Some angles it looks like some panels do not reflect, but what makes this difficult to determine is the different pearl paints and how they interact with light. Would you say that the entire surface (white surface) was uniformly reflective (glossy-satin or something), or was it broken up by some panels being glossier than others (for example, such that some panels are the pearl paints while others are just the bare hull)?

3. Do you recall anything about the pearl-toned panels? Could you distinguish between blue, green, gold, and red, or was any of these colors more noticeably predominant? It seems that blue is most evident, but could you see much green in the mix?

Thanks
Gunstar1


----------



## Gunstar1

With the unfortunate loss of Raist's (Tony's) refit-A painting thread, the discussion could be continued here. I recommend looking through this thread again, especially at the very beginning, to give everyone a context of what's going on (much more info from Paul Olsen) in the original paint job.


----------



## Griffworks

Except that it would now appear that Tony is deleting any and all of his posts in this thread. I'd wager he's doing something similar in every thread he's been a part of a discussion of, as well...........


----------



## marc111

I guess we go on without him. I am hoping to start my own tests between now and Christmas and i will post. I cptured the last set of discussions with Tony and I will be using them as my starting basis.

Mark


----------



## Raist3001

Hey guys 

My latest experiments can be found here....

http://www.enterprisecreations.com/Aztec.html


----------



## marc111

Cool Tony, Glad you are still posting.

The effect is definately more subtle and shows less yellowing effect.
My impressions.
Effect is perhaps too subtle. There doesn't seem to be an angle where the main aztec pops out enough to see.

I am concerned with the flatness. Everyone talked of that original paint effect as opalescent to the point where the sheen gave them masking problems with the blue screen. I think your thought on heading back towards a satin mix is probably correct.

Mark
(Driving himself crazy trying to get the shuttlebay finished.)


----------



## SteveR

That's really, nice, Tony. How does it look when you shine a spot on it obliquely?

Thanks for posting again! :thumbsup:


----------



## Raist3001

Hey Guys 

Marc, I agree with you as well. The effect is too subtle. However, if I can mix up a ratio where I can still retain the subtleness of these last experiments with the pop of a satin mix....I think I may see the light at the end of this long tunnel 

Steve, to the naked eye, these latest results are really very subtle. When light strikes the Aztec, the result is simply too flat a look. The satin ratio really makes the Aztec pop.

In the following picture, you can see the Aztec closest to you well where the light source is coming from, but it has a very flat look. Where in the distance, it appears as though the negative Aztec is quite prominent.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b391/Raist3001/Aztecs/P1010163.jpg


----------



## Treadwell

I like the subtlety, actually. I think a lot of Aztec jobs out there are a little too contrasty.

I do think, though, there might be a bit too much purple.


----------



## bigjimslade

*Painting Black*

Someone asked me about this today so I though I would share. Maybe common knowledge.

In many modeling situations, an off black looks better than a total back. For the Enterprise one of my favorite colors is Tamiya NATO Black. I use it for all black on the model. 

IMHO it looks less "fake" than a pure black.


----------



## spockboy

*Stuff To Help You Out.*

There are tons of great pics of the refit Enterprise here...

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/STMPEnterpriseColor.htm

Also, an article from the guy who actually painted it...
(watch out for loud music)

http://www.olsenart.com/strek.html

I have a PDF copy of the aztecking pattern for the saucer if you want it.
[email protected]

Hope this helps.


----------



## spockboy

*Stuff To Help You Out.*

There are tons of great pics of the refit Enterprise here...

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehic...rpriseColor.htm

Also, an article from the guy who actually painted it...
(watch out for loud music)

http://www.olsenart.com/strek.html

I have a PDF copy of the aztecking pattern for the saucer if you want it.
[email protected]

Hope this helps.


----------



## fiercegaming

Raist3001 said:


> Hey guys
> 
> My latest experiments can be found here....
> 
> http://www.enterprisecreations.com/Aztec.html


Hey Tony, long time no talk. Hows the refit going? Or did you finish it, if you did I would like to see the finished product. I'm sure I will drool when I see it . Man on mine I just haven't had the time. I will have some time after a few months, probably a little bit more in the summer hopefully.


----------



## Raist3001

fiercegaming said:


> Hey Tony, long time no talk. Hows the refit going? Or did you finish it, if you did I would like to see the finished product. I'm sure I will drool when I see it . Man on mine I just haven't had the time. I will have some time after a few months, probably a little bit more in the summer hopefully.



Hey Fierce. I am nearly done with my refit. It's been a long ride. With my back surgeries, It's a bit hard to sit for periods of time.

I just finished masking the PSA for painting tonight.

I also believe I have finally hit upon what I feel is the best paint mixture to date for creating the Aztec. 

As soon as I can find my camera battery recharger, I will post an update


----------



## Raist3001

As promised...

http://www.enterprisecreations.com/Aztecpage2.html


----------



## Richard38

Raist3001,

very subtle and beautiful aztec you have there you do good work! I like it enough to steal it for my own build LOL

keep up the good work and be careful not to overdo anything to make your recovery time get longer.

Richard


----------



## RossW

Looks mahvahlous, Raist! Could you expand a bit on your paints and how you mixed them? There have been so many variations now that I don't remember what you used for a base coat, primary aztec, etc.


----------



## Opus Penguin

I sure hope you provide a tutorial on your web site Raist! Very good work!!


----------



## SteveR

Nice, Tony. Just subtle enough. :thumbsup:


----------



## fiercegaming

I think you nailed it. Man that looks close, very nice pop indeed from the various angles. Can't wait until you reveal the final product .


----------



## Raist3001

Thanks Nate


----------



## Opus Penguin

These look great Raist!!! Oh please, oh please provide an instruction sheet on how you did this, along with what paints you used!!!


----------



## Raist3001

Opus Penguin said:


> These look great Raist!!! Oh please, oh please provide an instruction sheet on how you did this, along with what paints you used!!!


Thanks Opus. I will have an update on my site soon that will reveal all color choices and mixtures and technique.

Stay tuned


----------



## Richard38

Raist3001

Excellent I look forward to it you have really captured the look of the Enterprise as seen in TMP Bravo!


Richard


----------



## Raist3001

Richard38 said:


> Raist3001
> 
> Excellent I look forward to it you have really captured the look of the Enterprise as seen in TMP Bravo!
> 
> 
> Richard


Thank you Richard. That is very kind of you to say


----------



## Richard38

Raist3001,

You are most welcome and it is well deserved

Richard


----------



## schweinhund227

Sorry to come late on this Forum...... very very interesting ways of doing things... the PDF file with the 7 paint steps... is intriguing....

And the results are beautiful !!! 

I just purchased the Painting mask from “Aztek Dummy” you can see it here... http://www.starshipmodeler.biz/index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&Product_ID=879

And was wondering if I can get the same results you guys are getting.... using that KIT ?

Don’t Beat me up too hard.... it’s my First S.T. kit in almost 30 years.... and I must confess; I might have bitten more than I can Chew !!! it’s such a massive kit.... I will sure try to give it justice! but as a S.T. Modeler NOVICE... I fear I might get the butterflies.... when come time to paint her.

And if I could get a link to those "7" templates you guys are referring or just hint me how to make them myself.. out of normal paper or Frisket plastic sheets. those seen in the PDF files offered on page one.

Thanks in advance !!!


----------



## Gunstar1

That pdf that I created in Illustrator (very quickly as an example) was meant to show the gist of how Olsen (with whom I spent a lot of time talking with and comparing images) went about painting the hull - the 7 steps are even only an abbreviated/paraphrased version that was actually repeated many times over with varying patterns. The most clear representation of the original paint job for TMP is the black n white photos on the cloudster site. Look at my first few posts (at the beginning of this thread) to understand the info presented.

To date I have not seen anyone really try to tackle a really accurate (style-wise I mean, not panel for panel exactly) panel job. The ship had been fooled around with so much after ST:TMP and onward that what was good about the paint job was largely dulled down, washed out, or as in the case of the secondary hull, totally obliterated. Do a comparison of people's kits to screen shots (of the secondary hull) and you can easily see it's much more complex than just 1 or 2 patterns. Doing repeated small (secondary) panel patterns/templates looks too predictable and unnatural.

I see little reason (sorry) in using anyones templates for paneling except for the basic pattern of the saucer and some of the warp engine and pylon detail (but then again I'm going for extreme accuracy). I will be accurizing the ship so much that there's no point in me wasting time creating designs on the computer that would only fit my ship and no one else's - and besides - Olsen did it all without cut vinyl patterns - it's too complex and for that.

I would love to show an example of my progress, but I plan on spending years on this project. What I will do is more like an artist with a 3D canvas - literally a snapshot from ST:TMP. I will paint (no electrical lighting) the ship very dark - as a reference, the nacelle grilles will be 100% black, the darkest "white" part of the ship will be about 70% black, the spot-lighted areas 15% black, and only the running lights, light sources, nav lights, windows etc would be close to 100% white - and even then there would be tints of other colors thrown in. If you look at screen caps from scenes in TMP when there is essentially no solar light source, you will see what I mean. It will be a difficult but beautiful challenge, with nuances in "ambient" lighting creating shadows and depth over the length of the ship as its form curves and disrupts the various on-ship light sources. This intricate paint job will be the "primer" for applying layer after layer of transluscent pearlescent panels all over the ship. I will even be recreating the decals to shift intensity with the changing gradient of the hull.

Uh.... so in answer to your inquiry.... there is no "7" step template in existence..... but look over my early posts and let me know if you need clarification/explanation.


----------



## Raist3001

^^^
Well....good luck with all that 

What we see on screen and how the Enterprise was actually painted are 2 different things. Quite frankly, I am not too thrilled on knowing how colorful the Enterprise was with all the flip flopping of colors. Makes no sense to me. What we see on screen does.

My experiments were always about how to best represent what we see on screen. 

I am quite thrilled with the results I have gotten.


----------



## Raist3001

schweinhund227 said:


> Sorry to come late on this Forum...... very very interesting ways of doing things... the PDF file with the 7 paint steps... is intriguing....
> 
> And the results are beautiful !!!
> 
> I just purchased the Painting mask from “Aztek Dummy” you can see it here... http://www.starshipmodeler.biz/index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&Product_ID=879
> 
> And was wondering if I can get the same results you guys are getting.... using that KIT ?


You can certainly create the main Aztec using the AD templates. That is what they were created for. On my latest experiments, I actually cut my own templates using Arthur Pendragons designs:

http://www.starshipmodeler.com/tech/cz_mask.htm

Over this I laid my secondary patterns using various shapes I cut out of thin styrene.



> but as a S.T. Modeler NOVICE... I fear I might get the butterflies.... when come time to paint her.


Fear not. We are all here to help. There are a great bunch of folks here eager and more than willing to help 



> or just hint me how to make them myself.. out of normal paper or Frisket plastic sheets. those seen in the PDF files offered on page one.


I simply used thin styrene to cut out my patterns. This way I could re-use them.

http://www.enterprisecreations.com/page2.html


----------



## Opus Penguin

Raist3001 said:


> I simply used thin styrene to cut out my patterns. This way I could re-use them.
> 
> http://www.enterprisecreations.com/page2.html


I don't suppose you could provide a secondary pattern for these on your site, could you? This would at least allow a three or four tier layering (including the initial basecoat and the AD template). This way anyone wanting to continue to a 7 tier as Gunstar is doing can continue on their own. My interntion is to try and provide as much color as possible to match the studio model, but I don't plan to try a 7 tier layering scheme. On a 1:350 model that just seems to be overkill to me, but I am sur it would look good no matter the scale. I am shooting for the 4 tier layering if I can get secondary patterns.


----------



## Opus Penguin

Just a quick question, and I apologize if this is too much a noob question, but I hear a lot of talk about wet sanding the paint job. I have never tried this, and my intention is to build the model with all lighting in it first, then paint the details. If you wet sand to smooth the paint, what is the best method for this? I understand to use as fine a grit paper as possible, but how do you wet it down without it getting everywhere? Is it best to basecoat the initial white color first, wet sand, then put it together for the aztecing detail?

Also, is putting it together first a good method before painting. I can paint before, but I am afraid after all puttying and sanding, I will be doing the aztec design all over again anyway.


----------



## Raist3001

Opus Penguin said:


> I don't suppose you could provide a secondary pattern for these on your site, could you?


The secondary patterns were created by using differently shaped cut squares and rectangles in different sizes that were sprayed one at a time over the main Aztec and outside the main Aztec. This allowed me to have much better control than applying a full cut out pattern that would be laid over an entire pie wedge on the primary hull.

I'll include photos of my secondary shapes once my Aztecing 101 page 3 is up. Should be up this weekend


----------



## jthandy

Hi All,

I am late to this journy you all are having. I am an engineer and as such am automatically slotted in the anal collumn. I recently recieved the Polar Lights Model as a Christmas gift and have entered into this obsession to make the model perfect. I started out wanting to make mine more realistic - not just another replica of the studio model. However the more I researched the whats and whys behind the model, I decided to go ahead with a more authentic replication. This board seems to be perfect for me to bounce some ideas off from. First of all I contacted Paul Olsen regarding his paint job. This guy is a wonderful human being. I asked him about some of my ideas and this was his reply.

"The Aztec pattern was simply a design device to break up all the sections with an underlying coherent design on both sides of the saucer. But the whole ship was broken into panels just as an aircraft would be...to give it a human scale. After all, the actual ship was supposed to be 1000 feet long. I cut master friskets (stencils) for the positive and the negative parts of the Aztec pattern, then lightly sprayed a pearl color for one of them, and then broke that up with lots of smaller friskets...the same for the negative (opposite, unpainted) part of the design. I gradually built up the colors and the various sized panels...many of which were overlapped to make the colors change and become more saturated. It was all hit-and-miss, just spraying various shapes on top of each other...but always square or rectangular and of various sizes. The cutting of friskets took a lot of time...but when airbrushing, you generally spend more time cutting friskets than actually spraying the illustration.

The only place I got “arty” on the panel breakup was the interlocking lightning bolt shapes on the two wings and the freeform spraying on the underside of the rear part of the fuselage...it has a name, but I don’t know what it is...that cut-out curved bit under the rear fantail. I just sprayed a longitudinal bunch of “energy” lines on that to make it look like some sort of plasma.

To get a clue as to how to break up complex or compound curve shapes, try to get a close-up view of a jet engine nacelle on a commercial airliner. That’s what I used to get me started. Then look at the wings and the tail and the fuselage. The idea for this ship was to make the pattern “understandable.” On the next movie, whoever resprayed the ship up at ILM did a brilliant job in giving it more of an ”advanced” engineering look. But because “my” ship had rectangular panels already scribed into the surface on the dish and the fuselage, I was constrained from going nuts with alien-looking breakups. I couldn’t go too crazy on the wings, because the rest of the ship was pretty orthodox in its breakup, but I managed the lightning bolt pattern.

If you use a lacquer-based pearl paint, I can’t imagine the “grains” in the pearl would show...they certainly didn’t when the camera lens was just inches away from the actual model when shooting some parts of it. It’s very fine stuff.

As to scribing....I’m not familiar with all the scribed details of the Polar Lights model, but I would stay away from scribing the plastic...that sounds like you would be opening yourself up to all sorts of nightmares.

The Big E was primed with pure white primer and sanded until it was smoother than an eggshell."

I think this adds a little more info to the mix. I will be getting back with some of my ideas in the next few weeks once I get my thoughts straight. Thanks to all of you for your past contributions which I learned from greatly. I am starting on the shuttle/cargo bay and plan to shock and awe ( I hope! ).

Just to offer a bit more to the mix - I also contacted Andrew Probert with some of my questions here are my questions and his answers. 

------------------
1. I would like to incorporate the saucer separation detail. I have the "Art of Star Trek" book which features a two page spread of the proposed ending to the motion picture where the saucer separates from the hull. I will be cutting the dorcel hull section where the separation occures. I plan on using an aluminum coupling device and latches to achieve this structural connection. Are there other materials or sources you know of that provides more detail of this topic?


AP [Nope. since that feature wasn't used, there was no need to develop it further. Be aware, though, that your mount will have to support quite an awkward and heavy overhang.]


2. The paint job of the ship: I have seen nightmares on the internet of paint jobs done by the kit builders. Everyone seems to want to replicate the wonderful pearlescent paint job on the studio model. Only a few have truely achieved this goal. In thinking about the model finish, I began to wonder why that particular surface was chosen. In the movie, the surface seems to reflect light as if each panel was separately placed - with defferent shades of white and different levels of glossiness. 

AP [Yep, that was the goal.]


This makes sence if the ship (in a hypothetical sence) was build by several different panel suppliers. The pearlescent surface seems to work well with the camera - and on screen it never looks pearlescent. My concern with a model where people will be viewing only a few inches away is that this scheme will look more like a "hot rod" paint job rather then several panels. 

AP [The pearlescence was very subtle to the naked eye,... even more so to the camera.]


ME: I want to use varying shades of white with varying levels of gloss. 


AP [Yeah, that would be just fine for that scale.]

ME: I want to maintain the Aztec patterning used on the studio ship. My questions are (A) what was the surface intended to be constructed of (in a hypothetical sence?) A new steel or aluminum like material painted white; or some new translucent material akin to transparent aluminum [ST:IV] (which would justify the pearlescent surface). 

AP [We never got into materials, hypothetical nor real. I later envisioned my Enterprise-D as being made of plastics & ceramics.]

ME: What would a panel look like - would there be markings such as those shown on the Dorcel portion of the hull (just under the saucer) as seen on ST:II? I have seen pictures on the internet that show a mock-up of the dorcel section of the hull. It shows a sort of tagging number and what appears to be latches holding the panel in place. Is this a good place to start with these details - or are there better pictures out there?

AP [Yeah, they did a great job of providing a real-world "feel" to that enlarged section. That would be the way to go, but your model isn't large enough,... or decals aren't small enough, to duplicate that 'texture'. I've included a couple of shots below for you.]

3. Botanical Gardens - I do not recalling ever seeing this in any movie or TV episode. 

AP [We've see a botanical 'section' or lab, but not the garden.]

ME: This is suposed to be located at the bottom of the hull where the big windows are. The model has big enough windows that almost require significant detail to be given. Where can I find a conceptual drawing of the garden to use as a base. 

AP [Paul Newett is a GREAT source for this kind of thing. http://www.starshipmodeler.com/trek/jl_sfam.htm]

(NOTE: I ended up ordering Newett's book.)

ME: I have seen some models pack quite a bit of vegitation in there and it looks hoaky. The same concerns apply with the officers observation deck under the bridge and the recreation room.

AP [If your details are delicate enough, it will work.]

4. This is the big one - lighting: I would like to be as authentic as I can to the original ST:TMP lighting scheme as possible. I will be putting together my own wiring for my lighing scheme. I will be doing what others have by using LEDs, aluminum tape and closed off areas to prevent light leaks. I would like to go a bit further and use fiber optics to include all the smaller lights as well. I have been attemping to find a lighting diagram or photos that points out every light on the ship. I haven't had any success yet. Is there a good source for a diagram or at least photos that show every intended light. I think models that feature the primary lights and not the rest look somewhat hoaky as well.

AP [Again, the Newett materials might be a good source along with starshipmodeler.com]

Hope you all enjoy - and if you have any info that could be added to Andrews answers please feel free to contribute.

Again, thanks!

JT


----------



## TOS Maniac

Good Luck JT! Sounds like your refit is gonna ROCK! I cant wait to see some pics! I myself am preparing to start my 2nd PL Refit. I picked one up at a local hobby shop on Monday for $20.00 - they were trying to get rid of it! I happily accomodated them.


----------



## marc111

Raist3001 said:


> I'll include photos of my secondary shapes once my Aztecing 101 page 3 is up. Should be up this weekend


Tony,
I am eagerly awaiting your Aztec 101 page 3 update. Any estimate when you will be able to post it?

Thanks,
Mark


----------



## Raist3001

marc111 said:


> Tony,
> I am eagerly awaiting your Aztec 101 page 3 update. Any estimate when you will be able to post it?
> 
> Thanks,
> Mark


HI Mark,

Page 3 is up 

http://www.enterprisecreations.com/Aztecpage3.html

If there is something you wish for me to cover that I have not, I will be glad to do so 

Page 4 will deal with the primary hull.


----------



## Opus Penguin

Raist, I noticed on your site that you base coated in white and then sprayed a very light layer of irridescent blue all over with red being part of the next pattern. Did you feel this worked best? From past posts it sounded like with the studio model, white was the hull color, and blue was part of the primary aztecing (with blue used again in different intensities as smaller panels). Just curious at your decision to do it this way, if with all your experimenting, yours seemed to be the best route.


----------



## Raist3001

Hey Opus,

After I sprayed the iridescent blue and then applied the templates, I re-applied the white base coat.


----------



## Opus Penguin

Raist3001 said:


> Hey Opus,
> 
> After I sprayed the iridescent blue and then applied the templates, I re-applied the white base coat.


Ahhh ... okay. Sounds good. I am making notes so I can try and achieve the same great results you did with as little issues as possible.


----------



## marc111

Tony,
I am curious. You are using flat white as the background and as the over spray after the blue pearl and AD templates were applied. At one point you were thinking of trying satin instead. Did you ever have a chance to try the experiment of using satin white instead of the flat?

If so, what was your opinion of the result?

Thanks,
Mark


----------



## Raist3001

marc111 said:


> Tony,
> I am curious. You are using flat white as the background and as the over spray after the blue pearl and AD templates were applied. At one point you were thinking of trying satin instead. Did you ever have a chance to try the experiment of using satin white instead of the flat?
> 
> If so, what was your opinion of the result?
> 
> Thanks,
> Mark


Hi Mark,

D'oh!

The satin is created by mixing a specific amount of Future with the flat white. Which is exactly what I did and forgot to mention that in my page 3. 

Thanks for that


----------



## Opus Penguin

So the flat white is actually a kind of satin white? Sounds even better!


----------



## marc111

Thanks Tony. The satin effect also helps explain why you are getting such good results with the lighting changes. So curiosity is killing me. What proportion of future to flat white did you use?

Mark


----------



## Raist3001

marc111 said:


> Thanks Tony. The satin effect also helps explain why you are getting such good results with the lighting changes. So curiosity is killing me. What proportion of future to flat white did you use?
> 
> Mark


Well here is the formula to start with:

1 part flat base to 15 parts Future = satin

Depending upon how much white you are mixing with the pearl blue will determine how much future you will need.


----------



## Opus Penguin

Just to clarify, you're adding this information to your web page? I just wanted to be sure as I plan to use it as a guideline. Great stuff!


----------



## marc111

Thanks for the formula update Tony. Its interesting that you got good coverage over the gray primer with a 15 to 1 dilute of the flat white.

Looking forward to your saucer update. I am buried in finishing details on the shuttlebay.

Mark


----------



## newbie dooby

Alright...gotta a dumb question...be nice...

I have the 1/350 patterns from Mr. Dummy and I am getting ready to paint.

Im just going to do a simple white base coat with a pearlescent aztek pattern.

Do I spray on my flat white base coat first...then apply the masks....then spray my pearlescent color or....

Spray the whole ship in pearlescent...apply masks...and paint flat white?

I ask because I get confused when I look at Tonys pictures of his masked secondary hull and warp engines. It appears he painted the whole ship in his base coat...applied the masks...and is getting ready to paint his pearlescent aztek pattern.

But to paint the pearlescent coat after the base coat doesnt seem right?

Looking at Tonys masked warp engine....to paint the pearlescent coat now it would seem the that pattern would be inverted?

I know I probably don't make any sense but I'd appreciate it if you guys could set me straight!


----------



## Opus Penguin

I would review this site first:

http://www.enterprisecreations.com/Aztecpage2.html

To me this is the way to do it. Tony gives the how-to on getting your model to look almost exactly like the studio version. I hope Tony doesn't mind me posting this but he did a lot of research on this and I believe he has gotten the closest on this. This is what I plan to follow. He also uses the Aztec Dummy set as the baseline for the pattern. You seem a little confused on Tony's methods so you can always e-mail him and ask him about it. As I understand, his method is a four layer aztec pattern. The Aztec Dummy set will only give a basic two layer so it depends on how much work you want in this. The studio model had aztecing all over the ship which is why the set includes every parts of the model. Remember, what you cover up with the template set will not get painted on the second pearlescent coat so you will get a two-tone variation. 

Tony states above:

"After I sprayed the iridescent blue and then applied the templates, I re-applied the white base coat." 

So if I understand him on this he primed it in white, added a blueish coat, applied the templates, then basecoated again in white. So the blue color was the first to really be applied. I hope this makes sense and Tony can correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## SteveR

I'd add that re-applying thin coats of a white pearl might make sense as well. It would allow you to paint a strong aztec (easier to see?) then tone it down with thinned applications of the pearl --- kind of like pre-shading. At least, it might be good to leave that option open.

Thanks to Tony for the how-to. :thumbsup:


----------



## Raist3001

Hey guys. Sorry for taking so long to respond. Opus hit the nail on the head. The ship was first sprayed with a base coat of flat white. Over this I sprayed my custom mix (found on my website) pearl blue. It is very subtle. I then placed my templates over this and then re-applied the base coat. When the templates are removed, you will have your basic Aztec pattern. Over this I then spay various shapes cut out of thin styrene with different pearl colors. 

The Primary hull is sprayed differently and will have it's own page soon.  Sorry for the delay, I am still recovering with my back. Had to have a 3rd surgery. Folks, please take listen to your back when it pains you. 

SteveR, that's a great suggestion. I'll run some tests on my next refit 

And thanks for the kind words guys. I am just happy that my guide is able to help many of you. If I can ever be of further assistance, please don't hesitate to contact me


----------



## Tobor64

Raist3001 said:


> Hey guys. Sorry for taking so long to respond. Opus hit the nail on the head. The ship was first sprayed with a base coat of flat white. Over this I sprayed my custom mix (found on my website) pearl blue. It is very subtle. I then placed my templates over this and then re-applied the base coat. When the templates are removed, you will have your basic Aztec pattern. Over this I then spay various shapes cut out of thin styrene with different pearl colors.
> 
> The Primary hull is sprayed differently and will have it's own page soon. Sorry for the delay, I am still recovering with my back. Had to have a 3rd surgery. Folks, please take listen to your back when it pains you.
> 
> SteveR, that's a great suggestion. I'll run some tests on my next refit
> 
> And thanks for the kind words guys. I am just happy that my guide is able to help many of you. If I can ever be of further assistance, please don't hesitate to contact me


My gosh, Tony, I was unaware of your back problems let alone a third back surgery. Convalesce as much as possible & I wish you a speedy recovery.


----------



## Opus Penguin

Hope you're feeling better Tony! I had some back issues as well (though not requiring surgery) so I can definitely agree that you shouldn't ignore back pain. Hope you're feeling better soon!


----------



## SteveR

Yow! Sorry to hear about your back, Tony. Get well soon, and I hope you get a cute physiotherapist -- makes the exercises easier! :thumbsup:

Regarding the Refit, something else occurred to me. For those who want a slightly darker TMP/TWOK movie look, how to get it? Which paints to use? 

How about painting the ship as it appears in the miniature photos, white, teal, gold and such, then once it's done .... mist some thin coats of Tamiya smoke over the whole thing?

That way, we'd be replicating the lighting/post effects overall (sort of), rather than struggling to pick the right greenish-grays to simulate the movie look from the start. It sounds scary to smoke over a nice paint job, but it's worth a test, I think.


----------



## Raist3001

Thanks for the well wishes guys. I should be feeling well enough soon to resume my build. Thankfully I have a very understanding client.

Steve, fantastic ideas. You can also mist the ship with the base coat again. This will tone down the colors as well.


----------



## newbie dooby

Hey All,

Another question.....and thank you for your advice!

Should I frost the running lights and navigation lights as well as the yellow lights along the saucer and around the deflector dish?

I mean should I frost the actual clear plastic pieces?


----------



## Opus Penguin

Again, up to you how you want to do it. Some techniques I hear involve sanding the plastic from behind to frost it, Others are using Dullcote, or some other form of method to just frost the glass. But i you're asking should you do it, that is up to you.


----------



## newbie dooby

Thanks for everyones help!

Let me run this by you guys....

I am putting together the Secondary Hull and I was trying to figure out how to seal up the light leaks from the inside AFTER the shuttle bay was already in.

The spaces are way to tight inside with the shuttle bay (the TMP one) and lights to work my tools in there to fill up the seams from the inside.

So here is my plan...

Glue the bottom secondary hull piece and the two sides together without the shuttle bay inside. Fill up the seams, apoxy sculpt the connecting areas....just make it secure and light leak proof.

Since you can't fit the shuttle bay into these pieces after they have been glued together I will cut the upper connecing strut off of the side pieces so I can slide the shuttle bay in. I will replace the strut with a small piece of copper tube.

Tell me if I am missing anything...don't want to do this if I screw it up!


----------



## 1711rob

You May want or need to light leak paint the outside. spray flat black on the area in question with flat black. Just make sure you've got important stuff taped or masked off. I did the same thing to my last pl350 with TM's lights
had to do the engine pods/sled on my voyager(current build) with TM's lights


----------



## Opus Penguin

I am planning on base coating the entire inside of the model flat black to cover as much of light leaks as possible, then cover it in a silver or aluminum colored paint to be reflective of light. Mylar tape will be used in some areas where light reflection is required, and will also help reducing light leaks in certain areas. Lastly I will spot spray in the suggestion mentioned above if needed, but this is a last resort as you do need to mask well, and be very careful whatever you spray can be covered up in a another layer of paint.


----------



## Mr. Canoehead

Keep in mind when you paint the inside of this kit silver it acually cuts down the reflectivness since in a black and white photo it acually comes out grey. IMHO from what I've discovered a white or even a gloss white is the very best reflective color, look at nature, snow is the best reflective natural serface.

Pardon the spelling errors I majored in History not English.


----------



## Opus Penguin

Hmmm .... I didn't know that but I will use white instead then. Thanks for the advice.


----------



## Gunstar1

I recommend you test it before you commit. You might get a little more light coming out of holes, but a white interior will play with the color spectrum of your source light differently than a reflective mylar or chrome. It may come down to a mater of visual side-by-side preference. When ILM needed to amplify light they used more mylar-like material (inside models as well as engines - star destroyers, cruisers etc). Granted, they also used a lot of custom neon.


----------



## 1711rob

I have used Gloss white on my PL350 AND my Voyager both with lights, seems to work pretty good.


----------



## Opus Penguin

Got a question when using Future floor polish. I understand Tony referneced using this as well as others. I assume when using this it is safe in airbrushes, correct? Do you just clean the airbrush as you normally would if it was just paint? Do you just use airbrush thinner? I want to be sure my airbrush is not ruined by using this substance.


----------



## marc111

Opus,
Yes Future airbrushes OK For hints on airbrushing try lookig in the finishing section at starship modeler.
http://www.starshipmodeler.net/talk/viewforum.php?f=16&sid=b0c264654c767c79f7bf70ee7cc9d3cc

To clean the airbrush run windex through it followed by water.

Hope this helps,
Mark


----------



## SteveR

Regarding white vs. chrome (inside the model), white reflects more evenly, but at a lower intensity. It effectively makes the light reflections larger, but not as bright. Conversely, chrome reflects each light source at close to its original intensity, but at a much smaller size. If you look between those reflections, you see areas that are not as bright as the highlights.

Technically, white gives diffuse reflections, while chrome gives specular reflections. If you look into the windows of a model with chrome inside and move your head, you'll see the light intensity change as you move, and probably not in proportion to the scale of the model. Not so with white, where you're more likely to see an even brightness from window to window ... if you've set up your lights right. 

So. You can choose either, or a diffused chrome to split the difference. It all depends on what effect you want, and how you've set up your lights and windows. Me, I'm using white for evenness since I expect to look at the model closely, and the windows are large enough to show variations in brightness. I'm not bothered by a slightly lower output since the light coming from windows represent room interiors, not direct lights (e.g. navigation lights). To represent room lights, the highlights would have to be very small, and positioned in scale to the rooms, and I don't have the skill to do that.


----------



## Opus Penguin

Sounds to me that white is the way to go. The light in the windows should be difussed as it is meant to look like standard lighting in the ship. With inntense lights, that would follow more the effect of spotlighting.


----------



## Opus Penguin

marc111 said:


> Opus,
> Yes Future airbrushes OK For hints on airbrushing try lookig in the finishing section at starship modeler.
> http://www.starshipmodeler.net/talk/viewforum.php?f=16&sid=b0c264654c767c79f7bf70ee7cc9d3cc
> 
> To clean the airbrush run windex through it followed by water.
> 
> Hope this helps,
> Mark


Thank you for the info. I will check out this link.


----------



## Opus Penguin

I know this has been mentioned before, and I can't find it in any threads .... however, what is the best method of frosting the clear plastic parts to diffuse the light. This would be for the nacelle and front navigational deflector pieces. I am tryting to find a spray or something that will frost the glass so it is transluscent, and diffuse the light.


----------



## 1711rob

Well you could try Testors Dullcoat or some use sandpaper that does the same thing. I've used both and am liking the sandpaper method better.


----------



## Raist3001

Rustoleum frosted spray


----------



## Opus Penguin

The Rustoleum was the way to go. That stuff is great! Thanks Raist!


----------



## marc111

Raist,
Any update on when your 4th aztec101 page will be up with the saucer?

Just curious
Mark


----------



## Raist3001

Hey Marc,

I really hope to have it up soon. My recovery has been real slow. I appreciate your interest


----------



## thestartrekker

*Painting my refit*

Hi guys, had a chance to read through some of these messages. Just bought a PL Refit, so I am a long way off from painting, still have to figure out interior details and lighting etc.
Just wanted some advice, on what paints people have used, is there a consensus of one particular brand over another? Also these pearlescent laquers that people are talking about, how easy are they to get, will they work ok in airbrushes.
This is my first time airbrushing a model, and want to get everything worked out before I begin. 
Any advice greatly appreciated.
:dude:


----------



## Raist3001

thestartrekker said:


> Hi guys, had a chance to read through some of these messages. Just bought a PL Refit, so I am a long way off from painting, still have to figure out interior details and lighting etc.
> Just wanted some advice, on what paints people have used, is there a consensus of one particular brand over another? Also these pearlescent laquers that people are talking about, how easy are they to get, will they work ok in airbrushes.
> This is my first time airbrushing a model, and want to get everything worked out before I begin.
> Any advice greatly appreciated.
> :dude:


Welcome startrekker. I do not think there is a consensus on a particular brand of paints. I have exclusively used Model Master acrylics when painting. My pearl paints are also acrylic and purchased from WASCO. 

http://www.taxidermy.com/cat/05/paint.html

Acrylics will have to be thinned a little bit with water (or acrylic thinner) and they will spray just fine thru your brush. I use acrylic lacquer thinner to thin my paints. The thinner also acts as a solvent cleaner and cleans my air brush. Then I use a bottle of the thinner to further clean my airbrush.


----------



## thestartrekker

Thanks Raist. I'm a big fan of your work, I've seen the paint jobs you have done on your models, and all I can say is, Wow! I hope I'll be able to get something close to it myself. 
Just finished scratch building an extension to the officers lounge, lets you look further into the ship. Will try and post some pictures as soon as i get it painted up. Next step is the Rec Dec. Man this is going to take me a while to finish.
Happy modeling.:dude:


----------



## bkoski

I've been a member for a few years now and have FINALLY collected all of the elements for creating my refit TMP-style (except for all of the paint). I'm ecstatic to learn of all of the techniques you guys have discussed and experimented with. Especially RAIST, THANK YOU. I can finally start, now that I have a clue. Good luck with all of our Enterprises.


----------



## Raist3001

Thanks BK  If I can help in your venture in any way, please do not hesitate to ask 

I look forward to seeing your start.


----------



## Opus Penguin

Raist3001 said:


> Thanks BK  If I can help in your venture in any way, please do not hesitate to ask
> 
> I look forward to seeing your start.


Hey Raist!! Any chance of a page 4 on your site yet?


----------



## Raist3001

I keep saying soon, however life has a way of creating detours. I have gathered the pictures I wish to use and have everything set. I just need to create the page. Hopefully by this weekend


----------



## AJ-1701

Bit late on this thread but ... 

First of all I must say thanks to Gunstar1 for starting and every one else on this great thread... :thumbsup:

I have been scoping this and the other thread on the inaccuracies for some time now as a bit of a fix in place of not actually having the P/lights kit. Well yesterday that changed! I am now in possesion of said kit. Because of its size it'll be some what daunting but hey I managed doing the Moebius Seaview so anything is possable...  and for me I'm not one to go after a true replica of the heros or sfx minitures. Though I will sometimes go the extra when a project really needs it, eg my wilco proteus. But what you guys have posted up here will be invaluable for me to get a what I want when I'm ready to start. :wave:

Cheers

Alec.


----------



## AJ-1701

I found some "pearl glaze" at one of those scrap booking stores on the w/end and after doing some brush on test sampling with some aztec cutouts and I am liking the results... for me being a little impatient and a tad lazy  it seems to give that look I'm after with out the multiple layers of aztecing :thumbsup: 

The next test will be some airbrush sampling. As it stands I'll be using a white satin basecote and then airbrushing on various mixes of the pearl glaze over the templates..... I do know that after cutting out my own aztecing :freak: for the tests I *will* be getting the Aztec Dummy sheets for the actual model and job.


----------



## Bay7

I just found a seller on eBay UK thats doing blue/gold/silver/blue pearl paint - 

http://stores.ebay.co.uk/specialist...0QQcolZ4QQdirZ1QQfsubZ503759016QQftidZ2QQtZkm

Shows examples of the finish too!

I've just ordered the blue and gold - I have a red tinted pearl coming from elsewhere, I'll let you know how it goes!

Cheers,

Mike


----------



## SteveR

Hmm ... the metallic flecks might be too big. Hard to say.


----------



## Gouf

I was thinking of getting 4 bottles of Gunze Mr Color Pearl white and adding a few drops of clear red, blue, green, and yellow to each individual bottle.

Has anybody tried this?


----------



## SteveR

You might not see a complementary flip-flop with that method.


----------



## timothyn1967

Gouf said:


> I was thinking of getting 4 bottles of Gunze Mr Color Pearl white and adding a few drops of clear red, blue, green, and yellow to each individual bottle.
> 
> Has anybody tried this?


That is exactly what I plan to do. I bought a couple of big bottles of pearl white and smaller bottles of pearl red, blue, green and orange to add to it. Once I have the aztec done, I then plan to lay on another thin coat of pearl white until the colors are properly muted and subtle.


----------



## AJ-1701

Decided to put it up here in this thread as well for anyones thoughts... I just copied it over from my WIP thread.

I maybe should put this in the painting the refit thread but it's part of my wip so here is where it goes... And I may be stressing a bit over naught here (actually more over this build than many others I've done) 

In between doing more frisket for the extra panel detail I've been racking my ageing grey matter and testing the limits of my frustration trying to seek the right colours for the deflector housing, strongback and nacelle pylons, the bridge as well as on b & c decks etc. Most of what I've seen on the net regarding these areas seems to be for the 1701-A and virtually all other discusions are on the atzteking. I have seen some good pics of finished builds but a lot of colours seem very strong and the odd one a bit to bold for me.

So how accurate is the painting guide?? For example, the duck egg blue that is suggested from the paint guide seems a tad to intense for the scale. And any screen caps I've done or seen the ship is in obvious low light situations. I hadn't actually considered doing pre tests on these colours thinking they'd be fairly straight forward. I did sit down last night and applied some test colours straight from the pots I intend to use and then wrote out some formulas based on those and my own minds eye for visualizing the mix of those colours.

Cheers,

Alec.


----------



## SteveR

For the Enterprise-A, the Cloudster shots are your best bet. For the TMP Refit, all bets are off. The thing was rarely lit brightly and evenly (in colour), and it doesn't exist in that form any more. However, here's an image that (if I recall) shows the intent of the colours:
http://probertdesigns.com/Folder_ILLUSTRATION/E-INCIDENTS_Magazine.html

And here's a HobbyTalk thread about the blue-greenness of it all:
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=114719

But by no means should you take the kit instructions as gospel. Nope.


----------



## AJ-1701

Thanks heaps there SteveR. :thumbsup:

That'll help with me out immensly. Just goes to show when you think you've reseached enough... you haven't. 

Cheers,

Alec. :wave:


----------



## Raist3001

Getting back into the groove of things.....

Here are my thoughts as to why I added the base white to my pearl mixtures.

Here is a test with the pearls muted very little.

http://s23.photobucket.com/albums/b391/Raist3001/?action=view&current=P1010163.jpg

You can see the off color yellow quite visibly.

Here is a shot with multiple layers added. The yellow is still quite visible.

http://s23.photobucket.com/albums/b391/Raist3001/?action=view&current=P1010162.jpg


Getting a bit better...

http://s23.photobucket.com/albums/b391/Raist3001/?action=view&current=P1010166.jpg


And then my final results.

http://s23.photobucket.com/albums/b391/Raist3001/?action=view&current=pearl_finished2.jpg

No off yellow, but the downside to this is that the pearls are not as intense. They still flip to the naked eye, but they are not as vibrant as shooting them straight.

Witrh my new round of tests with lacquer paint, I hope to achieve some sort of balance between the off yellow color, and the vibrancy of the pearl.


----------



## Raist3001

Thanks for the input FSM-1 

I have always maintained that I am not trying to recreate the original paint job, going so far as to say that IMHO, it is impossible to do so. My goal has only ever been to create a nice representation of the original paint job. 

Since the original refit was painted with Lacquers, I figured a few rounds of testing with my own lacquers would be exciting. And since lacquer based paints can hold suspended particles better, I am hoping for some real good results with the multi-layered aztecs.

Don't get me wrong. I really like what can be accomplished with acrylic


----------



## galaxy_jason

Hi,

I about half way through a scratch built Refit at 1/175 scale. I am planning a sort of hybrid paint scheme, that is, to lay down a pearlescent TMP pattern then "tone it down" a bit with dull coats and weathering without taking it all the way to the level that ILM did with the "A". Fininshing with "A" markings.

Only thing I need to check is paint compatibilities. I have used Krylon primer, then Krylon flat white (wet sanded smooth) as a base coat. I hope to use Testers laquer with PerlEX interference powders to do the astek, etc. then come back like ILM (to a lesser degree) with some grey weathering and finally a flat or satin Krylon finish.

I did a couple tests and even with the flat finish the powers still pearlesce. Anyone see an issue with this?

Thanks!
-Jason Ware


----------



## idman

Nope, You should do like what we all say "Do what feels best in your eye besides I was thinking about using the powders and would like to see what they look like b4 I use them on my 350Th scale


----------



## galaxy_jason

I have been reading this and other threads. I know there are templates around for a "positive" and "negatige" asteck. But I just made an observation that makes me wonder if there really was a difference or rather, just a play of light with the pearlescents. 

For example, look at the grid panel between "U" (in the USS name) and "N" (in the NCC) in the following B&W photo..

http://picasaweb.google.com/andy.grams/EnterpriseTMPBW#5081539105460666706

the line down the middle of the asteck looks dark.

Now look at the same panel in the following photo, it flips to light..

http://picasaweb.google.com/andy.grams/EnterpriseTMPBW#5081539105460666722

Thoughts?

-Jason Ware


----------



## SteveR

It goes to reflectance, or sheen. If you have, say, a checkerboard where one set of squares is satin finish, and the other set is matte, the satin squares will appear different depending on where the source of light reflects back to the camera. Given a lighting setup like that in the Cloudster B&W shots, the matte squares will all appear roughly the same brightness, whereas some of the shiny squares will appear brighter, and some will appear darker than the matte squares. 

This is because the shiny squares reflect the lights and darks of the room (slightly) more accurately, while the matte surfaces reflect the whole room evenly. To the extreme, compare a white wall with a mirror. The white wall is all white, but the mirror reflects lights as hot spots, and darker areas more darkly.

To put it another way, matte surfaces show larger hotspots (highlights) than shinier surfaces. Sometimes those matte hotspots are as large as the object itself, or larger. The white wall reflects the light over its entire surface, while the mirror show the light as a small spot or pinpoint.

If you squint at the Cloudster shots, you can see the sheen of parts of the aztec come out by seeing a highlight revealed on the disc. Compare a section in one print to the same section in another print (even under a different lighting angle), and if you squint, you'll see that the sheens of the same section in both shots match, though the exact gray values appearing in the print may not.

For the sake of argument, let's say that the aztec has two polarities: A and B. In one square, A looks like a person, and B doesn't. In an adjacent square, B looks like a person, and A doesn't. What is constant across a polarity is the sheen: if you squint at a B&W cloudster shot, you'll see that more or less, half the primary hull is matte, and half is satin. So it could be said that polarity A is satin, B is matte.

Although slight variances in gray values are due to the pearl colours, the main polarity difference is not a colour issue, since you'll see that the highlight (hotspot) size on the disc is relatively constant across a given polarity. Squint and you'll be able to see the position of the highlight. The matte polarity is a little more constant than the satin polarity.

(BTW, the gray value of a specific section of the aztec should not be compared to the value of the same section from shot to shot due to changes in exposure.)

So in my opinion, yes, there is a pattern to the aztec in a given square, like this:
- positive is simple, and more matte
- negative is more complex, and satiny
Over the primary hull:
- repeat this pattern in diagonally adjacent grid squares (half the hull)
- flip the positive/negative for the remaining grid squares (negative simple/matte, positive complex/satiny)

Of course, all bets are off for the rest of the ship, though (for example) a sheen difference can be seen easily near the aft ends of the nacelles. The thin stripes are more shiny.

Doers that make sense?


----------



## galaxy_jason

OK, yes, on second thought there is a positive/negative
pattern. Its visible in the non-highlighted portions of the
two photos. For example pick the panel just beside (to the right in the photo) of "01". The pattern remains the same regardless of the rotation....but I bet it would flip if the highlight hit it.

I wonder if its not a matter of flat or satin, but rather the different pigments of the pearls. In a flat light (no highlights) perhaps one color appears darker than the other but in highlighted areas the "light/dark" will flip depending on angle becuase of the perlescent nature.

This thread seems to suggest that blue is the base color, I think I agree, but I am not sure about the second color. If I look at the color photos of Enterprise-A, take them into photoshop, do an auto-levels then stretch the saturation, the second color seems to be gold...with spots of red and green here and there.

Forgive me if this is a rehash but I have read lots of theories and it doesn't seem there is a definitive answer.

I hope to try some tests this weekend and I think I still have some rolls of Tech Pan B&W film laying around.


-Jason Ware


----------



## Raist3001

galaxy_jason said:


> I wonder if its not a matter of flat or satin, but rather the different pigments of the pearls.


It is not a matter of flat or satin. The original Refit was painted with pearlescent lacquer paints....red,green,blue,gold.



> In a flat light (no highlights) perhaps one color appears darker than the other but in highlighted areas the "light/dark" will flip depending on angle becuase of the perlescent nature.


The main aztec is pearl blue. What you see flip flopping is the secondary pattern that is sprayed over the main pattern. This pattern consists of squares and rectangles that are sprayed the various pearl colors.


----------



## galaxy_jason

Yes, that's what I think I meant  Thanks for clarifying.

But in the early posts of this thread it seems the next color after pearl blue is pearl green. I wonder, based on the auction shots, if it is actually pearlescent gold?

(going by the PanelPaintE.pdf, all over layer 1= blue,
aztek layer 2 = gold)

-Jason Ware


----------



## Gunstar1

That pdf file I created was based (and cross referenced by him) on lengthy discussions I had with the painter himself, Paul Olsen. Read the first post of this thread again. The dominant pattern is the blue, and then the green, then the red then the gold - but keep in mind the difference between each amount is only such that the ship is generally more BLUE - which, _due to the properties of the pearls, ALSO means it is "generally more GOLD"_ as well - depending on the refraction angle to each spot. You follow?
Blue(+proper angle to light source)=Gold
Green(+proper angle to light source)=Red
Red(+proper angle to light source)=Green
Gold(+proper angle to light source)=Blue

And keep in mind that the main pattern (blue and green) is very very broken up by red and gold (and more blue and more green) - so it becomes difficult to "know where you are" in the main aztec pattern....


----------



## galaxy_jason

Gunstar1 said:


> Blue(+proper angle to light source)=Gold
> Green(+proper angle to light source)=Red
> Red(+proper angle to light source)=Green
> Gold(+proper angle to light source)=Blue
> 
> ...


Yes, I read it carefully, and you are proabably correct. I'll have to try it out. The flip of blue is actually yellow, which may be what I am seeing.

-Jason Ware


----------



## marc111

There are a couple of things (only a couple, grin)that still bother me. I went back and looked at the Christies photos as well as the best res screen caps that I have. I also have been comparing them with what I see with some experiments I have been trying with the pearlex pigments suspended in clear or the wildlife irredescent pigments.

I notice on my own experiments that if I tilt things to an angle to the light source where the irredescent color shows, then it shows for all of the irredescent colors. I do not seem to get the case where it is for example highlighting the blue but not the red. Given the randome distribution of micro particles this seems to make some sense as there would be a range of angles that show the color to best effect and given a random distribution it is unlikely that one color would act different than another. (I am not talking about the shift from red to green for a particular color changing pigment. All this does is create two angle ranges)

I also notice that on the screen caps, whatever the screen cap, when a part of the aztec that has the blue sheen shows up then all of the other sub patches in the other pearls show up regardless of whether they overlay the blue or not. 

However the "matte" areas that do not pearl, which allow you to see the blue area for example never seem to pearl in another shot. Also the pearls that are showing seem slightly duller as the paint across the "matte" area.

Paul's memory aside this leaves me wondering a little bit.

I wish I could find a screen capture where the light angle has changed and the background to the main aztec pearls and then another where the forground prearls, but I have been unable to locate one. Anyone else ever find one?

Mark


----------



## SteveR

Raist3001 said:


> It is not a matter of flat or satin. The original Refit was painted with pearlescent lacquer paints....red,green,blue,gold.


I agree on Olsen's colours of course, but sorry, Raist, but we might have to agree to disagree on the sheen. Based on the Cloudster photographs and the TMP shots leaving orbit (looking at the secondary hull), there are different sheens in the TMP paint job. This is based on the size of the specular highlights seen in those shots. 

I'm not suggesting that Olsen matte-coated anything, though. I'm suggesting that one of his four colours (maybe blue) had a different sheen than the others. 

Anyway, look at the secondary hull as the Refit leaves orbit and see how the reflected sun pops in and out.


----------



## Gunstar1

Keep in mind that Olsen did many many layers of pearls, such that the color intensity (and therefore metallic pigments reflecting) in one blue square likely would not be the same as another nearby blue square - and so you'd have different amounts of reflectivity throughout - but no pure matte finish where the hull is white.


----------



## Raist3001

SteveR said:


> I agree on Olsen's colours of course, but sorry, Raist, but we might have to agree to disagree on the sheen.


I may have misunderstood the original poster, but I was referring to simply painting the ship with a flat coat and satin coat to create the sheen. This is what I meant when I said it is was not a matter of flat and sheen.



> Based on the Cloudster photographs and the TMP shots leaving orbit (looking at the secondary hull), there are different sheens in the TMP paint job. This is based on the size of the specular highlights seen in those shots.


I agree with Gunstar. I believe it only a matter of the intensity of the pearl. In my experiments, once the pearl mixture is toned down by introducing the base coat, the sheen also is toned. This in effect would create multi-sheened panels. Thus your next statement I would agree with 

_"I'm suggesting that one of his four colours (maybe blue) had a different sheen than the others."_


----------



## galaxy_jason

This may be the answer. Remember that this was 30 years ago and he said they were new pearlescent laquers for the custom auto indunstry. They may not have responded anything like we have today. 

This is why I brought up the gold. The compliment of 
red is cyan, blue is yellow and green is magenta. What
is the compliment of gold? Gold is just a reflective yellow tone....so maybe his gold was more of a metalic than the interference gold we have today. 

So it make experimentation (like many of you have done) to dulpicate the look....even though it may not be the same color order he used.

-Jason Ware


----------



## jaws62666

Ill tell you something. If you want a fantastic looking Refit, buy the Round 2 1/350 re-release. I am finishing it up now and the Aztec decals are out of this world. Very minimal painting. The decals cover 99 % of the ship. It is very hard to tell if it is painted or decals. I will try to post pics later if I can find out how.


----------



## galaxy_jason

OK, this will blow your mind. I took one of the cloudster b&w photos into photoshop and did a perspective stretch and scale to get a round disk. Then, I took one of the auction shots of"A" and did an auto color, darken and saturation stretch. It gives a very good color map.

Here is the compare shot..

http://galaxyphoto.com/ent/aztek_compare.jpg

and here is the whole disk

http://galaxyphoto.com/ent/disk_overlaytif.jpg

Note in the compare shot that there seems to be some panels in the lower right which do not have an aztek, and indeed this is confirmed by the b&w. To me it looks like the aztek overlay does not pearlesce but rather blocks the interference blue....and not all panels have them.

Not sure what Paul did exactly but this may be a way to get a good representation.

Thoughts??

-Jason Ware


----------



## Raist3001

galaxy_jason said:


> Note in the compare shot that there seems to be some panels in the lower right which do not have an aztek, and indeed this is confirmed by the b&w.


What I see is a definite primary aztec. And according to light angle, this primary pattern will pearl accordingly. This is why is some panels the primary pattern seems to be non existent. I get the same effect with all my experiments. And the more base color I use to tone down the sheen, the more evident this effect becomes. 

I also see a definite secondary pattern. In the areas you point out, the secondary patterns are outside the main pattern. I can see it in the B/W and the color image. In the section right above the A, you can see the secondary pattern quite well outside the main pattern. In the bottom extreme right corner, there appears to be no pattern. This is because the light striking the surface is at an angle as to not make the paint pearl. It appears to be invisible. This too is re-created in all my experiments with pearl powders and varying the tone.


----------



## Opus Penguin

Hey Raist ... will you be adding a fourth page update to your aztec web site?


----------



## galaxy_jason

First of all no disrespect to the wonderful work you all have done with aztecs.

However, I am not sure a consenses has been reached on how the original effect was achieved. 

I just posted this over at Starship Modeler, where I was seeking opinions there as well....

I am well aware of the theory, however, it requires that the pearlescent colors "pearlesce" at different angles, i.e. red "turns on" at a different angle than green.

My observation, as well as a few others posting in the forums, have noticed that this is not the case. This is both from working with these type of materials (interference, or "flip", powders), and looking at screen shots, etc.

The materials are either "off" meaning you barely see them, reflect the primary or reflect the compliment. The angle change between these states is fairly large. I can't see how two panels right next to each other can show an aztec in one and not the other based solely on refracted light.

I have done the same enhancement with another photo,
note the strong blue panel on the left side compared with it's neighbor.
The light angle there can't be that different between the adjacent panels.

http://galaxyphoto.com/ent/eaDSC07205_sat.jpg

ON the other hand a better explanation IMHO is that he started with a pearl blue base (I think all agree on this) and on some panels added very little (if any on some) primary aztec. While on others laid it down fairly heavy....And the primary aztec seems to have a significantly different amount of sheen as well from the base and the secondary. smaller rectangles.

Just my $.02
_________________
-- 
-Jason Ware


----------



## Gunstar1

I think what you are saying does not contradict the information that I posted at the start of this thread - Paul didn't spend days on this paint job, he spent months - primarily doing zillions of the tiny square/rectangle shapes individually, repetitively, layer upon layer upon layer, to the point where in some cases the so called "main aztec pattern" becomes almost unrecognizable, and the randomness of the numerous subpatterns seems to take over - he put too many layers on for us to simply say it is a basic blue and green main aztec occasionally broken up - if that were the case, it would be easy to see the patterns flip flop - but it is not the case - there are so many randomly varying amounts of both pearl and overlapping different pearl colors, I can't imagine how you would be able to map out the saucer except only the panels that are clearly many layers of the same pearl (and those are the ones that survived the great ILM dull coating tragedy of '82 ).


----------



## galaxy_jason

I think we are in agreement there. 

I just thought of one more thing, from Paul's write-up...

"...shorted something out. Some circuits caught fire and melted the wiring. The wiring damage had to be repaired. This required major surgery and held up the completion by two months."

Perhaps the panels with no apparent aztec were repaired and repainted with the basic blue and a few rectangles.

-Jason Ware


----------



## Raist3001

galaxy_jason said:


> I can't see how two panels right next to each other can show an aztec in one and not the other based solely on refracted light.


Exactly what I have been trying to convey. I have achieved such in my own experiments. One panel can be completely pearling while another looks invisible. This is a result based upon how much pearl you used to create any one particular aztec pattern. Spray a bit heavy, and the pattern will pearl with the slightest of light. Tone it down, and she may be quite invisible until light strikes a particular way. 



> However, I am not sure a consenses has been reached on how the original effect was achieved.


That consensus in my opinion can be had once we understand what Paul is telling us in his write up. Gunstar has a real good understanding as he actually had conversations with Paul regarding Puals paint job. What we should be able to understand regardless is that the entire surface was painted with different patterns. There is not any space where Paul did not cover with pearls.


----------



## Raist3001

Gunstar, in all my experiments, pearl blue always has an off color of gold. In order for me to tone this down drastically, I needed to introduce the base coat to the pearl blue. Thus the pattern woudl still pearl, and there wold be no off gold color. 

I was wondering if this may have been what was used to create the gold colors we see in the secondary hull? Pearl blue one way, but gold when light is not striking the surface?


----------



## Gunstar1

Raist3001 said:


> ...the pattern woudl still pearl, and there wold be no off gold color...
> I was wondering if this may have been what was used to create the gold colors we see in the secondary hull? Pearl blue one way, but gold when light is not striking the surface?


Exactly. (mostly) :thumbsup:

Funny - in previous posts you had made a while back, I thought that when you were always talking about the blue appearing more yellow, that it was some issue with the actual tone/hue of the blue....

The golds in the secondary hull are created by the blues, and by actual golds - just as the blues are created by the golds, and by actual blues.

It all depends on the lighting environment - and in some ways there is no way to tell exactly what's going (am I looking at a blue pearl or a gold pearl reflecting as blue) on without actually seeing the original ship in person, airbrush a test piece of styrene with a blue pearl, and then holding that piece next to a square on the original ship at the exact same angle as the original so that you can actually figure out what is blue and what is gold "pretending" to be a blue. 

Given that Paul said the ship leaned towards the cooler spectrum (blue & green) it makes sense that it can also seem to lean toward the warmer spectrum depending on the light situation.


----------



## Raist3001

Gunstar1 said:


> Funny - in previous posts you had made a while back, I thought that when you were always talking about the blue appearing more yellow, that it was some issue with the actual tone/hue of the blue....


I thought so too. But after much testing and many discussions with other artists, the pearl blue was behaving normally 

I have not been able to get a pearl blue though from a gold powder. Not even from an interference gold. Gold pearl seems to always be gold.


----------



## Gunstar1

Fascinating.....

What has your gold done then? Has it sort of disappeared, or does it simply not change at all despite viewing angle (maintaining level of light reflection)?
How about red? Is it primarily the blue and green that have effectively flip-flopped for you? 

.....I wonder how much the ambient light spectrum affects the rate of refraction shift...... 

I'm sure you listed it all before, but what brands for which pearls have you tested again? Do they behave any differently in sunlight vs indirect sunlight vs incandescent vs cool/warm fluorescent?


----------



## galaxy_jason

That is what I see as well with the PerlEX powders in 
clear (using Krylon clear sprayed into a bottle and 
airbrushed). The interference gold is either gold, highly
reflective or a brownish gold when not pearling....but
never blue. 

So if you have gold next to blue then at some angles you see two gold squares, at some angles you a blue and a gold square and at others you see a dirty brownish color next to a yellowish color. And of course at some angles they are transparent.

I need to do more testing but I realized I am way ahead of myself. I'm a long time from that point on my 1/175 refit project.

But when I get tired of sanding and bondo I may do some more testing.

-Jason Ware


----------



## Disillusionist

I'm not sure if this will help you guys or not, but all of my gold flips over to a steel blue as the light angle changes. You can see it somewhat in this pic. All of the thin pin striping is done in gold, but it flips to blue as the lighting angle changes.


----------



## Gunstar1

AHA!

perhaps it is a factor of the brand of pigment or something like that.....

Disillusionist, what brands/products did you use for your painting materials?

oh... and if those stripes are gold, then what are those yellow areas (rectangles)???


----------



## Disillusionist

House of Kolor. The areas that look yellow are blue, the areas that look red are green, and the areas that look green are red....make sense?:freak:


----------



## PixelMagic

Disillusionist said:


> House of Kolor. The areas that look yellow are blue, the areas that look red are green, and the areas that look green are red....make sense?:freak:


I believe that's how it's supposed to be. However, maybe more subtle than what you have pictured.


----------



## Disillusionist

PixelMagic said:


> I believe that's how it's supposed to be. However, maybe more subtle than what you have pictured.



Subtle all depends on the lighting. that's part of the fun when working with these paints.


----------



## Gunstar1

Disillusionist said:


> House of Kolor. The areas that look yellow are blue, the areas that look red are green, and the areas that look green are red....make sense?:freak:


Of course I understand :wave: - believe me I've explained enough to others about the nature of the flip flopping - it's just that the middle area between the top and bottom edges looks almost as if there were pastel undercoats of the red and yellow (what appears to be red and yellow). I think the photograph probably does disservice a little and it would look even better in person - (meaning that I think the photo is making those colors seem more pastel than they really are on your model) I will likely be replicating your choice of paint products, as they seem to be both smooth textured (low metallic noise) while effective in flipping/reflecting, as well as vibrant yet translucent.

So, House of Kolor.... 

1. what products exactly? Was it house of Kolor pearl pigments mixed in something or was it a House of Kolor product that you used straight out of the bottle? What color/color numbers did you use exactly? 

2. Did you get them online, or via local hobby catalog? 

3. what did you use for primer and hull coating? 

4. What was the order of events - eg: primer, white, pearls, clear coat, decals, sealer, clear coat? Do the decals interfere at all (the clear parts of the decals) with the pearling effect?

(sorry about all the nitpicking questions but since you first posted your paint job I have seen none better before or after, and I must know!:thumbsup


----------



## Raist3001

Disillusionist said:


> I'm not sure if this will help you guys or not, but all of my gold flips over to a steel blue as the light angle changes. You can see it somewhat in this pic. All of the thin pin striping is done in gold, but it flips to blue as the lighting angle changes.


One of the best paint jobs I have seen, and one of the best flip flopping representations I have seen.

Once again, GREAT work Matt.


----------



## Disillusionist

Gunstar1 said:


> Of course I understand :wave: - believe me I've explained enough to others about the nature of the flip flopping - it's just that the middle area between the top and bottom edges looks almost as if there were pastel undercoats of the red and yellow (what appears to be red and yellow). I think the photograph probably does disservice a little and it would look even better in person - (meaning that I think the photo is making those colors seem more pastel than they really are on your model) I will likely be replicating your choice of paint products, as they seem to be both smooth textured (low metallic noise) while effective in flipping/reflecting, as well as vibrant yet translucent.
> 
> So, House of Kolor....
> 
> 1. what products exactly? Was it house of Kolor pearl pigments mixed in something or was it a House of Kolor product that you used straight out of the bottle? What color/color numbers did you use exactly?
> 
> 2. Did you get them online, or via local hobby catalog?
> 
> 3. what did you use for primer and hull coating?
> 
> 4. What was the order of events - eg: primer, white, pearls, clear coat, decals, sealer, clear coat? Do the decals interfere at all (the clear parts of the decals) with the pearling effect?
> 
> (sorry about all the nitpicking questions but since you first posted your paint job I have seen none better before or after, and I must know!:thumbsup



It's all in this thread.

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=246126

Post #48 gives a pretty good description of what I did. Sequence of events was white primer, sand smooth, apply pearls, decal. That's it. Since the pearls are mixed with clear gloss, I had a nice shiny surface for the decals to adhere to. I purchased everything at the local automotive paint store.


----------



## Raist3001

I have purchased the house of kolor pearl powders Matt has used in his fantastic refit paint job.  According to HOK, the powders can be mixed with any median. However, they did recommend using their INTERCOAT PEARL & FLAKE KARRIER (SG150) median for the best effects. SG150 is a urethane mix. According to HOK....

_SG150 Intercoat Pearl & Flake Karrier is an innovative mid-coat material designed specifically for use with Pearls, Flakes, and other dry products offered in the House Of Kolor product line. 
SG150 features advanced chemistry that encapsulates pearl and flake particles, causing them to self-orient and “lock” in place. This action will vastly improve spray characteristics and finish quality. 
SG150 dries to a very clear, high quality finish.
BENEFITS:
• Greatly reduces or eliminates settling of pearls and flakes in the spray gun
• Locks dry particles into place so they won’t move when top-coated
• Dries crystal clear and allows the brilliance of the pearls and flakes to shine through_

I ordered the Gold rush, the blushing red, and the ocean blue. Green was not in stock, but I'll use some of my powders I already have. I am looking very forward to new rounds of experiments with the new pearl powders. 

Can someone tell me if I can spray a lacquer over urethane and vice versa?


----------



## Fury3

*Found this for ya...*



Raist3001 said:


> I have purchased the house of kolor pearl powders Matt has used in his fantastic refit paint job. According to HOK, the powders can be mixed with any median. However, they did recommend using their INTERCOAT PEARL & FLAKE KARRIER (SG150) median for the best effects. SG150 is a urethane mix. According to HOK....
> 
> _SG150 Intercoat Pearl & Flake Karrier is an innovative mid-coat material designed specifically for use with Pearls, Flakes, and other dry products offered in the House Of Kolor product line. _
> _SG150 features advanced chemistry that encapsulates pearl and flake particles, causing them to self-orient and “lock” in place. This action will vastly improve spray characteristics and finish quality. _
> _SG150 dries to a very clear, high quality finish._
> _BENEFITS:_
> _• Greatly reduces or eliminates settling of pearls and flakes in the spray gun_
> _• Locks dry particles into place so they won’t move when top-coated_
> _• Dries crystal clear and allows the brilliance of the pearls and flakes to shine through_
> 
> I ordered the Gold rush, the blushing red, and the ocean blue. Green was not in stock, but I'll use some of my powders I already have. I am looking very forward to new rounds of experiments with the new pearl powders.
> 
> Can someone tell me if I can spray a lacquer over urethane and vice versa?


Tells of laquers and urethenes

http://www.lowriderbike.com/model_tech/02sumlrb_how_to_paint/


----------



## Raist3001

Great info there Fury, thank you very much.

Now, if I understood the article correctly, I will be able to spray a lacquer white base and then use the urethane with the pearls to spray over the lacquer.


----------



## MartinHatfield

I think I may have found my painting supplies for my refit.

A good buddy of mine gave me three containers of pearl powders from a company in Sheboygan, WI. They are called The Model Doctor Ultra Flake. The little jars have numbers on the top, 6001, 6035 and 6036 respectively. Does anyone know anything about this company? I cannot seem to find anything anywhere on the internet about them.


----------



## TrekFX

MartinHatfield said:


> I think I may have found my painting supplies for my refit.
> 
> A good buddy of mine gave me three containers of pearl powders from a company in Sheboygan, WI. They are called The Model Doctor Ultra Flake. The little jars have numbers on the top, 6001, 6035 and 6036 respectively. Does anyone know anything about this company? I cannot seem to find anything anywhere on the internet about them.


That's funny. I finally decided to dig out my stuff after having moved like three YEARS ago! Found my pearl pigs (uh... pigments!)

I bought a bunch of the Model Doctor stuff way back in '92 or so. It's what I used in the little test video that pops up from time to time.

6001 is "White Europearl." Just working from memory and shaking the jars, it's a pretty basic "white" pearl, medium grain structure if I recall.

6035 is "Blue Accent Pearl." Slightly yellow in direct light, pale blue interference (oblique light.)

I don't have a 6036 on hand, but somewhere I have a brochure. I'll see if I can find it.

A good current resource for off-the-shelf powders is Pearl-Ex, which you can find at craft stores. They offer a variety of single-color containers as well as sample packs with an assortment of colors/effects.


----------



## pointrico

Marc111: Are you still updating your website?


----------



## marc111

Yes I will be. I am in the middle of two things at the moment.
1) I just got in some of the lacquer primer and am going to see how lacquer works with the dry pearl pigments.
2) I am busy light blocking things and beginning the LED wiring.


----------



## Raist3001

I just finished a few lacquer experiments. Not sure if it's me or my eyes, but to me, the lacquer white base coat seems much smoother than my acrylic base coat. And it dried in minutes. And my airbrush is still clean 

I just sprayed a few aztecs to the main hull with the HOK blue ocean pearl. I mixed this with the urethane product recommended by HOK. Supposed to hold the pearl better than lacquer. 

So far I can say that you must be careful not to lay your coatings on heavy.  The blue pearl still gives an off color of yellow. However, it's a bit more golden than it is yellow.

I am going to spray the gold rush pearl next. I am excited to see if the compliment color really is blue 

BY the way, just to confirm for anyone testing their HOK pearls. You can spray a lacquer base coat and then spray urethane over the lacquer coat. You just can not do so in reverse.


----------



## Fury3

Raist3001 said:


> I just finished a few lacquer experiments. Not sure if it's me or my eyes, but to me, the lacquer white base coat seems much smoother than my acrylic base coat. And it dried in minutes. And my airbrush is still clean
> 
> I just sprayed a few aztecs to the main hull with the HOK blue ocean pearl. I mixed this with the urethane product recommended by HOK. Supposed to hold the pearl better than lacquer.
> 
> So far I can say that you must be careful not to lay your coatings on heavy. The blue pearl still gives an off color of yellow. However, it's a bit more golden than it is yellow.
> 
> I am going to spray the gold rush pearl next. I am excited to see if the compliment color really is blue
> 
> BY the way, just to confirm for anyone testing their HOK pearls. You can spray a lacquer base coat and then spray urethane over the lacquer coat. You just can not do so in reverse.


What do you use to thin the urethane and how does it airbrush compared to say... enamels?


----------



## Raist3001

Fury3 said:


> What do you use to thin the urethane and how does it airbrush compared to say... enamels?



I used HOK SG150 polyurethane intercoat and I thinned this with a HOK medium reducer RU311. I had no clogs or sputters, or spit balls or anything. It shot very consistent and very nice. I've never used enamels, so I can't say how it shoots in comparison.


----------



## galaxy_jason

*More information about perlescent paints*

In an internet search I ran across Werner Rudolf Cramer
who has authored several papers about interference pigments. I sent him information about our efforts and he took an interest. The question we all seem to have is why some of the ship has more of a sheen than others, and why parts in the patern appears gray. Please find his response below and note the attached screen cap....


Jason,
I looked up the links you mentioned in your e-mail.

At that time - 1979 - there were just white/color and golden pearlescent pigments on the market. So, Paul Olsen used probably those pigments as he also mentioned to some people.

To speak about the effect of these pigments you have to realize this is depending upon the angle of illumiation and observation. Using a pearlescent white you will have flops/flips from white to a very light yellowish. the others are changing their reflection color (for example blue or green) to the complimentary transmission color (yellow or red). 

You can see the effect especially when you spray them on a white underground. A black underground would absorb the transmission color, i.e. the effect and color is also depending upon the color of the underground/primer because these pigments are transparent.

Next: The effect/color can be infleunced by the way of application. 

Airbrush is a technique which uses several thin layers which results in a more or less transparency. The influence of the application is very big - even if you spray cars etc. by different methods.

At least it is very hard to take picture of objects with pearlescent colors. So, it is very difficult to get a right answer how the paint was done. I would believe Pauls statement because there is no special trick. 

The trick is just a right combination of application and layers of different pearlescent pigments (as he mentioned). Keep in mind that pearlescent pigments mix themself by the additive manner, i.e. pearlescent blue and pearlescent yellow will give a pearlescent white (not green).

The ?-marked (see attached image) areas show probably mixtures of different pearllescent pigments. However, if you spray any color pearlescent on gray you will oberserve the color reflection anyway. You will get something like pearlescent gray if you use a white pearl or if you mix a white pearl with a little bit of solid black (carbon).

I suppose Paul mixed the pigments to get something non-colorful. You will decrease the lightness as well if you mix pearl pigments. If you want you can mix also four pearl colors (blue, green, yellow and red) and you will also get white/gray. Perhaps, this explains the gray color.

Here is an article by Werner for refrence.

http://www.pcimag.com/Articles/Feature_Article/BNP_GUID_9-5-2006_A_10000000000000042217


----------



## Gunstar1

I wonder how much Werner was actually aware of the distortion he is seeing in that screencap - distortion from how low the camera exposure settings really were for shooting the highly reflective studio model - and how much that might be affecting the appearance such that you end up with some "unnatural" pearl colors.... (apart from the random patterns of saturation and overlaying)


----------



## galaxy_jason

The screen cap with the text was my doing. I was trying to convey the "flatness" of the areas in question. But this effect is visible in one of the few photos from Paul's work in progress under normal light. Look at the photo about half way down..

http://www.olsenart.com/strek.html

Anyway, you guys all know what I am talking about. I was just trying to get Werner's opinion since he has worked with these materials for many years.


----------



## galaxy_jason

I was doing a search on interference blue and ran accross Sherwin Williams PT 13 paint. Did some searches on that and found the following car post. If you check the close ups, blue hightlights without an overal yellow cast. Anyone play with this stuff??...

http://www.cardomain.com/ride/696154


----------



## Bay7

If the Pearl blue is a base for the saucer, does it also follow that it is the base for the rest of the ship?

Cheers,

Mike


----------



## SteveR

The Ent-A photos seem to give a fairly good representation of the colors chosen for the Refit's nacelles and supports, since they weren't altered for the E-A, as far as I know, and we don't need to make an assumption there. The secondary hull is a bit more of a problem since it was repainted for the A, but it would probably be a good choice to use blue as the most common pigment for the Refit's secondary hull, since a mostly red or gold sec hull might look odd compared to a mostly blue saucer. 

Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.


----------



## Gunstar1

Paul Olsen told me the whole thing (all the white areas) was given an initial faint blue pearl coat....

But it was quickly obliterated by the many layers put on it.

After going back n forth with studying photos and pearl samples via mail with Galaxy Jason - it is very apparent that the studio model has tons of faint layers of pearl overlapping such that you actually don't ever get a whole lot of color except from the straight on highlights, the rest is all sheen variance - and there's no easy way to get the right effect without being very VERY faint with each application. Even Paul Olsen only had a small jar for each pear color and only used about a third of each FOR THE WHOLE SHIP. 

Don't get caught up in the base color - it is pretty irrelevant - there are so many combinations and permutations and layering of all the pearl colors that rarely can you say with authority "that square is pure pearl blue". The trick is many layers, light application, be a little more generous with blue and green and get creative with combining all of the colors.


----------



## Bay7

Thanks for the very informative replies gents - very much appreciated!

Cheers,

Mike


----------



## Bay7

After a nasty sticky tape glue gumm problem, I started to look at other ways of doing the 100's of tiny smaller panels that need to be added after the main aztec has been painted.

I hit on the idea of spraying pearl onto decal film and cutting the tiny panels out of that - not having any blank decal paper to hand, ironically the only paper I had was a set of acreation models aztec decals!

I cut off some excess paper from one of the sheets and gave it a few light mists of blue pearl from a rattle-can.

To my suprise, it worked! I was mostly expecting the decal to crack or rip. Its still fairly tedious but in my case, preferable to making a mistake with paint masks at this stage!

I'll post some images later.

steve


----------



## galaxy_jason

I had this thought as well, but decided to go with the airbrush. 

Looking forward to seeing how yours turns out.


----------



## Raist3001

I use clear styrene and cut various squares and rectangles and spray the patterns on with my airbrush.


----------



## joshuafrfld701

The smaller paneling does overlap - eg a red panel might partially lay on top of part of a gold panel.


----------



## junglelord

Grip-Mask may be a alternative way to mask and then cut the lines for painting.
http://www.signfinishes.com/\store\65393\TDS\091513 Grip-Mask Strippable Coating tds.pdf

Spray-Mask is the same thing I believe
http://www.custompainting.com/pages/shop_pages/spraymaskinfopage.htm


----------



## eagledocf15

*Great Information*

Thanks to all in this chain.


----------



## galaxy_jason

My aztec page is now online along with photos of the masks I used and comparisons.....

http://www.galaxyphoto.com/jw_ent_paint.htm

-Jason Ware


----------



## Pberg22

Astonishing work!


----------



## Jayluke

nice one


----------



## Detail Man

After reading up to page four of these Threads. Makes me realize - how much
research I have past. For instance the so called strongback / Engineering Deck Area Was First painted Green with a model railroad paint. Then somewhat matched with a bad blue after the Kan battle destruction repaint for ST III. I,ll try to upload photos.
PS. This is my first Thread. I also e-mailed Paul Appox. 8-10 years ago to let him know what a big hit he is - Sent him some photos he had never seen aswell as some Info He was'nt clear on.


----------



## trekman

Looking forward to seeing the pics


----------



## eagledocf15

Detail Man said:


> After reading up to page four of these Threads. Makes me realize - how much
> research I have past. For instance the so called strongback / Engineering Deck Area Was First painted Green with a model railroad paint. Then somewhat matched with a bad blue after the Kan battle destruction repaint for ST III. I,ll try to upload photos.
> PS. This is my first Thread. I also e-mailed Paul Appox. 8-10 years ago to let him know what a big hit he is - Sent him some photos he had never seen aswell as some Info He was'nt clear on.


I would love to see the photos as well. Thanks


----------

