# SS Botany Bay Color Mystery



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Please forgive me repeating this question and opening a new thread for it. But in this last desperate attempt, I'm hoping that someone in the know can answer the question that I've been obsessing over for a long time regarding the inconsistency of the BB color from studio stills to post-production stills.

In the post-production photos (http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/BotanyBay/BotanyBay.htm) the miniature overall was painted more of a brownish ruddy tan than a grey. Granted the photos in general appear somewhat tinted toward a sepia/ochre. Still, when I Photoshop-color-correct any of these photos to a more neutral hue the brown is definitely still there on the model.

Someone else suggested that maybe they applied some sort of powder on it to lighten it up. Which is the only thing I can myself wrap my head around: that there was some sort of temporary chalky coat of something put on the miniature on filming day that "dusted" off thereafter. Hence it doesn't appear on the post production pics that we see except for traces here and there. Maybe they brought the studio model into the studio for filming in '66 after its original paint job of rusty tan and set it next to the Enterprise and maybe thought there was too much of a color contrast—so, being pressed for time as they always were then they made an adjustment to the color right then and there (with powder?!?).

Now, I know the same model was used for a later episode, "The Ultimate Computer," where it appears much more brown/red on-screen. So, the questions then arise:

1) Was the model painted with a new coat of brown for that later episode?

OR...

2) Had much of the silvery stuff already fallen off or wiped off the model by then?

OR...

3) Did "The Ultimate Computer" episode just use footage already shot for "Space Seed" and the model hadn't been re-filmed at all? In which case why does it look reddish-brown for "Ultimate Comp" and grey-white for "Space Seed"?

Please, anybody? :drunk:


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Hmm, why do I feel like Roy Orbison...

If that's the way it must be, ok...


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

The Ultimate Computer used stock footage from Space Seed.

I can't account for the color discrepancy you're seeing, but I suspect the answer has more to do with color timing than "powder."


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

I would say, pick a color that you like and go with it. Since there is no difinitive reference for the color, no one can say it is wrong.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

RSN said:


> I would say, pick a color that you like and go with it. Since there is no difinitive reference for the color, no one can say it is wrong.


Well yes, I know. But there are many threads and posts of people discussing the color of the Enterprise. So, for the sake of authenticity, I'd just like to know the real color of the BB at the time of filming the episode, especially since there seems to be such contradictory visual information about it. I was hoping someone had info that would allow for a more definitive answer to this. But I have yet to find one.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Proper2 said:


> Well yes, I know. But there are many threads and posts of people discussing the color of the Enterprise. So, for the sake of authenticity, I'd just like to know the real color of the BB at the time of filming the episode, especially since there seems to be such contradictory visual information about it. I was hoping someone had info that would allow for a more definitive answer to this. But I have yet to find one.


Then perhaps, after asking and getting no difinitive answer, it is because there is no documentation one way or the other on the model.

With all the "Experts" on Hobby Talk, if there was an answer to be had, they would have offered it. 

Build and be happy! :thumbsup:


----------



## Wattanasiri (Aug 15, 2010)

I second what RSN wrote. Perhaps this photo will help.


----------



## 1966TVBATMOBILE (Mar 21, 2013)

You need the light from space to give that tone your looking for. I would wipe It down and blotch it with a brown, grey and white and call it good.


----------



## CaptCBoard (Aug 3, 2002)

Photos of the actual model when Paramount sent it to Greg Jein for restoration. These are pre-restoration.



















These were taken at the same time Greg was starting work on the Romulan ship for NextGen.

Scott


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

CaptCBoard said:


> Photos of the actual model when Paramount sent it to Greg Jein for restoration. These are pre-restoration.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks, Scott, I've seen these pics, and the ones on the cloudster site, which I believe are of the same, un-restored paint. I've never heard of this miniature being restored! Was it ever?

My question is why this miniature looks so different in the studio stills next to the 11-foot E, where it looks very grey, like it had been hastily and temporarily coated with something on top of the sienna. That's what I'm trying to confirm:


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Well, depending on factors like lighting conditions, film stock, color timing, etc., a model's finish is apt to appear differently from one photograph to the next (as I'm sure you know). 

This kind of thing crops up from time to time on the SS modeling boards, and although its often tempting to explain the discrepancies as being the result of an alternate, or revised, paint scheme my impression in this case is that the tonal variance in the hull color is the result of a photographic trick-of-the-eye. Just my opinion of course, based on what you've posted, and taking into account my own past experiences of having to reconcile similar photographic inconsistencies.

As an aside, given what we know of TOS miniature photography production methods, it's simply not credible to me that the paint scheme of the Botany Bay would have been revised at the last minute. If at any point the issue of too much "contrast" between starship paint schemes became a concern it would have been before the model was painted IMO.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Carson Dyle said:


> Well, depending on factors like lighting conditions, film stock, color timing, etc., a model's finish is apt to appear differently from one photograph to the next (as I'm sure you know).
> 
> This kind of thing crops up from time to time on the SS modeling boards, and although its often tempting to explain the discrepancies as being the result of an alternate, or revised, paint scheme my impression in this case is that the tonal variance in the hull color is the result of a photographic trick-of-the-eye. Just my opinion of course, based on what you've posted, and taking into account my own past experiences of having to reconcile similar photographic inconsistencies.
> 
> As an aside, given what we know of TOS miniature photography production methods, it's simply not credible to me that the paint scheme of the Botany Bay would have been revised at the last minute. If at any point the issue of too much "contrast" between starship paint schemes became a concern it would have been before the model was painted IMO.


I will cite the shocking truth of the 'Skydiver' model from UFO. Never, in a million years, would I have believed that model was painted GOLD. Not 'gold' gold but an automotive shade, we used to have an Oldsmobile that was actually close to the shade.

Anyway, you could have put a gun to my head and I would have never agreed Skydiver was gold, yet there's no arguing when Meddings says so and BTS pictures clearly show it. I would have gone to my grave thinking it was some kind of metallic green. 

So, yeah, I can easily believe that the DY-100 was painted some kind of brown (maybe a bronze?) and under shooting lights shifted to a seeming gray. 

Now, OTOH, is it possible that under the lights it photographed too 'hot' and they hit it with some kind of anti-flare or dullcoat?


----------



## Avian (Feb 16, 2010)

I agree about the color shift. If you use one of the Cloudster pics with the (presumably) black-and-white reference card in it and examine its tones in Photoshop there is a strong bias toward the orange. The manikin in the background also shows the same bias (top photo).

If you shift the color of that reference card to a neutral tone then the pic ends up looking like the one on the bottom. It also makes sense if you assume the curtained table is actually a white fabric, as is the manikin. It certainly could be true that the color used on the model could be a very warm gray, tending toward tan.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Avian said:


> I agree about the color shift. If you use one of the Cloudster pics with the (presumably) black-and-white reference card in it and examine its tones in Photoshop there is a strong bias toward the orange. The manikin in the background also shows the same bias (top photo).
> 
> If you shift the color of that reference card to a neutral tone then the pic ends up looking like the one on the bottom. It also makes sense if you assume the curtained table is actually a white fabric, as is the manikin. It certainly could be true that the color used on the model could be a very warm gray, tending toward tan.


Thanks, although I think you went a little too far with the color shift. Notice the wooden structure behind the model has lost a bit too much of its brown color. Reality is probably somewhere in between the two images, probably closer to your adjustment. Somebody really should balance those pics on the cloudster site... very misleading...


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Many years ago, prior to the Greg Jein restoration, I had the opportunity to inspect the BB model in person. Imagine my surprise when the "grey" ship I'd seen dozens of times on TV turned out to be "brown." 

Of course, we've been through this sort of thing before with the Klingon cruiser. To this day there are Trek modelers who still can't get their minds around the fact that large sections of the Klingon FX miniature were painted green.

Heck, I remember when common wisdom held that the Enterprise was "white."


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

The answer to the Botany Bay color question lies within this frame.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Trek Ace said:


> The answer to the Botany Bay color question lies within this frame.


Unfortunately, it isn't that simple because that frame is a retouched, tint-inaccurate and still washed out representation of a really crappy original image. There are several other similar frames that show a different colored BB...


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

> Unfortunately, it isn't that simple because that frame is a retouched, tint-inaccurate and still washed out representation of a really crappy original image. There are several other similar frames that show a different colored BB...


I throw my hands up in mock despair!

The answer is staring you in the face.

Just look closer...


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Trek Ace said:


> I throw my hands up in mock despair!
> 
> The answer is staring you in the face.
> 
> Just look closer...


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Avian said:


> I agree about the color shift. If you use one of the Cloudster pics with the (presumably) black-and-white reference card in it and examine its tones in Photoshop there is a strong bias toward the orange. The manikin in the background also shows the same bias (top photo).
> 
> If you shift the color of that reference card to a neutral tone then the pic ends up looking like the one on the bottom. It also makes sense if you assume the curtained table is actually a white fabric, as is the manikin. It certainly could be true that the color used on the model could be a very warm gray, tending toward tan.


Thanks for this! I think you probably got really close to the real colors there. :thumbsup:


----------



## CaptCBoard (Aug 3, 2002)

The photos I posted are probably the best representation of the color of the BB. The light came through skylights in the shop, so the photos were shot using actual sunlight. All the other photos were shot in room lighting, none of which was the best color temperature. The studio shot would be the best resource, but only if the original negative was scanned. 

Scott


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

CaptCBoard said:


> The photos I posted are probably the best representation of the color of the BB. The light came through skylights in the shop, so the photos were shot using actual sunlight. All the other photos were shot in room lighting, none of which was the best color temperature. The studio shot would be the best resource, but only if the original negative was scanned.
> 
> Scott


Thanks, Scott!


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Sorry, duplicate images.


----------



## Calamus (Jun 8, 2011)

I painted and weathered mine to look very much like the studio reference pics. Once I was 95% done I decided I just did not like it and that it would look out of place with my TOS E. I killed me to do it but I stripped it down and I'm going to repaint and weather it to look like the pic Trek Ace posted. It may not be accurate, but I'll be happier with it and that’s all that matters to me.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

I painted mine more like the studio model and am happy with it. I think it will add a nice contrast with the Enterprise.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Calamus said:


> I painted and weathered mine to look very much like the studio reference pics. Once I was 95% done I decided I just did not like it and that it would look out of place with my TOS E. I killed me to do it but I stripped it down and I'm going to repaint and weather it to look like the pic Trek Ace posted. It may not be accurate, but I'll be happier with it and that’s all that matters to me.





Opus Penguin said:


> I painted mine more like the studio model...




Painting "like the studio model," is a very vague term at best. There are different photos of this, and almost all of them are color-balance challenged! I'm certain that the studio miniature pics at cloudster, showing the color as very brownish-orange are very inaccurate due to the skewed light and or photo filter of the photos. Those need to be color balanced which is difficult because of lack of other color references in the photos. From what I've gathered, the pic posted by Scott (CaptainCBoard) may show the most accurate representation of the actual color because the photo appears to have been lit naturally via a skylight above (post # 9): http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=390224. The model still shows an overall tan color, just not nearly as saturated as we've been led to believe.

On the other hand this does not preclude an additional splotchy coat of white/silver/grey that may have been added to the model for filming that may have later been largely wiped off or fallen off. (Baby powder!?) This is just my personal hunch based on all the various photos I've seen of a very pale model next to the Enterprise.

I suppose there's no right or wrong way to paint your BB, as long as you're happy with it. I wanted my model to be painted "accurately" to the 1966 filming model. But that accuracy has become a rather slippery reality as there seems to be no definitive set of photos and or documentation of paint chips showing the true color, as there is for the Enterprise.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Since gray is not a true color and by it's very nature reflects and absorbs colors aroud it, the true color of the Botany Bay can't be determined through pictures alone. Only seeing it in person will you get the true tone that it was painted. 

If there were browns used to mix the gray hull color, under some lighting conditions, it will appear more tan, under others, more blue, like the Enterprise. 

Good luck with your build and make it how you feel most comfortable,


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

A thing on the pictures, it's important to remember that part of the problem goes to an entire generation of Kodak film and processing, a problem that affected Hollywood as well as us home users. 

With movie film it was instability with the color yellow. 'Yellow Layer Failure' is an actual crisis with some motion pictures.

Home photography seems to suffer from something similar. Not only prints, but the original negatives as well. 

If memory serves (for home photography) it all has to do with trying to speed up processing time due to the increasing use of 'point and shoot' cameras and the volume of film making its way to process labs.


----------



## RICHjm (Jun 14, 2010)

From One of his sketches of the "antique space freighter" by Matt Jefferies he had made the note ....
"LT.GRAY- +AGE."


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

RICHjm said:


> From One of his sketches of the "antique space freighter" by Matt Jefferies he had made the note ....
> "LT.GRAY- +AGE."
> View attachment 172136


Yes, I've seen that...


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

It never looked brown or tan to me onscreen. To me it always looked grey and weathered. If it were me that's what I'd go for. The brown may be truly accurate, but I'm not filming it so I'd want it to look as I saw it onscreen.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

I had the privilege of inspecting the BB up close and personal back in the early 80's -- years before Greg Jein performed any restoration chores. Not only was the miniature tan, is was very tan (dirty yellow ochre is perhaps a more accurate description). 

Now, I'm very much of the "paint it as you like" mentality, but at the same time I _do_ like knowing (to whatever extent possible) which colors were actually used on the original miniature. 

This particular grey vs. tan debate reminds of the Buck Rogers Thunderfighter grey vs. tan debate. In many shots the fighter appears grey, but the actual finish was, in fact, tan. 

I suppose we'll never know for certain if the BB finish was altered prior to shooting via some sort of dulling/ greying/ misting application, but based on the pix we have on hand, and absent any additional evidence, I see no reason to believe this to have been the case.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Warped9 said:


> It never looked brown or tan to me onscreen. To me it always looked grey and weathered. If it were me that's what I'd go for. The brown may be truly accurate, but I'm not filming it so I'd want it to look as I saw it onscreen.


That certainly makes sense. And I'm beginning to agree. I think I'm beginning to realize that many of us have been bamboozled mainly by the cloudster website, perhaps not realizing that those sepia-looking pics of a thoroughly ruddy studio miniature are quite color-imbalanced. Tale a look at this beautiful illustration; yet if a faithful recreation of the scene is what you're after, I believe it's inaccurate in regards to the BB:


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Carson Dyle said:


> I suppose we'll never know for certain if the BB finish was altered prior to shooting via some sort of dulling/ greying/ misting application, but based on the pix we have on hand, and absent any additional evidence, I see no reason to believe this to have been the case.


Well, to me it seems the only possibility: In light of the photographic evidence of a very brown post-production miniature, and at the same time the known studio stills of the BB and the E in front of a blue screen showing a ghostly white-grey BB—nearly the same hue and tone as the E—my eye and my brain cannot superimpose the two realities without such scenario as a last minute, and apparently temporary, application on the model for the desired shot.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

For me another good example of this is the TMP refit. Onscreen it simply doesn't look as jarring as how it looked in person.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

I painted mine a light brown, matching more the current color of the studio model, then weathered it. I took a picture of mine with a flash, and the picture matches more what we see in the studio pictures. I am more inclined to think the model is more washed out under the studio lights giving it the gray appearance. I attached a picture of mine to provide what I am talking about. Second picture is without the flash (so also a little blurry).


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Proper2 said:


> ...my brain cannot superimpose the two realities without such scenario as a last minute, and apparently temporary, application on the model for the desired shot.


All I can tell you is that when I saw the model at Paramount in 1984 there was zero evidence of any such application. The model was tan, having been weathered per the pix posted upthread. There was no sign of any subsequent "greying" application.

I mean, I can see hitting a brightly lit filming miniature with a blast or two of dull coat to mitigate hot spots, but no amount of dull coat will turn a brown model temporarily grey.

Which begs the question; what would turn a model temporarily grey? Pastels are certainly effective when weathering a model, but they're unlikely to significantly alter the color of the base coat. And even if they could, I can't imagine a scenario in which a film crew would attack the (alleged) problem in this way.

But maybe I'm missing something. Has anyone ever heard of a filming miniature -- any filming miniature -- having its base color altered at the last minute via some temporary method?


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Opus Penguin said:


> I painted mine a light brown, matching more the current color of the studio model, then weathered it. I took a picture of mine with a flash, and the picture matches more what we see in the studio pictures. I am more inclined to think the model is more washed out under the studio lights giving it the gray appearance. I attached a picture of mine to provide what I am talking about. Second picture is without the flash (so also a little blurry).


Amazing! So, which of your pics most accurately reflects the real thing to the naked eye?


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Carson Dyle said:


> All I can tell you is that when I saw the model at Paramount in 1984 there was zero evidence of any such application. The model was tan, having been weathered per the pix posted upthread. There was no sign of any subsequent "greying" application.
> 
> I mean, I can see hitting a brightly lit filming miniature with a blast or two of dull coat to mitigate hot spots, but no amount of dull coat will turn a brown model temporarily grey.
> 
> ...












The answer to everyone's question on the color change lies within this frame. Please observe carefully and the answer will reveal itself.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Trek Ace said:


> The answer to everyone's question on the color change lies within this frame. Please observe carefully and the answer will reveal itself.


Thanks, now why didn't I think of that?!


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Proper2 said:


> Amazing! So, which of your pics most accurately reflects the real thing to the naked eye?





Opus Penguin said:


> _*I painted mine a light brown*_, matching more the current color of the studio model, then weathered it. .


Brilliant!


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Never mind this post.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Trek Ace said:


> The answer to everyone's question on the color change lies within this frame. Please observe carefully and the answer will reveal itself.


I'm obviously being very dense today (what else is new). Care to give me a hint?


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Proper2 said:


> Amazing! So, which of your pics most accurately reflects the real thing to the naked eye?


The second picture more accurately represents the color. The model actually looks more a ruddy brown color. I would say maybe a little more brown than what the picture represents.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> I'm obviously being very dense today (what else is new). Care to give me a hint?


Same here. I am obviously missing the reference and will probably do a facepalm when it is pointed out to me.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Trek Ace said:


> The answer to everyone's question on the color change lies within this frame. Please observe carefully and the answer will reveal itself.


The wooden frames under the models are gray/bleached out where the studio lights are hitting them but tannish brown otherwise?


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Opus Penguin said:


> Same here. I am obviously missing the reference and will probably do a facepalm when it is pointed out to me.


Actually, Opus, you've come the closest to realizing the answer.

Unfortunately, it looks as though there will be a lot of facepalming when the clues are revealed. Please save yourselves from that. I'm not trying to be cryptic about anything, the clues are very obvious and the answer very simple.

If you can't find the answer yourselves, then seek out Mark Gagen or David Shaw. I have come to have great respect for their observational skills and tenacity in deconstructing this stuff.

If no one can figure this out by Friday, I will begin posting the clues then. 

One more time:


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Well I did notice in the studio picture, you can see the brown color on the front of the cargo pod just under the bridge/nose section. Almost looks like a shadow but is brown.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Only thing I can come up with is a. it's being hit with a colored gel or b. it's getting a LOT of bounced light from the blue screen stuff. 

But guys, really, pull back a moment, huh? We're getting to that "I'm right, you're wrong, you can't know anything because you haven't worked in the biz blah blah natter natter" stage and the reality is just what everyone knows in their heart:

The color is the color you want it to be. End Line. 

If truth says the ship was painted in a light tan and heavily weathered, and under studio conditions it photographed gray, I'm fine with that.I see no contradiction, no mystery 'shooting floor sudden repaint that magically vanished' stuff. It's what I would paint it because that's how it looked on my TV. Gray with heavy weathering. 

Not sure WHY it would be so heavily weathered (in real life), I leap to the assumption it's a 'filming conceit' because it had to look old. 

But otherwise, just, you know, take a deep breath. it's only a model.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Steve H said:


> We're getting to that "I'm right, you're wrong, you can't know anything because you haven't worked in the biz blah blah natter natter" stage


Man, I must be _really_ dense today, because I've detected nary a natter.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Not a flutter nor a flitter of a natter (or a nitter)? Maybe my natter detector is set too high.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Opus Penguin said:


> Well I did notice in the studio picture, you can see the brown color on the front of the cargo pod just under the bridge/nose section. Almost looks like a shadow but is brown.


Good observation, Opus.

Keep going.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Steve H said:


> Only thing I can come up with is a. it's being hit with a colored gel or b. it's getting a LOT of bounced light from the blue screen stuff.
> 
> But guys, really, pull back a moment, huh? We're getting to that "I'm right, you're wrong, you can't know anything because you haven't worked in the biz blah blah natter natter" stage and the reality is just what everyone knows in their heart:
> 
> ...


My late mentor used to tell me when I would get frustrated "Okay, Junior. A little less sarcasm and a little more observation. Figure it out." 

A wise man, my late mentor.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Steve H said:


> But otherwise, just, you know, take a deep breath. it's only a model.


Shatner once said, "It's only a TV show..." Funny, there are thousands of posts "dissecting" models in TV shows... this one in particular. So... why 'take a deep breath' NOW all of a sudden!?


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Avian said:


> I agree about the color shift. If you use one of the Cloudster pics with the (presumably) black-and-white reference card in it and examine its tones in Photoshop there is a strong bias toward the orange. The manikin in the background also shows the same bias (top photo).
> 
> If you shift the color of that reference card to a neutral tone then the pic ends up looking like the one on the bottom. It also makes sense if you assume the curtained table is actually a white fabric, as is the manikin. It certainly could be true that the color used on the model could be a very warm gray, tending toward tan.


My color-correction interpretation would be a little less drastic... closer to this (which is still a ways off from the studio pic posted by TrekAce on post #47) :


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Still waiting for the big secret that's in front of our faces to be revealed.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Standing by to be simultaneously shamed and enlightened.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Sorry I haven't posted the clues yet. The thread slipped off my radar.

I am currently attending a conference in LV and will post them when I return next week, unless you guys surprise me and figure it out first. 

All of the clues are already in this thread. All I will do is highlight them.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Anybody know the whereabouts of the studio miniature these days? I have a good mind to buy a ticket to ride to see it in person.


----------



## FishRC (Sep 28, 2001)

Well looking at the studio picture there are 4 points of lighting in this. The one you see on the floor shooting the blue screen. The one from lower right ( you can tell by the lighting on the left side of the man's body) to get the underside of the ships and then the upper left to key light the ships. The 4th light is above and behind the ships and is the hottest and most blue, this is what gives the third dimension and you see it well on the mans arm. What makes the colors look off is the high intensity light on the key light that has a high deg K and thus is more blue. That's the same with the floor light shooting the blue screen. The lower right light has a lower deg K and so tends to be more red and at a lower intensity so that you have the proper shadowing.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

FishRC said:


> Well looking at the studio picture there are 4 points of lighting in this. The one you see on the floor shooting the blue screen. The one from lower right ( you can tell by the lighting on the left side of the man's body) to get the underside of the ships and then the upper left to key light the ships. The 4th light is above and behind the ships and is the hottest and most blue, this is what gives the third dimension and you see it well on the mans arm. What makes the colors look off is the high intensity light on the key light that has a high deg K and thus is more blue. That's the same with the floor light shooting the blue screen. The lower right light has a lower deg K and so tends to be more red and at a lower intensity so that you have the proper shadowing.



Don't know what "deg K" means, but are you saying that 3 of the 4 lights are so hot and blue-tinted that they're making a brown BB look light grey? Makes sense, I suppose.


----------



## FishRC (Sep 28, 2001)

Lighting is described in degrees kelvin to tell how hot the light is and gives you the spectrum the light will produce. Color temperatures over 5,000K are called _cool colors_ (blueish white), while lower color temperatures (2,700–3,000 K) are called _warm colors_ (yellowish white through red). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

FishRC,

Your observational skills are right on.

Finally, someone is beginning to see the clues that have been there all along and analyzing what they mean!

(In best Don Rickles voice) You win a cookie!


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Trek Ace said:


> FishRC,
> 
> Your observational skills are right on.
> 
> ...


Rickles would also talk about a hockey puck.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> The wooden frames under the models are gray/bleached out where the studio lights are hitting them but tannish brown otherwise?


You got one of the clues, Perfessor! 

Sorry I didn't notice you left this before. Looking back at the times of the post, it looks like yours came in as I was replying to the previous post from Opus.

Looks like I may not have to post the clues after all, since you guys have been nailing them!

But, I'll post them (visually) anyway just for clarification upon my return from LV.

To clarify the mystery of the _Botany Bay_ color:

The model was indeed painted the warm "tan" color as Greg Jien's photos testify. When the models were filmed, the _Botany Bay_ was lit separately from the _Enterprise_ using brighter, blue-colored light that resulted in a higher Kelvin temperature that caused the tan hull color to "shift" to the light grey-blue color as seen on screen.

Since the hull color of the _Botany Bay_ is similar to a skin tone or natural wood color, any natural wood object or exposed human skin that fell within that lighting would be effected as well.

As you can see below, the camera assistants hand and sweater arm both appear to have shifted from a warm tone to a cool one, with the hand looking a very pale light blue-grey. (Clue #1)










If you notice above, that end of the wooden 2"x6" "teetertotter" plank used to "float" the _Botany Bay_ for this particular shot has undergone the same shift in exposure and color. (Clue #2)

Also, if you look at the shadow falling on the underside front end of the cargo containers of the_ Botany Bay_, it is slightly warmer in tone than the surrounding. (Clue #3)

Congratulations to Opus Penguin, Perfesser Coffee and FishRC for deciphering the clues. Opus's photos of his model under different lighting conditions pretty much explained it, as shown below.

Same model with warm-tone paint job exposed under household "warm" light:









and with a flash "cool" light:










Thanks to your great collective observational skills, you solved the mystery of the Botany Bay color! :wave:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Trek Ace said:


> You got one of the clues, Perfessor!
> 
> Sorry I didn't notice you left this before. Looking back at the times of the post, it looks like yours came in as I was replying to the previous post from Opus.
> 
> ...


Okay, I'm convinced! It was tan :thumbsup:


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

In other words:



Carson Dyle said:


> Depending on factors like lighting conditions, film stock, color timing, etc., a model's finish is apt to appear differently from one photograph to the next.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Carson Dyle said:


> In other words:
> 
> Originally Posted by Carson Dyle View Post
> Depending on factors like lighting conditions, film stock, color timing, etc., a model's finish is apt to appear differently from one photograph to the next.


Yeah, something like that. :thumbsup:

I guess that pretty much satisfies the mystery. I just didn't realize the lighting was such that it can change the color that drastically. The Enterprise was already a cool grey so no big alteration there with the high deg K cool lights.


----------

