# Revell 1/600 Klingon D7



## jaws62666 (Mar 25, 2009)

Here is the Revell version D7. I think that the kit is well engineered, and overall looks pretty close to the Round 2 version. Just the scribings on the top hull and bridge from the Deep Space 9 version make it different. The paints are Krylon Satin Pistachio and Rustoleum Painters Touch Satin Granite. Decals are awesome and look painted on.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Looks *GREAT* jaws.:thumbsup:
-Jim


----------



## Carl_G (Jun 30, 2012)

Oooh, very nice!

They may not be screen-accurate, but I like the scribed lines on the top of the hull. I find it kind of strange that they don't continue across the rest of the surface; it make the other parts of the ship look kind of less finished by comparison.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

That is a beautiful model, but I have to admit that I really dislike those engraved lines... they should have kept it true to TOS, and made it smooth, and not retconned from DS9 or ENT. But your model came out great, and the paint job looks awesome... great job!


----------



## walsing (Aug 22, 2010)

Looking good!


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

My only issue with this is the color choices made. Yes, I know the reason for painting as it's painted, but it's just too... VIVID... for my tastes, and looks nothing like what I see on my TV screen.

A more subtle, "desaturated" approach would look better, from my standpoint. But... you didn't build this for me, you built it for yourself, so as long as it's what you wanted... who am I to question it?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I think when I finally get around to building another D-7, I'll go for a slight two-tone gray, rather than the green & gray of the shooting model.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

I have the Krylon Celery for the green on mine, but I'm still on the fence about which gray to buy for the rest. Any suggestions?


----------



## Carl_G (Jun 30, 2012)

If you feel like going non-screen accurate, try shades of dark and light gunmetal instead of grey and green. I painted my last D-7 that way and it looked great!

(I'd post some pics, but it met a warrior's death battling gravity (i.e., fell off the shelf and went smash ))


----------



## geminibuildups (Apr 22, 2005)

I'm working on an ERTL 25th anniversary reissue D7 for a client. I used the Krylon Celery with Krylon Classic Gray. Those look pretty close to the colors on the studio miniature I have seen. 

Photos will be posted on the website soon.

It still looks ALL gray on screen to me.


*Geminibuildups

GEMINI MODEL BUILD-UP STUDIOS
www.geminibuildupstudios.com*


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

When I did mine, I did it with a green-shaded grey and a blue-purple-shaded grey. In several areas, I used my airbrush to shade it a bit.

I've always been convinced that the reason for painting the mini the two shades was because they wanted to be sure that the shape of the thing could come across on-screen (even when all the detail was getting "blurred out" and the studio lighting was making it uniformly lit... ie, no shadow effect to speak of).

We know that the green totally disappeared when shot. Mainly because this was processed with multiple passes on the optical printer, all using Kodak film (which, as discussed elsewhere recently, removes a significant portion of the green tinting from any shot... hence why command tunics on screen are not at all green, while the tunic fabric used did have a bit of green shade to it).

The green was captured on the first-pass shots, albeit paler than you might expect it to be. Subsequent optical printer passes would remove effectively all traces of green, or "purple" for that matter, green, but would retain the "different shades of grey to show the ship's overall shape" effect that they were going for.

So... when I did my AMT Klingon ship, I used just the most barely detectable hints of the green and the purple tints.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

CLBrown said:


> We know that the green totally disappeared when shot. Mainly because this was processed with multiple passes on the optical printer, all using Kodak film (which, as discussed elsewhere recently, removes a significant portion of the green tinting from any shot... hence why command tunics on screen are not at all green, while the tunic fabric used did have a bit of green shade to it).
> 
> The green was captured on the first-pass shots, albeit paler than you might expect it to be. Subsequent optical printer passes would remove effectively all traces of green, or "purple" for that matter, green, but would retain the "different shades of grey to show the ship's overall shape" effect that they were going for.


The truth is the Klingon ship was not shot with just white light, but was lit with cyan-filtered light from below, which had the side effect of lowering the contrast somewhat. The film stock used was Eastman 5254, which was a full stop faster than what the _Enterprise_ was originally shot with. I have no idea what "subsequent optical printer passes" you are referring to to remove color. Nothing like that was ever done on the Klingon ship that I can recollect.


----------



## StarCruiser (Sep 28, 1999)

I can live with the engraved lines on the hull - but what were they thinking with those horizontal grill inserts?!? Wrong on all counts...


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

StarCruiser said:


> I can live with the engraved lines on the hull - but what were they thinking with those horizontal grill inserts?!? Wrong on all counts...


I saw that as well. I don't see anything about the Revell Germany kit that would make me want to buy it instead of an original AMT kit, or at the very least, a Round 2 repop.as for the hull engraving, if someone came up with a Klingon version of an Aztec mask pattern you could do a very cool paint scheme using two shades of paint that were subtly different on a smooth skinned kit.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Trek Ace said:


> The truth is the Klingon ship was not shot with just white light, but was lit with cyan-filtered light from below, which had the side effect of lowering the contrast somewhat. The film stock used was Eastman 5254, which was a full stop faster than what the _Enterprise_ was originally shot with. I have no idea what "subsequent optical printer passes" you are referring to to remove color. Nothing like that was ever done on the Klingon ship that I can recollect.


Prior to CGI, almost no effects shots were ever achieved without multiple optical-printer passes. It's not like today, where you can capture an image digitally, and then digitally matte it into a frame. Only on rare occasions, when things could be done entirely in-camera (such as Trumbull's work on 2001) could you avoid the issues related to the "several layers deep" optical compositing process.

Every single time you see any ship, on TOS Trek (or virtually any other SFX-rich show prior to digital compositing), you're seeing something several generations of film away from the originally-shot footage.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I am well-aware of production, optical and digital processes, since that has been my profession for several decades. 

I just wanted to be certain that the obvious misinformation from the earlier quote was corrected for the benefit of other readers.


----------



## secretreeve (Sep 11, 2012)

very nice


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Looks nice and clean, dude!


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Trek Ace said:


> I am well-aware of production, optical and digital processes, since that has been my profession for several decades.
> 
> I just wanted to be certain that the obvious misinformation from the earlier quote was corrected for the benefit of other readers.


What "obvious misinformation?" 

I stated that, as an effect of putting the old effects shots through multiple generations of processing, through the optical printers, and with every single pass being done on film which, in this case, was Kodak film (meaning which removes a portion of "green" in favor of more yellow-orange), the green of the miniature almost entirely disappeared.

That's not "obvious misinformation." That's the truth. If you've worked in the process, WITH OPTICAL COMPOSITING, for several decades (and I have no reason not to believe you), I know you already know this.

So... please, explain in more detail what you believe I've said that is "obvious misinformation." If I'm laboring under a false understanding (held for half a century), I'd sure like to get my misunderstanding corrected.


----------



## StarCruiser (Sep 28, 1999)

Gemini1999 said:


> I saw that as well. I don't see anything about the Revell Germany kit that would make me want to buy it instead of an original AMT kit, or at the very least, a Round 2 repop.as for the hull engraving, if someone came up with a Klingon version of an Aztec mask pattern you could do a very cool paint scheme using two shades of paint that were subtly different on a smooth skinned kit.


And ... the AMT/R2 repop is cheaper to buy!


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

StarCruiser said:


> And ... the AMT/R2 repop is cheaper to buy!


Well, the one really big advantage of the Revell kit is that it's pre-configured for lighting.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I like this kit- I can get past the slightly over sized windows but I do love the ability to easily light it. The top hull scribing is good with me too- I like the implication the heavy TMP plating was derived from a more subtle one on earlier D-7s- we just did not see that detail because of the TV resolution. I will probably extend the scribed lines to the rest of the hull, folliwing the kit's style and usint the TMP D-7m as a position reference.
The Constitution kit has too much wrong in the secondary hull to spend that much for, I will use those funds toward the 1/350 version, but this Klingon ship is in the must have category.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

CLBrown said:


> Well, the one really big advantage of the Revell kit is that it's pre-configured for lighting.


So is an old version AMT.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Captain April said:


> So is an old version AMT.


Not so much. This kit has pretty much the entire window system, as well as several other items.

Having lit an old AMT kit, including all the windows, using large-diameter optical fibers (and masking over them to make them rectangular), I just find it very, very painful. If this kit makes it easier to make a lit model, that's a real "plus" thing here, isn't it?

And yes, this applies to both the Enterprise and Klingon kits.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

You're not thinking old enough.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Captain April said:


> You're not thinking old enough.


Are you telling me that, all evidence to the contrary, at some point the AMT kits had clear parts for every window on the ship?

I'm 99.999% sure that's not the case. But if it is, please, tell me which release of the original AMT kits had clear windows and precut window openings throughout the ship... either for the Klingon or the Enterprise models.

Having two primary hull domes and two nacelle domes in clear isn't the same as having those, plus all the windows and lamps and so forth. Having two little "bumps" on the klingon bridge in green clear isn't the same as having bits on the engines, plus all the windows.

What are you suggesting "came before what I'm thinking of?"


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

The older AMT kits of the D7 did have some pre-cut oversized round holes in the bulb for lit windows, but not any rectangular ones. He might be thinking of those. They were in the kit until the R2 accurization filled them and replaced them with decals.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

charonjr said:


> The older AMT kits of the D7 did have some pre-cut oversized round holes in the bulb for lit windows, but not any rectangular ones. He might be thinking of those. They were in the kit until the R2 accurization filled them and replaced them with decals.


I built one AMT Klingon kit purchased in 1969, and another (small box) version purchased in 1990. Both had "raised line outlines" for windows on the triangular "command deck" and neck. The earlier one had the little round holes in the "bulb" as you mention. The later one lacked them, and only had raised outlines, just like on the neck and triangle. Both had green plastic "rods with lenses" which stuck in through the "jellybean" bridge.

The original one, I built without painting. The second one, I used information about the original studio paint job, and then "color matched" the as-seen-on-screen color (harder to do before having today's level of computer hardware, but it was possible!), and came up with an 'intermediate target" for the colors, in between the "as painted" and "as seen on-screen" colors.

In my second one, I left out the green "bridge lamp rods" entirely. Instead, I used epoxy putty to fill in those holes, then used the spherical heads from straight pins to replace them, and painted them red (as with the original model, as I saw it at the Smithsonian, previous to any rework or repaint being done).

I sanded the raised "window lines" off of this second model, and individually masked and painted the rows of windows.

Both of these are packed up right now, but I clearly remember them both, as I had the original one in my bedroom for most of my youth, and the later one is one of several kits I "rotate" on a display shelf in my living room (where I show off my best stuff).


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

CLBrown said:


> What "obvious misinformation?"
> 
> I stated that, as an effect of putting the old effects shots through multiple generations of processing, through the optical printers, and with every single pass being done on film which, in this case, was Kodak film (meaning which removes a portion of "green" in favor of more yellow-orange), the green of the miniature almost entirely disappeared.
> 
> ...


So sensitive! "Maybe" this will help.

This is a familiar site, right? Scroll through and there's an image of the titles after film elements were combined, and the original single element of the model. It shows the generational loss from multiple passes.

http://startrekhistory.com/models.html


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

CL, I hadn't realized that they hole type windows were filled in back in the '90s. My bad. If I had RTV rubber, I'd make a clear copy of the windowed areas and mask and paint. The RTV is way too expensive for me now. Oh well.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Trek Ace said:


> I just wanted to be certain that the obvious misinformation from the earlier quote was corrected for the benefit of other readers.





CLBrown said:


> What "obvious misinformation?"


CL,

I've followed TrekACE's every post for many years and while I've been unable to definitively nail down his identity, I'm nearly certain he was involved in the production of TOS. He is the right age, in the right profession, and has worked with the right people. He is privy to an astonishing amount of very detailed inside information and has been quite willing to share bits of it with the rest of us from time to time. Many times I've seen his statements called into question by the less well informed, but I have never seen him take the bait when challenged. I take this as a sign of quiet confidence. It pays to take careful note of whatever he says about the show. I'd love to know who he is, but he obviously wants to be anonymous. 

Just sayin', you may be disputing production techniques with someone who actually produced the production in question...

M.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

And for the record, all I was indicating was that the original issue of the AMT kit had a lighting setup. At no time did I indicate that every frelling thing that could possibly be interpreted as needing to be lit was made to be so. However, there were those open window holes, the starstep bits on either side, and the two bits on the top of the bridge, with a grain-of-wheat bulb inside, batteries back in the hull, and a switch on the underside.

Gotta be careful when you're connecting the dots that you're not adding in some dots of your own in the process.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I am trying to remember- did the original filming model have any lights at all or were the windows and detail just painted?


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

No, the details were painted. They didn't start thinking in terms of lighting it until Phase Two.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

MGagen said:


> Just sayin', you may be disputing production techniques with someone who actually produced the production in question...
> 
> M.


Well, let's be fair here... I'm not "disputing" anything. I made a statement, and someone who I don't personally know well disputed my statement. I then asked that person to support that. I did so in a way which in no way challenged that person's knowledgeability. So far, he hasn't done so, but he still could.

It is very, very well established that optical printing results in fading. This is why the TIE fighters in Star Wars appear grey on-screen even though they were painted blue, for example, and yes, THE PEOPLE WHO DID THE EFFECTS said so. I did not originally understand that, but I have listened to people who do this, all the time, year after year after year, and did so from the times of "2001" up until the final days of optical compositing. I've never been a personal expert on this, because I've never done it for a living myself, but I've followed this field very closely for my entire life, and every SFX professional I've ever read or heard comments from has said the same thing.

In other words, as far as I'm concerned, real, established experts in the field tell me that image quality (and in particular, color reproduction) is affected with each and every pass on the optical printer, as multiple elements are passed from one film reel onto a new "combined reel," and then combined with still more elements on yet another fill reel, and so forth, until the complete special effects sequence is completed.

With modern computer-based compositing, this "replicative fading" issue is not a problem anymore.. . so even those films which still occasionally use physical models (the last one I'm familiar with was Serenity, but I'm sure that this still happens from time to time) can ensure proper color fidelity from first-reel to final product today. But in the pre-digital era, every NAMED, WELL-KNOWN PROFESSIONAL who I've ever seen comments on over this issue has been in agreement.

And let's be clear... the fellow who responded to my comment might well have said that I was "in error" or I was "mistaken" or so forth. But that's not what he said, now, was it?

No... he said something which was overtly offensive in tone. He accused me of engaging in willfully spreading "misinformation." His statement was phrased in such a way as to read as "you're a liar who's just making things up and I'm calling you on it."

Well, I'm not. I wasn't making anything up. I was applying information gained by listening to REAL, ACKNOWLEDGED EXPERTS IN THE FIELD, and I said what I said because I believe it to be true.

His tone was offensive. But I chose to, rather than taking offense, to give him the opportunity to "pull back" on the overtly, willfully aggressive tone he took with me, and instead to expand on his statement to make it into a POSITIVE STATEMENT (rather than, as he first made, an "accusatory attack") telling what he "really meant" and perhaps, especially if he really is someone who worked on the show, what "really happened."

I'm still waiting on that. 

I've never worked in the effects industry. I take my information about how that industry works from those who DO work in that industry. The more information we have about who a person is, what they've done, and so forth, the more I'm inclined to treat them as an authority. I'm usually pretty disinclined to take "anonymous sources" as authorities, however... especially if there's absolutely nothing to be lost should they identify themselves. While "anonymous sources" in politics, or military, or even business, can be understood (to avoid potential backlash and career destruction, or even death)... I'm having a hard time understanding why someone would want to be an "anonymous source" about working on the set of a 1960s TV show.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Captain April said:


> And for the record, all I was indicating was that the original issue of the AMT kit had a lighting setup. At no time did I indicate that every frelling thing that could possibly be interpreted as needing to be lit was made to be so. However, there were those open window holes, the starstep bits on either side, and the two bits on the top of the bridge, with a grain-of-wheat bulb inside, batteries back in the hull, and a switch on the underside.
> 
> Gotta be careful when you're connecting the dots that you're not adding in some dots of your own in the process.


Very true. So, when I made my statement that "Well, the one really big advantage of the Revell kit is that it's pre-configured for lighting" and you disputed that, I think you were doing this very thing.

I stand by my original comment - the one big advantage of the new Revell Klingon kit, over the original AMT kit, is that it's pre-configured for lighting. Yes, there was some limited allowance for lighting in the early-generation AMT kits, but the Revell kit still maintains a strong advantage in the area of "light-ability." This advantage is even stronger where the Enterprise kit is concerned, though the Revell Klingon can be built up to very closely resemble the TOS klingon ship, while the Revell Enterprise can't, so I like the Revell Klingon a lot better than the Revell Enterprise.

If someone wants to light up their Star Trek models, the Revell kits are leaps and bounds better than the old AMT kits. That's the reason for buying them. Accuracy issues are a whole 'nother kettle of fish, though.


----------



## Mike Warshaw (Feb 23, 1999)

CLBrown said:


> His tone was offensive. But I chose to, rather than taking offense, to give him the opportunity to "pull back" on the overtly, willfully aggressive tone he took with me, and instead to expand on his statement to make it into a POSITIVE STATEMENT (rather than, as he first made, an "accusatory attack") telling what he "really meant" and perhaps, especially if he really is someone who worked on the show, what "really happened."
> 
> I'm still waiting on that.


I also pay close attention to TrekAce posts, as they're usually helpful and informative. I don't think he was being offensive at all. I think he was just trying to correct what he termed as some misinformation -- as in misinformed, not lying.

CL, I read your stuff when time allows, and find it very informative as well, although sometimes overwhelmingly detailed. Please take this in the helpful way it's meant. I think you're unnecessarily taking offense. He made his point and may have moved on. In my eyes at least, he doesn't owe anyone a further defense of that point, and judging from his past posts, may simply be uninterested in rising to the bait and engaging further.

It takes nothing from your vast and punctilious expertise, or the time you dedicate to building your presence here, for someone to disagree or say you're wrong about something. Please. Enjoy, don't fight.

And I must say, after all of that very strong opinion about what the right approach is to understanding the big E, I'm really looking forward to following your first build of the forthcoming 1/350 kit on this forum. I expect to pick up a lot, and I hope you share that experience with us.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

CLBrown said:


> Very true. So, when I made my statement that "Well, the one really big advantage of the Revell kit is that it's pre-configured for lighting" and you disputed that, I think you were doing this very thing.


I didn't "dispute" it, I only pointed out that it wasn't exactly unique in that regard. AMT did it also back in '67.



> I stand by my original comment - the one big advantage of the new Revell Klingon kit, over the original AMT kit, is that it's pre-configured for lighting. Yes, there was some limited allowance for lighting in the early-generation AMT kits, but the Revell kit still maintains a strong advantage in the area of "light-ability." This advantage is even stronger where the Enterprise kit is concerned, though the Revell Klingon can be built up to very closely resemble the TOS klingon ship, while the Revell Enterprise can't, so I like the Revell Klingon a lot better than the Revell Enterprise.
> 
> If someone wants to light up their Star Trek models, the Revell kits are leaps and bounds better than the old AMT kits. That's the reason for buying them. Accuracy issues are a whole 'nother kettle of fish, though.


Again, I wasn't making any kind of qualitative statement over which one was better set up for lighting. Merely a point of fact that the first issue of the AMT D-7 was set up for lighting. To further clarify, the AMT kit included a carriage for batteries, wiring, a light, and a switch, whereas to the best of my knowledge, the Revell is only better able to be lit because of the greater number of clear parts. You'd still have to work out your own battery setup, wiring, lights, and controls. So on that score, it's six of one, half dozen of the other.


----------

