# Sticky  New information on the original nacelle domes of the 11-ft Enterprise



## Gary K

We've been conducting an extensive amount of research into the history & construction of the 11-ft Enterprise as part of the Smithsonian's restoration of the original model. We've had access to unpublished, privately-held photos, as well as interviews with eyewitnesses to the pre-restoration model. More information will be forthcoming as we continue the research, but I can share this about the nacelle domes:

Both the inside & outside of the original domes were sandblasted, giving them a rough texture to the touch. The inside & outside of each dome was lightly sprayed with a transparent coating of orange Pelikan-brand ink, resulting in a frosted orange appearance. The clear nacelle tabs were also frosted and sprayed with orange ink.

Each tab was held in place by a single brass cap nut with a silver thread screwed into it. If you want the exact color, just visit your nearest big-box hardware store and look at a brass cap nut.

There were way more than 10 light bulbs inside each nacelle, and we're still working on the exact number. The 5 steady amber lights in the Polar Lights kit give basically the correct appearance, but you could safely add a half-dozen more blinkers, if you can squeeze them in. 

Like I said, more info will be forthcoming as we complete our research, so stay tuned.

Gary


----------



## Opus Penguin

So the domes themselves had an orange tint to them originally, or this is what is being done to the replacements? If the former, I would not have realized the domes themselves were tinted. I thought all the effects was just due to the lighting and fan blades.


----------



## fire91bird

Thank you, Gary. This is wonderful information and very generous of you to share. :thumbsup:


----------



## Gary K

Opus Penguin said:


> So the domes themselves had an orange tint to them originally, or this is what is being done to the replacements? If the former, I would not have realized the domes themselves were tinted. I thought all the effects was just due to the lighting and fan blades.


It was the same with me. According to our eyewitness who disassembled the unrestored domes, they had been painted so expertly (probably by Matt Jefferies) that they looked like orange plastic that had been sandblasted. On your model, you'll want to duplicate a frosted, light orange appearance - not an orange orange. The ILM people and the experts on the museum's staff (many of whom are Trekkies) are going to duplicate whatever was on the original model, except with archivally-safe materials. 

Gary


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## Gary K

alensatemybuick said:


> Cool information, though when I clicked on the thread, I was thinking you were speaking of the original wood domes that were on the pilot(s) version. Those were apparently painted with Pelikan inks as well. Perhaps you are aware that one of those sold on Ebay recently; based on lack of any mention on forums such as this, I got the impression that the sale of that remarkable artifact flew under most people's radar.


It didn't fly under my radar, but it definitely flew over the size of my wallet!

Gary


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## jheilman

Fascinating stuff Gary. Like an archaeological data dig, the pieces are slowly being uncovered. :thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## Gary K

jheilman said:


> Fascinating stuff Gary. Like an archaeological data dig, the pieces are slowly being uncovered. :thumbsup::thumbsup:


Thanks. That's why I said in a yet-to-be-published piece that I feel like a sci-fi archaeologist.

Gary


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> Thanks. That's why I said in a yet-to-be-published piece that I feel like a sci-fi archaeologist.
> 
> Gary


But that's exactly what it is. Only it's cinematic archaeology in Science Fiction. You're trying to reverse engineer based on the fragments on hand. 

At least you have more to work with than the regretful remains of Irwin Allen filming miniatures. 

You know, it always comes down to first principals. It's logical that the nacelle domes were tinted orange, because the second generation AMT Enterprise (when they added the lights to the nacelles) had amber/orangish domes. Given the closeness of the company to the production it would be logical to assume they were working from observed materials, yes? 

If nothing else,it's an additional data point to consider. 

I envy your journey, sir! I hope for a huge book or something at the end!


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> But that's exactly what it is. Only it's cinematic archaeology in Science Fiction. You're trying to reverse engineer based on the fragments on hand.
> 
> At least you have more to work with than the regretful remains of Irwin Allen filming miniatures.


We've got much better than simple fragments - FAR better reference materials than previous restorers had. 



Steve H said:


> You know, it always comes down to first principals. It's logical that the nacelle domes were tinted orange, because the second generation AMT Enterprise (when they added the lights to the nacelles) had amber/orangish domes. Given the closeness of the company to the production it would be logical to assume they were working from observed materials, yes?
> 
> If nothing else,it's an additional data point to consider.
> 
> I envy your journey, sir! I hope for a huge book or something at the end!


I doubt that the orange-tinted AMT nacelles were anything than a coincidence, because somebody at the company thought they looked orangey in pictures or on TV. A former AMT employee told that back in the bad old days, when AMT cranked inaccurate kits like the Galileo & Romulan BoP, the company's attitude was "Who gives a sh*t if the models aren't accurate? It's just stupid kids buying them".

Little did they realize that those "stupid" kids would still be buying Star Trek kits after they grew up & started getting gray hair!

Gary


----------



## Proper2

That makes it even more of a shame that it will not be restored as the original, with motorized blades.


----------



## Gary K

Proper2 said:


> That makes it even more of a shame that it will not be restored as the original, with motorized blades.


That may or may not be an accurate quote. One of the articles even credited Rick Sternbach with designing the Refit Enterprise. Like I said before, stay tuned. 

Gary


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## Gary K

alensatemybuick said:


> A few articles I read mentioned a "reversible metal collar" to be placed in the seondary hull to stabilize it; can you elaborate Gary on how that would work, exactly? When I first read it, I was picturing a collar on the outside of the hull to keep it from peeling apart (akin to the bands on a barrel), which would be visible of course. Thank, Scott


You've got the the right idea, except the bands will be on the INSIDE. Malcolm Collum at the museum had the idea had the idea of putting bands inside the sec hull, through the openings in front & back, and museum's ingenious machinists came up with a couple of internal collars. I can't emphasize too much that the Smithsonian is staffed with a number of very bright people! Here's a photo of one of the collars inside the hangar bay, not installed permanently yet.

Gary


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## Gary K

alensatemybuick said:


> Would screws then be used from the outside, and countersunk and covered up? However it works exactly, seems a clever way to ensure it holds together for many years to come.


No - the screws are completely internal, and you won't notice a thing from the outside.

Gary


----------



## Gregatron

Fantastic info, Gary--thank you most kindly! Everything I've seen coming out of the NASM shows nothing but the utmost care and attention to detail being put into the restoration. This is truly an exciting time!

I'm also very glad that I haven't finished my 1/350 build, since more nuggets like this nacelle dome thing will surely be trickling out, in the months to come.


----------



## RossW

Gary K said:


> There were way more than 10 light bulbs inside each nacelle, and we're still working on the exact number. The 5 steady amber lights in the Polar Lights kit give basically the correct appearance, but you could safely add a half-dozen more blinkers, if you can squeeze them in.


But you think 5 amber steady-on lights are right for the 1:350 kit? I'm reworking my custom circuit board for the engines now (with 5 blinking LEDs) so I can easily add a few more blinkers; are you saying 10-12 in total blinkers would be right for that scale?


----------



## Gary K

Gregatron said:


> Fantastic info, Gary--thank you most kindly! Everything I've seen coming out of the NASM shows nothing but the utmost care and attention to detail being put into the restoration. This is truly an exciting time!
> 
> I'm also very glad that I haven't finished my 1/350 build, since more nuggets like this nacelle dome thing will surely be trickling out, in the months to come.


All I can say is DON'T do any painting on that sucker until we make some final decisions! Here's a hint: despite all stories to the contrary, the base color of the 11-footer was NOT greenish-gray.

Gary


----------



## Gary K

RossW said:


> But you think 5 amber steady-on lights are right for the 1:350 kit? I'm reworking my custom circuit board for the engines now (with 5 blinking LEDs) so I can easily add a few more blinkers; are you saying 10-12 in total blinkers would be right for that scale?


I've been reviewing a number of MP4 film clips that Doug Drexler compiled, and I've been counting the frames of various blinking lights so we can determine the ratio of on/off blinks for each blink cycle (regardless of the speed at which each clip was filmed) - and, not surprisingly, there were several different styles. We can program the LED lights to blink in whichever of the patterns/speeds we decide.

To answer your question, in the clips, it appears that the 5 steady ambers are there most of the time - with small multi-colored blinkers all over the place. The original lights were the mini-bulbs that plug into a socket (not C7's), so you want to squeeze as many as you have room for into the model. Long story, but we're still trying to count the exact number of bulbs - but I estimate you could have at least a dozen *small* blinkers in each dome, if there's room. Remember, the original domes also had a number of approx 1" mirror fragments glued to the wooden back of the nacelle.

To answer your unasked question - yes, I am quite mad. Mad as a Hatter! 

Gary


----------



## Trek Ace

This thread makes me feel somewhat vindicated. 

Gary - Not that I don't trust Doug (because I do!), but be certain to check the properties of the MP4 clips that he provided to verify that they are time-based at either 24 fps or 23.976 fps to match the original film frames. That way you can be certain that each video frame equals exactly one film frame - where 24 frames = 1 second of screen time. 

Counting on a 30-frame (or 29.97) "video" base will throw off the timing significantly (25%) when trying to determine the correct blink rate of the lights.


----------



## hal9001

This is getting quite fascinating. I can't wait to read the last page to see _'who dune it'_!

I say when this is all over we crown *Gary Kerr* as *King Trekkie*. With a scepter and all.

*Hail*, *Hail King Gary!!*

Just a thought....

Carl-


----------



## Gary K

Trek Ace said:


> This thread makes me feel somewhat vindicated.
> 
> Gary - Not that I don't trust Doug (because I do!), but be certain to check the properties of the MP4 clips that he provided to verify that they are time-based at either 24 fps or 23.976 fps to match the original film frames. That way you can be certain that each video frame equals exactly one film frame - where 24 frames = 1 second of screen time.
> 
> Counting on a 30-frame (or 29.97) "video" base will throw off the timing significantly (25%) when trying to determine the correct blink rate of the lights.


Thanks for the info, but I know how the 24 fps filming rate gets screwed up when it's transferred to video, and how timing on Blue-rays is different from conventional video. At the present time, I'm not all that concerned with timing since they ran the camera at different speeds when they filmed the spfx footage in the 60's, and the model's motors were supposedly on rheostats. I'm beginning to think they did this on purpose, just to confuse us.  The Okudas have found some fascinating written documentation on the spfx shots, but nothing regarding camera speed or rheostat settings. 

I'm currently counting the ratios - that is, 36 frames on, 9 frames off, 36 frames on, 9 frames off, etc. No ratios in any two sequences are exactly the same, but I'm noticing some patterns that are in the same ballpark. For example, the blinking light on the side of the hangar bay has been doing its best impression of a strobe in all but one of the shots I've checked. In fact, it's hard hard to find a frame with a fully-lit "strobe". In the vast majority of frames, the light is just starting to come on, or it's fading off. 

Once I settle on a few common ratios for the various lights, we'll settle on the timing, which is a whole 'nother ball of wax. We're thinking that some of the spots in which the model isn't moving much (eg. the classic blue phaser-firing shot, or the one in which the camera isn't moving and the model is slowly rotating on its stand) appear to have been filmed in (or close to) real time. We're still in the data-collecting stage, but I suspect that the final timing will come down to what "looks" and "feels" right. As usual, stay tuned for further developments.

Gary


----------



## Gary K

hal9001 said:


> This is getting quite fascinating. I can't wait to read the last page to see _'who dune it'_!
> 
> I say when this is all over we crown *Gary Kerr* as *King Trekkie*. With a scepter and all.
> 
> *Hail*, *Hail King Gary!!*
> 
> Just a thought....
> 
> Carl-


I respectfully decline the nomination, and if elected, I shall not serve.  After all, the king always has somebody trying to dethrone him. I'm just just trying my best to satisfy my anal retentive nature by answering all the questions that have been bugging me since 1966.

Gary


----------



## jheilman

Awesome, waiting to hear more.


----------



## Gary K

jheilman said:


> Awesome, waiting to hear more.


Thanks - I'm working on it. Actually, I left the TV off all Super Bowl Sunday, and spent the day doing restoration-related stuff. And not a drop of alcohol nor a bite of nachos - truly pathetic.

Gary


----------



## Bobj812

So, do you think there will be an extensive article on the restoration when all is said and done - or better yet, a book?


----------



## Opus Penguin

Gary K said:


> All I can say is DON'T do any painting on that sucker until we make some final decisions! Here's a hint: despite all stories to the contrary, the base color of the 11-footer was NOT greenish-gray.
> 
> Gary


Hmmmm ... when I painted mine, I went by the suggested colors you thought you had recommended, which was the greenish-gray. I am guessing this has changed? Not meaning to contradict or be argumentative, I am just trying to understand better.


----------



## Gary K

Bobj812 said:


> So, do you think there will be an extensive article on the restoration when all is said and done - or better yet, a book?


I don't know what the Smithsonian's plans are re. any books, but I could probably whip up at least a mind-numbingly detailed article or two geared more toward modelers. I've got so many additional measurements of the model, plus a bunch of hi-res reference photos of the model in its various iterations, that I'll be revising my plans for months!

Gary


----------



## Gary K

Opus Penguin said:


> Hmmmm ... when I painted mine, I went by the suggested colors you thought you had recommended, which was the greenish-gray. I am guessing this has changed? Not meaning to contradict or be argumentative, I am just trying to understand better.


Greenish-gray paint was and is on the 11-footer, but it turns out the full story is more complicated than we first thought. We've done a ton of digging up additional, high-quality references, and now we actually have scientific analyses of the paint layers, instead of relying on contrasty, blurry, and off-color images. The greenish-gray paint was not the full story, but I want to do more thorough research before getting ahead of myself and making any grandiose declarations that may later prove false. I can say that the primary weathering color on the model, with the exception of the upper saucer, was brown, with a little charcoal "soot" from the engines.

Gary


----------



## Owen E Oulton

What's the deal with the so-called "rust ring"? Is it an actual colour difference or just a film/video artefact?


----------



## hal9001

Gary K said:


> I'm just just trying my best to satisfy my anal retentive nature by answering all the questions that have been bugging me since 1966.
> 
> Gary


And that's our point and we all really, really appreciate what you're doing Gary. :thumbsup:

_By the way, I cancelled the coronation_.

Carl-


----------



## Proper2

I'm a little puzzled. Doesn't the base color of the unaltered saucer top determine the base color overall?


----------



## Steve H

Gary, you've opened yourself up to being endlessly pestered! 

Is anything being done regarding the control console? I can't remember if that even exists now. Part of me wonders if some of the answers being sought might lie in that thing. 

And I completely understand your feelings regarding this job. It's always exciting to find answers to long-held questions, REAL answers and not just someone pontificating regurgitated rumor that actually doesn't know any more than you. 

It's especially nice when that truth ends up being something you've long suspected but had no proof of.


----------



## Prologic9

I mocked this up based on the description. Is this what you guys are envisioning for the dome tabs?


----------



## StarshipClass

This is the first time the paint has really been thoroughly examined at the source. Thanks for keeping us informed, Gary K! I hope you can psychically feel the waves of gratitude washing over you. This is fascinating information and I know a lot of people here are going to be eating it up.


----------



## Gary K

Prologic9 said:


> I mocked this up based on the description. Is this what you guys are envisioning for the dome tabs?


Pretty much - just make the tab a little thicker and screw in that cap nut before Scotty yells yells out you! 

Gary


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> Gary, you've opened yourself up to being endlessly pestered!
> 
> Is anything being done regarding the control console? I can't remember if that even exists now. Part of me wonders if some of the answers being sought might lie in that thing.
> 
> And I completely understand your feelings regarding this job. It's always exciting to find answers to long-held questions, REAL answers and not just someone pontificating regurgitated rumor that actually doesn't know any more than you.
> 
> It's especially nice when that truth ends up being something you've long suspected but had no proof of.


We have photos of the control console that were taken when 3 cratefuls of Enterprise parts (and the Tholian ship) arrived at the museum in April 1974. Today there is no trace of the console anywhere. That would NEVER happen today. I think part of the problem is that back then, the Enterprise was regarded more as a novelty, and not as the historic icon that it's regarded today.

I've been trying to let go of my preconceptions regarding the model, and go where the evidence takes me.

Gary


----------



## Gary K

Proper2 said:


> I'm a little puzzled. Doesn't the base color of the unaltered saucer top determine the base color overall?


The full answer is - it's complicated - and we're still working on the full answer. Paint darkens with age, multiple coats of shellac are yellowing, etc. The museum is carefully cleaning years of grunge off the saucer so we can get a better look at the existing paint. I know it's hard to do, but just sit tight until all the examinations have been made.

Gary


----------



## irishtrek

What's this control console??
And like I said in a previous thread we may now end a controversy on the true color of the 11 footer.


----------



## jheilman

The control console was literally a console that controlled the lighting, nacelle motors, etc.


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> We have photos of the control console that were taken when 3 cratefuls of Enterprise parts (and the Tholian ship) arrived at the museum in April 1974. Today there is no trace of the console anywhere. That would NEVER happen today. I think part of the problem is that back then, the Enterprise was regarded more as a novelty, and not as the historic icon that it's regarded today.
> 
> I've been trying to let go of my preconceptions regarding the model, and go where the evidence takes me.
> 
> Gary


That's the right approach. Having preconceptions can backfire and make one ignore objective truth, due to the emotional attachment. 

It's a hard thing to do, no doubt about it. 

As to the console, it may well be one of the thousands of mis-marked or unmarked items in storage at the main Smithsonian. That's where pop culture items usually go (Archie Bunker's chair as one historical example). It would not shock me if there was a lack of communication between NA&SM and main Smithsonian. I'm sure management would claim everything is carefully covered but you and I know how bureaucracy works, the turf wars, the 'Chinese Wall' of non-sharing information. 

(How do I know? We subscribed for years to the Smithsonian magazine. I never read it but the parents did. Never ONCE did they solicit subs to Air & Space Smithsonian. A magazine I DO buy. You'd think once, once they would send out a feeler, right? Nope.)

Speaking of which, maybe to get some publicity there should be a 'update' column about this restoration in A&S. Given the anniversary of Star Trek that might garner increased subs and donations. Someone should put a word in an ear. 

Never Give Up, Gary! You're doing noble work!


----------



## Gary K

irishtrek said:


> What's this control console??


That's the console that is visible in some behind-the-scenes photos from the 60's. It arrived at the museum in 1974, and if I had to guess, I'd say somebody at the museum decided that the console was superfluous because they wouldn't use once the 11-footer was on display. The console is probably in the basement of somebody who used to work at Rogay, or it's deep in a landfill in the DC area.

Gary


----------



## Steve H

jheilman said:


> The control console was literally a console that controlled the lighting, nacelle motors, etc.


And I'm thinking much could be learned from the switches and rheostats, the voltage and amperage and tolerances, how many operations were controlled, maybe even an operational guide or notes taped inside a door or something.


----------



## mach7

Great work Gary!

Any chance of a photo of the control console?

Keep this stuff coming!


----------



## Opus Penguin

This is very interesting information. I hope to travel to DC later this year when they have it on display.


----------



## Gary K

mach7 said:


> Great work Gary!
> 
> Any chance of a photo of the control console?
> 
> Keep this stuff coming!


Sorry, but that's one of the photos that are restricted for the museum's use only. The console has slider controls for items such as saucer lights, pod lights, pod motors, nav lights, etc.

Gary


----------



## Richard Baker

A replica console in a scale matching the 1/350 as it represents the 11 footer would a great diorama...


----------



## iamweasel

I am totally enthralled by this thread. I'm not an over the top Trek fan, I do enjoy it and love the ships, so this is more of a historical pop culture fascination than a "I can model a kit perfectly" interest. I'll be staying glued to it (pun not intended nor implied) :thumbsup:


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> Sorry, but that's one of the photos that are restricted for the museum's use only. The console has slider controls for items such as saucer lights, pod lights, pod motors, nav lights, etc.
> 
> Gary


This is probably the most sad part of this journey. I understand it has to do with conditions agreed to by the donating individuals, there are any number of reasons why a person might not want these restricted pictures shared to the masses, but, damn, ya know? It's not government or trade secrets after all. 

And I could be wrong and it's CBS/Viacom/Paramount embargoing them for that 'unseen pictures from Star Trek' magazine/book that's still being solicited by Amazon for later in the year. 

I imagine you can't even say one way or the other due to NDAs built into your work agreement. 

I mean, DAMN, y'all!


----------



## Steve H

Richard Baker said:


> A replica console in a scale matching the 1/350 as it represents the 11 footer would a great diorama...



Agreed, which is why long ago I had suggested that was the way to display the Enterprise at the museum. Context. Show 'behind the curtain' and all that, even if that means the left side has the visible trench and wires held to the model with gaffer's tape. 

I don't think that's what we're going to get. I suspect they'll finish the left side. Maybe not.


----------



## Prologic9

Maybe it's a long form cap similar to this, something they would have been able to twist with their fingers for convenience;


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> And I could be wrong and it's CBS/Viacom/Paramount embargoing them for that 'unseen pictures from Star Trek' magazine/book that's still being solicited by Amazon for later in the year.


Nope, it wasn't CBS. In fact, one of the main CBS licensing guys is on the restoration committee and has been extraordinarily helpful in smoothing the path and helping to "make good things happen."

When the dust has settled, the public will be granted access to the photos that belong to the museum. Other private individuals & organizations are willing to help with the restoration, but don't want their photos made public, and the museum has to respect their wishes.

Gary


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> Agreed, which is why long ago I had suggested that was the way to display the Enterprise at the museum. Context. Show 'behind the curtain' and all that, even if that means the left side has the visible trench and wires held to the model with gaffer's tape.
> 
> I don't think that's what we're going to get. I suspect they'll finish the left side. Maybe not.


Wouldn't you like to know? <insert evil laugh here>

I think the current plan is rather innovative. Who would have suspected that they would suspend the Enterprise by wires from an overhead track and fly it all around the museum? 

Gary


----------



## Gary K

Prologic9 said:


> Maybe it's a long form cap similar to this, something they would have been able to twist with their fingers for convenience


Naw - a regular cap nut is clearly unscrewed in some of our photos. 

Gary


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## Gary K

alensatemybuick said:


> Based on this description of the control box by Craig Thompson (from the William S. McCullars IDIC page article on the 1972 exhibition):
> 
> "When we picked up the model for display, it had a rather large and very heavy metal electrical control box that stood upright on the floor. I'd say about *waist high by 2 1/2 feet wide and 9 to 10 inches deep*--I may be way off here--it's been a long time."​
> I assumed that the control box is at bottom center in the attached photo I had downloaded from another thread on this site (now forgotten).


That's it - except has a much better copy!

Gary


----------



## MGagen

Wonderful info, Gary! Thanks for sharing.

Having confirmation on the tinting of the domes is great. The photos from the studio series, like the one seen above, always looked tinted to me, but being black and white, who could be certain? I'd love to see these in the higher resolution versions you have now!

M.
(Who is possessing his soul in patience...)


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> Nope, it wasn't CBS. In fact, one of the main CBS licensing guys is on the restoration committee and has been extraordinarily helpful in smoothing the path and helping to "make good things happen."
> 
> When the dust has settled, the public will be granted access to the photos that belong to the museum. Other private individuals & organizations are willing to help with the restoration, but don't want their photos made public, and the museum has to respect their wishes.
> 
> Gary


I get that, but it doesn't stop me from feeling sad over it. 

I mean, OK, so there's good fellowship from CBS on the project and that should eliminate the 'fear of being sued or property being seized' aspect, so what remains is the usual two motivations fans have, the 'power and control' issue and the 'I want to monetize this and nothing but a big paycheck will move me' issue. 

Either way, kinda sucks to be us. 

I hope at least these people/orgs have plans for these pics (and whatever other materials) for when they pass on.


----------



## feek61

Gary K said:


> T
> I'm currently counting the ratios - that is, 36 frames on, 9 frames off, 36 frames on, 9 frames off, etc. No ratios in any two sequences are exactly the same, but I'm noticing some patterns that are in the same ballpark.
> Gary


Welcome to my living hell!!! lol

Gary, looking forward to hearing from you on this project. I envy you my friend but certainly you are the perfect person for this. I feel confident in the restoration knowing the level of time to detail that you will (are) putting into it.

Take care,
Will


----------



## johnF

I’m sure you’re a very busy person Gary, but what are the chances in the future of line drawing of the control box?


----------



## asalaw

Gary K said:


> That may or may not be an accurate quote. One of the articles even credited Rick Sternbach with designing the Refit Enterprise. Like I said before, stay tuned.
> 
> Gary


It's accurate, at least as of the Open House at Udvar-Hazy. I got it in person from both Ariel O'Connor and Margaret Weitekamp that there will be no motors or incandescent lights due to concerns about power, excessive heat, and possible fire hazard. 

The Bussard effect will be duplicated with LEDs, after the folks at the conservation lab build a duplicate of the original mechanism and study its appearance. They'll use that as a guide to create the digital LED effect, comparing it to the original effect as they go. At least that's how Ariel explained it.

Gary, I'm SO excited that you're providing us with such incredible info! Please, keep it coming! I'm just gonna sit right here and stare at my monitor till you do. Take your time, I don't need my job anyway. Or food. Or pants, come to think of it. 

-- Aureliano Sanchez-Arango


----------



## asalaw

Gary K said:


> The full answer is - it's complicated - and we're still working on the full answer. Paint darkens with age, multiple coats of shellac are yellowing, etc. The museum is carefully cleaning years of grunge off the saucer so we can get a better look at the existing paint. I know it's hard to do, but just sit tight until all the examinations have been made.
> 
> Gary


O...M...G...

That makes a _lot _of sense. The exposed original gray paint I saw at the open house definitely had a subtle blue tint (an odd choice considering the bluescreen, unless they were compensating for tungsten light on the model). You've seen the lighting in that lab -- it's as pure white as it gets, so you can really see true colors.

So... yellowing varnish over a slight blue tint... wouldn't that give us green? And greener and greener over the years, as the varnish yellows?

Could the varnish have been there to protect the decals? Even in the crappy online versions of the 1972 and 1974 shots, the top of the saucer is very green, and the rest of the model is very blue.

Thoughts?

--Aureliano


----------



## MartyS

I wonder how well an OLED display on the inside of a static dome could replicate the look of the lights and spinner?

Make the outer dome just like the original but paste a flexible OLED display on the inside or outside of an inner dome. Basically create a domed shaped computer display and install it instead of the spinner dome. It wouldn't have to be very high resolution, so might not be too expensive.


----------



## Hunk A Junk

MartyS said:


> I wonder how well an OLED display on the inside of a static dome could replicate the look of the lights and spinner?
> 
> Make the outer dome just like the original but paste a flexible OLED display on the inside or outside of an inner dome. Basically create a domed shaped computer display and install it instead of the spinner dome. It wouldn't have to be very high resolution, so might not be too expensive.


An interesting idea. I wonder how feasible it would be to basically use the nacelle dome as a backlit screen and project a high quality animation loop on it simulating the spinners and the pulsing lights. Doesn't Disneyland use a similar effect in their Haunted Mansion ride to make a ghost appear in a crystal ball or something?


----------



## Gary K

We already thought about video projectors & similar for the domes, but the electronics geniuses at ILM pointed out some problems with them. Things are happening, so you guys don't need to worry about the dome lighting. Keep in mind the words of Master Yoda:

"Always in motion is the future."

Gary


----------



## Gary K

asalaw said:


> O...M...G...
> 
> That makes a _lot _of sense. The exposed original gray paint I saw at the open house definitely had a subtle blue tint (an odd choice considering the bluescreen, unless they were compensating for tungsten light on the model). You've seen the lighting in that lab -- it's as pure white as it gets, so you can really see true colors.
> 
> So... yellowing varnish over a slight blue tint... wouldn't that give us green? And greener and greener over the years, as the varnish yellows?
> 
> Could the varnish have been there to protect the decals? Even in the crappy online versions of the 1972 and 1974 shots, the top of the saucer is very green, and the rest of the model is very blue.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> --Aureliano


Yellowing shellac is one issue, and remember - that shade of gray changes its apparent color, depending upon the ambient lighting. The color issue is actually way, way more complicated, but you'll have to wait for the whole story until we have an ending. We got some really smart & talented experts working on the matter.

Gary


----------



## hal9001

Gary K said:


> Yellowing shellac is one issue, and remember - that shade of gray changes its apparent color, depending upon the ambient lighting. The color issue is actually way, way more complicated, but you'll have to wait for the whole story until we have an ending. We got some really smart & talented experts working on the matter.
> 
> Gary


I capable hands Gary..._*in capable hands!*_ The truth cometh soon.

In Yoda's vernacular: Wait one should, come great things will. 

Carl-


----------



## robn1

Gary K said:


> ...We got some really smart & talented experts working on the matter.
> 
> Gary


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Gary K said:


> Keep in mind the words of Master Yoda:
> 
> "Always in motion is the future."
> 
> Gary


Yoda also said: "If this Enterprise you screw up, tar and feather you the geeks will." 

I'm probably paraphrasing.

:wave:


----------



## Gary K

Hunk A Junk said:


> Yoda also said: "If this Enterprise you screw up, tar and feather you the geeks will."
> 
> I'm probably paraphrasing.
> 
> :wave:


Gotta catch me first!


----------



## asalaw

Gary K said:


> Yellowing shellac is one issue, and remember - that shade of gray changes its apparent color, depending upon the ambient lighting. The color issue is actually way, way more complicated, but you'll have to wait for the whole story until we have an ending. We got some really smart & talented experts working on the matter.
> 
> Gary


I know! I've met two of them, and they're really impressive people. When I first spoke to Malcolm Collum last year, I was convinced that this restoration would work. The whole team is -- well, top. Men. And. Women. 

I'm just jonesing for the info like everyone else--TOS got me into filmmaking and FX as a boy, that got me into the film business for 11 years as a young adult, and there really is no final scratch to this itch (as you well know!). 

As a document review attorney (meh -- it's a living), I'm also dying to go through the restoration files once they're all back in the archive and the model's on display (HAH! How's _that_ for unparalleled geekery?). It'll be my first-ever spelunk through documents I actually have an interest in! 

--Aureliano


----------



## jheilman

asalaw and others-

I'm always happy to see that a thread like this brings out so many familiar faces. Well, screen names at least.


----------



## Gregatron

Yeah, this all makes me really glad that I haven't completed my 1/350 kit, yet. 

Of course, it's really just down to nitty-gritty details, right? There aren't any bombshell revelations coming our way, right?

That all said, I'm rather fond of the until-now-accepted, gray-green coloration, but may just have to sacrifice it on the altar of accuracy. Looking forward to seeing where this all goes!


----------



## Gary K

Gregatron said:


> Yeah, this all makes me really glad that I haven't completed my 1/350 kit, yet.
> 
> Of course, it's really just down to nitty-gritty details, right? There aren't any bombshell revelations coming our way, right?
> 
> That all said, I'm rather fond of the until-now-accepted, gray-green coloration, but may just have to sacrifice it on the altar of accuracy. Looking forward to seeing where this all goes!


Hold off on the overall greenish-gray coloration until we get through cleaning the original paint, analyzing the report on the core samples of paint from all over the ship, comparing everything with some hi-res color photos, and digesting all the information - and there is a LOT to digest. Like I've said, nothing is cut and dried. The questions are complex, and we're also trying to determine the intent of those involved in the 1966 revisions. Margaret Weitekamp is in charge of the restoration, and she's also a longtime Trek fan. She wants to be absolutely certain that all the proposed changes are correct before she signs off on the remodeling and before a single can of paint is opened.

Gary


----------



## Gregatron

Man, and here I thought that all of the new info that came out at the time of the 1/350 kit's release would be pretty much the final word on the matter of the model's nitty-gritty details!

This really is a great 50th anniversary present to all of us! A meticulous restoration of the Big E, and nagging, longtime questions finally being answered. Thanks, Gary!


----------



## asalaw

jheilman said:


> asalaw and others-
> 
> I'm always happy to see that a thread like this brings out so many familiar faces. Well, screen names at least.


Count your blessings. Usually my face brings out comments like, "FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, PUT THE PAPER BAG BACK ON!" and "GAAAAGH!! MY EYES!!" Ah, marriage.


----------



## Proper2

Gary K said:


> Hold off on the overall greenish-gray coloration until we get through cleaning the original paint, analyzing the report on the core samples of paint from all over the ship, comparing everything with some hi-res color photos, and digesting all the information - and there is a LOT to digest. Like I've said, nothing is cut and dried. The questions are complex, and we're also trying to determine the intent of those involved in the 1966 revisions. Margaret Weitekamp is in charge of the restoration, and she's also a longtime Trek fan. She wants to be absolutely certain that all the proposed changes are correct before she signs off on the remodeling and before a single can of paint is opened.
> 
> Gary


When this thing is all done, I just may have to buy a plane ticket out from California to see her for the very first time! _Like a virgin......
_


----------



## Hunk A Junk

As a side note to the color question, does anyone know what overall color the digital artists used on the CG remastered E? To my eye, the ship looks pretty blue-gray -- at least in most shots.


----------



## RossW

Gary K said:


> There were way more than 10 light bulbs inside each nacelle, and we're still working on the exact number. The 5 steady amber lights in the Polar Lights kit give basically the correct appearance, but you could safely add a half-dozen more blinkers, if you can squeeze them in.
> 
> Gary


It's a tight fit, but I managed to double the number of blinkies on my custom warp engine board:



I kept the steady-on amber LEDs in the same pentagram shape as on the model disk that sits over the PL lighting kit PCB, but moved the blinkies around into a more random placement. The PIC12F683 microcontroller will now be driving 2 LEDs per pin, but since they're only on for a fraction of a second it shouldn't overload the chip. The 5 pairs blink at different rates, and then while running there's some randomness added to the on/off times so they're not the same with every iteration in the code loop.

I hate soldering SMDs so I've just gone from 10 resistors to 15 - ugh.


----------



## Trek Ace

Not being happy with the look or timings of the Round 2 light kit, I decided to go my own route - which has not been easy with not having a microelectronics background. 
However, over the past few years, I have learned a great deal of using a little device called an Arduino. 

I purchased some books, watched some youtube videos, and had been inspired by other members of this forum (in particular, Ross W) and have come up with my own (working!) timing circuits for the Enterprise running lights and strobes that I am very satisfied with. I have also been working on a 20-light per nacelle circuit that has proved to be somewhat daunting, with five steady-on and fifteen randomly blinking lights. 

The most promising look I have achieved for the engines has not required any external circuitry at all - rather using fifteen independently flashing LEDs with only a dropping resistor on each for safe power - together with the five steady-on LEDs, again with dropping resistors added. The flashing LEDs will start out flashing at nearly the same time, and over the course of 10-15 seconds or more, develop a much more random, pulsating pattern which looks (to me) to mimic the original more closely than a specific timing circuit (that I can make) can replicate.


----------



## phicks

I am very confident that the Top Men working on this project do not need to be reminded, but for those who may have missed it: Richard Dakin did an interview with the official Star Trek magazine shortly before his death. He still had some Enterprise plans with overspray on them from the original paint job, which he took to Sears, and colour matched to their paint chips. Of course weathering and shellac could drastically change the appearance of that shade of grey, but the colour of that first coat of paint should be an unsurprising "wet concrete" grey with a hint of green.


----------



## Gary K

phicks said:


> I am very confident that the Top Men working on this project do not need to be reminded, but for those who may have missed it: Richard Dakin did an interview with the official Star Trek magazine shortly before his death. He still had some Enterprise plans with overspray on them from the original paint job, which he took to Sears, and colour matched to their paint chips. Of course weathering and shellac could drastically change the appearance of that shade of grey, but the colour of that first coat of paint should be an unsurprising "wet concrete" grey with a hint of green.


I've corresponded with Datin, and we know all about overspray. We've even got photos of the overspray, alongside Pantone chips. All I should probably say at the moment is that there's more to the story, and we're still investigating along several different avenues.

Gary


----------



## RossW

Trek Ace said:


> Not being happy with the look or timings of the Round 2 light kit, I decided to go my own route - which has not been easy with not having a microelectronics background.
> However, over the past few years, I have learned a great deal of using a little device called an Arduino.
> 
> I purchased some books, watched some youtube videos, and had been inspired by other members of this forum (in particular, Ross W) and have come up with my own (working!) timing circuits for the Enterprise running lights and strobes that I am very satisfied with. I have also been working on a 20-light per nacelle circuit that has proved to be somewhat daunting, with five steady-on and fifteen randomly blinking lights.
> 
> The most promising look I have achieved for the engines has not required any external circuitry at all - rather using fifteen independently flashing LEDs with only a dropping resistor on each for safe power - together with the five steady-on LEDs, again with dropping resistors added. The flashing LEDs will start out flashing at nearly the same time, and over the course of 10-15 seconds or more, develop a much more random, pulsating pattern which looks (to me) to mimic the original more closely than a specific timing circuit (that I can make) can replicate.


Sounds fantastic, Trek Ace. Would love to see more details of your circuit design.

I just spent the last hour converting the 5 additional blinkies in the board above to SMDs so I can place them closer to the edge (the spinning dome puts limitations on how close regular 2mm/3mm LEDs can get to the oustide).


----------



## Trek Ace

The LEDs I have right now cannot possibly fit into a 1/350 nacelle dome with the layout I have. The test bed is 2x scale to the model kit using 5mm & 3mm LEDs. To fit in the model, I will have to use 3mm and SMD LEDs. I don't have a physical circuit layout for the power domes right now. Just holes drilled in a disc with LEDs wired to resistors on a breadboard, which is wired to DC power. That's all my 80-year-old brain can handle right now. 

I will be using a motor, though, in addition to the LEDs. It will be interesting to see what ILM comes up with to simulate rotating fans using only LEDs on the big model.


----------



## RossW

Trek Ace said:


> The LEDs I have right now cannot possibly fit into a 1/350 nacelle dome with the layout I have. The test bed is 2x scale to the model kit using 5mm & 3mm LEDs. To fit in the model, I will have to use 3mm and SMD LEDs. I don't have a physical circuit layout for the power domes right now. Just holes drilled in a disc with LEDs wired to resistors on a breadboard, which is wired to DC power. That's all my 80-year-old brain can handle right now.
> 
> I will be using a motor, though, in addition to the LEDs. It will be interesting to see what ILM comes up with to simulate rotating fans using only LEDs on the big model.


I'm very curious as well to see what a solid-sate engine effect looks like. It's so cool that we're getting such great info on this model even though it's 50+ yrs-old.

BTW, are you planning to create a custom PCB for your engine disc? I don't think you'll be able to use a breadboard with SMDs. I'd be happy to help design one for you similar to mine if you'd like.


----------



## jheilman

asalaw said:


> Count your blessings. Usually my face brings out comments like, "FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, PUT THE PAPER BAG BACK ON!" and "GAAAAGH!! MY EYES!!" Ah, marriage.


LOL, if my wife says that, I haven't heard it. But maybe my hearing is going?


----------



## jheilman

Trek Ace said:


> The most promising look I have achieved for the engines has not required any external circuitry at all - rather using fifteen independently flashing LEDs with only a dropping resistor on each for safe power - together with the five steady-on LEDs, again with dropping resistors added. The flashing LEDs will start out flashing at nearly the same time, and over the course of 10-15 seconds or more, develop a much more random, pulsating pattern which looks (to me) to mimic the original more closely than a specific timing circuit (that I can make) can replicate.


That sounds fantastic. If you are able to take and post a video of your 2X test subject, I know we'd all love to see it.


----------



## jheilman

RossW said:


> I'm very curious as well to see what a solid-sate engine effect looks like.


Yes, what can they do that will replicate those spinning blades, without spinning blades? Will be interesting for sure.


----------



## jheilman

Gary, this stuff is like Trek geek, holy grail goodness to me. It's amazing to me how much more info has come out about this prop since I built a 3D model of it way back in 1999. And, back then, I thought I knew SO much.  Some day, when all this info is digested and collated, I would love to build a new 3D model of the Enterprise. But by then, I'll probably be too busy with grandkids and not have time. 

But... really loving this new info and I am anxiously waiting each new discovery.


----------



## Steve H

jheilman said:


> Yes, what can they do that will replicate those spinning blades, without spinning blades? Will be interesting for sure.


I was fascinated by the 'test article', at least I think that's what it was, laying on the table. Looked like various lights but attached to the shaft that spun the inner dome (with fan blades) there was an additional 4-bladed fan or something. I can't tell if that was supposed to help cool the device or was meant to further reflect the colored flashers.

Annndd now I also wonder if that was actually the 'make work' that was installed by the last restoration. Drats.

Either way, I'm curious about that other fan.


----------



## dcarty

Gary K said:


> ... I left the TV off all Super Bowl Sunday, and spent the day doing restoration-related stuff. And not a drop of alcohol nor a bite of nachos - truly pathetic.
> 
> Gary



I don't know that sounds like heaven to me, so include me in the ranks of the pathetic lol

Thank you, as always, for sharing:wave:

Dave


----------



## jheilman

dcarty said:


> I don't know that sounds like heaven to me, so include me in the ranks of the pathetic lol


Yeah, same here.:thumbsup:


----------



## Proper2

Steve H said:


> I was fascinated by the 'test article'...


Sorry, I started laughing out loud at repeating 'test article' 5 times very quickly.


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> I was fascinated by the 'test article', at least I think that's what it was, laying on the table. Looked like various lights but attached to the shaft that spun the inner dome (with fan blades) there was an additional 4-bladed fan or something. I can't tell if that was supposed to help cool the device or was meant to further reflect the colored flashers.
> 
> Annndd now I also wonder if that was actually the 'make work' that was installed by the last restoration. Drats.
> 
> Either way, I'm curious about that other fan.


Don't get too excited. All that stuff at the museum is from 1992 or earlier. The prototyping is being handled by the ILM team.

Gary


----------



## Steve H

Proper2 said:


> Sorry, I started laughing out loud at repeating 'test article' 5 times very quickly.


Hey, I can't help it. I think NA&SM and I start thinking of those heady days of the '50s when every aircraft manufacturer was bending tin and seeing if it would fly... 

So, yes, I had the balls to say it.


----------



## MartyS

Gary K said:


> Don't get too excited. All that stuff at the museum is from 1992 or earlier.


Those blender fans had to be 92, I think most of us have seen pictures of the ends of the nacelles when they arrived at the Smithsonian and they still had the mirror shards, not those shiny metal units. And here I thought cutting the trenches in the pylons was the worst damage done in 92, makes me sad to think of what was cut away to install those horrible metal things. 

I guess with the original mirror shards gone there is no way to recreate them, even with good pictures it would be impossible to get the angles the same. Even knowing the bulb socket positions and looking at the film you couldn't be sure what shard was reflecting what bulb at what camera angle, without the spinners in the way it would be easy to go by intensity of the blinks, but with the spinners blocking the some bulbs and some reflections in each frame you lose that info. Really is quite ingenious that design, making some christmas tree bulbs look like random dancing flashes...

Now I understand why the film is being looked at so much, with the physical part of the artifact lost the only thing left to do is recreate the look as filmed.


----------



## RonH

Not impossible.


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## Gary K

alensatemybuick said:


> Not saying I know for sure, but shouldn't "one" know for sure if the lighting effects were still there in 1991 before adding their removal to the list of supposed atrocities committed during that restoration? Regardless, even the current plan to update the lighting effects doesn't include a return to 60s era technology. If we can accept a modern solution to the lighting that simulates the original, can't we tolerate a 25-year old attempt that was done based on available info. at that time?


When the Smithsonian received the Enterprise model in April 1974, the outer & inner domes were gone, as were all the Christmas lights. The only things that remained on each nacelle were the mirror shards, the 10 nails that the light strings in place, and the light block around the inner perimeter of the outer dome - plus one clear nacelle tab. The nails, tab, mirror shards, motors, and all the wiring were removed during the 1974 & 1984 "restorations", and were apparently disposed of, instead of being saved. When I saw the nacelle fronts just before the 1992 restoration, all that was left were two bare pieces of round wood with holes chopped into them.

Today, some additional wood has been removed from the center of each nacelle, but we can see traces of glue & tiny pairs of holes from the finishing nails that held the light block in place. We also have many of the holes from the larger nails, plus traces of glue from some of the shards. We also have an eyewitness description and photos of a nacelle that show the interior arrangement of the lights during the production of the show. There's more, but in short, we've got a good idea of what the original lighting looked like. 

Gary

PS: They moved the light bulbs every time they had to change a burned-out light, so don't try to recreate the exact orientation of every single mirror shard.


----------



## MartyS

Never mind, Gary covered it...

Still shows how it was never treated as a historical artifact by anyone up until now.

So the motors were hacked out before hanging it from the ceiling? I guess they were worried about weight?


----------



## Joel

MartyS said:


> Never mind, Gary covered it...
> 
> Still shows how it was never treated as a historical artifact by anyone up until now.
> 
> So the motors were hacked out before hanging it from the ceiling? I guess they were worried about weight?


Well, they had to make room for the flashing lights they added in each nacelle behind the new red domes they made for the ceiling hanging display. 

I saw the model in the summer of 1980 - I was excited and disappointed at the same time. I knew the domes were changed to the flashing red ones before seeing it. But, boy... what a let down to actually see it like that. Plus, it was physically so far away. I took several pictures, but I hated that I couldn't get any closer than I could, either from the floor looking up at the bottom, or the nearby stairway mid-landing where you could sort-of see the top, but not really be any closer. I had my 35mm camera, but with a standard 50mm lens.

I really love hearing about all this new information after all these years.


----------



## Gary K

Joel said:


> Well, they had to make room for the flashing lights they added in each nacelle behind the new red domes they made for the ceiling hanging display.
> 
> I saw the model in the summer of 1980 - I was excited and disappointed at the same time. I knew the domes were changed to the flashing red ones before seeing it. But, boy... what a let down to actually see it like that. Plus, it was physically so far away. I took several pictures, but I hated that I couldn't get any closer than I could, either from the floor looking up at the bottom, or the nearby stairway mid-landing where you could sort-of see the top, but not really be any closer. I had my 35mm camera, but with a standard 50mm lens.
> 
> I really love hearing about all this new information after all these years.


Very interesting... The Smithsonian is sorely lacking in documentation of the model in the period between the 1974 and 1984 restorations. A couple of the original parts on the model seem to have disappeared during that time, and photos taken from '74 and '84 could be helpful in establishing what happened and when. If you photos are halfway decent, the museum would be very interested in seeing them and probably adding them to their archives. The same goes for anybody else - basically any photos taken BEFORE 1984 could be of interest.

Gary


----------



## Proper2

Joel said:


> Plus, it was physically so far away. I took several pictures, but I hated that I couldn't get any closer than I could, either from the floor looking up at the bottom, or the nearby stairway mid-landing where you could sort-of see the top, but not really be any closer.


I hope that the new restoration includes a support system and level based on the typical original filming studio setup, or slightly lower. Hanging it from the ceiling would be totally wrong!


----------



## gene1138

This is all great info, Gary. Thanks much for sharing.


----------



## Gary K

Proper2 said:


> I hope that the new restoration includes a support system and level based on the typical original filming studio setup, or slightly lower. Hanging it from the ceiling would be totally wrong!


Not to worry. The model will be at the right height in a temperature & humidity-controlled case, with special protections against sunlight. 

Gary


----------



## Gary K

gene1138 said:


> This is all great info, Gary. Thanks much for sharing.


Initially, there was some concern that the fans might be disconcerted if the finished model differed from their preconceptions, and the question was whether or not we should shade the true colors (as best we can determine) to reflect more what people expect to see. I think that if we share all the details on how we conducted our research and explain the basis of how we reached our decisions re. the final colors & design, then Trek fans are smart enough to handle the truth.

Opinions, anyone?

Gary


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> Very interesting... The Smithsonian is sorely lacking in documentation of the model in the period between the 1974 and 1984 restorations. A couple of the original parts on the model seem to have disappeared during that time, and photos taken from '74 and '84 could be helpful in establishing what happened and when. If you photos are halfway decent, the museum would be very interested in seeing them and probably adding them to their archives. The same goes for anybody else - basically any photos taken BEFORE 1984 could be of interest.
> 
> Gary


I would suggest someone research who took the pictures of the Enterprise for the Star Trek Official Poster magazine circa....oh, '76?. I would assume that person shot much more film than the few pictures that were used.


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> I would suggest someone research who took the pictures of the Enterprise for the Star Trek Official Poster magazine circa....oh, '76?. I would assume that person shot much more film than the few pictures that were used.


I can do you one better - Doug Drexler took those photos in 1977, and Doug is a member of the museum's restoration team.

We're still in need of photos from '74-'84 so we can nail down the dates of various events more precisely.

Gary


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> Initially, there was some concern that the fans might be disconcerted if the finished model differed from their preconceptions, and the question was whether or not we should shade the true colors (as best we can determine) to reflect more what people expect to see. I think that if we share all the details on how we conducted our research and explain the basis of how we reached our decisions re. the final colors & design, then Trek fans are smart enough to handle the truth.
> 
> Opinions, anyone?
> 
> Gary


I can't say it often enough. Context, context, context. If you can't find the original control console, there should be several pictures and explanations showing the setup on the stage. I should think a "how it really looked vs. how it was seen on TV circa 1966" and some pictures of how color shifts due to different lights, the use of colored gels as a special effect, there's a huge educational opportunity here. 

Wouldn't it be wonderful if there was also videos and stills that could be accessed by iPad and smartphone? Even special education modules. "How a special effects scene is shot" could turn into "You can compose and shoot a special effect" with a swipe.

Probably not possible to do all that is popping into my head. I'm sure it would cost money that isn't available to not just create but actively maintain. 

Anyway. If the stated mandate, returning the model to the state it was during the effects shoot for 'The Trouble with Tribbles, is still in effect (minus, of course, the mechanicals in the Nacelles), then that should be as it is, regardless if it looks 'wrong' to the naked eye. We've had DECADES of confusion, debate and outright rejection of the 'true' color of Capt. Kirk's shirt (to the point that many 'new' pictures just look wrong), the Enterprise itself can hold its own, unless it turns out to be something really 'out there' like gold with purple shading trim.


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> I can't say it often enough. Context, context, context. If you can't find the original control console, there should be several pictures and explanations showing the setup on the stage. I should think a "how it really looked vs. how it was seen on TV circa 1966" and some pictures of how color shifts due to different lights, the use of colored gels as a special effect, there's a huge educational opportunity here.
> 
> Wouldn't it be wonderful if there was also videos and stills that could be accessed by iPad and smartphone? Even special education modules. "How a special effects scene is shot" could turn into "You can compose and shoot a special effect" with a swipe.
> 
> Probably not possible to do all that is popping into my head. I'm sure it would cost money that isn't available to not just create but actively maintain.
> 
> Anyway. If the stated mandate, returning the model to the state it was during the effects shoot for 'The Trouble with Tribbles, is still in effect (minus, of course, the mechanicals in the Nacelles), then that should be as it is, regardless if it looks 'wrong' to the naked eye. We've had DECADES of confusion, debate and outright rejection of the 'true' color of Capt. Kirk's shirt (to the point that many 'new' pictures just look wrong), the Enterprise itself can hold its own, unless it turns out to be something really 'out there' like gold with purple shading trim.


The remodeled gallery will be state-of-the-art. The display will have one or more interactive kiosks, and who knows what else? The "TV spaceship" and "studio prop" aspects of the model will be addressed in a clever way.

Gary


----------



## RSN

I personally think it should be treated for what it is, a miniature made of carved wood and molded metal that was used to film a TV show 50 years ago. As a model builder, that is the beauty of the piece. I don't care what it might have looked in a fantasy land, I want it to look like it did when great craftsmen and skilled technicians came together and brought it to life on a soundstage in 1966. I am sure I am alone in this, but those are my views.


----------



## Gary K

RSN said:


> I personally think it should be treated for what it is, a miniature made of carved wood and molded metal that was used to film a TV show 50 years ago. As a model builder, that is the beauty of the piece. I don't care what it might have looked in a fantasy land, I want it to look like it did when great craftsmen and skilled technicians came together and brought it to life on a soundstage in 1966. I am sure I am alone in this, but those are my views.


I think the display will make everybody happy - especially the Enterprise, since it will properly braced internally and won't be on the verge of falling apart at the seams any more.

Gary


----------



## CessnaDriver

I think there should be some special plaque, not just here is the original studio miniature yadda yadda. Has any thought gone into that yet?

Something that recognizes the power of creative speculative fiction that has driven people to be so inspired, they seek to make such visions reality. 
Trek planted seeds in minds, "Dreams are maps." Sagan wrote. 
I'm not sure but something poetic or inspiring needs to be said. Just like the dedication plaques on the bridge of some of the later Trek ships.


----------



## hal9001

RSN said:


> I personally think it should be treated for what it is, a miniature made of carved wood and molded metal that was used to film a TV show 50 years ago. As a model builder, that is the beauty of the piece. I don't care what it might have looked in a fantasy land, I want it to look like it did when great craftsmen and skilled technicians came together and brought it to life on a soundstage in 1966. I am sure I am alone in this, but those are my views.


I completely agree _whole heartedly_! :thumbsup: That's why I never bought the re-mastered DVD's, wanted it to be as original. As what I fell in love with as a child.

Carl-


----------



## Gary K

CessnaDriver said:


> I think there should be some special plaque, not just here is the original studio miniature yadda yadda. Has any thought gone into that yet?
> 
> Something that recognizes the power of creative speculative fiction that has driven people to be so inspired, they seek to make such visions reality.
> Trek planted seeds in minds, "Dreams are maps." Sagan wrote.
> I'm not sure but something poetic or inspiring needs to be said. Just like the dedication plaques on the bridge of some of the later Trek ships.


An excellent point. I think the signage is already written, but I don't know precisely what it says. Margaret Weitekamp says that she is sticking a fake wood & plastic spaceship - one that that never traveled farther than from LA to DC - into a gallery of some of the most famous aircraft & spacecraft exactly for the reasons you stated - because of the dreams the series inspired.

Gary


----------



## Steve H

RSN said:


> I personally think it should be treated for what it is, a miniature made of carved wood and molded metal that was used to film a TV show 50 years ago. As a model builder, that is the beauty of the piece. I don't care what it might have looked in a fantasy land, I want it to look like it did when great craftsmen and skilled technicians came together and brought it to life on a soundstage in 1966. I am sure I am alone in this, but those are my views.


Seconded. I thought that's what I was saying but I guess not as clearly.

Surely the link between this Enterprise and the shuttle test article (you're welcome  ) Enterprise deserves to be highlighted.


----------



## SteveR

Gary K said:


> The display will have one or more interactive kiosks, and who knows what else? The "TV spaceship" and "studio prop" aspects of the model will be addressed in a clever way.
> 
> Gary


Hmm ... imagining a ship with two identical "TV spaceship" sides, but if you push a button on a kiosk, an image of ugly cables is projected onto the left side! Yeah! Interactive! :thumbs:

Actually, I'd like it restored to the way it looked back in the day, as if we walked into the studio between setups ... restored to a late-sixties state, but with 21st-century internal stabilization and archival paint & markings ... basically frozen in 1968 (or thereabouts). 

(Disappointed by the lack of Bussard motors, but ya gotta do what ya gotta do.)


----------



## irishtrek

Gary K said:


> Not to worry. The model will be at the right height in a temperature & humidity-controlled case, with special protections against sunlight.
> 
> Gary


Will it have the support stand hidden or will it be visible??


----------



## Proper2

RSN said:


> I personally think it should be treated for what it is, a miniature made of carved wood and molded metal that was used to film a TV show 50 years ago. As a model builder, that is the beauty of the piece. I don't care what it might have looked in a fantasy land, I want it to look like it did when great craftsmen and skilled technicians came together and brought it to life on a soundstage in 1966. I am sure I am alone in this, but those are my views.


OK, if you were running for President right now, you'd get my vote! I absolutely and fundamentally agree! To me, this particular STUDIO FILMING MODEL is the star, not the image on a 1966 TV screen, and not a clever restorative process, no matter how tempting it might be to adorn her with fancy interactive surroundings. I idolize the model because of all the people who designed and built her when they did. Their accomplishment is what needs to be honored here! Nothing more! Nevertheless, I say this with the utmost respect and appreciation for this restoration. I just hope it doesn't end up overshadowing the simple model that by herself, even in her current state, is an icon.


----------



## Zombie_61

RSN said:


> I personally think it should be treated for what it is, a miniature made of carved wood and molded metal that was used to film a TV show 50 years ago. As a model builder, that is the beauty of the piece. I don't care what it might have looked in a fantasy land, I want it to look like it did when great craftsmen and skilled technicians came together and brought it to life on a soundstage in 1966. I am sure I am alone in this, but those are my views.


I agree with this, but I'd like to add that I think it should be restored to it's 1960s glory to preserve the history of the model itself. Otherwise, what's the point?

No matter what you and the team do, there will be a percentage of fans who think they know more about the Enterprise than you do and will complain that this color isn't right, or that light is blinking at the wrong speed, or this decal should have been placed 0.0004" to the left. But you and the team have the information you need (for the most part, anyway) to do it properly. Forget what the fans _think_ they know and stick with what you _do_ know, and you can't go wrong.


----------



## barrydancer

Gary K said:


> Yellowing shellac is one issue, and remember - that shade of gray changes its apparent color, depending upon the ambient lighting. The color issue is actually way, way more complicated, but you'll have to wait for the whole story until we have an ending. We got some really smart & talented experts working on the matter.
> 
> Gary


I'm a little confused. The last update I read from the Smithsonian blog made it sound like the original pilot hull color had been found unaltered under the cover above the impulse engines, and that that would be used for the entire model (sans saucer top). Did I misunderstand?

"The only area with unaltered original paint, on top of the saucer, will be painstakingly cleaned and stabilized, but not altered. For areas repainted during previous restorations, a new base layer will be applied on top that exactly matches the original hull grey. “We don’t have to speculate about the original grey color,” says conservator Ariel O’Connor. “Our examinations have revealed a large section of original, first pilot-episode grey hidden and protected under the saucer bolt cover, and Dr. Buck’s analysis confirmed our findings.” Museum specialist Dave Wilson is precisely matching the color and sheen of the original grey."


----------



## MartyS

Zombie_61 said:


> I'd like to add that I think it should be restored to it's 1960s glory to preserve the history of the model itself. Otherwise, what's the point?


Yes, it's a museum piece, not an amusement park display. It should look as close to the way it did when it made history. It's something that was made by creative people and brought to life by creative people, and what they created has been an inspiration to a lot of people ever since.

Unfortunately it takes time for that type of recognition, so even though it has been in a museum for 30+ years it hasn't been treated as a museum piece. The first mercury capsule to take a man around the Earth is instantly worth preserving, a model from a TV show takes a bit longer to be worthy of similar status. It probably took 20 or 30 years too long for it to get the recognition it's due, but better late than never I guess.


----------



## phicks

Proper2 said:


> I hope that the new restoration includes a support system and level based on the typical original filming studio setup, or slightly lower. Hanging it from the ceiling would be totally wrong!


It would be ideal if the new display area allows viewers to also see the ship from above, perhaps from a walkway on a second floor. When I saw the Enterprise in the Smithsonian gift shop a few years ago, it was impossible to see the top of the saucer, unless you were an NBA player.


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Gary, Will the internal supports that are being added be strong enough to allow the model to support itself over the long haul? In other words, has nacelle droop been properly addressed? I can't help but think that even with additional internal stability that some kind of external support -- clear rods or a clear plexiglass brackets/cradle -- would be needed to support the nacelles and prevent inevitable sagging.

FWIW, I prefer the show side of the model be restored, as closely as possible, to the way the miniature looked in 1966-67, and the unfinished side remain unfinished -- cables and all. This was a working prop and that's its history. The ship is a representation of our dreams, true, but how that representation was created and used in the real world is as important as the dream itself.


----------



## Joel

Gary K said:


> Very interesting... The Smithsonian is sorely lacking in documentation of the model in the period between the 1974 and 1984 restorations. A couple of the original parts on the model seem to have disappeared during that time, and photos taken from '74 and '84 could be helpful in establishing what happened and when. If you photos are halfway decent, the museum would be very interested in seeing them and probably adding them to their archives. The same goes for anybody else - basically any photos taken BEFORE 1984 could be of interest.
> 
> Gary


I can dig my pictures back up - I actually had them out not too long ago so it shouldn't be hard (I may be able to find the negatives, too). But I think I only took 3 or 4 photos since that pretty much covered all I could get.

I know the old William McCullar's IDIC web page had a section of photos from (I think) 1982 that were better and more numerous than mine. The model in that set was in the same condition as when I saw it, and definitely before the '84 "refurb". This was then they used regular ol' duct tape to cover the wires coming out of the left side dorsal connector and secondary hull. While the original IDIC Page website is long gone, there are copies on the "way-back" or internet archive pages. I saved a link to one archived site on my home computer (I'm at work at the moment), and others have saved the actual images from that original site. 

Actually, Gary, I can't remember if you contributed to that site back in the day or not...


----------



## Gary K

barrydancer said:


> I'm a little confused. The last update I read from the Smithsonian blog made it sound like the original pilot hull color had been found unaltered under the cover above the impulse engines, and that that would be used for the entire model (sans saucer top). Did I misunderstand?
> 
> "The only area with unaltered original paint, on top of the saucer, will be painstakingly cleaned and stabilized, but not altered. For areas repainted during previous restorations, a new base layer will be applied on top that exactly matches the original hull grey. “We don’t have to speculate about the original grey color,” says conservator Ariel O’Connor. “Our examinations have revealed a large section of original, first pilot-episode grey hidden and protected under the saucer bolt cover, and Dr. Buck’s analysis confirmed our findings.” Museum specialist Dave Wilson is precisely matching the color and sheen of the original grey."


LIke I said, the paint story is complicated. Even if it's protected, the lacquer paint chemically darkens over 50 years, plus oxidation & grunge on top - maybe some clear shellac or varnish, too. The paint has to be cleaned & sanded before it can be scanned. Even after that, there are additional complications re. unrelated to this paint sample. We'll tell the full story once we're done researching & testing, so just be patient and hang in there.

Gary


----------



## mach7

I'm guessing this will be The Enterprises new home.










I took this today at the NASM.

Gary I have a few photos taken back in 1977 when she was hanging in the east wing of the museum. I'll look for them.

Thanks so very much for sharing so much info!


----------



## Richard Baker

I wonder if the back wall will be a mirror so we can see the unfinished side since it will not be a 360 degree display...


----------



## Gary K

Richard Baker said:


> I wonder if the back wall will be a mirror so we can see the unfinished side since it will not be a 360 degree display...


It won't?? 

Gary


----------



## Gary K

mach7 said:


> I'm guessing this will be The Enterprises new home.
> 
> I took this today at the NASM.
> 
> Gary I have a few photos taken back in 1977 when she was hanging in the east wing of the museum. I'll look for them.
> 
> Thanks so very much for sharing so much info!


I've seen renderings of the case, but no photos. If the case in the photo measures at least 6' x 12', that could be it.

If you find the 1977 photos, send me a scan, and I'll see if there's anything that the museum needs.

Thanks,

Gary


----------



## Proper2

mach7 said:


> I'm guessing this will be The Enterprises new home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I took this today at the NASM.


It looks like this is up against the wall so I doubt that's it. Gary hinted at a 360º display.


----------



## RSN

Proper2 said:


> It looks like this is up against the wall so I doubt that's it. Gary hinted at a 360º display.


This case is clearly wider at one end then the other and using the man standing there, the narrow end is only about 3 feet wide. If the Enterprise miniature is going to fit in there, they are doing more modification then I would have imagined!!!


----------



## Gary K

RSN said:


> This case is clearly wider at one end then the other and using the man standing there, the narrow end is only about 3 feet wide. If the Enterprise miniature is going to fit in there, they are doing more modification then I would have imagined!!!


Damn! You gave away our surprise revisions!

Gary


----------



## hal9001

Gary K said:


> Damn! You gave away our surprise revisions!
> 
> Gary


Gee, thanks Gary, now I'm gonna have nightmares and psychotherapy for six months!!! :freak::freak::drunk:

*And you're gonna have to foot the bill!~
*
Carl-


----------



## Gary K

hal9001 said:


> Gee,thanks Gary, now I'm gonna have nightmares and psychotherapy for six months!!! :freak::freak::drunk:
> 
> *And you're gonna have to foot the bill!~
> *
> Carl-


Don't worry. The model looks amazingly good with flames painted on the sides of the nacelles!

Gary


----------



## hal9001

Gary K said:


> Don't worry. The model looks amazingly good with flames painted on the sides of the nacelles!
> 
> Gary


Plop...(_me hitting the floor_). You're going to send me to a Cardiologist yet Mr. Karr!

Carl-


----------



## Gary K

hal9001 said:


> Plop...(_me hitting the floor_). You're going to send me to a Cardiologist yet Mr. Karr!
> 
> Carl-


The name is "Kerr" - same as the name that's going on the left side of the sec hull.

Gary


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> Don't worry. The model looks amazingly good with flames painted on the sides of the nacelles!
> 
> Gary


Speaking of which, I have some ideas on how to replicate the flames shooting out of the nacelles and engineering hull (per vintage promotional images circa 1966) without using actual fire...


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

That can't be the right case. It's supposed to be in a free standing case in front of the McCall mural


----------



## dcarty

Gary K said:


> Don't worry. The model looks amazingly good with flames painted on the sides of the nacelles!
> 
> Gary


Ah yes, restored to reflect it's minor and little known appearance in "Teenagers from Outer Space" lol


----------



## asalaw

It will be a 360 display in front of the Robert McCall mural. It's a beautiful spot, incredibly appropriate. Not hanging. The case will be temp- and climate controlled to keep the model stable. Listen to Gary -- be patient (said the guy who just confessed to jonesing). This is the A Team, they know what they're doing. 

It'll be in front of this mural:


----------



## hal9001

Gary K said:


> The name is "Kerr" - same as the name that's going on the left side of the sec hull.
> 
> Gary


Ooo, I'm so sorry Gary, I'll try to be more attentive. Next time you can spell my name with a K! Fair'nuff? :thumbsup:

Carl-


----------



## irishtrek

Gary K said:


> Don't worry. The model looks amazingly good with flames painted on the sides of the nacelles!
> 
> Gary


Hot rod Enterprise??


----------



## Zombie_61

Gary K said:


> Don't worry. The model looks amazingly good with flames painted on the sides of the nacelles!
> 
> Gary


That'll look good against the new lime green basecoat.


----------



## Hunk A Junk

asalaw said:


> It'll be in front of this mural:


Okay, I know it's Robert McCall and I'm supposed to love it just 'cuz, but...

...the 70's called and want their mural back.

:wave:


----------



## jheilman

Harsh. McCall is McCall. I've stood in that spot and I love that mural. To each his own.:thumbsup:

Gary - will you make Wonderfest this year? I think you could fill a hall by giving a presentation on restoring "This Old Enterprise." Just a thought?


----------



## John P

Gary K said:


> Don't worry. The model looks amazingly good with flames painted on the sides of the nacelles!
> 
> Gary


Great, now I have to build one like that or it'll be in my head forever. :lol:


----------



## Proper2

asalaw said:


> It'll be in front of this mural:


Hmmm, that seems like quite a visually loud backdrop. And it doesn't appear to allow for a mezzanine view. But I guess we need to be practical.


----------



## FlyingBrickyard

Proper2 said:


> Hmmm, that seems like quite a visually loud backdrop. And it doesn't appear to allow for a mezzanine view. But I guess we need to be practical.


It's really not so bad. It's such a large scale that by the time you got up to any reasonable viewing distance for the Enterprise display, the mural will mostly fade into the visual background. 

That picture really makes me miss the days when I could wander around the museums before they opened to the public for the day.


----------



## RSN

I love Robert McCall's work, it is a shame they have chosen to block out any portion of this great piece with anything unrelated to the moon landings.


----------



## mach7

asalaw said:


> It will be a 360 display in front of the Robert McCall mural. It's a beautiful spot, incredibly appropriate. Not hanging. The case will be temp- and climate controlled to keep the model stable. Listen to Gary -- be patient (said the guy who just confessed to jonesing). This is the A Team, they know what they're doing.
> 
> It'll be in front of this mural:


That will be a great location. 

I thought I had seen an artist rendering of what the Boeing updat would be and it was on the other side. I can't find it now.


----------



## Proper2

FlyingBrickyard said:


> It's really not so bad. It's such a large scale that by the time you got up to any reasonable viewing distance for the Enterprise display, the mural will mostly fade into the visual background.
> .


Maybe, but I MUCH prefer, and think she deserves, her own backdrop, as in a large studio blue screen, maybe even curving slightly to embrace her in her own space:


----------



## MykTurk

Gary K said:


> Don't worry. The model looks amazingly good with flames painted on the sides of the nacelles!
> 
> Gary


Would now be a good time to show the approved revisions?









:wave:


----------



## feek61

Gary K said:


> I can do you one better - Doug Drexler took those photos in 1977, and Doug is a member of the museum's restoration team.
> 
> We're still in need of photos from '74-'84 so we can nail down the dates of various events more precisely.
> 
> Gary


I took some photos from 1976 that I will try to dig up


----------



## Gary K

feek61 said:


> I took some photos from 1976 that I will try to dig up


Thanks! I don't think we have much documentation from '76, so those pictures could potentially be useful.

Gary


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## John P

Ya know, I'd just assumed Meirecki repainted the marking too. Yes/no?


----------



## Gary K

John P said:


> Ya know, I'd just assumed Meirecki repainted the marking too. Yes/no?


As far as I've been able to tell, Rogay removed most of the weathering in 1974 and repainted the darker gray trim on the impulse deck, nacelle recesses, nacelle endcaps, etc with a darker, more blue-gray color. The 1984 restoration was performed at the museum, and during this restoration, the original wiring was removed, and the hull, with the exception of the upper saucer, received a mist coat of the light gray hull color. When I saw the model close-up in 1991, the tiny technical lettering was there, although brittle, yellow, and falling off. The original decals of the registry numbers had probably been replaced, since the grid lines that ran through the lower saucer numbers had been painted over. 

I've got hi-res scans of the original decal sheet, so we've been able exactly duplicate the original decals, including a drafting mistake in one of the letters. I used original sources to duplicate the spacing of the original lettering - including the occasional upside-down letter 'N', as well as the Pilot font on the port nacelle banner. Ed Miarecki marked the corners of the various red banners & belly markings, and repainted them after repairing cracks in the hull. Again, I went back to original sources to duplicate all the markings.

Gary


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## Gary K

alensatemybuick said:


> Are you talking about the slight difference in the second "S" in "U.S.S.", compared to the first, or compared to the "S" used in "ENTERPRISE", or something else?


Some of the damaged decals on the upper saucer were touched up with paint in the initial restorations. The upper saucer has been cleaned, but we're not going to mess with the decals. 



alensatemybuick said:


> You mean in some cases, the "N" was applied such that what should have the wider top left corner was placed at the bottom right?


Yep. The 'N' gave them problems. Whoever drafted the Pilot markings made one drafting error on the painted 'N', and made a DIFFERENT error when drafting the artwork for the decals. Then they weren't consistent in the way they applied the decals.



alensatemybuick said:


> This has me totally scratching my head! I know the pilot font was different, but why would you use that on the port side?


The Production Models Shop initially painted all the markings on the model & used Pilot font. The markings were replaced with reversible decals during the conversion into the 2nd Pilot version, but they left the portside registry alone since it would never be seen onscreen again. Btw, the frame numbers are still in Pilot font.

Gary


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## Gary K

alensatemybuick said:


> Well, there is a distinct difference in that one "S"; guess we'll have to try figure out what the other error is...unless you want to reveal it  You did say "letter", yes (as opposed to a number)? Narrows things down...
> 
> Thanks for the explanation re: the pilot lettering on the port nacelle; I gather evidence exists that it stayed that way through the end of the series and beyond.


There's no secret about the error. Both sizes of the 'N' had the same error, since they simply enlarged/reduced the faulty artwork when they made decals. When the museum got the model, the lower half of the 'U' and the uppermost part of the 2nd 'S' in the "U.S.S." were damaged/missing, and were touched up with paint. The Pilot font on the left nacelle was apparently replaced during the 1974 restoration.

Gary


----------



## robn1

alensatemybuick said:


> And then they failed to discover their mistakes. They were flawed and imperfect. Faulty....FAULTY!!!


And they failed to correct their mistakes by sterilization, they made three errors!


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## Gary K

alensatemybuick said:


> Sorry to be obtuse, but if you are referring to a drafting error on the decal sheet itself, I just don't see one in images of it I've seen. I don't understand what exactly is "erroneous" about the Ns.


One leg is thicker than the other in the original artwork, but you need tracings & the hi-res photos that I have to measure it. Patience - a beautiful illustration will probably be appearing online at another website in the not-too-distant future.

Gary


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## Gary K

alensatemybuick said:


> But that is essentially what I already pointed out several posts back...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't it be argued that the different width of the legs (which follows from the wider "corner" on one end) was an artistic choice and not an error?


I doubt that it was an artistic choice, if you see how the parts of the 'N' shifted around from Pilot to Production. It would have been a tiny, simple mistake to make while manually drawing the lettering over graph paper in the days before computers. Like I said, just wait for the illustration to appear.

Gary


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## asalaw

Gary, with all the drool-inducing stuff you're posting, I'm going to have to bill you for a couple of tee shirts. Also a bib.


----------



## John P

I love this. I had no idea about the little lettering details until just now.


----------



## Steve H

alensatemybuick said:


> I'll look forward to seeing that illustration, but I just don't think that typefaces always follow simple rules like having same thickness or even parallel elements. Its like the Greek column effect; sometimes things have to be made unequal to look right.


And sometimes it really is just some quirk in the font design, some little tweak that makes it different from another, similar thing. In our modern computer digital age it's really easy to forget that Letraset and Dynamo did things 'just because'. 

I recall some friends who paid good money for a professional 'Khyron' (sp? so long ago) printer, it was like a giant Dynamo label maker, with huge font wheels near the size of an LP record, that pressed letters onto clear sticky tape. It was designed mainly for TV stations to make captions and titles to be superimposed on a picture, but these folk used it to make covers and page headers for their role play game books and supplements. It was cheaper than typesetting. 

MAN it was rough in those pre-desktop publishing days! You really had to know your stuff!


----------



## Shaw

Gary K said:


> One leg is thicker than the other in the original artwork, but you need tracings & the hi-res photos that I have to measure it. Patience - a beautiful illustration will probably be appearing online at another website in the not-too-distant future.


So wait... the decal graphics in the 1/350 TOS Enterprise kit are less accurate than the ones I made for my 1/500 TOS Enterprise scratch build?

Awesome! :thumbsup:

This is exactly why I don't use pre-existing fonts for the decal graphics on my models. If you want accuracy, hand trace the original artwork. Score one for _rivet counters_!

I guess while we wait for these _new_ illustrations to pop up, I used the same lettering on my Phase II Enterprise decal graphics that I put up back in 2013 (the _not-too-distant_ past).


----------



## Shaw

alensatemybuick said:


> The difference apparently did lead to a problem with inconsistent application of the decals, but I don't see that as a drafting error.


There were lots of errors in the applications of the decals... this is my favorite one!


----------



## FlyingBrickyard

Shaw said:


> There were lots of errors in the applications of the decals... this is my favorite one!


How did that even happen?

They're not internally consistent. Even if you mirror it so the numerical portion reads properly, it comes out as "1071", and the "NCC" portion is still incorrect.

There's no possible orientation in which the entire thing will read correctly, even if we allow it to be out of order. I get that mistakes happen, but that seems so incorrect it had to have been intentional - is there any story behind it, or is it just a contextless image of a moment in time?


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## Shaw

alensatemybuick said:


> This image is the only one I am aware of (for whatever that is worth) that shows the reverse decals applied to the starboard side.


Here are a couple more...


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## Shaw

So there was some question about the domes?

I thought that was known... here we have lights on and lights off...








There is a color to the domes even when the lighting effect was off.


----------



## FlyingBrickyard

alensatemybuick said:


> Curiosity about this topic led me to find (or refind) this particular image on the Google machine. This image is the only one I am aware of (for whatever that is worth) that shows the reverse decals applied to the starboard side.


Nice!

Though that, at least, makes sense to me. Properly applied mirrored decals like that would allow for one side of the model to double as the other side in a shot if necessary. 

Which is what I originally thought they might have been going for in your first picture, but it just doesn't work. 

So perhaps it was just a case of "It's green".


----------



## Owen E Oulton

Shaw said:


> Here are a couple more...


Well, one more, actually, just in colour and black'n'white. They're both the same image.


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## Proper2

alensatemybuick said:


> I suggest you compare the nacelles in position to each other in those two images, as well as how in the color shot only, you can see the port side of the saucer sticking out from behind the port nacelle strut. Certainly taken within moments of each other, but two distinct images.


Yes, agreed, these are definitely two separate frames. Also, note the variance of vertical space between the Enterprise and the Botany Bay. Not to mention the presence of the clapboard on one! So, clearly the domes must have had an amber tint to them. The only thing to remember is that both of these images have been heavily color corrected and enhanced. But there is no reason to think that the domes would have been treated separately to be made reddish.


----------



## Gary K

Proper2 said:


> Yes, agreed, these are definitely two separate frames. Also, note the variance of vertical space between the Enterprise and the Botany Bay. Not to mention the presence of the clapboard on one! So, clearly the domes must have had an amber tint to them. The only thing to remember is that both of these images have been heavily color corrected and enhanced. But there is no reason to think that the domes would have been treated separately to be made reddish.


Fortunately, we have a reliable eyewitness from 1972, and he says that both the domes and tabs were tinted orange. 

Gary


----------



## Proper2

Gary K said:


> Fortunately, we have a reliable eyewitness from 1972, and he says that both the domes and tabs were tinted orange.
> 
> Gary


Now I wish the Master Replicas folks were aware of this back in 2005-2006 and had incorporated that into their great model.


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## Steve H

alensatemybuick said:


> By the way, for those who have an insatiable appetite for details about the 33 inch and 11 foot Enterprise models, the daughter of the man who built the former and supervised the building of the latter and later modified it (including adding the lighted nacelle effects) wrote a book about him. If contains many of his recollections about his work on TOS, including a description of the inner workings of what became known as the "bussard collectors". I think "Wattanasiri's" recollections of what he saw in 1972 with the domes off (from the same thread hyperlinked to above) jibe quite well with Mr. Datin's own account.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/The-Enterprise-1701-Model-Maker/dp/1518644880



Do you know why I like hanging out here so much? Because people like you manage to surprise me and enlighten me with things such as this book, completely out of the blue. 

Of course my wallet is always in danger, but it's worth it.


----------



## Proper2

Wow, I guess I'm a little surprised hanging around these threads and not having heard about this book that's been out since November! Thanks!


----------



## Steve H

Proper2 said:


> Wow, I guess I'm a little surprised hanging around these threads and not having heard about this book that's been out since November! Thanks!


I KNOW, right? All this talk, all these pages, and nobody says "oh, hey, look!" 

Maybe it was supposed to be SOOPER SEEKTRT


----------



## jheilman

Not a secret. I have my copy.


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## Steve H

alensatemybuick said:


> In the book, Datin recalls that the lights he installed under the domes were originally all white, and when he first saw the multicolor effect, he thought it was "cheesey".
> 
> Another thing reported in the book was Datin's recollection that the lighted nacelle modifications were done for the start of season 2. i remember being shocked to read that, and having to check a few clips on YouTube to double check my own memory. Clearly he misremembered (or his recollections were mis-reported). No big deal. But what really surprised me after rewatching the opening credits for all seasons is that the lighted nacelles are ONLY shown in the season 1 credits (mixed with shots of the painted caps). Somehow I never noticed that before (or forgot, memory can be a funny thing). The fact that the creators would use only the older footage for the opening of post season 1 shows is counterintuitive.



That's...curious. I wonder why that would be as well. Maybe the angle was slightly better, or the shot was somehow more pleasing on a smaller screen (as many people rushing to buy color TVs couldn't afford those 'giant' 19 inch screens  ) or...huh.

Speaking of, it's not been brought up but just to get it out there: The 'lightning rods' on the ends of the domes, that was only on the wooden, painted version, right? I mean, that's logical because you sure don't see them in those glorious close shots that show the spinning and blinking...


----------



## Proper2

Steve H said:


> Speaking of, it's not been brought up but just to get it out there: The 'lightning rods' on the ends of the domes, that was only on the wooden, painted version, right? I mean, that's logical because you sure don't see them in those glorious close shots that show the spinning and blinking...


Yeah, that's correct. No lightning roads on the lighted domes.


----------



## Trekkriffic

Proper2 said:


> Yeah, that's correct. No lightning roads on the lighted domes.


I love it. "Lightning rods" ! :jest:


----------



## Steve H

Trekkriffic said:


> I love it. "Lightning rods" ! :jest:


I thought 'brass nipples' was just too crude.


----------



## SteveR

alensatemybuick said:


> I'll look forward to seeing that illustration, but I just don't think that typefaces always follow simple rules like having same thickness or even parallel elements. Its like the Greek column effect; sometimes things have to be made unequal to look right.


Yep. Along those lines, it's common practice for designers to center an image by bumping it up a hair. Otherwise, the image can appear too low in the frame. I think that by thickening the vertex at the bottom of the N, the negative space inside the N is raised slightly.

I think the illusion comes from the fact that unlike Ender, we live in a vertically asymmetrical natural world where stable vertical objects tend to be a bit heavier or wider at the bottom (e.g. trees, mountains, or a stable standing person). So, the bottoms of the letters _might_ have be drawn deliberately thicker by one or more of the draughtsmen involved.


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## SteveR

Agreed ... (I need to get a life, too!) I'm just saying that the thicker bottom (!) may or may _not_ be a drafting error. Some typographers make their sans-serif faces vertically symmetrical, some don't.


----------



## Steve H

SteveR said:


> Agreed ... (I need to get a life, too!) I'm just saying that the thicker bottom (!) may or may _not_ be a drafting error. Some typographers make their sans-serif faces vertically symmetrical, some don't.


I might suggest that rather than we noobs speculate and pontificate, Gary should suggest engaging a typeset historical expert at the Smithsonian. I'm sure they have some over there. 

The letters et al MAY have been hand drawn but my gut says it was more likely commercial product circa early '60s. That just makes sense.


----------



## SteveR

Steve H said:


> I might suggest that rather than we noobs speculate and pontificate, Gary should suggest engaging a typeset historical expert at the Smithsonian. I'm sure they have some over there.


Sorry, no historical expert here, just graphic designer.


----------



## Neo-uk

Debating whether or not the letter N is vertical, or is wider at the bottom or not...It's enough to give modellers a bad name.


----------



## Proper2

Neo-uk said:


> Debating whether or not the letter N is vertical, or is wider at the bottom or not...It's enough to give modellers a bad name.


Yes, frankly, I don't see it as a terribly important issue. Just my opinion.


----------



## Steve H

SteveR said:


> Sorry, no historical expert here, just graphic designer.


Sure, all well and good. You got '50s and '60s Letraset (and the competing dry transfers at the time) catalogs and sample books laying about? 

Man I remember those days, digging around Dumas art supplies, checking out lettering, and Chartpack tape, and exotic airbrushes and X-Acto blades...


----------



## Proper2

Steve H said:


> Sure, all well and good. You got '50s and '60s Letraset (and the competing dry transfers at the time) catalogs and sample books laying about?
> 
> Man I remember those days, digging around Dumas art supplies, checking out lettering, and Chartpack tape, and exotic airbrushes and X-Acto blades...


I have my degree in Fine Arts with a design option. I remember the horrors of those flimsy Letraset, and Chartpack tapes, and Rubilith and super expensive Gouache paints, and quick-clogging Rapidographs! Blech!


----------



## Shaw

Neo-uk said:


> Debating whether or not the letter N is vertical, or is wider at the bottom or not...It's enough to give modellers a bad name.


Boy, it is a good thing we're all discussing the documentation and restoration of a cultural artifact... we sure wouldn't want anyone to think poorly of _modellers_ based on this discussion.

Oddly I don't build a lot of models (and I generally avoid kits), but when I do build it is usually to aid in researching a topic I'm studying. I study _models as models_ rather than the fictional subjects they represent onscreen. And I'm interested in the artists behind those models, mostly to acknowledge their artistry and craftsmanship.

If this is not a subject that you are interested in, that is fine. It is odd you'd take the time to either read or post in this thread if you aren't interested in this subject. It would be like me posting in one of the Eagle threads when I have no interest in that subject. Why would I need or want to announce to fellow members taking part in that discussion that I have no interest in the topic or course of their discussion? And I really can't imagine the need to attempt to shame them for being interested in a subject I personally am not interested in.

But fear not, I'll endeavor to not soil the reputation of _modellers_ by sharing or discussing details which you find so esoteric.


----------



## jheilman

Shaw said:


> But fear not, I'll endeavor to not soil the reputation of _modellers_ by sharing or discussing details which you find so esoteric.


Deftly put. :thumbsup:


----------



## jheilman

I've said it before, I always find it interesting in a community of enthusiasts that there are some who are uncomfortable at others being a little too much "in to" a subject. We are willing to discuss our sci-fi subject up to a point, but occasionally they will throw in the rivet counter comment with the rolling eyes emoji. Ah well.


----------



## Steve H

Proper2 said:


> I have my degree in Fine Arts with a design option. I remember the horrors of those flimsy Letraset, and Chartpack tapes, and Rubilith and super expensive Gouache paints, and quick-clogging Rapidographs! Blech!


Oh, brother, I remember, I remember getting a Rapidograph pen! Outlining and panel lines were a 'hot topic' and using a Rapidograph was what you did. I didn't have a problem with ink clogging so much as that stupid tiny wire inside the pen tip, that [email protected]#$# would always BEND which then would clog the tip and aarrggghh. I couldn't believe how much I spent on that stupid pen!

But. It worked a treat when putting eyes on 1/35 scale figures. That it did very well.I guess in hindsight that was my entry into the world of "one expensive tool that does exactly one specific thing" or something.


----------



## Richard Baker

Proper2 said:


> I have my degree in Fine Arts with a design option. I remember the horrors of those flimsy Letraset, and Chartpack tapes, and Rubilith and super expensive Gouache paints, and quick-clogging Rapidographs! Blech!


Used those in retail advertising way back before the days of the IBM-PC. Waxed mechanicals were the only way to produce camera ready art for catalogs and newspapers. 
Very frustrating at the time but like contour drawing classes experience in these things has proved valuable later in life.


----------



## Paulbo

I used to design engraving artwork for industrial rotary screen printing back in the early 80s before our suppliers switches over to laser engraving. It took a while, but I finally convinced my boss to let me have some parts machined to my designs to have my big HP pen plotter cut Rubylith directly from my VersaCAD software.

Wish I'd patented that :-( (Assuming I didn't reinvent the wheel.)


----------



## jheilman

I have a fine arts degree from 1986. I remember well the days of rapidographs and typesetting companies and Letraset. Remember type specing? Writing out what you wanted from the type setter. Font, size, line breaks, leading, etc. Then hoping the sheet you got back matched what you speced. And, if it didn't, more time wasted. 

Removed the rest as I was drifting too far afield.


----------



## KUROK

jheilman said:


> I've said it before, I always find it interesting in a community of enthusiasts that there are some who are uncomfortable at others being a little too much "in to" a subject. We are willing to discuss our sci-fi subject up to a point, but occasionally they will throw in the rivet counter comment with the rolling eyes emoji. Ah well.


I think he was being sarcastic and trying to make a joke... a funny one at that.


----------



## Richard Baker

Paulbo said:


> I used to design engraving artwork for industrial rotary screen printing back in the early 80s before our suppliers switches over to laser engraving. It took a while, but I finally convinced my boss to let me have some parts machined to my designs to have my big HP pen plotter cut Rubylith directly from my VersaCAD software.
> 
> Wish I'd patented that :-( (Assuming I didn't reinvent the wheel.)


The cutting plotters we use here are basically that design. Gerber Scientifics based their hardware off of a machine which made repeatable patterns for clothing manufacturing- the company producing them started making some custom shapes for internal signage ,then they added a swivel knife to cut laminated material. The first machines used font cartridges and had no preview capability- you just had to keep it all straight in your head as you built the graphic with x-y positioning line by line. I got introduced to these machines in the early 1980s.
When I was in advertising we had a large format process camera and later on Mergenthaler a laser typesetter. The Typesetter had to be kept in a cold room, used 8" floppies to boot the operations system and load fonts. It outputed to photographic film which had to be run through a development tank processor and Lord help you if you got corrupted chemistry. 

Everything produced had to be waxed and laid into a grid panel for publication, photography was shot with an 85 line screen.

Today my sign company still uses Gerber software running on PCs and still outputs to knife plotters, but the sophistication is incredible. The files I create are also exported to a 4'x10' router table for producing custom shapes such as channel letters. We used Amberlith for silkscreening until 1987 then we shifted to high resolution edge positives printed on clear film.

It is amazing how the industry has changed- my compute room does the work that originally required five people, does it in half an hour instead of three days and is repeatable so if there is storm damage we can produce an exact duplicate the same day instead of fishing around for hand drawn pounce patterns...


----------



## Hunk A Junk

jheilman said:


> I've said it before, I always find it interesting in a community of enthusiasts that there are some who are uncomfortable at others being a little too much "in to" a subject. We are willing to discuss our sci-fi subject up to a point, but occasionally they will throw in the rivet counter comment with the rolling eyes emoji. Ah well.


Based on my own experience, I'd speculate that any uncomfortable feelings about being an "enthusiast" comes from years and years of being uncomfortably teased as a nerd... er, I mean "enthusiast."  I know I feel better about my nerdy self when I occasionally get to snicker at someone nerdier than me! :wave:


----------



## John P

Flashbacks!
Corporate graphics department here. What you now do in Powerpoint, we did this way:
An artist (me!) would draw the diagram on velum, using a rapidograph pen.
Callouts would be typed on an IBM Selectric by our typsetter Betty. We'd then wax the paper and cut out the type, stick it on the art.
I'd deliver the art to the print shop, where it would be photographed on a photostat camera, usually as an 8x10 negative.
The transparency would be delivered back to me, and I'd mount it in a plastic frame (to be used on an overhead projector).
If color was required, I'd cut out the shapes from colored cellophane, and Scotch-tape it to the slide. Or use colored transparent tape.

I remember one proposal in the 80s when we (six artists) did _four thousand slides_ like that. Then the program manager decided it was too much, and cut 1500 of them from the presentation. Then you know what we did? sat there and tore the film out of the frames so we could reuse the frames.

:freak:


----------



## Gary K

Just a gentle reminder: this is supposed to be a thread about new info on the 11-ft Enterprise, not a trip down memory lane re. careers in graphics.

Gary


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> Just a gentle reminder: this is supposed to be a thread about new info on the 11-ft Enterprise, not a trip down memory lane re. careers in graphics.
> 
> Gary


Buuttt we're learning that many people here have surprising and quality 'old school' first-hand knowledge of materials and techniques not unlike the original creators of the Enterprise. 

I posit this is a potential knowledge base that has value to the discussion at hand. 

For one thing, I think the consensus is that the 'unbalanced N' is intentional to the design and not a drafting mistake or error. That's valuable and relevant to the discussion.


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> For one thing, I think the consensus is that the 'unbalanced N' is intentional to the design and not a drafting mistake or error. That's valuable and relevant to the discussion.


I'm so glad that everybody has already arrived at a consensus about the N, without seeing or hearing what I have to say. I'm not omniscient, but I have demonstrable reasons why I suspect that there were minor errors in both the Pilot & Production N's. I asked everybody to hold off on speculating until the info & illustrations I have are published. 

There's a whole 11-foot ship to talk about, so, again, could everybody please hold off on debating & drawing conclusions on one possible SMALL error on one letter until I present some evidence?

Gary


----------



## Jim Dearden

Gary K said:


> I'm so glad that everybody has already arrived at a consensus about the N, without seeing or hearing what I have to say. I'm not omniscient, but I have demonstrable reasons why I suspect that there were minor errors in both the Pilot & Production N's. I asked everybody to hold off on speculating until the info & illustrations I have are published.
> 
> There's a whole 11-foot ship to talk about, so, again, could everybody please hold off on debating & drawing conclusions on one possible SMALL error on one letter until I present some evidence?
> 
> Gary


So, would that mean that for every "N" amount of information, there are "N"+1 opinions? 

GD&R 

Jim


----------



## phicks

Jim Dearden said:


> So, would that mean that for every "N" amount of information, there are "N"+1 opinions?
> 
> GD&R
> 
> Jim



And will all the new information about the 11 foot Enterprise be published in a booklet inserted in each new Galileo model kit? :tongue:


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> I'm so glad that everybody has already arrived at a consensus about the N, without seeing or hearing what I have to say. I'm not omniscient, but I have demonstrable reasons why I suspect that there were minor errors in both the Pilot & Production N's. I asked everybody to hold off on speculating until the info & illustrations I have are published.
> 
> There's a whole 11-foot ship to talk about, so, again, could everybody please hold off on debating & drawing conclusions on one possible SMALL error on one letter until I present some evidence?
> 
> Gary


Because I have nits to pick even as I agree... 

You are saying demonstrable evidence. Groovy. Some of us have been saying the most obvious evidence is "that's the way the type was made". Now, it's POSSIBLE that at some point the effects staff needed a replacement N and lo, they were out of that specific type and maybe, maybe someone with OCD used a different but similar N and they hand inked the thicker side to make it match (which given the resolution of TV back then was completely un-needed, but again, I understand that kind of attention to detail), so that could be that. 

Gary, I know. It's frustrating as all heck. You are learning stuff that you just can't talk about, there's other things that are still in-process because it takes time to crunch data (and I'm sure some of the staff are doing other things in addition to working on the Enterprise). It's all good. 

I would just suggest remembering what you said earlier in this thread. You've challenged yourself to throw away your preconceptions regarding the 11 foot Miniature. We're all pulling for you!


----------



## Proper2

phicks said:


> And will all the new information about the 11 foot Enterprise be published in a booklet inserted in each new Galileo model kit? :tongue:


Yeah, good luck on holding your breath for a new Galileo kit.


----------



## scotthm

Gary K said:


> There's a whole 11-foot ship to talk about


I assume most of the model will be painted to match the colors of 1967/68 or so, with the exception of the top of the saucer, which I understand is only being cleaned. Will there be any attempt to "age" the new paint for a better match with the top of the saucer or are they going for the exact look it had during production?

---------------


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## edge10

I sure hope you are wrong about it ending up looking like the 91 restoration. That, sure as heck, is nothing like the paint job that was on the model during the shows production.


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## edge10

So, who are we to believe? NASM or our lying eyes?






Please go to the 4 minute mark to see how it looked during filming of Space Seed. 

You can also, just compare the top, still production paint, to Mirecki's hatchet job.


----------



## Gary K

alensatemybuick said:


> Apologies in advance if it has been brought up before, but there is a FASCINATING video on youtube of a talk given by Margaret Weitekamp about a month ago:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc9HS9zDAsE
> 
> I found it to be well worth the time to watch in its entirety. A couple highlights:
> 
> 1. At time mark 27:10, she describes (and shows a graphic of) how the model will be displayed.


Thanks for posting the link. I hadn't seen it before. 

Actually, this past weekend I made some drawings to show the carpenters building the display case where to drill the holes for the support posts so the ship will be perfectly centered inside the case.



alensatemybuick said:


> 2. At time mark 29:10 to about 32:45, she discusses the 1991 Miarecki restoration, and how the more high quality color photos that come to light of the ship from the late 60s / early 70s, the more it becomes apparent that he got quite a lot right, all the more remarkable considering the fact that he had a lot less info. / photos to go by than those involved in the current restoration. She also has some interesting thoughts on the "interweb forum cluckers" (making it ironic in my opinion that one of the comments to the youtube vid is by someone who apparently didn't watch the whole thing and lamented over the "completely inaccurate paintjob").
> 
> Per a 4 page memo written by Gene Roddenberry written to Justman, Jefferies, Solo and others on April 7, 1966 (itself reprinted in the book written by Richard Datin's daughter), "general 'aging' of the vessel" was something he wanted done when the model was modified from its WNMHGB appearance to how it would look for the regular series.
> 
> I'm not concluding from the video that the 1991 paintjob was necessarily 100% accurate...but I would conclude (esp. from her comments at time mark 32:20-32:45) that we'll see something much closer to the 1991-on livery than many would want.


To elaborate on the 1992 paint scheme, the color that Ed Miarecki selected for the overall hull color was very, very close to the color that Dr Buck's microscopic examination of the paint layers revealed. The green weathering was a best-guess given the poor resources available in 1991-92 (before the Internet and easy access to DVD & Blu-ray screen caps), but it was way overdone. Lacquer paint chemically darkens over the decades, whether it's protected or not, but the base color is still a light gray shade. Color photos show that SUBTLE weathering was applied all over the model, but it was primarily brown, with some charcoal gray. Green-tinted oversprays & weathering were pretty much confined to the upper saucer. We're still working on the "whys" and are researching some additional details, but all will be made public once the research is done. I'm working out a detailed chronology of the design changes & changes to the color scheme, which will be part of the museum's official report. I think I even figured out the full story behind changes to the size of the ship, frame numbers, etc. Like I keep saying, just hang tight and stop work on any Enterprise models until we're done, and until I've written everything up & drawn some pretty pictures.

Gary


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Gary K said:


> ...stop work on any Enterprise models until we're done, and until I've written everything up & drawn some pretty pictures.


Oh, no worries there. As has been well documented, very few of us here actually _build_ models anyway.


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## Opus Penguin

alensatemybuick said:


> For me it's too late, by the way; my 1/350 scale model is done!


Same here.


----------



## Gregatron

Gary K said:


> Thanks for posting the link. I hadn't seen it before.
> 
> Actually, this past weekend I made some drawings to show the carpenters building the display case where to drill the holes for the support posts so the ship will be perfectly centered inside the case.
> 
> 
> 
> To elaborate on the 1992 paint scheme, the color that Ed Miarecki selected for the overall hull color was very, very close to the color that Dr Buck's microscopic examination of the paint layers revealed. The green weathering was a best-guess given the poor resources available in 1991-92 (before the Internet and easy access to DVD & Blu-ray screen caps), but it was way overdone. Lacquer paint chemically darkens over the decades, whether it's protected or not, but the base color is still a light gray shade. Color photos show that SUBTLE weathering was applied all over the model, but it was primarily brown, with some charcoal gray. Green-tinted oversprays & weathering were pretty much confined to the upper saucer. We're still working on the "whys" and are researching some additional details, but all will be made public once the research is done. I'm working out a detailed chronology of the design changes & changes to the color scheme, which will be part of the museum's official report. I think I even figured out the full story behind changes to the size of the ship, frame numbers, etc. Like I keep saying, just hang tight and stop work on any Enterprise models until we're done, and until I've written everything up & drawn some pretty pictures.
> 
> Gary


Yeah, the assessment of the weathering sounds about right--some brown and gray streaks on the nacelles and secondary hull (some of which stayed on the model from first pilot through production), with greens, grays, and Browns on the saucer (as well as the rust ring).


----------



## Proper2

alensatemybuick said:


> Ms. Weitekamp's talk on youtube is quite consistent with something Michael Okuda wrote that I read on the NASM blog late last year (from http://blog.nasm.si.edu/behind-the-scenes/nerd-camp):


Interestingly, I didn't hear her say that the Meriecki coloring of the 1991 restoration was "way overdone," or even a little bit overdone. Rather, she pointed out that Meriecki may have been very close and "got a lot of it right" and that a lot of the negativivity and controversy came about because of the viewing of photos of the model rather than having looked at the piece itself. Sounds like Meriecki may be somewhat exonerated after all the dust has settled and the new paint has dried.


----------



## edge10

I believe the phrase used was 'heavy handed'.

In retrospect, I've realized that of all the things going on in the world today to get worked up about, the restoration of the Enterprise model isn't one of them.


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## FlyingBrickyard

Proper2 said:


> Interestingly, I didn't hear her say that the Meriecki coloring of the 1991 restoration was "way overdone," or even a little bit overdone. Rather, she pointed out that Meriecki may have been very close and "got a lot of it right" and that a lot of the negativivity and controversy came about because of the viewing of photos of the model rather than having looked at the piece itself. Sounds like Meriecki may be somewhat exonerated after all the dust has settled and the new paint has dried.


Possibly. Though I can say that having seen it personally and frequently both before and right after it came out of that restoration - it seemed massively overdone even then. 

I never had a problem with the details themselves, just with how heavily much of it was applied. The weathering (at least to my eyes) was the most visible part of the paintjob as you approached the display, and I think it's safe to say that even then with less documentation available, it was clear that was never a defining visual characteristic of this model.


----------



## Hunk A Junk

The argument for the Merieke paint job (or a version of it) is that studio lights, 1960s film stocks and TV screens washed out the details to such a degree that they looked far flatter and toned down on screen. But has anyone ever taken a well lit photo of the Merieke ship and played with it to try to duplicate the effect? I'd imagine that adjusting contrast, grain and other factors could get a result that's somewhat similar to the on-screen look, but would the weathering really then just uniformly wash out to what we saw on our TVs? I'm skeptical. Merieke likely got the idea of the weathering right, but just waaaay over did it.


----------



## Proper2

Hunk A Junk said:


> The argument for the Merieke paint job (or a version of it) is that studio lights, 1960s film stocks and TV screens washed out the details to such a degree that they looked far flatter and toned down on screen. But has anyone ever taken a well lit photo of the Merieke ship and played with it to try to duplicate the effect? I'd imagine that adjusting contrast, grain and other factors could get a result that's somewhat similar to the on-screen look, but would the weathering really then just uniformly wash out to what we saw on our TVs? I'm skeptical. Merieke likely got the idea of the weathering right, but just waaaay over did it.


Well, as alenatemybuick stated: _Dr. Weitekamp discusses the Miarecki restoration, and how the more high quality color photos that come to light of the ship from the late 60s / early 70s, the more it becomes apparent that Miarecki got quite a lot right, all the more remarkable considering the fact that he had a lot less info. / photos to go by than those involved in the current restoration. She also has some interesting thoughts on the "interweb forum cluckers" (making it ironic in my opinion that one of the comments to the youtube vid is by someone who apparently didn't watch the whole thing and lamented over the "completely inaccurate paintjob"). _

So, I would give a ton more credence to the experts who have done analyses and have access to tons of photos and have and have had the real artifact in front of their eyes rather than to well-meaning but ill-equipped fans who judge and convict without real evidence.


----------



## Steve H

Alens (forgive the shorthand, I'm a simple and sometimes lazy person  ), you brought up one thing that makes me crazy regarding the 'newly discovered' treasure of reference photographs, that 'privacy concern by collectors'.

It's that kind of...what to call it, it's like hoarding but something deeper... well, how about 'selfish' practice that makes me angry and crazy. 

OK, I can see that when it comes to, say, owning original props or miniatures. A case could be made that they don't actually have a right to that item, it's stolen property, it may well be seized. At the very least it could be a very long and expensive legal hassle. I get that. And there can be a quiet, private satisfaction in having a thing. There may well be a person holding on to that 3 foot miniature, obtained via some secret 'back door' deal with Roddenberry way way back when (or outright stolen from whomever it was sent to, I think it was something to do with the early days of ST: Phase II, right? onward.) and yeah, that person could be real scared of being revealed, I get that. 

But Pictures. Photographs. Keeping those secret out of some concern, no. What that sounds like is the worst aspect of fandom, the "I have this and it gives me power and if I let it out I won't have power anymore because everyone will know it" or as we otherwise know it, information control. 

There are fans for who their entire ego structure is built around the reputation of being 'inside', being the guy who bathes in the light of those greater than we and he deigns to share those dribs and drabs of information and knowledge with we poor relatives. You don't see it that much nowadays because frankly, gatherings, meetings, conventions of any sort aren't really geared towards that sort of experience anymore but they still exist. Yet the mentality persists. 

Because there are practical, tangible benefits to being that person. You got invited to different cities, you got free passes to the event, you get a hotel room, a Per Diem for meals, you have a 'handler' to take you places, you have access. Never, ever discount the lure of being a person with access. 

I speak from experience. There was a time I was considered an 'important person' due to one single fanzine I produced. That got me trips to conventions in Dallas and Atlanta and Chicago. It was heady stuff. 

But see, I was lauded for a physical thing I had produced, the people (or perhaps just person) with these rare, super exciting photographs, they've been SITTING on them for decades. Maybe, maybe there were a few who knew and had access (and thus, an 'insider' and thus, ego can come into play, information control) but for the most part, the world as a whole was completely ignorant of their existence. 

Which then becomes the old phrase "if a tree falls in the woods and there is no one to hear it, does it make a sound?" (objectively, of course it does, science blah glah  )

Maybe the main concern regarding the mystery photographs is trying to find a way to monetize them without CBS/Paramount seizing the lion's share, THAT'S a concern that's totally understandable, but again, if 'you' are the only person who KNOWS about them, you're not making money on the photo as it is. 

On the gripping hand we have plenty of experience and knowledge of companies and people who control rights and properties that actively sit on them out of spite and hatred (see the history of Buckaroo Banzai for the most insane example) or complete ignorance or a fear that they won't make ENOUGH money if they do something or it may cost too much money (which, really, is the same thing. see every TV series that you love that hasn't been released to home video because of 'music rights' problems).

I've always been angry at the information control mandarins. I've always been angry at the assumed privilege, the arrogance, the assumption that they are better than me, better than anyone simply because of 'z'. 

And maybe that's not fair on my part. People who own things have the right to whatever conditions that are agreed to. I know in our internet world there's a sad, frightening lack of appreciation for 'ownership' because the overarching belief is "if it's on the internet it's free for anyone to use!" and that, most likely, is a core fear: If these photos are released into the wild then EVERYBODY will have them, use them, abuse them, claim them as their own work or whatever. I seem to recall there was some kerfluffle over some Lincoln Enterprises 'film clips' (actual trims, edits, dupes of footage from the Desilu vaults documented as stolen by Roddenberry, blah blah) being loaned to some person for archiving and digital clean-up which then....I'm not sure, I think somebody used them in a book and the archiver took offense and all I recall is a lot of anger and mushy legal claims of ownership and stuff. That was ugly. 

So what am I saying? Pictures of the Enterprise miniatures are not National Secrets. They should not vanish once the restoration team is done. I would hope for someone to have some discussions to change this. I can think of a wonderful solution. The Smithsonian publishes a coffee table book on "Rescuing the Starship Enterprise-the story of restoring a classic icon of TV history" as told by the restoration team. 

Buuttt CBS/Paramount would probably have to sign off on it. And the problems start anew. (because, see, revealing secrets of a 50 year old hunk of metal and wood and plastic somehow takes away from their projected future and current plans...)


----------



## MartyS

Gary K said:


> Like I keep saying, just hang tight and stop work on any Enterprise models until we're done, and until I've written everything up & drawn some pretty pictures.


That's not what a good salesman would say... 

What you are supposed to say is everyone will need to go out and buy new models and start over. 

If the TOS Enterprise models are flying off the shelves maybe we will get that Galileo model... :lol:


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## jheilman

Gary K said:


> Just a gentle reminder: this is supposed to be a thread about new info on the 11-ft Enterprise, not a trip down memory lane re. careers in graphics.
> 
> Gary


Yes, I deleted mine since I was the wordiest offender.


----------



## RSN

How about everybody just let Gary post what he knows about the restoration here and all the other people who want to be "experts" can start their own thread of "entitlement" so those who want REAL facts can get them from Gary without having to wade through page after page of nonsense to get to his comments!!


----------



## KUROK

She says the port side of the model will be left alone and not detailed. I remember reading about Ed Miarecki's restoration and that he patched that side up. It was torn open very roughly during the series to add lights. So, we are really not seeing it as it was during production of the show. Just sayin'.


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## Proper2

This is still a public discussion thread, RSN, it is not a Gary Kerr "blog." Gary is gracious enough to share his time, and knowledge, and findings, but as he himself has pointed out he is not omniscient.


----------



## Steve H

And I like my discussions lively and wide ranging, not so narrow focused that all it is is info dumps, sometimes sans context, that sound more like promotional puff pieces. 

I enjoy learning. I enjoy going where the road takes me. If not for this thread I would not have been aware of the deep and vast old-school graphic design knowledge that is here in some members. My respect for those people has grown quite a bit, because my own limited experience allows me to understand just how HARD that work was, the skill. I was taught at an early age to admire and respect skill and craftsmanship. 

It's a journey, this restoration. Sometimes you just have to pull over at a Stuckys and buy a pecan log.


----------



## CaptCBoard

A general comment on weathering from my personal experience working in the FX miniatures field for over 16 years...

On any model that gets weathered, no matter what the subject, the weathering will appear over-done to the naked eye. That's because it has to be over-done due to the way light pierces through the weathering and you see more of the undercoat on film. Weathering acts almost like a filter. It is mainly transparent since you do want to see what it is covering. It is not solid and is usually applied using a thinned down color and then built up to the proper density. Lighting tests are filmed and adjustments to the weathering are done so what appears on screen matches what the production team wants to see.

Of course, that brings up the question-- do you restore a model to how it appeared on screen or to how it appeared when it was on stage being filmed. Either way, someone is going to complain. 

Scott


----------



## Proper2

CaptCBoard said:


> A general comment on weathering from my personal experience working in the FX miniatures field for over 16 years...
> 
> On any model that gets weathered, no matter what the subject, the weathering will appear over-done to the naked eye. That's because it has to be over-done due to the way light pierces through the weathering and you see more of the undercoat on film. Weathering acts almost like a filter. It is mainly transparent since you do want to see what it is covering. It is not solid and is usually applied using a thinned down color and then built up to the proper density. Lighting tests are filmed and adjustments to the weathering are done so what appears on screen matches what the production team wants to see.
> 
> Of course, that brings up the question-- do you restore a model to how it appeared on screen or to how it appeared when it was on stage being filmed. Either way, someone is going to complain.
> 
> Scott



The last point is an important one. I for one believe that the restoration should definitely match the filming model as it looked in person and not what appears on screen. Especially since what appears on screen is greatly influenced by the quality and type of screen itself. For one thing, "tube" screens of the 60s are nothing at all like the HD screens of today! But you're right, either way some will complain.


----------



## RSN

I took a shot Gary, they are all yours. Looking forward to seeing the "Old Girl" when you all are finished, that is all I need!!


----------



## asalaw

I agree with Steve H about the "information control" people. It's just plain narcissism. I call them "comic book guys," after the Simpsons character. There are people in the hobby who also won't share techniques, either. I prefer the philosophy of Adam Savage and Steve Neill -- share what you know.

As for waiting for the team to release their conclusions, I have no problem with that. They're not withholding anything, they're just trying to get it right. Just imagine the PR tsunami afterwards if they got something wrong because they rushed it. These people are experienced pros who care about what they're doing. I think it's fair to let them do their jobs and wait for the results. (Mind you, I'm not saying anybody should stop talking about it -- just the opposite.)

Besides, I'm home with a throbbing root canal and a bottle of Vicodin, so I'm pretty sure I won't notice the next few months anyway.


----------



## Richard Baker

Threads tend to wander around a bit when there is not a lot of relevant information being posted about the specific topic. Gary has said tbere is a lot of data being pondered right now, until there are more updates regarding the project why don't we just relax and enjoy the ride?

Hobbytalk is nearly dead at times with some topic areas not having any new posts for days. While this thread did wander cross country a bit, it has at least got members involve


----------



## Steve H

Proper2 said:


> The last point is an important one. I for one believe that the restoration should definitely match the filming model as it looked in person and not what appears on screen. Especially since what appears on screen is greatly influenced by the quality and type of screen itself. For one thing, "tube" screens of the 60s are nothing at all like the HD screens of today! But you're right, either way some will complain.


Remember, I'm one of the crazy ones that lobbies for the 'as seen on the shooting stage' style of display, complete with operation console, visible wires on the left side, gaffers tape and all. 

I'd love a 'perception Vs. reality' translight panel showing how the somewhat heavy paint on the miniature translated to the image seen on TV. and even a progression showing the improvement of broadcasting 1966 to today. 

Yeah, not gonna happen but who knows, something of that might show up.


----------



## Proper2

Steve H said:


> Remember, I'm one of the crazy ones that lobbies for the 'as seen on the shooting stage' style of display, complete with operation console, visible wires on the left side, gaffers tape and all.


Yes! Me, too!



Steve H said:


> I'd love a 'perception Vs. reality' translight panel showing how the somewhat heavy paint on the miniature translated to the image seen on TV. and even a progression showing the improvement of broadcasting 1966 to today.


You mean, they might not do that?!


----------



## Steve H

Proper2 said "You mean, they might not do that?!"

Of course I don't know what the plans are, Gary will hopefully fill us in when it's all finalized and approved by CBS/Paramount (because I assume it will have to be) but I suspect the limited space on-site will be more about "hopes and dreams" and not so much "here's the context from which this miniature came".

It's too bad there wasn't any 'behind the scenes' docs shot during the making of the series, footage of the effects crew prepping the Enterprise for a shot, but a midline TV series from a struggling studio didn't get that kind of promo money like a major motion picture over at Warners would.


----------



## whereisanykey

Steve H said:


> Remember, I'm one of the crazy ones that lobbies for the 'as seen on the shooting stage' style of display, complete with operation console, visible wires on the left side, gaffers tape and all.
> 
> I'd love a 'perception Vs. reality' translight panel showing how the somewhat heavy paint on the miniature translated to the image seen on TV. and even a progression showing the improvement of broadcasting 1966 to today.
> 
> Yeah, not gonna happen but who knows, something of that might show up.


And That's the dichotomy. I would prefer the result to be how it appeared on TV. So, I think they should do it my way.


----------



## Steve H

whereisanykey said:


> And That's the dichotomy. I would prefer the result to be how it appeared on TV. So, I think they should do it my way.


Of course that's a respectable, valid opinion. I'm not even going to make a joke about "you mean slightly blue-ish and washed out?" or anything involving NTSC scan line rates. 

No, I get it. A gray that's almost more off-white, subtle weathering, all that. And as a display that would probably be very attractive. But if you do that, wouldn't it almost be better to use a PL 1/350 Enterprise, built, painted and detailed in all its glory? 

*hah* I would love for there to be a gallery of Enterprise kits (builds and boxes) near the 11 foot miniature.


----------



## whereisanykey

THat would be a good idea. There have been some excellent builds with the 350. And, there Was the studio model that size.


----------



## Proper2

Steve H said:


> Of course that's a respectable, valid opinion. I'm not even going to make a joke about "you mean slightly blue-ish and washed out?" or anything involving NTSC scan line rates.
> .


Not to mention a tactile grain to simulate the image on a 13" Philips. :tongue:

But seriously, I still think a giant curving blue screen backdrop--a la the studio--would be ideal to frame her in her own space. That giant mural, in my opinion, seems much too busy!


----------



## Steve H

Proper2 said:


> Not to mention a tactile grain to simulate the image on a 13" Philips. :tongue:
> 
> But seriously, I still think a giant curving blue screen backdrop--a la the studio--would be ideal to frame her in her own space. That giant mural, in my opinion, seems much too busy!


Well, yeah. IIRC that mural was designed to be viewed in a large open gallery. Like a fresco in a government building decorated under the WPA. As a person who appreciates open space as a design element in and of itself I might be concerned that the NA&SM may be suffering from present day 'retail overcrowding' thinking. 

Not my concern, not my job.


----------



## John P

Something Meirecki added that was never on the ship before are the circumferential paneling bands around the hull and nacelles, and the heavyass weathering applied to them. Also the weathering on the saucer grid was not there before. Maybe if he hadn't done that, and just duplicated the weathering as it was, we'd be less inclined to be horrified.


----------



## Hunk A Junk

John P said:


> Something Meirecki added that was never on the ship before are the circumferential paneling bands around the hull and nacelles, and the heavyass weathering applied to them. Also the weathering on the saucer grid was not there before. Maybe if he hadn't done that, and just duplicated the weathering as it was, we'd be less inclined to be horrified.


Hasn't it also been unequivocally proven that the outermost ring on the deflector dish housing, the one closest the secondary hull, should NOT be copper colored as Meirecki (and Greg Jein) did?


----------



## John P

^I believe so. I think it was actually some shading/weathering. Gary, do you know?


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## asalaw

According to my sources, the copper ring was scraped off the bumper of a period Buick. Full disclosure, my source for that data point is the homeless guy on K and 12th St. The one sleeping in the Whirlpool box, not the guy in the Amazon crate. Not sure why that would be important, but I like to put my cards on the table.


----------



## jheilman

I believe counsel for the defense is theorizing about facts not in evidence. :thumbsup:


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Weren't Gary's quotes on the subject of the copper ring from back when he only had photo references? I'm just curious if we have confirmation of copper paint being there, subtle or not, now that people can directly examine the actual paint layers on the model.


----------



## TrekFX

Hunk A Junk said:


> The argument for the Merieke paint job (or a version of it) is that studio lights, 1960s film stocks and TV screens washed out the details to such a degree that they looked far flatter and toned down on screen. But has anyone ever taken a well lit photo of the Merieke ship and played with it to try to duplicate the effect? I'd imagine that adjusting contrast, grain and other factors could get a result that's somewhat similar to the on-screen look, but would the weathering really then just uniformly wash out to what we saw on our TVs? I'm skeptical. Merieke likely got the idea of the weathering right, but just waaaay over did it.


I did, and it did. I'll try and dig up the file, but I lost a lot of refs and analysis in a hard-drive disaster.

My biggest issue was how the accenting of the saucer-bottom grid didn't really define panel *edges* when compared to the saucer top and higher-res versions of the B&W stills used in The Making Of book. But that's a subjective opinion.


----------



## Proper2

TrekFX said:


> I did, and it did. I'll try and dig up the file, but I lost a lot of refs and analysis in a hard-drive disaster.
> 
> My biggest issue was how the accenting of the saucer-bottom grid didn't really define panel *edges* when compared to the saucer top and higher-res versions of the B&W stills used in The Making Of book.


Yeah, my real issue w/ the M restoration is the exaggerated "faux panel edge" weathering. Those massive "stained rings" on the underside of the primary hull, the nacelles, and the secondary hull just look ridiculous to me. I mean think of the scale. Those stains that define the edges of the cylindrical sections would be a dozen feet wide! Was there a giant plumbing leakage?! Maybe the Abrams Enterprise designers were onto something with the engineering brewery!


----------



## asalaw

Counsel for the defense thinks you should go...

Wait a second...

[googles "facts"]...

Oh. Never mind.


----------



## TrekFX

I tried to reverse-engineer the original based on then-available info and analysis of stacked screen-grabs. I went with 10 to-scale C7 bulbs and sockets, 5 amber but I cheated and then added 5 color-shifting RGB leds to expand the color palette (which would be consistent with more bulbs in the original...). A more in-depth discussion is in the archives here:

www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/archive/index.php/t-386647.html

www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/archive/index.php/t-386789.html


A couple YouTube vids. Turn down your audio. I forgot to mute and the audio is annoying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBoldzSfkao

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L52Id71VIE

To my amazement I found a photo of my setup on flickr (original probably lost on that dead drive)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/8464537799/in/photostream

Now, I can't wait to learn more about the original and upgrade mine! Thanks Gary!


----------



## RossW

TrekFX said:


> I tried to reverse-engineer the original based on then-available info and analysis of stacked screen-grabs. I went with 10 to-scale C7 bulbs and sockets, 5 amber but I cheated and then added 5 color-shifting RGB leds to expand the color palette (which would be consistent with more bulbs in the original...). A more in-depth discussion is in the archives here:
> 
> www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/archive/index.php/t-386647.html
> 
> www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/archive/index.php/t-386789.html
> 
> 
> A couple YouTube vids. Turn down your audio. I forgot to mute and the audio is annoying.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBoldzSfkao
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L52Id71VIE
> 
> To my amazement I found a photo of my setup on flickr (original probably lost on that dead drive)
> 
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/8464537799/in/photostream
> 
> Now, I can't wait to learn more about the original and upgrade mine! Thanks Gary!


Completely forgot about your warp engine work, TrekFX. Love your vids.

Is the flickr link right? The page won't open for me.

I've doubled the number of blinking LEDs on my board by using SMDs, and switched to using 5mm amber LEDs for the steady-on lights:


----------



## TrekFX

Here's the photo from flickr. Wish I could find the original. Wish I had the "Original!" :thumbsup:


----------



## Neo-uk

KUROK said:


> I think he was being sarcastic and trying to make a joke... a funny one at that.


Not that much of a joke, I was being a bit serious.
To Shaw,
This is a subject that I'm interested in. I love the Enterprise, (I've even gone as far as getting the DeBoers kit). So I don't think its odd I take the time to either read or post in this thread. I don't want to announce to fellow members taking part in that discussion that I have no interest in the topic because I have just as much as a lot of people on here. I'm also not attempting to shame them for being interested in a subject, I'm just pointing out that to most people we (modellers) are geeky enough but the "N" discussion was/is just a bit too geeky.


----------



## Proper2

Neo-uk said:


> Not that much of a joke, I was being a bit serious.
> To Shaw,
> This is a subject that I'm interested in. I love the Enterprise, (I've even gone as far as getting the DeBoers kit). So I don't think its odd I take the time to either read or post in this thread. I don't want to announce to fellow members taking part in that discussion that I have no interest in the topic because I have just as much as a lot of people on here. I'm also not attempting to shame them for being interested in a subject, I'm just pointing out that to most people we (modellers) are geeky enough but the "N" discussion was/is just a bit too geeky.


I would have to agree with this position. I can understand how the "N" issue might be an issue for the 11-foot Smithsonisan artifact, and still it's a stretch (no pun intended), but for a 1:350 model? Not so much for me, and I'm pretty detail oriented. But we're talking about a matter of what... I'm guessing less than 1/32 inch? I'm just sayin' .


----------



## RossW

Neo-uk said:


> Not that much of a joke, I was being a bit serious.
> To Shaw,
> This is a subject that I'm interested in. I love the Enterprise, (I've even gone as far as getting the DeBoers kit). So I don't think its odd I take the time to either read or post in this thread. I don't want to announce to fellow members taking part in that discussion that I have no interest in the topic because I have just as much as a lot of people on here. I'm also not attempting to shame them for being interested in a subject, I'm just pointing out that to most people we (modellers) are geeky enough but the "N" discussion was/is just a bit too geeky.


But then why post what you posted? You can follow and comment on something that interests you, but maybe refrain from condescending and unhelpful stuff. Just sayin'.

For example, this is a forum for discussing building sci-fi models, so I don't get why anyone would post threads of their finished models but not actually discuss how they did certain things that would be of interest to everyone here, even going so far as to ignore specific questions. This idea of keeping your modelling secrets to yourself baffles me, but I don't comment about this on those threads as it wouldn't server any purpose other than personal venting.


----------



## Neo-uk

You just did


----------



## RossW

Neo-uk said:


> You just did


But not on the threads in question.


----------



## Gary K

A few quick replies to various comments:

1. The "copper ring", as shown by several hi-res color photos, was simply a structural element near the front of the sec hull, with warm brown weathering on either side of the ring to accentuate the ring, itself.

2. Contrary to what we thought earlier, the verisimilitude of the Kodak film stock that they used to film the original series was markedly better than was the case with older types of film. In other words, the film fairly accurately recorded the appearance of the model in the studio. The images were severely degraded by multiple runs through the optical printer - same thing that happens when you use a photocopier to make a copy of a copy of a copy, etc. Other factors played a role in producing misleading images, and I'll write about them later. The important thing to remember is that we now know what the ship should look like.

3. Without going into specifics at this time, I want to reiterate that CBS has been nothing but extremely helpful during the restoration. The people we have been dealing with are Trek fans, and they have gone out of their way to assist us in every way possible.

4. It can be frustrating to fans, but private people and organizations have their own reasons for granting or not granting public access to their private photos. To put the shoe on the other foot, suppose you had certain photos that you wanted kept private for your own personal reasons. Whether or not keeping your photos private is "right" or "wrong", in my opinion, I don't have the right to bang on your door and demand copies of them so I can post them to the Internet. At least, the museum is putting all the photos to good use, and after the restoration wraps up, the museum will make available all the photos that it's allowed to. 

5. I can drop a few interesting factoids about the restoration, but I'll defer to the Smithsonian re. any major announcements since they're paying the bills for this project. Believe me, the museum will be releasing more cool news when the time is right, and I'll eventually be writing about the restoration in mind-numbing detail.

Like I've said before, put aside any Enterprise models that you're working on till later this year. In the meantime, build a couple of Polar Lights' 22" Eagle models so Tom Lowe will have money to tool a certain shuttlecraft model.

Gary


----------



## Landru

Amazing. 

Gary, would you be able to talk a bit about the blue dorsal? Until a few years ago, the thought of a blue neck (first pilot only) was slightly heretical. 

Also, going back to the optical printing - I've always wondered why all the second pilot footage of the Enterprise was leaps and bounds clearer and nicer than the effects shots for the series. .


----------



## Gary K

Landru said:


> Amazing.
> 
> Gary, would you be able to talk a bit about the blue dorsal? Until a few years ago, the thought of a blue neck (first pilot only) was slightly heretical.


I have got a whole lot to say about the history of the blue dorsal. My hypothesis is still awaiting the testing phase, but I'm 95% certain that my reconstruction of events is right.

Gary


----------



## MGagen

Gary K said:


> I think I even figured out the full story behind changes to the size of the ship, frame numbers, etc.
> 
> Gary


This sounds interesting. The scale of the original model has long been one of my areas of interest, as you know. I'm curious whether what you've found supports my theory that I first proposed on this board back in 2003: That the station or frame numbers work out to scale inches when the eleven footer is considered at its originally intended scale of 1:48...

And if you've solved the one nut I've been unable to crack all these years later, I'll be eternally grateful: Why was the final length of 947' chosen when it is not a "reasonable" up-scaling from 1:48.

Thanks for being so forthcoming with all of this.

M.


----------



## jheilman

MGagen said:


> I'm curious whether what you've found supports my theory that I first proposed on this board back in 2003: That the station or frame numbers work out to scale inches when the eleven footer is considered at its originally intended scale of 1:48...


That's the craziest thing I've ever read on this board! There's NO WAY that you first proposed that 13 years ago! 

Is that right? Wow, we must be with Charlton Heston and crew on the way to the Planet of the Apes. Time back on earth is passing at an alarmingly fast rate.


----------



## Gary K

MGagen said:


> This sounds interesting. The scale of the original model has long been one of my areas of interest, as you know. I'm curious whether what you've found supports my theory that I first proposed on this board back in 2003: That the station or frame numbers work out to scale inches when the eleven footer is considered at its originally intended scale of 1:48...
> 
> And if you've solved the one nut I've been unable to crack all these years later, I'll be eternally grateful: Why was the final length of 947' chosen when it is not a "reasonable" up-scaling from 1:48.
> 
> Thanks for being so forthcoming with all of this.
> 
> M.


I'm virtually certain I've solved the question about frame numbers & model scales, but I want to get one last bit of information before I write anything for public consumption. 1:48 scale gives you a good approximation of the frame numbers, but it's not the answer. I'm not trying to sound coy, but, like Spock, I am awaiting additional data before saying anything else.

Gary


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> I have got a whole lot to say about the history of the blue dorsal. My hypothesis is still awaiting the testing phase, but I'm 95% certain that my reconstruction of events is right.
> 
> Gary


I am still of the belief that much of the coloring and shading are more 'stage make-up' exaggeration designed to help define and enhance the shapes and contours of the miniature with the expectation of image degradation due to optical printing and the resolution of '60s color television, and not so much 'weathering'. 

We see this in great effect in the Klingon D-7 miniature. 

I'm sure it sounds crazy, but one only has to look at some of the (unretouched) photos of Nimoy in his Spock makeup. Those early shots are dire under normal lighting.  You don't see them much anymore, just like most official publicity shots now show Shatner in a greenish velour shirt (which was correct to the costume in normal light) when the same shots had the more often seen gold (which is how it looked on TV) previously. 

I'm sure we'll learn things that will shock us.

Say, has anyone taken a hard look at that old George Pal sales pitch film for the aborted '70s War of the Worlds (which was to be part of the Paramount 4th Network, blah blah old stuff)? The Starboard Nacelle from the 11 foot miniature is propped up against a wall as set dressing (because of course that's how a production office looks, complete with guys whipping out image illustration boards right there as Pal is talking  ). Even with a degraded image, that nacelle looked pretty dark to me.


----------



## Shaw

​


----------



## Steve H

How dare you, Shaw? How DARE you sir! Go back to your drafting table and don't rattle the cage!


----------



## Gary K

Shaw said:


> I'll say what they are for...
> 
> 
> The original scale of the early drawings were 1"=14.5', and this is what you get in inches.
> 
> Of course I'm not an expert with special access, so what do I know?


"More than you might think, " he said knowingly. 

Gary


----------



## mach7

Again, Thanks for all you've posted and will post Gary. 

I'm putting my Enterprise on hold until the full story comes out!

I have plenty of kits to occupy my time until then.


----------



## The_Engineer

Over the past few years I have come across a few threads on various sites that debate the overall length of the TOS Enterprise and the Refit Enterprise. The TOS Enterprise is generally regarded to be about 947 feet (288.7M) to 972 (296.3M) feet and about 21 or 22 decks total. Various things are discussed such as the size of the shuttle hanger bay and the position of certain windows that throw things off. Some have tried to fix these 'errors' by uping the scale of the ship as much as 1312 feet (400M). Officially, is there any consensus that the scale should be re-examined?


----------



## Capt. Krik

I just think it's amazing that after 50 years were still learning things about this model. Looking forward to the latest restoration of this sci-fi icon.


----------



## CaptCBoard

Interesting to note:

At a 'real' length of 972 feet, the model scales out to 1:87 or HO scale. Do the math!

Scott


----------



## alensatemybuick

Deleted, irrelevant.


----------



## alensatemybuick

Deleted; irrelevant.


----------



## Y3a

HO scale would make it easier to find figures.


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## Proper2

I don't really understand why all this conversation of scale is relevant. Is it a question as to what the numerals on the hull read or their location? I thought there were enough photos documenting this. No? Otherwise what does it matter what the scale is? It's just a number. The 11-footer is the size it is and the 1:350 kit is what it is and won't change even if the number might be determined to be 1:357 or 1:340, or whatever. I missed the relevance of assigning a numer to the scale when the model is built.


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## Proper2

alensatemybuick said:


> Actually I was more interested in figuring out the length of the secondary hull in feet based on the frame markings, just to understand them. But the scale cannot be separated from the discussion (all I really want to know is what the theoretical original length of the ship was). I don't have precise measurements of the length of the "tapered extension" or the distance between the "1837" frame marking and the back of the ship. However I have now estimated those lengths combined to represent approximatley 20% of the total length of the secondary hull. Thus 1837 inches represents 80% of the total length, and one should multiple by 1/0.8, or 1.25 to get a total length of about 2296 inches. Which works out to about 191 feet. That is quite close to the 194 foot length of the seco. hull based on a 540 foot total ship length.
> 
> I really think I may be getting warm. Maybe.


:freak:
Sorry, I almost flunked Trig so I can't begin to absorb all of that. But I still don't get the point from a modeler standpoint, unless you're building a model from scratch and shaping your own cigar and making it a slightly different proportion/size than the 1:350 PL kit...


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## jheilman

I believe many, myself included, love to explore the original intent of the designers and builders of the ship and look for little clues and aha moments about the Enterprise. I'm all for it. :thumbsup:


----------



## Steve H

alensatemybuick said:


> Not doing this from a modeler standpoint. Because I am not a modeler. Does beg the question, what I am doing here! I simply was trying to make sense of the frame numbers. Warm or no, I will stop now.


Geeze, what is the deal here? People talk and express interest in some aspect, someone else decides it's not what THEY want to read and pee in the cornflakes, people find they have a Huff (tm) available and shut down...

Come ON people. We're friends, or at least friendly. Haters gonna hate, we just want to talk about the Enterprise.


----------



## Steve H

jheilman said:


> I believe many, myself included, love to explore the original intent of the designers and builders of the ship and look for little clues and aha moments about the Enterprise. I'm all for it. :thumbsup:


See, people? Like this. this guy gets it. He may well think I'm a complete loon but rather than do the 'internet thing' and hate, he listens and if need be, laughs mightily at my stupidity at home. I like to think I've made a couple of interesting observations so far.


----------



## Proper2

Steve H said:


> Geeze, what is the deal here? People talk and express interest in some aspect, someone else decides it's not what THEY want to read and pee in the cornflakes, people find they have a Huff (tm) available and shut down...
> 
> Come ON people. We're friends, or at least friendly. Haters gonna hate, we just want to talk about the Enterprise.


Sorry to hear that you think I'm peeing in your cornflakes, Steve. I was just trying to understand what the context of that scale conversation was because maybe I had missed something. Don't get so bent out of shape. Apparently you seem to be the one adding the "Huff (tm)", so don't go so overboard and label people as haters when we're just having a conversation. Jeez! This really isn't a Trump rally!


----------



## Steve H

Proper2 said:


> Sorry to hear that you think I'm peeing in your cornflakes, Steve. I was just trying to understand what the context of that scale conversation was because maybe I had missed something. Don't get so bent out of shape. Apparently you seem to be the one adding the "Huff (tm)", so don't go so overboard and label people as haters when we're just having a conversation. Jeez! This really isn't a Trump rally!


Keeping the politics out of it, there's just a really bizarre thing going on lately where usually and normally sane and rational people, people here that I have thought of as comrades, are suddenly getting their panties in a bunch over opinions and questions and discussion, like a trigger got pulled and WHAM. 

Here, I'll explain one. I'm still having trouble with the whole 'unfinished left side' of the 11 foot model. I'm missing some context in the timeline. 

I get the detail paint wasn't finished. "we're not shooting that side so stop" makes sense if time is running out. 

What I see is the portside 'sensor ring' clamp (do we have any actual names for these things?  ) is not there, and the outside left and inside right nacelles are missing the 'boxes' at the rear. 

All on the same page? Good. 

Next, we know that when the 11 foot model was built, they had the finished 33" model, as well as Jeffries full plans to work from. These items had the missing physical details, we agree on that. The shop was told to make the 11 foot model same-as, which I think we have documented. 

So there they are, lofting the plans to wood, cutting and carving and nailing and gluing. 

I am at a complete loss to understand how not adding the port 'clamp' and the two 'boxes' save time or money. It's the construction phase. It's already part of the budget. It should be part of the fabrication. 

My thing is, I'm pretty sure they built the 11 foot model with pilot money as a way to carry that over to series. Paint details could be added to the left side for series, there could be money for that but Roddenberry's desire for lights and more detail put the kabosh on that and we get the 'right side only' model we all love. 

And yeah, sarcastic answer, go back in time as ask them, fine, ha ha. If I could go back to the mid '60s I'd be over at Fox getting lots of digital pics and video of the internals of all the Irwin Allen miniatures. 

I'm just trying to figure how there's any real savings of time and money to not make those parts and install them. It's not like Roddenberry said "hey, I want some clamps and boxes here and here" "well we can do that but it's another 2 weeks", the design was locked down.

So maybe there's no answer. It may be an eternal mystery. That doesn't stop it from being illogical in the face of everything else, right? 

Again, I did not know that windows and other deco was all hand painted on the Pilot version. That, given the time pressure, I can easily see how choosing not to do the left side saves time and a couple hundred bucks. 

So that's my thing. Aliens, his thing is the measurements. 

Naw, OTHER people are trying to pee in MY cornflakes, I was trying to tell Aliens to buck up and keep at what he's doing. 

And the Huff (tm) is what people up and drive away in. Leaving in a huff. geddit?


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## scotthm

Steve H said:


> I am at a complete loss to understand how not adding the port 'clamp' and the two 'boxes' save time or money.


You don't understand why building half a model would be cheaper than building a full model?

---------------


----------



## Gary K

May I humbly act as moderator and suggest that you move the discussion of the scale, frame numbers, left side of the model, etc. to its own thread so this thread can remain on track?

Thanks,

Gary


----------



## Steve H

scotthm said:


> You don't understand why building half a model would be cheaper than building a full model?
> 
> ---------------


But it's not half a model. It's three parts, which I can't help but assume were understood to be part of the build, and thus accounted for in terms of time and money. That's what "make same-as" means. How is this such a hard thing to understand? 

So it's something that was done. I'm trying to understand where in the process the decision to omit 3 very specific bits solves time/money considerations. How could omitting those things make sure the model was finished in time for shooting?

Again, not finishing the detail painting on the left side- windows, markings, weathering all hand painted- that saves man-hours and money. That makes sense.

I've run it thru my head in many alternate ways. I'm getting the idea that the 11 foot model was late in the process. I'm sure if they had it earlier it would have been used in shots where they used the 33" model. So the Big Model was going to be used only for that 'beauty shot' of trucking in and ending up with the overhead shot of the bridge. The reason why they didn't build just the saucer for that shot (much cheaper and faster, right? Seems obvious) likely has to do with Roddenberry et al knowing they need the Big Ship for when the show goes to series and putting that on the pilot budget (much more money than Desilu would spend on their own) is the best way to ensure they weren't shooting the series with only the 33" model. 

See above, again. The money is budgeted. the plans are there. They have the 33" model to copy from. The instructions are "make same-as". 

And it wasn't made same-as. three very specific parts get left off at the construction phase, which I'm pretty sure took place before the decision was made, due to time pressure, to only film the right side, don't finish the left, we're only doing the truck-in on the saucer. 

again, because some how this is getting lost. Not finishing the detail painting because it's behind schedule, I get that. saves time and money. Don't need it for the shot. Fix it later when going to series. We see those blurry pics for the 2ed pilot shoot where it appears with the newly installed minimal lighting they may well have painted windows on the left side. The additional work Roddenberry wanted for series, the nacelle domes and more windows, that killed of the left side. 

and at THAT point the left sensor ring support was useless.

So I don't know. Maybe there was a set of build plans that actually said "don't build this on left side" and wham, all done, mystery solved. Before construction started, there was a paper trail. Those prints likely no longer exist. The prints in the Daiten book are too hard to read but there's nothing as obvious as those instructions.


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## RSN

An actual question for Gary. As I understand it, the 11 footer is made of various materials, wood, metal, acrylic and all, how have they fared together after 51 years? I know there has been cracking in the wood, but it seems to me that the overall structure seeks pretty sound. The surface can be repainted, but it is the structural integrity that can't be replaced.


----------



## Gary K

RSN said:


> An actual question for Gary. As I understand it, the 11 footer is made of various materials, wood, metal, acrylic and all, how have they fared together after 51 years? I know there has been cracking in the wood, but it seems to me that the overall structure seeks pretty sound. The surface can be repainted, but it is the structural integrity that can't be replaced.


When it's properly cared for, wood is pretty darned archivally stable. The main problem was that the glue holding together the "barrel staves" in the sec hull was failing. The museum is screwing structural metal supports inside the sec hull, so the staves will physically be held in place from now on. They're also looking at distributing the model's weight better, so the entire 200 lb weight of the model isn't resting solely on the tip of the support post. The saggy left nacelle apparently just needs a wooden shim in the socket to keep the nacelle in position.

Gary


----------



## RSN

Gary K said:


> When it's properly cared for, wood is pretty darned archivally stable. The main problem was that the glue holding together the "barrel staves" in the sec hull was failing. The museum is screwing structural metal supports inside the sec hull, so the staves will physically be held in place from now on. They're also looking at distributing the model's weight better, so the entire 200 lb weight of the model isn't resting solely on the tip of the support post. The saggy left nacelle apparently just needs a wooden shim in the socket to keep the nacelle in position.
> 
> Gary


Thanks, I am glad they can add stability to the barrel staves from the inside. I am sure the original builders would have thought of something like that if they thought the model was going to be around beyond filming.


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## RSN

alensatemybuick said:


> Gary had previously shown a picture of one of the metal supports here back on page 1; below is an interesting NASM video that discusses them a bit more:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr-CgOSb0-8


Gary answered my question, thanks!!


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## Hunk A Junk

alensatemybuick said:


> A new "teaser" video was just posted on youtube about "engine enhancements"
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5nZPw_v3M0&feature=share
> 
> In it, the conservator explains that based on the info. the have, they will build a one-to-one-mockup of the original and then reverse engineer the effect using LEDs.


Interesting that they're going to have an LED solution that closely matches the 1:1 ILM mock-up of the original spinning effect. If they can pull it off, and it truly looks like an accurate spinning effect, then we should see someone offering a scaled down version for our 1:350s before too long. Which would be sweet.


----------



## RossW

Hunk A Junk said:


> Interesting that they're going to have an LED solution that closely matches the 1:1 ILM mock-up of the original spinning effect. If they can pull it off, and it truly looks like an accurate spinning effect, then we should see someone offering a scaled down version for our 1:350s before too long. Which would be sweet.


There are some steady-state solutions already available, but with the limited space inside the 1:350 kit (roughly 1" in diameter) you can't do the same thing as on the 11' miniature. Even with SMDs, you still need current-limiting resistors for each one and that severely restricts the number of lights. I would imagine that to achieve the same motor-driven effect on the 11' with just LEDs you will need to blanket that entire disc with many SMD LEDs, all individually controlled so as to imitate the moving fan blades, and that's a lot of wires.


----------



## Trekkriffic

RossW said:


> There are some steady-state solutions already available, but with the limited space inside the 1:350 kit (roughly 1" in diameter) you can't do the same thing as on the 11' miniature. Even with SMDs, you still need current-limiting resistors for each one and that severely restricts the number of lights. I would imagine that to achieve the same motor-driven effect on the 11' with just LEDs you will need to blanket that entire disc with many SMD LEDs, all individually controlled so as to imitate the moving fan blades, and that's a lot of wires.


It will be interesting to see what they can do just using LED's. Frankly I'm a bit skeptical you can faithfully replicate the spinning fan blade effect without a spinning inner dome.


----------



## scotthm

Trekkriffic said:


> It will be interesting to see what they can do just using LED's. Frankly I'm a bit skeptical you can faithfully replicate the spinning fan blade effect without a spinning inner dome.


I think they should consider doing a rear-screen projection of moving image onto an inner dome.

---------------


----------



## MartyS

Trekkriffic said:


> It will be interesting to see what they can do just using LED's. Frankly I'm a bit skeptical you can faithfully replicate the spinning fan blade effect without a spinning inner dome.


One thing they will not be able to reproduce is the change in the reflections from the mirrors as you look at the buzzards from different angles.

Since there are few people still alive that ever saw that in person it won't be a great loss. I do hope they put the mock up on display so people can see what the original effect looked like.

It shouldn't be that hard to do with lots of LEDs, a mass of them behind a frosted dome, the resolution of a roadside billboard might be good enough. Getting a good looking spinner effect might be hard with LEDs alone due to bleed from adjacent LEDs, but strips of LCD shutter material on the outside of the frosted dome in sync with turning off the LEDs would easily mimic that. Not sure they make flexible LCD shutter material, so it may be too expensive to do that. That would mean making sure when an LED goes off that part of the dome goes black, that will be an interesting thing to try to design, lots of well focused little lenses maybe...


----------



## MartyS

scotthm said:


> I think they should consider doing a rear-screen projection of moving image onto an inner dome.


A projector bright enough to light up the dome would need cooling air, if they are worried about putting modern cool running motors in I doubt they would allow a projector in there. They may have a heat problem if they need too many LEDs behind the dome, but spread out over the inner surface of a dome the heat might dissipate well enough and not build up.


----------



## Steve H

It appears there were 2 stages to the spinning, the inner dome with the slats, and a 4-bladed shiny 'propeller' on the same shaft, near the lights. 

I might posit that the inner 4-blade fan may well have been the 'blinking' element on the Christmas Tree bulbs. 

I wonder if that inner fan might be re-engineered to act as cooling as well. But that would mean there would have to be a way to intake and exhaust air to get flow. Hurm.


----------



## RossW

Steve H said:


> It appears there were 2 stages to the spinning, the inner dome with the slats, and a 4-bladed shiny 'propeller' on the same shaft, near the lights.
> 
> I might posit that the inner 4-blade fan may well have been the 'blinking' element on the Christmas Tree bulbs.
> 
> I wonder if that inner fan might be re-engineered to act as cooling as well. But that would mean there would have to be a way to intake and exhaust air to get flow. Hurm.


(I wonder if this should be moved to a separate thread to keep it focused on Gary's latest findings, but ...)

What info do you have about this? In order for this to be responsible for the blinking, it would have to move at a different rate than the main 12-bladed spinner we can see with our eyes in the effects shots. It would also not explain the different blink rates of each bulb. Remember, blinking Christmas tree bulbs were easily available and each blinking bulb was unique.


----------



## Steve H

RossW said:


> (I wonder if this should be moved to a separate thread to keep it focused on Gary's latest findings, but ...)
> 
> What info do you have about this? In order for this to be responsible for the blinking, it would have to move at a different rate than the main 12-bladed spinner we can see with our eyes in the effects shots. It would also not explain the different blink rates of each bulb. Remember, blinking Christmas tree bulbs were easily available and each blinking bulb was unique.


I have no info other than the few pictures that have appeared of the mechanisms , and what I assume was the manufactured replacements that were used for the '92 restoration. I make a huge assumption that the replacement mechanisms were crafted from observations of the originals. I had no idea that there was that inner 4 bladed fan, like a propeller, attached to the shaft that spins the inner dome shutter. Looking at the pics that fan seems to carefully cover the area of the 'Christmas' bulbs and avoids the 'main illumination' bulbs.

The 4-bladed fan also was pretty shiny, seemed intentionally so. I speculate that it's possible the lights were supposed to bounce between fan and the reflective backing (broken mirror originally, what looked like mylar foil in the replacement) causing flickering.

But you've got a great point, that fan would spin at the same rate as the shutter dome. 

I think that'll be interesting. Maybe that's something Gary can talk about, the original effect, the replacement units, leading to the new technology that they intend to use.


----------



## robn1

The small fan was added in '91 for cooling, it was not part of the original mechanism.


----------



## Steve H

robn1 said:


> The small fan was added in '91 for cooling, it was not part of the original mechanism.


huh! Thanks! So, did it interfere with the look of the effect? I never saw it in action at that time, my only visit to NA&SM was 1987-ish.


----------



## Joeysaddress

Are there any videos of the '91 restoration with the ship lit and the replaced lights and blades spinning in the engines? I saw a short clip on YouTube once but can't find it again. Joey.


----------



## jheilman

I don't think I've ever seen one, but I'd like to. Can't recall if the IDIC page ever had video? I've only seen the E twice and both times were before 1991. Just solid red nacelle caps.


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## jheilman

Wow, that's a messed up site. All that clutter remains no matter what link you click and you have to scroll a couple screens down to see that anything changed. Really needs a modern website.

Do you have a direct link for that video? I don't want to spend 45 minutes trying to find it.


----------



## robn1

I saw it in '92, during the NASM Star Trek exhibit. It was hung really high so hard to see, but I don't recall anything looking out of place because of the small fan. Of course I was so outraged by the paint job that I didn't notice much of anything else.


----------



## jheilman

So, when was the 91 restoration? My wife and I were in DC for the 4th of July in 1991 and saw the Enterprise. It was pre-Miarecki at that time. Was the restoration in the fall?


----------



## robn1

jheilman said:


> Wow, that's a messed up site. All that clutter remains no matter what link you click and you have to scroll a couple screens down to see that anything changed. Really needs a modern website.
> 
> Do you have a direct link for that video? I don't want to spend 45 minutes trying to find it.


Video is at the bottom of this page http://www.startrekpropauthority.com/2009/05/star-trek-at-smithsonian-fully-lighted.html


----------



## jheilman

Thanks. That's very short, and the blade rotation seemed way too slow?


----------



## gmd3d

Excellent tread and so much fantastic information, 

Thanks for sharing 

Gerard


----------



## gene1138

I think some are missing the seemingly irrational decisions by corporate bean counters to save money. I'm sure one of them got the bright idea that, "Hey if we just film this from one side we can save $500 by not finishing the other side." They're always looking to save money. 

Look at the movie Deadpool. The makers had to slash $7 million at the last minute. Seems odd for a movie that's made $700 million. But at that time it wasn't a sure thing that it would be box office success. And we're probably sure Star Trek was never thought of as ever being successful. And at the time it really wasn't in the eyes of studio execs.

EDIT: Sorry for adding the clutter. Meant this post for the other discussion thread.


----------



## Richard Baker

A lot of filming miniatures were completed on one side only. The Surlaco from Aliens and the Medical Frigate from Star Wars are noteworthy examples (although the Medical Frigate was finished much later after filming when it went on an exhibition tour).

It is a judgement call for each production- build for planned shots or build complete involving extra cost? I think having the reversible graphics was a wonderful solution to maintain flexibility of filming and still reduce the cost of production.


----------



## Steve H

Richard Baker said:


> A lot of filming miniatures were completed on one side only. The Surlaco from Aliens and the Medical Frigate from Star Wars are noteworthy examples (although the Medical Frigate was finished much later after filming when it went on an exhibition tour).
> 
> It is a judgement call for each production- build for planned shots or build complete involving extra cost? I think having the reversible graphics was a wonderful solution to maintain flexibility of filming and still reduce the cost of production.


But it's not the same and this keeps getting lost. 

The models you mention were 'purpose' built-they existed for a specific movie (a one-time thing then) for a few specific shots.

Enterprise was built for a TV series, there was no intended limitation on what angles, what shots would be required when it was designed. 

In a way, it's almost a 'chicken or the egg' discussion and all 20/20 hindsight. Lateness in delivery created potential limitations due to partial completion, partial completion allowed brute-force alterations to add lights and lighted effects, which created limitations in filming angles...


----------



## MartyS

Have to wonder why they didn't add some kind of block to the port side when they switched to the smaller deflector dish, since head on shots would now make those blocks visible. 

I guess buy the time they decided to do a head on shot they didn't have a budget line for modeling. Budgets do get specific like that sometimes, you can build X but not a dollar can be spent on Y even though it's nearly the same.


----------



## dcarty

Steve H said:


> But it's not the same and this keeps getting lost.
> 
> The models you mention were 'purpose' built-they existed for a specific movie (a one-time thing then) for a few specific shots.
> 
> Enterprise was built for a TV series, there was no intended limitation on what angles, what shots would be required when it was designed.
> 
> In a way, it's almost a 'chicken or the egg' discussion and all 20/20 hindsight. Lateness in delivery created potential limitations due to partial completion, partial completion allowed brute-force alterations to add lights and lighted effects, which created limitations in filming angles...



Actually, if we are going to be splitting these kinds of hairs, we should remember that the Enterprise model was built for a Pilot not for a series. Undoubtedly future use of the model would be a consideration but not the final word. So, like those other "one shot" models, this was kind of a "one shot" model as well: "Get what we need now and fix it later if we have to".

Indeed, they obviously made the changes to the model that they did between the first and second Pilots and further changes when it actually went to series. 

So even with budgetary considerations very much part of the mix they obviously felt that certain modifications did not need to be made even over the course of the time that they ultimately had because they had a work around that was cheaper.


----------



## starseeker

Steve H said:


> The models you mention were 'purpose' built-they existed for a specific movie (a one-time thing then) for a few specific shots.
> 
> Enterprise was built for a TV series, there was no intended limitation on what angles, what shots would be required when it was designed.


Oh, Steve H, of course there was. ST was just one sf show on in the mid-60s. If you look at the Irwin Allen programs, they spent as much money as they could on each of their spaceships and sets to get as much as they could up front. But every one of the spaceships and sets was built up only as much as they needed to film the pilots. The Jupiter 2 had only a partial upper deck set. The miniature Jupiter 2s didn't have operating landing gear. In fact, there weren't nearly as many miniatures, Same with the Flying Subs and Seaviews, both miniatures and sets, where they reused what they had from the films and added on only as needed. They only built what they had to but they spent as much money as they could getting as much as they could, Star Trek, too. They knew exactly what they're going to film, what angles, what effects. They have to get as much bang for the buck as they can, in case there is a series, but they're not going to build anything that they know they're not going to need until they know they're going to need to show it, like hangar bays and hangar bay door details, or starboard side details, or hatches, which they never did need.


----------



## CessnaDriver

Does anyone know what the reasoning was for the saucer to be so thin in it's middle circumference? Seems odd to squeeze it down to what looks like one deck there. Was it a pure aesthetics decision or was there some reason, either for modeling purpose/strength or did Jeffries want to imply some sort of aerodynamic shape for atmospheric re-entry of the saucer section?


----------



## Richard Baker

CessnaDriver said:


> Does anyone know what the reasoning was for the saucer to be so thin in it's middle circumference? Seems odd to squeeze it down to what looks like one deck there. Was it a pure aesthetics decision or was there some reason, either for modeling purpose/strength or did Jeffries want to imply some sort of aerodynamic shape for atmospheric re-entry of the saucer section?


In universe the saucer was supposed to use aerodynamics of shape to land in an emergency.
In production design Jefferies wanted a graceful shape and the sweeping curve made the saucer look better. When seen from the lower front he wanted to evoke the look of a sailing ship. It was only in blueprints we see how thing the saucer is there- from the top or bottom view it is not hat apparent.


----------



## Zombie_61

I've often wondered about that unusual contour on the ventral surface of the primary hull myself. Mr. Baker's explanation is reasonable, but from a practical point of view it seems like a lot of wasted space, especially considering we never saw the primary hull separate from the rest of the ship let alone make a crash landing on any planet.


----------



## Steve H

Zombie_61 said:


> I've often wondered about that unusual contour on the ventral surface of the primary hull myself. Mr. Baker's explanation is reasonable, but from a practical point of view it seems like a lot of wasted space.


Well, in hindsight, maybe Jefferies was thinking of some kind of 'area rule in space' might be in play. It's why the F-106 has that 'coke bottle' shape. 

Like everything about the Enterprise, so much is done just because "it looks better that way"


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## Steve H

Wow, that shot of the saucer in the crate is impressive. I honestly had expected a cutout or SOMETHING there for the dorsal. but it appears the sucker was just laying on top of it, with the bolts being the only thru-part. Well, and maybe some wiring added later. 

No wonder it's so hard to get that area right on models.


----------



## asalaw

Wow. This continues to be a really fascinating thread.  I can't wait till the unveiling in July! I have plans to make a digital model in Blender. Hopefully I'll be able to turn my photos of the restored ol' gal directly into texture maps. 

I want to follow that up with a 4' vac-formed model derived from CNC-carving the digital model into MDF bucks and laser-cutting an armature in wood and acrylic. I might even pull it in Lexan, which is surprisingly cheap online. We'll see -- I still haven't wrapped my head around finally having the reference to end all reference just a 20-minute drive away!


----------



## DoctorGonzo

Hello Everyone,
I was just wondering if there have been any updates, even though she is or has been painted already, from what I hear. Any new or cool would be great to hear.


----------



## Opus Penguin

Last Gary reported on his Facebook page, the model is done. AND it looks incredible. It will not be revealed until July though.


----------



## Gary K

Opus Penguin said:


> Last Gary reported on his Facebook page, the model is done. AND it looks incredible. It will not be revealed until July though.


The model looks incredible, but it's not finished, by a long shot. The main painting is done, but there's still a lot to do, such as installing the lighting, adding additional details, numerous touch-ups - and transporting the model through DC traffic to the museum Downtown. The Smithsonian has a schedule for doing the big reveal, so just be patient.

Gary


----------



## Opus Penguin

Gary K said:


> The model looks incredible, but it's not finished, by a long shot. The main painting is done, but there's still a lot to do, such as installing the lighting, adding additional details, numerous touch-ups - and transporting the model through DC traffic to the museum Downtown. The Smithsonian has a schedule for doing the big reveal, so just be patient.
> 
> Gary


My bad. I thought it was finished when you mentioned the reveal. Still, sounds exciting! Can't wait to see it.


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> The model looks incredible, but it's not finished, by a long shot. The main painting is done, but there's still a lot to do, such as installing the lighting, adding additional details, numerous touch-ups - and transporting the model through DC traffic to the museum Downtown. The Smithsonian has a schedule for doing the big reveal, so just be patient.
> 
> Gary


They did 'final paint' before all that other stuff? Seems counter-intuitive to me. 

I mean, not a biggie for the nacelle lights, the whole thing should be a 'plug and play' deal but the rest of the interior lighting? Won't that involve some opening up skins and stuff?


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> They did 'final paint' before all that other stuff? Seems counter-intuitive to me.
> 
> I mean, not a biggie for the nacelle lights, the whole thing should be a 'plug and play' deal but the rest of the interior lighting? Won't that involve some opening up skins and stuff?


Nope. The museum people know what they're doing, and there are enough access points that they can get lights to everywhere that they're needed.

Gary


----------



## John P

Surely she was built so they could change a light bulb without major surgery.


----------



## Trek Ace

She wasn't built to have any lights at all!


----------



## Hunk A Junk

I just hope the paint the flames right. Flames make things look fast!

0


----------



## Rahn

I believe it was the GT trim package.


----------



## Steve H

Rahn said:


> I believe it was the GT trim package.


Those aren't flames! Those are colored in tribal tattoos! THEY GOT IT ALL WRONG! 

:nerd:


----------



## DoctorGonzo

Do you think we will see any new pics coming out soon?


----------



## irishtrek

DoctorGonzo said:


> Do you think we will see any new pics coming out soon?


Not until July I think it is.


----------



## Zombie_61

Steve H said:


> Those aren't flames! Those are colored in tribal tattoos! THEY GOT IT ALL WRONG!


Space. The tribal frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Tramp Stamp...


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## robiwon

Gary, with being up close and personal with the Enterprise, what would you change, if anything, on the R2 TOS Enterprise now?


----------



## Gary K

robiwon said:


> Gary, with being up close and personal with the Enterprise, what would you change, if anything, on the R2 TOS Enterprise now?


Design-wise, there's very little that I'd change. I'll be making dozens of tweaks to my plans, but the changes would be essentially microscopic on a 1:350 scale model. The color scheme of the ship and its markings is another story, and there will be a lot of adjustments. The Smithsonian is aware of the modeling community's interest in the ship's color scheme, and I'll be working with the conservators to create a definitive color guide that's geared to plastic modelers. Currently, the conservators have their plate full, as they prepare for the grand reopening of the $30 million Boeing Milestones of Flight gallery on July 1. Besides restoring the Enterprise, the conservators have also been restoring other iconic vehicles, such as the Bell X-1, The Spirit of St Louis, a lunar module, etc. Once everybody has had a chance to catch their breath, we'll start sorting through all the color chips & photos and try to digest all the information. This experience has taught me that color is a vastly complex subject - much more than you'd suspect - and while we've established *what* they did to the model in the 1960s, we may never uncover the reasons *why*. 

I've also learned a great deal re. the physical structure of the 11-footer and the evolution of its design & color scheme through the years, from the studio plans, to the Pilot & Production versions, and through the various restorations. My recent 2-week stint at Udvar-Hazy, helping my friends from ILM with installing replacement parts on the model and painting it, was exhausting, but also extremely rewarding and informative. The conservators are still prepping the 11-footer for its debut, but sooner or later we'll disseminate all the information that we've learned.

Gary


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Gary, I assume someone has been extensively videotaping the reassembly and repainting of the ship. I think all of us would love to see a mini-documentary of the entire restoration, whether just an online thing or otherwise. Can you confirm there were cameras hovering over the painters' shoulders so we'll be able to see precisely what was done?


----------



## Gary K

Hunk A Junk said:


> Gary, I assume someone has been extensively videotaping the reassembly and repainting of the ship. I think all of us would love to see a mini-documentary of the entire restoration, whether just an online thing or otherwise. Can you confirm there were cameras hovering over the painters' shoulders so we'll be able to see precisely what was done?



There was some video, but not a lot because that would have slowed down the process, and because we worked long after hours on most days; however, a LOT of stills were shot, with both cell phones and DSLRs. There's an embargo on photos for the time being, but I got permission from the museum to post this "teaser" photo from the last night we all worked on the model. We had just temporarily reassembled the 11-footer, and I grabbed this quick snapshot. It shows four totally exhausted - and very happy - people, who were geeking out at their first look at the Enterprise, as it appeared nearly 50 years ago. This is one of those special moments that I'll never forget!

Gary









Left to right: Bill George, Ariel O'Connor, John Goodson, and Kim Smith.


----------



## Proper2

Gary K said:


> There was some video, but not a lot because that would have slowed down the process, and because we worked long after hours on most days; however, a LOT of stills were shot, with both cell phones and DSLRs. There's an embargo on photos for the time being, but I got permission from the museum to post this "teaser" photo from the last night we all worked on the model. We had just temporarily reassembled the 11-footer, and I grabbed this quick snapshot. It shows four totally exhausted - and very happy - people, who were geeking out at their first look at the Enterprise, as it appeared nearly 50 years ago. This is one of those special moments that I'll never forget!
> 
> Gary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Left to right: Bill George, Ariel O'Connor, John Goodson, and Kim Smith.


Very special photo, indeed! Thanks, Gary! And we can catch the very first glimpse of the finished primary hull bottom in the glass reflection! :wink2:


----------



## Gary K

Proper2 said:


> Very special photo, indeed! Thanks, Gary! And we can catch the very first glimpse of the finished primary hull bottom in the glass reflection!


Pay no attention to the reflection above Bill's head! 

(That's why this is called a "teaser" photo)

Gary


----------



## Proper2

Gary K said:


> Pay no attention to the reflection above Bill's head!
> 
> (That's why this is called a "teaser" photo)
> 
> Gary


I'm teased, I'm teased! 

Gary, what would you now say would be the main issue or "error" with the Master Replicas E (aside from the known errors of the hangar deck and forward round panel of the upper primary hull being lit)? At that scale do you think the paint finish is relatively close?


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Gary K said:


> Pay no attention to the reflection above Bill's head!
> 
> (That's why this is called a "teaser" photo)
> 
> Gary


The grid lines in the reflection are too dark.

0


----------



## Gary K

Proper2 said:


> I'm teased, I'm teased!
> 
> Gary, what would you now say would be the main issue or "error" with the Master Replicas E (aside from the known errors of the hangar deck and forward round panel of the upper primary hull being lit)? At that scale do you think the paint finish is relatively close?


Geez, that was so long ago... For one thing, the lower saucer needs to be a tiny bit deeper - about half the thickness of the base for the lower saucer dome. The overall hull color isn't too shabby.

Btw, the "bow light" was illuminated on the 11-footer, albeit dimly. The sole purpose of the 1" light was to provide access so they could fish out the two light bulbs that illuminated the 3 round lights at the bow. Beneath the acrylic cover was a "well" through the thick plywood substructure. If you want more info, do a quick Google search for one of the X-ray images of the bow that NASM has released. In the 1960s, incidental light spilled up through the "well", but so dimly that it was barely visible under the studio lighting. In 1992, one of the two lights was incorrectly repositioned to better illuminate the opening. There's no clear cut right or wrong choice re. the level of illumination for the bow light, and it's more of a personal preference on the part of the modeler.

Gary


----------



## Steve H

Well, as long as...

Gary, was there a structural or electrical reason why the 4th rectangle on the top of the saucer wasn't lit? I know, I know, it's probably a time/money thing at the core, but all that other work...And unlike the port side of the model you do see that part of the saucer often enough.

(n.b. electrical reason= maybe that extra wire and bulb would have been too much for the way the system was built or something similar)

ETA: Oh, wait, it just hit me. The rectangles were really access points for the lights on the rim windows, and since that far rim wasn't lit, no light for that rectangle? Am I close?


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> Well, as long as...
> 
> Gary, was there a structural or electrical reason why the 4th rectangle on the top of the saucer wasn't lit? I know, I know, it's probably a time/money thing at the core, but all that other work...And unlike the port side of the model you do see that part of the saucer often enough.
> 
> (n.b. electrical reason= maybe that extra wire and bulb would have been too much for the way the system was built or something similar)
> 
> ETA: Oh, wait, it just hit me. The rectangles were really access points for the lights on the rim windows, and since that far rim wasn't lit, no light for that rectangle? Am I close?


It was a matter of time & money, which were pretty much synonymous when they were revising the model. Star Trek's TRUE Prime Directive was, "If it doesn't show up on camera, then fuggedaboutit". In the course of my research, I've come across some extreme examples of penny-pinching, and I'll detail them at a later date.

Gary


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> It was a matter of time & money, which were pretty much synonymous when they were revising the model. Star Trek's TRUE Prime Directive was, "If it doesn't show up on camera, then fuggedaboutit". In the course of my research, I've come across some extreme examples of penny-pinching, and I'll detail them at a later date.
> 
> Gary


Oh, THAT'S interesting! I can't wait. Thank you.

So I'm wrong about those rectangles being the access point for the saucer rim window lights?


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> Oh, THAT'S interesting! I can't wait. Thank you.
> 
> So I'm wrong about those rectangles being the access point for the saucer rim window lights?


No, you're correct. Only 3 of the 4 groups of windows on the side of the saucer were illuminated, so they only cut 3 access holes on the upper saucer.

Gary


----------



## KUROK

Hunk A Junk said:


> The grid lines in the reflection are too dark.
> 
> 0



No! 
I think the weathering is now too light!


----------



## Gary K

KUROK said:


> No!
> I think the weathering is now too light!


You're joking, but I've already told the Smithsonian that even if they could beam the 11-footer directly from the 1967 sound stage and put it on display tomorrow, you know that some of the fanboys would complain that the model doesn't look right. 

Gary


----------



## robiwon

Gary, thanks for all the exhaustive work you and the others have done on this historic artifact (see what I did?). Once the whole project is completed, put back on display, and documents, videos, and pictures released, there will be much to talk about for years to come!

THANK YOU one and all!!!

I knew there was a reason why I haven't started my 1/350 yet!!!!!!


----------



## Proper2

Gary K said:


> You're joking, but I've already told the Smithsonian that even if they could beam the 11-footer directly from the 1967 sound stage and put it on display tomorrow, you know that some of the fanboys would complain that the model doesn't look right.
> 
> Gary


You got that right!


----------



## jheilman

Gary K said:


> You're joking, but I've already told the Smithsonian that even if they could beam the 11-footer directly from the 1967 sound stage and put it on display tomorrow, you know that some of the fanboys would complain that the model doesn't look right.
> 
> Gary


No doubt about it. :grin2:


----------



## SteveR

Gary K said:


> ... even if they could beam the 11-footer directly from the 1967 sound stage and put it on display tomorrow, you know that some of the fanboys would complain that the model doesn't look right.


Sounds like a "no-win" scenario.


----------



## Richard Baker

I wonder if Round 2 will revise their 1/350 TOS-E decal sheet to reflect new information gained by this project.


----------



## jimkirk

Richard Baker said:


> I wonder if Round 2 will revise their 1/350 TOS-E decal sheet to reflect new information gained by this project.


If not I am sure some will pop up from an aftermarket supplier.
I can see some aftermarket stuff coming down the road when more info is released.


----------



## KUROK

Richard Baker said:


> I wonder if Round 2 will revise their 1/350 TOS-E decal sheet to reflect new information gained by this project.


There is no business case for Round2 to make changes for a handful of customers that might care and who probably already own a couple of kits.
Aftermarket will jump on it I'm sure!


----------



## Richard Baker

I don't know- Round 2 spent a LOT of time making the kit as accurate as possible for those builders who wanted to finally get a replica of this subject as perfect as possible. R2 could have easily gotten it just 'close enough' to get by for a lot less money.

All the decals would take is a revise of the artwork for the next printing. Print some extras and it is a win-win because purists would buy a sheet of the revised decals instead of using to e ones already provided. The extra weathering decal sheet demonstrates R2 is already taking this market into account.


----------



## Neo-uk

"Round 2 spent a LOT of time making the kit as accurate as possible"
Why the grid lines then ?


----------



## Proper2

Neo-uk said:


> "Round 2 spent a LOT of time making the kit as accurate as possible"
> Why the grid lines then ?


Yeah, think how many hours of accurizing have gone into removing these "accurate" lines. That's one thing I think they really misfired on.


----------



## Richard Baker

The grid lines are regrettable, that was a judgement call a lot of people disagree with.


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## John P

:lol:...


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## Steve H

alensatemybuick said:


> Oh yes, please let's see a re-run of that old argument again. Maybe the one about the lit nacelle trench option too. I see the leading edge upper bow light was brought up again already on the last page as well. Oy!
> 
> (try depressurizing the main shuttle bay instead for a change)


Yes, that pesky leading edge light, so shameful that Gary K dared to talk about it. Shame! What does he think, he's an expert or something? That he actually knows anything? Hurumph I say! Such things!

Why, next thing you know he'll write something about the color of the model, or, or, ANYTHING! Shameful I say! We all know the original model was painted in Dutch Boy Ocean Teal using a Black & Decker 50 hp automotive compressor and spray setup in a single stall garage in Malibu, Calif. on March 15 1964!

>


----------



## Joel

alensatemybuick said:


> Brian Mix on therpf.com who had exclusive access to Udvar-Hazy's restoration areas about a month back says he was not allowed to take photos of the painted model, but that from a distance it appeared "battleship grey" to him. Told that it had a "hint of green" when he asked about it, he says that was not obvious, at least not from his distant vantage point. And related to the title of this thread, he was allowed to take the following photo (apparently the Hallmark Galileo is just there for purposes of "scale" ).


Hey, I have that Hallmark Galileo. :smile2:


----------



## asalaw

This is truly driving me bat tribbles. I'm an hour away (in bad traffic) from U-H, less than half that from DC NASM, and I can't just hop in my car (at midnight) for a quick drool. And the info that's being hinted at is making me jones even worse!

I'm a doc review attorney. I read emails, charts, spreadsheets, Powerpoint slides, and more for a living. Litigation, investigation, regulatory review, you name it. Trust me, it's not nearly as glamorous as it sounds.

But the thought of spelunking through the U-H archives after all the Enterprise records are available again has me shaking with anticipation.

I think that may be the single nerdiest thing I've ever said.


----------



## Steve H

asalaw said:


> This is truly driving me bat tribbles. I'm an hour away (in bad traffic) from U-H, less than half that from DC NASM, and I can't just hop in my car (at midnight) for a quick drool. And the info that's being hinted at is making me jones even worse!
> 
> I'm a doc review attorney. I read emails, charts, spreadsheets, Powerpoint slides, and more for a living. Litigation, investigation, regulatory review, you name it. Trust me, it's not nearly as glamorous as it sounds.
> 
> But the thought of spelunking through the U-H archives after all the Enterprise records are available again has me shaking with anticipation.
> 
> I think that may be the single nerdiest thing I've ever said.


No no no...

The NERDY thing would be "And I'm doing it all Mission:Impossible style, with the rope and hanging from the ceiling and everything!"

Or quoting Nick Cage from National Treasure.

ORRR "now if I can only get my Tricorder past security...." 

(come on, you've got one. Probably several. 'fess up.)


----------



## Zombie_61

Steve H said:


> ...The NERDY thing would be "And I'm doing it all Mission:Impossible style, with the rope and hanging from the ceiling and everything!"...


While humming the theme music.


----------



## Steve H

Zombie_61 said:


> While humming the theme music.


"I've got two words for you. Danger. Zone."

(Because I've never heard Sterling Archer make a Mission: Impossible reference even tho he totally should have by now)


----------



## asalaw

Steve H said:


> No no no...
> 
> The NERDY thing would be "And I'm doing it all Mission:Impossible style, with the rope and hanging from the ceiling and everything!"


Nope. MI:4 style. Swinging off the side of the building and bursting in across from the machine shop!! 



> ORRR "now if I can only get my Tricorder past security...."
> 
> (come on, you've got one. Probably several. 'fess up.)


Guilty. :nerd:

I have an old "James Kirk" (I think), a DST, a very old who-knows-wtf-plastic-POS in pieces, and all the materials and add-ons I need to scratch-build at least three more. 

Sorry, I'm only a part-time nerd.  :nerd:


----------



## asalaw

Steve H said:


> "I've got two words for you. Danger. Zone."
> 
> (Because I've never heard Sterling Archer make a Mission: Impossible reference even tho he totally should have by now)


Are we still doing "phrasing?" I think we should seriously think about getting that back in the lineup.


----------



## asalaw

alensatemybuick said:


> I know I have less than 2 more months to wait, but I am curious to know whether the lower sensor dome turret emitter "thingy" will be on the restored ship. It'll help me decide whether I want to reinstall it on my 1/350 scale ship.


Ariel O'Connor told me they were building a new one and putting it on. I think they're _really, really_ serious about the August '67 thing. :smile2:


----------



## Opus Penguin

I know I still have the turret thingy in my model inventory. I kept it off because I remembered the ship without it, but if hey include it on the restoration, I will add it to mine.


----------



## Steve H

asalaw said:


> Are we still doing "phrasing?" I think we should seriously think about getting that back in the lineup.


Hmmm, I don't know. If I reference the fact that when AMT made their kit of the Enterprise way back when, it had that little 'bump' on the underside sensor dome, and I say 'nipple' is that....


----------



## irishtrek

NERD,
1) stands for never ending radical dude, or
2) never ending righteous dude.
Take your pick guys.


----------



## asalaw

Steve H said:


> Hmmm, I don't know. If I reference the fact that when AMT made their kit of the Enterprise way back when, it had that little 'bump' on the underside sensor dome, and I say 'nipple' is that....


See? THIS is why we can't have nice gratuitous sexual innuendos! 



irishtrek said:


> NERD,
> 1) stands for never ending radical dude, or
> 2) never ending righteous dude.
> Take your pick guys.


Also, Nuclear Engineering is Radically Difficult, Never Engender Racing Debts, Nifty Economics Ripples Downward, and Nipply Extensions Really Delight.

Wait, where'd I get that last one?


----------



## Zombie_61

irishtrek said:


> NERD,
> 1) stands for never ending radical dude, or
> 2) never ending righteous dude.
> Take your pick guys.


I thought it was Nominal Energy Reserves Diminishing.


----------



## RSN

*N*ot *E*veryone *R*easons *D*eductively


----------



## asalaw

Nibbling Excelsior Reduces Dingleberries!


----------



## irishtrek

RSN said:


> *N*ot *E*veryone *R*easons *D*eductively


Reading some of the responses I would have to agree with that one.


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## Steve H

alensatemybuick said:


> Never-ending, repugnant drivel.


Phrasing!

You really shouldn't be so down on yourself, we're all friend here. I mean, some are more friendly than others but friends and friends, unless they're fiends, and nobody ever said a fiend in need is a fiend indeed. Or did that? Shakespear? Or that poseur, Bacon? 

Ummm, bacon. tasty stuff. I should make some bacon sandwiches later. If the Earl of Sandwich approves of course.


----------



## Steve H

Anyway, topic at hand. It must be AGONY for Gary K at this point. All that information, all the little things he's learned, who knows what surprises or unexpected confirmation (or of course rejection) of long thought theories. Can't say a word. 

Tomorrow would be too long a wait, let alone the actual unveiling. Man. 

Hang in there Gary!


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> Anyway, topic at hand. It must be AGONY for Gary K at this point. All that information, all the little things he's learned, who knows what surprises or unexpected confirmation (or of course rejection) of long thought theories. Can't say a word.
> 
> Tomorrow would be too long a wait, let alone the actual unveiling. Man.
> 
> Hang in there Gary!


No agony here - I'm too busy with last-minute stuff for the 11-footer. In the last week, alone, I found that something else changed size during the series, plus I was able to draw some quickie plans so a couple small replacement parts could be fabricated. What scares me is how some design stuff has been hiding in plain sight all these years, but we haven't noticed it till relatively recently. And then there's probably my favorite new feature of the restoration: how they - oops. Almost gave it away. 

Gary


----------



## scotthm

Gary K said:


> No agony here - I'm too busy with last-minute stuff for the 11-footer.


Can you say how the new information you've learned will be published (magazine articles, book, web site, etc.?)

---------------


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> No agony here - I'm too busy with last-minute stuff for the 11-footer. In the last week, alone, I found that something else changed size during the series, plus I was able to draw some quickie plans so a couple small replacement parts could be fabricated. What scares me is how some design stuff has been hiding in plain sight all these years, but we haven't noticed it till relatively recently. And then there's probably my favorite new feature of the restoration: how they - oops. Almost gave it away.
> 
> Gary


So you're busy now. The agony will come later as the date approaches. 

So you mean, when you were mentioning some of the epic 'cheating' done due to money/time issues, was one of them the...oh lord, OK, using 'original era' words, the 'bars' or 'fins' on the 'handles' on the back of the 'engines'? How they aren't all around the 'handle' but are specifically in place for a single specific viewing angle? 

(it would be part of the 'missing on the left' pile  )


----------



## Gary K

scotthm said:


> Can you say how the new information you've learned will be published (magazine articles, book, web site, etc.?)
> 
> ---------------


We'll get all the info out, but we don't yet know through what format(s). The main focus right now is getting the ship ready to launch on time. (Where have I heard that line before??  )

Gary


----------



## Carson Dyle

Gary K said:


> We'll get all the info out, but we don't yet know through what format(s).


OK, but could you hurry it up? Some of us have models to paint.


----------



## Gary K

Carson Dyle said:


> OK, but could you hurry it up? Some of us have models to paint.


Oh, hold yer harses!


----------



## Zombie_61

Gary K said:


> ...In the last week, alone, I found that something else changed size during the series...


William Shatner's waistline?


----------



## whereisanykey

I don't see how much difference all this makes. If a model maker is going to be studio accurate there would be No port side, including the deflector (clamp?), etc. 
I was reading Datin's book and surprised at how the Smithsonian dissed him on so may occasions. He had documentation on what Roddenberry wanted for the upgrades and what was actually done.


----------



## Joel

I'm sure if Mr. Datin where still around today, he'd say "well it's about damned time!"


----------



## KUROK

Gary K you starship-tease-you!


----------



## dcarty

Gary K said:


> ...What scares me is how some design stuff has been hiding in plain sight all these years, but we haven't noticed it till relatively recently...  Gary


I think this is an absolutely critical observation and something we could all profit by from remembering. Thank you for everything you have shared and I look forward to further treats!

Cheers,

Dave C


----------



## Gary K

dcarty said:


> I think this is an absolutely critical observation and something we could all profit by from remembering. Thank you for everything you have shared and I look forward to further treats!
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dave C


Yep, we tend to see what we expect to see. I had to unlearn what I *thought* I knew, look at the evidence with a fresh eye, and go where the evidence led. I had one other main takeaway from the restoration experience - the extreme professionalism shown by members of the restoration team, the Smithsonian personnel, and the ILM team. No preening or posturing, no divas, no pissing contest over who's the biggest expert. Just a group of people working toward a common goal. I wouldn't have missed this experience for the world.

Gary


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Gary K said:


> Yep, we tend to see what we expect to see. I had to unlearn what I *thought* I knew, look at the evidence with a fresh eye, and go where the evidence led. I had one other main takeaway from the restoration experience - the extreme professionalism shown by members of the restoration team, the Smithsonian personnel, and the ILM team. No preening or posturing, no divas, no pissing contest over who's the biggest expert. Just a group of people working toward a common goal. I wouldn't have missed this experience for the world.
> 
> Gary


Thanks for being the adult in the room, Gary. I think this is an important lesson to remember for all sci-fi fans (myself included) even when we're not talking about models.


----------



## asalaw

Gary K said:


> No agony here - I'm too busy with last-minute stuff for the 11-footer. In the last week, alone, I found that something else changed size during the series, plus I was able to draw some quickie plans so a couple small replacement parts could be fabricated. What scares me is how some design stuff has been hiding in plain sight all these years, but we haven't noticed it till relatively recently. And then there's probably my favorite new feature of the restoration: how they - oops. Almost gave it away.
> 
> Gary


Ugh... just when I was getting over the DTs, he pours me another drink.


----------



## Steve H

Hey, Gary? To pass time, I was wondering if now that the main work is done, it's down to finding little things, and without giving away anything specific..I guess the questions are two.

1. Is there any area IN GENERAL that is still in some way puzzling, like "there's stuff going on with the dorsal, it's still a subject of discussion" .

2. Is there any area that as work progressed and data flowed it made your jaw drop and gave you a "Huh!" moment? Other than the entire miniature of course.


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> Hey, Gary? To pass time, I was wondering if now that the main work is done, it's down to finding little things, and without giving away anything specific..I guess the questions are two.
> 
> 1. Is there any area IN GENERAL that is still in some way puzzling, like "there's stuff going on with the dorsal, it's still a subject of discussion" .
> 
> 2. Is there any area that as work progressed and data flowed it made your jaw drop and gave you a "Huh!" moment? Other than the entire miniature of course.


1. Yeah, without going into detail yet, we know *what* they did in one area, but have no idea re. *why*.

2. There was no single jaw-dropping moment, except for one "YES!" moment when I finally found something I'd been looking for for years, but I got a sense of relief every time I/we figured out the answers to long-standing design/color questions - and we should be learning even more over the next couple of months. As I mentioned on Facebook, on the last Friday night we were there, John Goodson & I held the saucer in position while the Smithsonian curator tightened the bolts. Once the saucer was secured, everybody plopped down on the floor and geeked out at the repainted & reassembled model. You never forget moments like that!

Gary


----------



## asalaw

Gary K said:


> 1. Yeah, without going into detail yet, we know *what* they did in one area, but have no idea re. *why*.
> 
> 2. There was no single jaw-dropping moment, except for one "YES!" moment when I finally found something I'd been looking for for years, but I got a sense of relief every time I/we figured out the answers to long-standing design/color questions - and we should be learning even more over the next couple of months. As I mentioned on Facebook, on the last Friday night we were there, John Goodson & I held the saucer in position while the Smithsonian curator tightened the bolts. Once the saucer was secured, everybody plopped down on the floor and geeked out at the repainted & reassembled model. You never forget moments like that!
> 
> Gary


Yay!!

Have they gotten the Bussard effect working yet? How does it look?


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> 1. Yeah, without going into detail yet, we know *what* they did in one area, but have no idea re. *why*.
> 
> *snip snip for clarity and brevity*
> 
> Gary


OMG I AM GOING TO DIE IT'S GONNA TAKE SO LONG TO LEARN THIS ARGGGHHH!! 

*ahem*

I mean, interesting. very interesting. VERY interesting. I hope the answer turns out as interesting and not so mundane it's comical. 

(why is there no 'Kermit Flail' smiley? This calls for that)


----------



## asalaw

*INCOMING MESSAGE FROM STFLT SUPRT SVCS TO ALL
MESSAGE BEGINS*
DC residents and visitors -- the Metro lines that go to the Smithsonian and Capitol South stations will be offline for at least two weeks after July 4th due to a major systemic overhaul now underway. If you're going to rely on Metro to get to NASM, your best bet is during the July 4th weekend. Yes, it'll be a zoo, because of course it will be. We're just gonna have to deal. 










If you think there'll be street parking, well... :lol::lol::lol::lol:

My plan is to park just out of town in Arlington, and über the rest of the way in. Never mind the cost (besides, NASM admission is free). If you value your sanity, I recommend you consider something similar. 
*MESSAGE ENDS*

*INCOMING MESSAGE FROM STFLT MEDICAL TO ALL
MESSAGE BEGINS*
Pack your sunscreen -- the walk from either of those two stations to NASM is non-trivial. Strongly consider a hat. July in DC is hotter than Miami (where I grew up), just not as humid. But trust me, it's plenty humid. This is still the South, and DC is still built on a swamp. Drink lots of bottled water (don't rely on the DC tap, which has had lead issues that were first reported in 2010). Those of us who remember watching TOS back in the day are especially vulnerable to the heat. But I've had heatstroke as young as 25, so don't think you're immune just because you're too young to remember the Reagan Administration. 
*MESSAGE ENDS*


----------



## Mr. Wabac

Doesn't mention anything about L'Enfant Plaza Station being closed - that is closer than the other two mentioned.


----------



## asalaw

Mr. Wabac said:


> Doesn't mention anything about L'Enfant Plaza Station being closed - that is closer than the other two mentioned.


Forgot all about L'Enfant. Don't know when that one's closing, but they're all closing at some point. They're putting in new track and ties system-wide. It's going to be a mess for some time. I'm driving to work for the foreseeable future (which will also be a mess, thanks to closing metro lines).


----------



## Y3a

Try driving in from Sterling, VA. NO trains, just vehicles. The Reston, Herndon and Fairfax folks are gonna hammer the roads. Good thing the schools are going on recess so at least through August, it's not going to super-suck.


----------



## Tantei

Gary,

I don't know if this has been asked and answered elsewhere so apologies if it has.

I have to imagine that there is such a thing as a portable green screen rig and I know that there are small very high quality HD cameras. Has anyone (CBS, Paramount, ILM, members of the restoration team) approached the Smithsonian about the possibility of setting up and shooting one final effects shot of the restored and illuminated miniature (for compositing into stills or video) before it is buttoned up in the new display case?


----------



## Trek Ace

There certainly are portable blue and green screens out there. There are even gray, reflective surface screens that will be whatever color you cast onto it from a ring light centered on the camera lens axis. So, along with some studio lights and a professional moco camera and track, you could get some decent elements.


----------



## asalaw

We're more likely to see stills done up in Photoshop, would be my guess. The amount of light it would take to get the proper depth of field for an FX shot of an 11' model (even shot digitally) is probably more than the conservators would want to shine on it for any length of time. They don't even allow flash photography.


----------



## KUROK

Gary K I'm curious about how they were able to clean/restore the top of the saucer without removing the original weathering.
They had planned not to repaint it and only clean but how do you get it clean without removing that light dusting of paint?
(Unless it was clear coated and that would be lucky)


----------



## SteveR

asalaw said:


> The amount of light it would take to get the proper depth of field for an FX shot of an 11' model (even shot digitally) is probably more than the conservators would want to shine on it for any length of time.


It's actually _easier_ to get decent DoF for a large model, because DoF is proportional to magnification on the image plane. Smaller models need more magnification compared to larger models, so their DoF is proportionally shallower, so they need more light to get a decent aperture for decent DoF. The big E might be fine with available light and a slow shutter speed.


----------



## Gary K

KUROK said:


> Gary K I'm curious about how they were able to clean/restore the top of the saucer without removing the original weathering.
> They had planned not to repaint it and only clean but how do you get it clean without removing that light dusting of paint?
> (Unless it was clear coated and that would be lucky)


There is a lot of yellowed shellac protecting the surface! I forget the details, but the conservators carefully removed years of dust & grime without harming anything important on the upper saucer. After all, they're experienced in cleaning everything from historic aircraft to valuable oil paintings. The B/C deck & bridge were puttied, sanded, and repainted in 1992, so the ILM people used their years of experience to repaint the bridge & B/C deck to appear as they originally did. I even got to mix the dark green paint for the turbolift to match the original paint that I had matched to a Fed Std color in 1991.

Gary


----------



## asalaw

SteveR said:


> It's actually _easier_ to get decent DoF for a large model, because DoF is proportional to magnification on the image plane. Smaller models need more magnification compared to larger models, so their DoF is proportionally shallower, so they need more light to get a decent aperture for decent DoF. The big E might be fine with available light and a slow shutter speed.


I'm aware of that. I was in the business for 12 years and I studied cinematography in film school. I doubt that available light would cut it, and a slow shutter speed might introduce unwanted blur, not to mention the need to control focus in a moving shot regardless of DoF. You're better off with longer exposures if you're not lighting it, which complicates things at 24 or 30 fps. If you use a green screen, you'd have to light that, and if you roto it, blur becomes an issue again.

Stills are easier and more betterer. You can expose as long as you want, and only make a mask for a single frame. Plus you can put it in a brochure.


----------



## WShawn

Gary K said:


> We'll get all the info out, but we don't yet know through what format(s). The main focus right now is getting the ship ready to launch on time. (Where have I heard that line before??)
> 
> Gary


I apologize if this has been asked and answered, but will details about the lighting be made public, too, at some point? I have enough electronics knowledge to build a lighting system from scratch, but obtaining rock-solid references would be awesome. 

One of the super-high rez photos on the NASM website shows two of the museum specialists with the primary hull opened up with wiring leading to what appears to be a Teensy Arduino micro controller. If such a system is being used to control the lights will the code/sketch be published for public usage?

I have to say, this is probably the best use of my tax dollars, ever.

Thanks.

Shawn Marshall
Portland, OR


----------



## Gary K

WShawn said:


> I apologize if this has been asked and answered, but will details about the lighting be made public, too, at some point? I have enough electronics knowledge to build a lighting system from scratch, but obtaining rock-solid references would be awesome.
> 
> One of the super-high rez photos on the NASM website shows two of the museum specialists with the primary hull opened up with wiring leading to what appears to be a Teensy Arduino micro controller. If such a system is being used to control the lights will the code/sketch be published for public usage?
> 
> I have to say, this is probably the best use of my tax dollars, ever.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Shawn Marshall
> Portland, OR


Let me preface this by saying that my knowledge of electronics doesn't extend much further than changing a light bulb. I've heard the word "Arduino" mentioned. I know that the sheets of mini-LEDs are similar to the pixels on a color TV, and the color & intensity of the lights can be adjusted remotely. There are no secrets re. the lighting, and the museum could probably answer your questions, but probably not till after they get the new gallery ready to open by the July 1 deadline.

Gary


----------



## WShawn

Gary K said:


> Let me preface this by saying that my knowledge of electronics doesn't extend much further than changing a light bulb. I've heard the word "Arduino" mentioned. I know that the sheets of mini-LEDs are similar to the pixels on a color TV, and the color & intensity of the lights can be adjusted remotely. There are no secrets re. the lighting, and the museum could probably answer your questions, but probably not till after they get the new gallery ready to open by the July 1 deadline.
> 
> Gary


Thanks for the reply. No hurry on my part; it will probably be a year or (a lot) more before I get a chance to tackle my Big E. I know the priority is to get everything finished for the grand opening. I'm looking forward to seeing photos from the unveiling.

Take care.

Shawn


----------



## djhannu

Does the Smithsonian use any sort of 3d scanning to document artifacts like the Enterprise model?


----------



## PixelMagic

Forgive me, but I did not wish to read through all 31 pages of this thread. Is the inner blade dome and the outer cap dome supposed to be frosted and tinted orange? Or just one or the other?


----------



## Gary K

PixelMagic said:


> Forgive me, but I did not wish to read through all 31 pages of this thread. Is the inner blade dome and the outer cap dome supposed to be frosted and tinted orange? Or just one or the other?


The support tabs and the outer domes (inside & out) were frosted & tinted with transparent orange. The inner dome was clear (not frosted or tinted) with tapered & slightly raised black fan blades (possibly graphic tape). The 1:350 kit is only a quarter the size of the 11-footer & would use LEDs, instead of mini Xmas lights, so you might have to make some interior modifications on your kit to achieve the same effect.

Gary


----------



## PixelMagic

Gary K said:


> The support tabs and the outer domes (inside & out) were frosted & tinted with transparent orange. The inner dome was clear (not frosted or tinted) with tapered & slightly raised black fan blades (possibly graphic tape). The 1:350 kit is only a quarter the size of the 11-footer & would use LEDs, instead of mini Xmas lights, so you might have to make some interior modifications on your kit to achieve the same effect.
> 
> Gary


Thank you.


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## asalaw

Gary K said:


> Let me preface this by saying that my knowledge of electronics doesn't extend much further than changing a light bulb. I've heard the word "Arduino" mentioned. I know that the sheets of mini-LEDs are similar to the pixels on a color TV, and the color & intensity of the lights can be adjusted remotely. There are no secrets re. the lighting, and the museum could probably answer your questions, but probably not till after they get the new gallery ready to open by the July 1 deadline.
> 
> Gary


In one of the videos (I think it's the "Rerouting the Nacelles" one) at TrekCore, Ariel O'Connor specifically rules out the Arduino, because (IIRC) it's not powerful enough for their purposes. I think the ILM folk have done (or are doing) a custom controller board. I'm sure it's easily within their skillset. 

When I asked her at the last open house how it was being done, her answer was spot on with what Gary says here. They did an LED array of some sort, similar to a video screen, to be animated with the goal of nailing the effect. Not simulating, not approximating, but NAILING. To R&D it, ILM built an exact 1:1 replica of the original effect, motor, lights, and all. They used that as a guide to develop the LED animation. 

My use of past tense here is an assumption on my part, just because it's June 14th already.


----------



## asalaw

Ugh.

I've made a tragic mistake.

I set up a Countdowner on my phone. Just now, it shows 16 days, 13 hours, 22 minutes till 9AM Eastern July 1st.

And I'm out of methadone. <sigh.>


----------



## asalaw

djhannu said:


> Does the Smithsonian use any sort of 3d scanning to document artifacts like the Enterprise model?


I asked Margaret Weitekamp about that at the 2015 open house, and she had a strange answer. *You can read it here in a post on the RPF*. Basically she raised a legal issue because the underlying IP of the Enterprise is property of CBS, even if the model is NASM's. 

I thought it was odd because she answered a question about Gary Kerr's measurements that I hadn't asked, and even though she was legally correct as to the model's IP (as far as she went), John Van Citters from CBS licensing is on the committee. So it's not like they'd have a hard time getting permission. Though it may be that Van Citters himself has nixed the idea. I don't think we'll know for sure for quite some time. The upshot is that, at least back then, she seemed very keen to shoot down any talk of scanning.

If you're curious, I broke down the (VERY) basic contours of the relevant law a couple of posts down from the one above. I tried to keep it basic and short, but it still manages to be boring. Because copyright law.


----------



## Light23

Captain Gary Kerr, you expertise is needed on the bridge... http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/99-science-fiction-modeling/533594-always-metalic-blue-tos-dorsal.html#post5940714


----------



## WShawn

asalaw said:


> In one of the videos (I think it's the "Rerouting the Nacelles" one) at TrekCore, Ariel O'Connor specifically rules out the Arduino, because (IIRC) it's not powerful enough for their purposes. I think the ILM folk have done (or are doing) a custom controller board. I'm sure it's easily within their skillset.


It's the "Engine Enhancements" video, which I just watched. I got the impression that ILM is building that custom setup to drive their solid-state LED-based approach to replicate the mechanical motors in the Bussards, which _would_ be too complex for an Arduino. To me that wouldn't rule out the possibility that they're using an Arduino or some other off the shelf microcontroller to drive the running lights and such that have to flash. 

I guess we'll find out soon. Exciting.

Shawn


----------



## asalaw

WShawn said:


> It's the "Engine Enhancements" video, which I just watched. I got the impression that ILM is building that custom setup to drive their solid-state LED-based approach to replicate the mechanical motors in the Bussards, which _would_ be too complex for an Arduino. To me that wouldn't rule out the possibility that they're using an Arduino or some other off the shelf microcontroller to drive the running lights and such that have to flash.
> 
> I guess we'll find out soon. Exciting.
> 
> Shawn


Exciting? _*EXCITING*_?!?!?!

Do you have any idea how bad my shakes are just from reading _this_ board?











_*Exciting is a word and a half for it, Captain!*_


----------



## asalaw

So, *according to today's Washington Post*, she's going on display TOMORROW!!!!


----------



## Steve H

asalaw said:


> So, *according to today's Washington Post*, she's going on display TOMORROW!!!!


*yawn* It's just a hunk of wood and stuff from some old dusty TV show. hur hur hur beem meeee up, scooty! HAW HAW!

>

I envy those being able to go see it. There may be some cool swag tied in to this at the gift shop, I dunno. I'd even brave D.C. heat to do this, but not to be.


----------



## mach7

I'll be there to see her on the 6th!


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## Opus Penguin

Wish I could be there to see it, but I have a friend dropping buy to get pictures and videos.


----------



## Steve H

Opus Penguin said:


> Wish I could be there to see it, but I have a friend dropping buy to get pictures and videos.


Make sure your friend looks for 'first day' swag! I'm not saying there will be any, I have no clue but man, this kind of thing there's SOMETHING, a sticker, a pin, a teeshirt, I dunno. 

Haw. cheap-a** bottles of water with a Star Trek 50 sticker handed out to everyone passing out from the heat waiting to get in...


----------



## asalaw

alensatemybuick said:


> And it's gonna have a green tint, hooboy!


Well, it clears up some confusion for me -- Datin is quoted in his kids' book as saying the model was gray-green. And that _really_ had me stumped. I didn't comment because I was about to see it for myself anyway, so why bother?

But I'll post tomorrow, probably late, because I'm leaving work to pop down to the NASM to shoot the pix (and hopefully bankrupt myself buying awesome swag) and then I have to go back to work and make up that time. But I _will_ post my pictures after work if it kills me. And it probably will.


----------



## Steve H

asalaw said:


> Well, it clears up some confusion for me -- Datin is quoted in his kids' book as saying the model was gray-green. And that _really_ had me stumped. I didn't comment because I was about to see it for myself anyway, so why bother?
> 
> But I'll post tomorrow, probably late, because I'm leaving work to pop down to the NASM to shoot the pix (and hopefully bankrupt myself buying awesome swag) and then I have to go back to work and make up that time. But I _will_ post my pictures after work if it kills me. And it probably will.


I wasn't sure if the reference was to the hull color having a greenish tint or if he was referring to the sensor dish having a green tint to the copper. 

Either way, TOMORROW! Man, I am so damn jealous. 

I hope there's swag. I do. I hope this becomes an event worthy of the ship.

I actually think I'd be unable to sleep tonight if I were going. I am that irrationally excited. I thought I could be just super chill about it. Nope. :grin2:


----------



## RMC

*Are we still discussing this ad nauseum ?*


----------



## Steve H

Yes.


----------



## asalaw

Steve H said:


> Yes.


And speaking of ad nauseam, I've been up since 4am, because I'm too frakkin' excited to stay down. Not sure how that relates to tedious repetition, but whatever.

And speaking of ad nauseam, I've been up since 4am, because I'm too frakkin' excited to stay down. Not sure how that relates to tedious repetition, but whatever.

And speaking of ad nauseam, I've been up since 4am, because I'm too frakkin' excited to stay down. Not sure how that relates to tedious repetition, but whatever.


----------



## asalaw

GAAAAAAAAAAAUGH!!!

My morning just caved in. All my plans... slightly different.

NASM doesn't open till 10. I was planning to be there at 9.

Now I have to upturn everything and somehow deal with the chaos of... um... having an extra hour...

Never mind.


----------



## Richard Baker

Be sure to take a paper bag with you in case of hyperventilation...


----------



## dcarty

Photos and videos are starting to hit FaceBook :grin2::










edit: I nabbed this from Trek Core on FB -- the photo may be from Gary Kerr


----------



## gene1138

First video is out


----------



## scotthm

gene1138 said:


> First video is out
> 
> https://youtu.be/KkdLcFJAc0Y


If there really are no moving parts under the nacelle domes that is an amazing effect.

At first glance this restoration looks fantastic!

---------------


----------



## Richard Baker

I am really impressed!


----------



## Steve H

You know, just looking at the pictures here so far (not the video yet, stupid ATT crappy DSL sassnfrassin') there's GOT to be some fascinating explaining on how color, reflection, light and all that works, the PERCEPTION of color.

Because that Enterprise kinda sorta looks gray, blue and a little green all at the same time to me!

Dcarty's picture would make me think the ship is an almost metallic light blue! Which is funny as all heck as that's how it looked in 3rd generation 16mm syndication prints...


----------



## RossW

It's ... it's ... BEAUTIFUL!


----------



## scotthm

Here's one question answered.











Enterprise Studio Model Back on Display - AirSpaceAirSpace

---------------


----------



## dcarty

Wow...just...speechless...

Here's a new article on the restoration from the Smithsonian:

Enterprise Studio Model Back on Display - AirSpaceAirSpace


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Sweet baby Jeebus, it already looks a million times better than it did previously! Thank you Gary, thank you Bill George, thank you everyone at NASM, ILM and anyone else who contributed to this effort!


----------



## John P

Awesome job, Gary and friends!


----------



## mach7

It looks like they left off the 4th, un-lit rectangle on the unfinished side of the saucer.

But, WOW! She looks great!
I cant wait until the 6th when I'm in DC to see her myself.


----------



## Steve H

mach7 said:


> It looks like they left off the 4th, none lit rectangle on the unfinished side of the saucer.
> 
> But, WOW! She looks great!
> I cant wait until the 6th when I'm in DC to see her myself.


I don't think it was in the mandate to light anything that wasn't lit in the past. 

Recall, it appears that the those rectangles existed mainly as access points for the lights that lit the portholes on the saucer rim. Since we were to never see the port aft part of the saucer (due to the post-build addition of the lighting), no light on those windows, and since no lit windows, no lighted rectangle.

Mind, saying that, it's still somewhat a mystery to me why they didn't light that rectangle anyway back in the day, as it's pretty visible in most any 'top saucer' shot. That must have come down to the time/money equation, or physical limitations of the electrical system installed or running the wires or something. All questions that may finally be answered by the investigation and restoration.


----------



## scotthm

mach7 said:


> It looks like they left off the 4th, none lit rectangle on the unfinished side of the saucer.


I just noticed that, and I believe it was there when _The Trouble with Tribbles_ was filmed. (It seems to be barely visible in this screencap.)

http://scifanatic.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/tribbles/old_k7_approach.jpg

---------------


----------



## Opus Penguin

Here is a video! Lighting is fantastic!

FIRST LOOK: Enterprise Back in Washington | TrekCore Blog


----------



## Y3a

I just took some photos of it about 12:30 today. Not lit yet but WOW! Photos soon!

http://photos.hobbytalk.com/data/509/thumbs/DSC013061.jpg


----------



## irishtrek

I gotta agree with John P, awesome!!!!


----------



## Y3a

Another image...

http://photos.hobbytalk.com/data/509/thumbs/DSC013062.jpg

http://photos.hobbytalk.com/data/509/thumbs/DSC01308_1_.jpg


----------



## asalaw

It was lit when I got there at 11. Ran into both Malcolm and Margaret and just gushed. They knocked it out of the park. 

I'll post photos and video soon, can't do it on my phone for some stupid reason.


----------



## MartyS

Looks like they did a beautiful job with the paint and lights, and a great looking display case.


----------



## mach7

Steve H said:


> I don't think it was in the mandate to light anything that wasn't lit in the past.
> 
> Recall, it appears that the those rectangles existed mainly as access points for the lights that lit the portholes on the saucer rim. Since we were to never see the port aft part of the saucer (due to the post-build addition of the lighting), no light on those windows, and since no lit windows, no lighted rectangle.
> 
> Mind, saying that, it's still somewhat a mystery to me why they didn't light that rectangle anyway back in the day, as it's pretty visible in most any 'top saucer' shot. That must have come down to the time/money equation, or physical limitations of the electrical system installed or running the wires or something. All questions that may finally be answered by the investigation and restoration.


I realized that my wording was poor, I went back and hopefully clarified it.

There were 3 lit rectangles on the filming side and forward non filming side. These were used to add lights to the primary hull. They placed a decal on the non filming side rear to simulate that corner's light. It was not lit, but is visible in many shots.
It looks like they left that decal off the restored model.

I hope this clarifies what I was trying to say.


----------



## Steve H

mach7 said:


> I realized that my wording was poor, I went back and hopefully clarified it.
> 
> There were 3 lit rectangles on the filming side and forward non filming side. These were used to add lights to the primary hull. They placed a decal on the non filming side rear to simulate that corner's light. It was not lit, but is visible in many shots.
> It looks like they left that decal off the restored model.
> 
> I hope this clarifies what I was trying to say.


Yes, thank you. So, if that's the case, that is curious. Is it possible it IS there but nobody's focused specifically on that area yet?

Is there any logical reason they might have removed that decal for that 'Trouble with Tribbles' shot? I can't think of anything rational other than, maybe, maybe it had peeled off while the model was sitting idle? 

Do we know it was a decal? a piece of card stock rubber cemented to the hull would more closely model the plexi or glass on the other three rectangles. 

I'm just throwing off ideas here, Gary will have the 'gen' on that for sure.


----------



## Radiodugger

Wow! That thing is EPIC! It looks _almost_ as good as Mark Myers' 1:350 model! 

Doug


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> You know, just looking at the pictures here so far (not the video yet, stupid ATT crappy DSL sassnfrassin') there's GOT to be some fascinating explaining on how color, reflection, light and all that works, the PERCEPTION of color.
> 
> Because that Enterprise kinda sorta looks gray, blue and a little green all at the same time to me!
> 
> Dcarty's picture would make me think the ship is an almost metallic light blue! Which is funny as all heck as that's how it looked in 3rd generation 16mm syndication prints...


In person, the paint is a *slightly* greenish gray, but it usually photographs as plain gray. The new paint replicates the existing lacquers, which have darkened somewhat with age. The "factory-fresh" paint would have been a shade or so lighter, but we didn't want to guess at the colors for the restoration - and besides, they would have clashed with the original paint on the saucer. I'm working on the de-aged paint scheme for Polar Lights, starting with the museum colors & adjusting them to match our ref photos. 

Gary


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## Radiodugger

alensatemybuick said:


> My thanks to you, Gary and your collaborators on the restoration project.


And my thanks as well!

Doug


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> Yes, thank you. So, if that's the case, that is curious. Is it possible it IS there but nobody's focused specifically on that area yet?
> 
> Is there any logical reason they might have removed that decal for that 'Trouble with Tribbles' shot? I can't think of anything rational other than, maybe, maybe it had peeled off while the model was sitting idle?
> 
> Do we know it was a decal? a piece of card stock rubber cemented to the hull would more closely model the plexi or glass on the other three rectangles.
> 
> I'm just throwing off ideas here, Gary will have the 'gen' on that for sure.


The 4th rectangle was simply white paint, not a decal. It now has a grayish-yellowish-greenish cast, thanks to age and the transparent green they sprayed on the upper saucer during the conversion into the Production version.

Gary


----------



## Gary K

scotthm said:


> If there really are no moving parts under the nacelle domes that is an amazing effect.
> 
> At first glance this restoration looks fantastic!
> 
> ---------------


There are spinning domes inside the nacelles. We all twisted Margaret's arm to okay motors, since there really was no other way to accomplish the effect.

Gary


----------



## mach7

Gary K said:


> The 4th rectangle was simply white paint, not a decal. It now has a grayish-yellowish-greenish cast, thanks to age and the transparent green they sprayed on the upper saucer during the conversion into the Production version.
> 
> Gary


Thanks very much for the info and all you've done on her!


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Gary K said:


> There are spinning domes inside the nacelles. We all twisted Margaret's arm to okay motors, since there really was no other way to accomplish the effect.
> 
> Gary


So, I assume, this is why the lights and motors will only be turned on for short periods three times a day, correct?


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Gary K said:


> In person, the paint is a *slightly* greenish gray, but it usually photographs as plain gray. The new paint replicates the existing lacquers, which have darkened somewhat with age. The "factory-fresh" paint would have been a shade or so lighter, but we didn't want to guess at the colors for the restoration - and besides, they would have clashed with the original paint on the saucer. I'm working on the de-aged paint scheme for Polar Lights, starting with the museum colors & adjusting them to match our ref photos.
> 
> Gary


So now that the model is on display, when can we expect things like paint guides, official photos of details, restoration notes, etc. (ballpark)? IIRC, the Enterprise design is the intellectual property of CBS and Paramount, but the restoration was done (and funded) by the Smithsonian, and by extension the American taxpayers. So what are the limits on what we can see, what we'll be allowed to know, and when might this all happen? (Again, ballpark)


----------



## Captain Han Solo

One of the cool things(of many!), I see is the three circles,grooves, on the lower saucer hull appear to be orange in color...


----------



## Gary K

Hunk A Junk said:


> So, I assume, this is why the lights and motors will only be turned on for short periods three times a day, correct?


The museum will have set times during the day (not sure of the schedule yet) when the Enterprise will come alive. We didn't want to tempt fate by running the motors 8 hours a day.

Gary


----------



## Gary K

Captain Han Solo said:


> One of the cool things(of many!), I see is the three circles,grooves, on the lower saucer hull appear to be orange in color...


Actually an overspray of semi-transparent tan/raw sienna acrylic. I'm virtually certain that the rings were originally sprayed with the same tan-tinted shellac that they used to create the tan arc (I hate the term "rust ring") on the upper saucer.

Gary


----------



## Steve H

Tinted shellac? So, *not* clear that corrupted over time, but actual, intended, desired, tinted shellac?

That seems surprising. Is it surprising?


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> Tinted shellac? So, *not* clear that corrupted over time, but actual, intended, desired, tinted shellac?
> 
> That seems surprising. Is it surprising?


Not really. For unknown reasons, they also sprayed green-tinted shellac over ONLY the upper saucer, and they may have used some transparent grays & browns in the grid-centric weathering, like the ILM people did. John Goodson says he's seen transparent colors fade over time, so it's possible that the weathering was more noticeable years ago, during filming.

Gary


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> Not really. For unknown reasons, they also sprayed green-tinted shellac over ONLY the upper saucer, and they may have used some transparent grays & browns in the grid-centric weathering, like the ILM people did. John Goodson says he's seen transparent colors fade over time, so it's possible that the weathering was more noticeable years ago, during filming.
> 
> Gary


huh. I wonder if the green tint was chosen to 'cool' the reflected color temp of the hull, given that it's that giant flat-ish surface.

Is it possible that colored artist ink was employed, same as it was for the nacelle domes? I'm assuming chemical analysis could tell the difference.


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> huh. I wonder if the green tint was chosen to 'cool' the reflected color temp of the hull, given that it's that giant flat-ish surface.
> 
> Is it possible that colored artist ink was employed, same as it was for the nacelle domes? I'm assuming chemical analysis could tell the difference.


No ink. I've got the analysis around here someplace, and the tan was a shellac (or similar clear carrier).

Richard "Ghostbusters" Edlund is familiar with the film stock they used, and he said there was no technical reason to use the green color.

Gary


----------



## edge10

New Video from Trek Core:






Bravo Zulu to all in involved! She really does look beautiful.


----------



## jheilman

I was just going to post that. You win!:grin2:


----------



## asalaw

OK, here's what I got today. I didn't bother with too many pix today, since the construction railing is still up and you can't get that close yet. Margaret Weitekamp said the railing goes away Friday, which is the Grand Opening, so I'm taking her word for that. I'll be at the all-nighter thingy snapping away till I go through all 12 GB open space on my phone and fill up my 2GB CF card.

Gary, you and the team did an incredible job. She hasn't looked this good in the whole 42 years NASM has had her, but that's in the rear view now. You guys should be immensely proud. Thank you. 


















































I realize they look very grainy, I had to push the brightness in Photoshop. I'll use my flash on Friday -- which, BTW, makes the model turn light blue-gray. Imagine that.


----------



## SteveR

Perfect. She has returned.


----------



## JediDad

Gary K said:


> Not really. For unknown reasons, they also sprayed green-tinted shellac over ONLY the upper saucer, and they may have used some transparent grays & browns in the grid-centric weathering, like the ILM people did. John Goodson says he's seen transparent colors fade over time, so it's possible that the weathering was more noticeable years ago, during filming.
> 
> Gary


Gary,

I don't know if this has been previously addressed, but will you or anyone else involved be releasing in depth behind the scenes restoration photos, or even videos? It would be neat to see videos of the ship being painted, things like that. That would make a great Blu-Ray!


----------



## JediDad

Nice photos asalaw!!! :thumbsup:


----------



## Joel

She looks beautiful. No nacelle droop either.


----------



## Steve H

Green light on the dome over the shuttle bay doors? Huh. 

Man that is a beautiful thing all lit up like that. I must have something in my eye. shut up, I'm not crying.


----------



## asalaw

Gary K said:


> Richard "Ghostbusters" Edlund is familiar with the film stock they used, and he said there was no technical reason to use the green color.


Also Richard "designed a new optical printer for Empire" Edlund. Big fan.

That's probably the most surprising thing I've learned today! I would've sworn the green was to tint away from blue if they got any spill from the screen. But if so, it didn't work anyway, because there are _plenty_ of shots of the model with spill holes in the saucer. That stage just wasn't deep enough to get enough distance from the screen to eliminate spill.

May this be the first of a thousand little juicy morsels to come.

So this is what bottomless gratitude feels like...


----------



## Gary K

JediDad said:


> Gary,
> 
> I don't know if this has been previously addressed, but will you or anyone else involved be releasing in depth behind the scenes restoration photos, or even videos? It would be neat to see videos of the ship being painted, things like that. That would make a great Blu-Ray!


I'm not sure exactly what the future holds, but probably *something* will happen. We've got a lot of photos, but not much video. The ILM people didn't want the videographers around because they slowed down production.

Gary


----------



## Gary K

asalaw said:


> Also Richard "designed a new optical printer for Empire" Edlund. Big fan.
> 
> That's probably the most surprising thing I've learned today! I would've sworn the green was to tint away from blue if they got any spill from the screen. But if so, it didn't work anyway, because there are _plenty_ of shots of the model with spill holes in the saucer. That stage just wasn't deep enough to get enough distance from the screen to eliminate spill.
> 
> May this be the first of a thousand little juicy morsels to come.
> 
> So this is what bottomless gratitude feels like...


I keep having a horrible thought - What if the green tint, the green shadowing, and green turbolift ONLY on the upper saucer were simply an artistic choice, and that's how Jefferies intended for the ship to look? A harbinger of Jefferies' gray & green color scheme for the Klingon D7?

Gary


----------



## asalaw

Gary K said:


> I keep having a horrible thought - What if the green tint, the green shadowing, and green turbolift ONLY on the upper saucer were simply an artistic choice, and that's how Jefferies intended for the ship to look? A harbinger of Jefferies' gray & green color scheme for the Klingon D7?
> 
> Gary


HOLY NEVER-THOUGHT-OF-THAT, BATMAN!!! :smile2:


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> I keep having a horrible thought - What if the green tint, the green shadowing, and green turbolift ONLY on the upper saucer were simply an artistic choice, and that's how Jefferies intended for the ship to look? A harbinger of Jefferies' gray & green color scheme for the Klingon D7?
> 
> Gary


Doesn't have to be a horrible thought, just have to be open to what deeper context might be going on and tossing out those preconceptions. Right? 

I do think it all goes to that 'stage makeup' shading that the D7 employed, using color to define and contrast shapes so they didn't get lost when effects went thru the optical printer. Again, context, '60s color NTSC image AND tens of thousands of B&W sets.

Was there any evidence of anti-flare (aka dullcoat) oversprayed on the finish? If there's tinted shellac sprayed on they'd have to take the gloss out of it for shooting I would think, or that would have filmed really 'hot'. I would assume that anti-flare would also pick up some grime. 

Maybe not. It's not like the Enterprise was CONSTANTLY banged about and handled. It's not like the poor Thunderbirds miniatures.


----------



## Steve H

BTW, special kudos to those on the team that lobbied for motors for the nacelle effects. Score one for Old School!


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> Was there any evidence of anti-flare (aka dullcoat) oversprayed on the finish? If there's tinted shellac sprayed on they'd have to take the gloss out of it for shooting I would think, or that would have filmed really 'hot'. I would assume that anti-flare would also pick up some grime.
> 
> Maybe not. It's not like the Enterprise was CONSTANTLY banged about and handled. It's not like the poor Thunderbirds miniatures.


In our hi-res photos, we could tell that areas on the model were scuffed up, and the ILM people were constantly pointing out areas of the model that had been dull-coated. Part of the red side banner on the sec hull was almost grayish-pink from all the layers of clear spray on it.

Gary


----------



## asalaw

While we're on the subject of aesthetics...

I took the picture below with my dinky zoom lens all the way in. It's nominally 55mm, but it's for a small sensor, not a full-frame 35mm one, so I'm just guessing it's more like a 75mm production lens. I hadn't noticed this before, but look what even slight telephoto compression does to the saucer. It _really_ gives it _mass_. It _feels_ like a giant starship. I'm sure they must've done this on the show now and then. With all that light, I'm sure they could get enough DoF, even with a longer lens like that. Thoughts?

*Sorry guys. I have removed my photos because Paul Jazman posted them on FaceBook without my permission or attribution. I will not be posting any more images of the Enterprise, and maybe not post any of my own pictures at all anymore. If I can't expect the common courtesy of respecting the ownership of my own images in such a simple way, I'm no longer interested in sharing them.
*


----------



## Proper2

Aye, she's a beaut!!!


----------



## Trek Ace

Gary K said:


> I keep having a horrible thought - What if the green tint, the green shadowing, and green turbolift ONLY on the upper saucer were simply an artistic choice, and that's how Jefferies intended for the ship to look? A harbinger of Jefferies' gray & green color scheme for the Klingon D7?
> 
> Gary


BINGO! (You win a cookie.)


----------



## Gary K

Trek Ace said:


> BINGO! (You win a cookie.)


If you know anything concrete, please speak up now! All the principal players are no longer with us.

Gary


----------



## JediDad

Gary K said:


> I'm not sure exactly what the future holds, but probably *something* will happen. We've got a lot of photos, but not much video. The ILM people didn't want the videographers around because they slowed down production.
> 
> Gary


Good enough, thanks Gary. I know we are all greatly looking forward to any future info.


----------



## MGagen

Gary,

From the bottom of my heart, to you and all the restoration staff, a sincere thank you. You guys have done wonders. Thank you too, to the Smithsonian, for taking the trouble to give our favorite Starship back the beauty of her youth.

I can't wait to learn all the details in the coming days. Seeing some of the archival images that are not embargoed on the Smithsonian website today was also fantastic. The new, high resolution images from the 1975 college display left me speechless.

Well done, everyone!

M.


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> I'm not sure exactly what the future holds, but probably *something* will happen. We've got a lot of photos, but not much video. The ILM people didn't want the videographers around because they slowed down production.
> 
> Gary


I made some thoughts way back when that a coffee table book about the model and the restoration would be an excellent memorial for the project as well as a nice income stream for NA&SM, but of course anything of that nature has to clear CBS/Paramount/Viacom's rights. Given the reality of publishing they probably couldn't get it released before the end of the year. 

I hope for something. I like to be able to stare at pictures without needing a computer.


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## scotthm

Gary K said:


> I'm not sure exactly what the future holds, but probably *something* will happen.


Now that the restoration is finished and the model is back on display, can you give us an estimate for the release date of an updated painting guide?

---------------


----------



## John P

Gary, a question - I know the root of the deflector housing had the brown weathering around it (which some people thought was a red or copper solid ring over the years). But I see the same brown weathering on the fronts of the (sensor?) "blocks" now too. I feel stupid even _asking _in the light of all the research I _know _you guys did, but I never got the impression the original had that.


----------



## edge10

alensatemybuick said:


> Could you provide a link to those? Many thanks, could not find on my own...
> 
> 
> On edit; found the links, I think the last one is especially revealing:
> 
> The starship Enterprise at Golden West College | National Air and Space Museum
> The starship Enterprise at Golden West College | National Air and Space Museum
> The starship Enterprise at Golden West College | National Air and Space Museum


I think the middle one (showing the top) is most revealing... and that doesn't even count the creepy kid staring at the camera:

The starship Enterprise at Golden West College | National Air and Space Museum

The side view also shows the weathering really well:

http://airandspace.si.edu/explore-and-learn/multimedia/detail.cfm?id=15301


----------



## Steve H

Well, one good thing about the sensor dish missing back in the '72 college appearance. Rock solid proof that the copper color on the 'rings' inside the sensor support piece goes all the way and not just the 'lip' or front edges 

Also, first time I recall seeing that the 'shuttle beacon' IS green, because every shot I remember from the show I recall it being 'white'. 

I KNEW there had to be a camera club or a photog nerd at the college that took a bunch of pics.


----------



## asalaw

And still more -- the NASM's own shots of the finished model.

Studio Model of Starship Enterprise | National Air and Space Museum
Studio Model of Starship Enterprise | National Air and Space Museum
Studio Model of Starship Enterprise | National Air and Space Museum


----------



## TomD66

Spectacular! Thank you to everyone involved in the restoration project. It looks beautiful, and I can't wait to get to D.C. some day soon to see it in person. Thank you Gary for all of your efforts and all of your updates during the restoration. I'm looking forward to the new color charts because I have a couple or three TOS Enterprises in various states of completion.:wink2:


----------



## scotpens

asalaw said:


> I took the picture below with my dinky zoom lens all the way in. It's nominally 55mm, but it's for a small sensor, not a full-frame 35mm one, so I'm just guessing it's more like a 75mm production lens. I hadn't noticed this before, but look what even slight telephoto compression does to the saucer. It _really_ gives it _mass_. It _feels_ like a giant starship. I'm sure they must've done this on the show now and then.


I'm not into photography, but isn't a wide-angle lens (which exaggerates perspective) normally used to make objects -- and sets -- look bigger? A telephoto lens has the opposite effect -- it compresses distance.


----------



## asalaw

scotpens said:


> I'm not into photography, but isn't a wide-angle lens (which exaggerates perspective) normally used to make objects -- and sets -- look bigger? A telephoto lens has the opposite effect -- it compresses distance.


Sorry, I didn't mean _bigger_, per se. More massive, more substantial, because the longer lens compresses the shapes into a shallower depth. 

For all I know, they never went above a 45mm. I just think it's an interesting look, and I wonder if they didn't at least try it.


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## Joel

asalaw said:


> Sorry, I didn't mean _bigger_, per se. More massive, more substantial, because the longer lens compresses the shapes into a shallower depth.
> 
> For all I know, they never went above a 45mm. I just think it's an interesting look, and I wonder if they didn't at least try it.


Yeah, depends on the shot, but I didn't think they really went for a really wide angle lens on the model. Using a wide angle lens does not help miniatures, really. Depth of field does. Close the aperture down as much as possible so that everything close and far are equally in focus. That's what helps. Especially for this miniature which is not all that small.

To me, the biggest mistake made while photographing Greg Jein's 5' Enterprise model for the DS9 "Trials and Tribble-ations" episode, was using a really wide angle lens almost all the time - super distorting the perspective and making the saucer look so much thicker than it really was, while the nacelles diminished down to two small sticks in the background.


----------



## Joel

alensatemybuick said:


> In the oct. 1967 issue of American Cinematographer, it mentions that Linwood Dunn at least filmed the Enterprise using an 18mm lens, which "made it possible to accentuate the speed of travel as well as retain an adequate depth of field".


18mm? That is mighty wide. 

Those fly-by shots of the 3-footer used in "The Cage"... now those were very wide. But it doesn't seem like anything that wide was ever used on the 11-footer.


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## RossW

alensatemybuick said:


> On a different subject, can anyone recommend a paint to use for frosting my nacelle cap domes? Something that will achieve the right color and let the lighting effects show through?


The inner dome should be clear, not frosted, with tapering spokes. The outer dome was misted with a light orange ink, so a light coat of Tamiya Clear Orange should do the trick (that's what I'm using). Frost the outer dome first with super-fine steel wool, going in circular motions. I found the Frosting sprays (e.g. Krylon) to be too thick. Finally, spray Dullcoate or some flat clear coat over the outer dome, both inside and outside.


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## RossW

alensatemybuick said:


> Thanks! My, um, outer domes are already frosted...but is that Tamiya Clear Orange close to the color seen on the newly restored 11 footer (which almost looks close to brown)?


It's orange. Since the 1/350 model is so much smaller than the 11' miniature, I think you always want to go lighter. But you could add Tamiya smoke to it to darken it, maybe with a small amount of Tamiya Clear Red, too.


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## MGagen

I've been poring over the archival images that the Smithsonian has released and have noticed something that isn't immediately obvious. Look what else was on display at that college back in '75:


Click to enlarge.

No doubt there are photos floating around showing the shuttlecraft miniature in its immediate post-studio condition. If you had a camera that day, wouldn't you take a few snaps of it as well?

This is an exciting time to be a Trek Geek. I suspect more reference photos will come to light over time due to the Smithsonian stirring up the pot...

M.


----------



## Steve H

On nacelle domes and the 1/350 Enterprise, I've wondered if there's another way to get the proper effect. Decals.

See, my thinking, getting the proper density of 'frosted' on the clear plastic (enough to diffuse the light, not so much to completely blur all the sources) and the proper density of transparent orange seems a very very delicate balance. 

I wonder if a series of decals, carefully designed to conform to the dome and meet without overlapping, might provide that right combo. 

yeah, OK, so I can't actually do anything with that but there are those who could explore that idea because they have the mad skillz and proper tools.


----------



## Steve H

MGagen said:


> I've been poring over the archival images that the Smithsonian has released and have noticed something that isn't immediately obvious. Look what else was on display at that college back in '75:
> 
> 
> Click to enlarge.
> 
> No doubt there are photos floating around showing the shuttlecraft miniature in its immediate post-studio condition. If you had a camera that day, wouldn't you take a few snaps of it as well?
> 
> This is an exciting time to be a Trek Geek. I suspect more reference photos will come to light over time due to the Smithsonian stirring up the pot...
> 
> M.



Good catch, but I question. Is that the actual prop or is that a fan-made model? If you look at other pics made available you'll see other Trek and Space models spread around, including an early NASA shuttle of the lifting body type, with the 3 engines in the back it makes me think it was one of the Lockheed designs. There's also an AMT Klingon kit hanging. 

Either way, you're right. If the original Galileo model was there darn right this camera nerd was taking photos of it. No way he wasn't.


----------



## MGagen

According to the sign on the wall in that other photo, the lifting body was from the TV movie "Earth II," (the one that chases after the reentering warhead). I suspect the studio simply gave the organizer whatever models they had on hand in addition to the big E.

That shuttlecraft looks too large to be an AMT kit, which came out the year before this event. It could be a large scale fan scratch build, but I think it is more likely just what it appears to be.

I met the organizer (he's the guy with the dapper '70s vintage handlebar mousache in one photo) at a convention back when he was getting ready to auction off the decals sheets he still had. Someone hereabouts my know how to contact him. I am sure he could confirm whether they had the original shuttlecraft, too.

M.

P.S.: I just found an image of the lifting body approaching the space station from "Earth II"


----------



## Steve H

MGagen said:


> According to the sign on the wall in that other photo, the lifting body was from the TV movie "Earth II," (the one that chases after the reentering warhead). I suspect the studio simply gave the organizer whatever models they had on hand in addition to the big E.
> 
> That shuttlecraft looks too large to be an AMT kit, which came out the year before this event. It could be a large scale fan scratch build, but I think it is more likely just what it appears to be.
> 
> I met the organizer (he's the guy with the dapper '70s vintage handlebar mousache in one photo) at a convention back when he was getting ready to auction off the decals sheets he still had. Someone hereabouts my know how to contact him. I am sure he could confirm whether they had the original shuttlecraft, too.
> 
> M.
> 
> P.S.: I just found an image of the lifting body approaching the space station from "Earth II"



Great catch on the 'Earth II' lifting body! I THOUGHT that looked familiar! You just don't get that good a look at it in the TV movie, on recent re-watching (thank you Warner Archives) the one thing that jumped out at me, they seem to have tried to either be super logical or save money (or both) by having the cockpit area of the lifting body and their 'space tug' share enough design elements they could get away with using the same cockpit set with minimal redressing. 

I loved that stupid movie. There's so much it got wrong but it was so forward thinking and tried hard. I suspect a weekly TV series would have been TERRIBLE.


----------



## Gary K

John P said:


> Gary, a question - I know the root of the deflector housing had the brown weathering around it (which some people thought was a red or copper solid ring over the years). But I see the same brown weathering on the fronts of the (sensor?) "blocks" now too. I feel stupid even _asking _in the light of all the research I _know _you guys did, but I never got the impression the original had that.


You should our uber-secret color photos (photos, not screen caps). They applied brown space dirt all over the ship - albeit relatively subtly. On the leading edges of practically every part that stuck out, on the sides, and even aligned with the red banner on the sec hull (??). The only green weathering was on the upper saucer, and brown space dirt (with a smattering of dark gray engine exhaust) was everywhere else.

Gary


----------



## RossW

Gary - do you know if the amber lights (which seem to blink, but much more slowly than the coloured lights) are kinda radial shaped? They don't look round but it's hard to tell because of the inner spinning dome (so glad they ended up using a motor; that look just cannot be replicated with solid state lights). They look sorta rectangular, positioned radially. Does that make sense?


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> You should our uber-secret color photos (photos, not screen caps). They applied brown space dirt all over the ship - albeit relatively subtly. On the leading edges of practically every part that stuck out, on the sides, and even aligned with the red banner on the sec hull (??). The only green weathering was on the upper saucer, and brown space dirt (with a smattering of dark gray engine exhaust) was everywhere else.
> 
> Gary


I believe there is only one rational reply/comment to this, and I think I may speak for us all.

:surprise:


----------



## Gary K

RossW said:


> Gary - do you know if the amber lights (which seem to blink, but much more slowly than the coloured lights) are kinda radial shaped? They don't look round but it's hard to tell because of the inner spinning dome (so glad they ended up using a motor; that look just cannot be replicated with solid state lights). They look sorta rectangular, positioned radially. Does that make sense?


I know what you mean. That's why I initially thought they were C7 bulbs that were pointing outwards. The guy who repaired the lights at Golden West in '72 estimated that there were 16-24 mini Xmas lights in each nacelle. The strands of wires were wrapped round & round nails that were located around the inner perimeter of the inner dome, and that left the center part relatively open. Our photos lead me to suspect that 5 lights per dome were positioned so that they pointed inward toward the central shaft.

Gary


----------



## RossW

Gary K said:


> I know what you mean. That's why I initially thought they were C7 bulbs that were pointing outwards. The guy who repaired the lights at Golden West in '72 estimated that there were 16-24 mini Xmas lights in each nacelle. The strands of wires were wrapped round & round nails that were located around the inner perimeter of the inner dome, and that left the center part relatively open. Our photos lead me to suspect that 5 lights per dome were positioned so that they pointed inward toward the central shaft.
> 
> Gary


Thanks muchly! I'm going to bend my 5mm amber LEDs inward and grind down the plastic to be slightly teardrop-shaped . and see what that looks like.


----------



## al loew2

Oh, that is spectacular! The team did an outstanding job...thank you for bringing the old girl back to life!


----------



## Torgo

asalaw said:


> And still more -- the NASM's own shots of the finished model.
> 
> Studio Model of Starship Enterprise | National Air and Space Museum
> Studio Model of Starship Enterprise | National Air and Space Museum
> Studio Model of Starship Enterprise | National Air and Space Museum


Hello new desktop wallpaper! Yoink!


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## Proper2

Torgo said:


> Hello new desktop wallpaper! Yoink!


OK, don't shoot me or anything, but on the third link do the concentric circles on the lower saucer look very unevenly done in the front? Was the original like that? :surprise:


----------



## Gary K

Proper2 said:


> OK, don't shoot me or anything, but on the third link do the concentric circles on the lower saucer look very unevenly done in the front? Was the original like that?


You betcha! The lower hull is warped in front - the result of a vacuforming gone slightly awry and/or deformation due to heat buildup inside the saucer. In addition, the rings, themselves, were inscribed rather unevenly.

Gary


----------



## Gary K

alensatemybuick said:


> Ok, so here's a question or three: how much of Ed Miarecki's work remains? Are the outer nacelle domes the ones he installed, simply painted? How about the delicate parallel lines he repaired on the "protuberances" on either side of the forward secondary hull? The reactor cooling loops / intercoolers?


Off the top of my head, I'd say very little was retained. The nacelle domes and the interior lighting are all new, but the "protuberances" were all there, except for one that had broken off again. I'm not sure if Ed replaced any ribbing on the intercoolers or control reactor. We actually had to remove some on the non-camera side to match our ref photos. It's pretty sad when your budget can't afford a few 1/16" square strips of wood!

Gary


----------



## Gregatron

Gary K said:


> You betcha! The lower hull is warped in front - the result of a vacuforming gone slightly awry and/or deformation due to heat buildup inside the saucer. In addition, the rings, themselves, were inscribed rather unevenly.
> 
> Gary


Yeah, the warpage is visible as far back as the first pilot. I noticed it in some of the surviving film clips from the post-"Cage", pre-"Where No Man..."/Pilot 1.5 test shots.


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> I know what you mean. That's why I initially thought they were C7 bulbs that were pointing outwards. The guy who repaired the lights at Golden West in '72 estimated that there were 16-24 mini Xmas lights in each nacelle. The strands of wires were wrapped round & round nails that were located around the inner perimeter of the inner dome, and that left the center part relatively open. Our photos lead me to suspect that 5 lights per dome were positioned so that they pointed inward toward the central shaft.
> 
> Gary


That makes a lot of sense. Don't forget (and I know you haven't  ) the broken mirror pieces glued in there as well. I would believe that any time the nacelles were handled those Christmas tree bulbs would shift some, as well as color placement might change as bulbs were replaced.


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## arg

First of all, mega-kudos to the entire Enterprise team (expert advisory committee and NASM restoration folks) - she looks spectacular!

Two quick observations/questions (likely in Gary's wheelhouse):

1 - The shuttlebay approach lights show outer and midway lights as red, with the center light green. The midway lights had in the past been portrayed as yellow/amber, (i.e. entire pattern across the fantail being red horizontal, yellow/amber vertical, green horizontal, yellow/amber vertical, red horizontal). Was new information uncovered during the restoration research?

2 - The saucer rim single rectangular window at the 10:30 position (port bow) in past photos had two windows there. Since the model is supposed to portray her in the "Trouble With Tribbles" filming time frame, was a second window painted on the model sometime later?

Glad I waited to start building it!


----------



## berropablo

Hi Gary, I´ve been following this thread since the beginning. I must say that you achived a masterful restoration. Unfortunately It´s very difficult I´ll see her in person since I don´t live in the US. 
I´ve been recollecting pictures and information about the Enterprise since the nineties from different forums and noticed that the old "laser beam emmiter thingy" is different in shape than the restored one. Does it have a reason? I mean, different versions, etc?

I´ve also noticed that the "orange" circles where always there. We just didn´t know what we where looking at.
PS: I will be able to post the corresponding images in two posts. Sorry!


----------



## Gary K

arg said:


> First of all, mega-kudos to the entire Enterprise team (expert advisory committee and NASM restoration folks) - she looks spectacular!
> 
> Two quick observations/questions (likely in Gary's wheelhouse):
> 
> 1 - The shuttlebay approach lights show outer and midway lights as red, with the center light green. The midway lights had in the past been portrayed as yellow/amber, (i.e. entire pattern across the fantail being red horizontal, yellow/amber vertical, green horizontal, yellow/amber vertical, red horizontal). Was new information uncovered during the restoration research?
> 
> 2 - The saucer rim single rectangular window at the 10:30 position (port bow) in past photos had two windows there. Since the model is supposed to portray her in the "Trouble With Tribbles" filming time frame, was a second window painted on the model sometime later?
> 
> Glad I waited to start building it!


The lights have always been green in the center, yellow/amber on either side, and red on the outside. These would serve the same function as the manual approach lights on an aircraft carrier. The apparent color might vary, depending on how the photographer shot the photo.

The fwd of the two windows got painted over, presumably during the conversion into the Production version. 

Gary


----------



## Steve H

alensatemybuick said:


> Thanks. I have often wondered if, in addition to being a matter of saving money and time, it almost became a "game" of sorts to figure out ways of saving effort. Perhaps a "creedo" of modelers of that era to intentionally leave off details that would never show onscreen because they could. Like the left-most rectangular tabs under/behind each nacelle cap.


copy and pasted to prevent erasure 

"Thanks. I have often wondered if, in addition to being a matter of saving money and time, it almost became a "game" of sorts to figure out ways of saving effort. Perhaps a "creedo" of modelers of that era to intentionally leave off details that would never show onscreen because they could. Like the left-most rectangular tabs under/behind each nacelle cap."

That's a rather silly thing to say, you know. It was a job. That's all it was, a job. There's no time to goof around with planning anything like that, there would be no 'creedo', no understanding between model makers employed in the film and television industry to even think like that. 

They were pros. They had a job to do for _x_ money and in _y_ time and it was their reputation on the line every single job.

And context, people just didn't THINK that way back then.


----------



## John P

Gary K said:


> You should our uber-secret color photos (photos, not screen caps). They applied brown space dirt all over the ship - albeit relatively subtly. On the leading edges of practically every part that stuck out, on the sides, and even aligned with the red banner on the sec hull (??). The only green weathering was on the upper saucer, and brown space dirt (with a smattering of dark gray engine exhaust) was everywhere else.
> 
> Gary


I saw it in the 1972 Golden West college photos right after my post, please forgive me for doubting.


----------



## RossW

Sorry to keep pestering you, Gary, but do you know why the 'ion pod' strobe at the aft end of the secondary hull isn't flashing?


----------



## Hunk A Junk

So how was this "space dirt" (which should be an official Tamiya color, btw) applied on the original model and by the ILMers? Did both use airbrushes or was it drybrushed?

So, Gary, time to fess up. What was your biggest "Wow, I got that wrong" discovery while working on this project? Or, perhaps, was there anything that made you realize us modelers have been getting "x" wrong all these years.


----------



## John P

Gary, were the markings applied by paint or decal? I think I see decal film around the nacelle numbers in one picture!


----------



## Gary K

John P said:


> Gary, were the markings applied by paint or decal? I think I see decal film around the nacelle numbers in one picture!


Both. The Pilot font markings on the left nacelle and the frame numbers were painted on, like the originals, but all the other markings were decals, again, like the originals. The ones you saw in the photo were freshly applied, and hadn't been treated yet.

Gary


----------



## Gary K

RossW said:


> Sorry to keep pestering you, Gary, but do you know why the 'ion pod' strobe at the aft end of the secondary hull isn't flashing?


I don't know, but I'll check. Maybe they hadn't gotten everything working when they filmed the model. Thanks for pointing it out.

Gary


----------



## MartyS

No more dark grey on the intercooler "tabs" and inside flat area is a surprise.


----------



## Gary K

Hunk A Junk said:


> So how was this "space dirt" (which should be an official Tamiya color, btw) applied on the original model and by the ILMers? Did both use airbrushes or was it drybrushed?
> 
> So, Gary, time to fess up. What was your biggest "Wow, I got that wrong" discovery while working on this project? Or, perhaps, was there anything that made you realize us modelers have been getting "x" wrong all these years.


There were no major discoveries, but a number of smaller ones. For example, I'd never noticed that there are no grid lines between the twin red stripes aft of the B/C deck, and the area was slightly darker than the rest of the upper saucer. There was still some of the dark tan paint in the lower saucer rings when I saw it in 1991, but at the time, I thought it was dirt & grime.

Gary


----------



## Gary K

Gary K said:


> I don't know, but I'll check. Maybe they hadn't gotten everything working when they filmed the model. Thanks for pointing it out.
> 
> Gary


I just checked with Malcolm Collum at the museum. He said that their lighting guy was messing with the controls through much of the media preview, so he's guessing that the light must have been off for a bit. Otherwise, it works correctly when they power it up.

WHEW!

Gary


----------



## Light23

Gary,Why did the ILM guys add another ring below the third engraved line but above the lower sensor 'nipple'?
















And they didn't recreate the weathered 'middle finger' on the neck but they added weathering where there wasn't any weathering to begin with on the lower dome?
http://i.imgur.com/HWcTobp.jpg

Edit:
Never mind I see the line now. (But it wasn't that dark.)









Why are the white lower running lights the wrong color temp. They look pale green.


----------



## asalaw

Well, after nearly a year of really good fiscal discipline, I snagged a 1/350 PL kit yesterday. Sweet price, $114.95 shipped. I've put in a pre-order for the lighting kit reissue on CultTVman, and shortly I'm going to start clearing away my bench and acquiring paints...

Speaking of which, Gary, are we going to see FS or RAL color info at some point? Me, I'm gonna eyeball it (yes, I know I'm a heretic), since I have very convenient access to the model, and the NASM beauty shots themselves are very good color reproductions. (I assume there were color-balanced LED lights, and careful balancing of the camera?) Also, if your info is going to be a while in coming (because you're quite busy, I assume), I just don't want to wait any longer. There's no real need to for those of us in the DC/MD/VA area.

But it will be great to get the final word from on high about what's actually on the model.


----------



## asalaw

Light23 said:


> Gary,Why did the ILM guys add another ring below the third engraved line but above the lower sensor 'nipple'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they didn't recreate the weathered 'middle finger' on the neck but they added weathering where there wasn't any weathering to begin with on the lower dome?
> http://i.imgur.com/HWcTobp.jpg
> 
> Edit:
> Never mind I see the line now. (But it wasn't that dark.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are the white lower running lights the wrong color temp. They look pale green.


They don't look that way in person. AND, BTW, the ion pod was blinking when I was there.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/55142396/Big E NASM vid 6.28.16.mov


----------



## Gary K

Light23 said:


> Gary,Why did the ILM guys add another ring below the third engraved line but above the lower sensor 'nipple'?


Because it's plainly visible in our hi-res photos.



Light23 said:


> And they didn't recreate the weathered 'middle finger' on the neck but they added weathering where there wasn't any weathering to begin with on the lower dome?


There's a band of brown weathering around the base of the lower dome. I'm not sure what you mean by the weathered 'middle finger' on the neck.

Gary


----------



## Steve H

OK, so we're looking and looking and looking. 

Gary, just a couple questions from me, one is 'old business'. Old business, you had dropped a hint of things found that, well, made you say "well why did they do THAT?", I'm guessing the 'space mud' is one of those things, and other items of super curious 'low budget' decisions as well?

And I'm still kind of bugged by the shuttlebay beacon being green. A couple of pics (including from '72) seem to show it was green AND white, and I only recall it being white on TV but I accept that could well be an artifact of multi-dupe syndication prints and not being a part of the ship I really focused on while watching. So is the beacon alternating colors, or like an aircraft carrier you see one color from one angle and another from a different approach (which would be not only logical but some impressive forward planning on their part  )?

BTW, it was impressive to actually be able to see stuff within that beacon dome. I know it was in the 1/350 kit but I had never seen it in the miniature. So neat. 

Did I thank you for your hard work and willingness to share and discuss? Thank you!


----------



## asalaw

Re-watching my video, I remember another issue from the vfx -- the Bussard effect got massively washed out on the show sometimes. If you look at the opening shot of the "Next Week" trailers, it looks like it's off-white with a pale silver vane spinning under it. It looks better in other episodes, but it still got very badly washed out.


----------



## Light23

Gary K said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by the weathered 'middle finger' on the neck.
> 
> Gary


I am referring to the original weathering to the side of the base of the dorsal/neck and the front facing lower edge of the dorsal/neck.

The weathering appears to be half way up the front facing edge of the dorsal (in the middle of the front dorsal in a small 'strip' or "middle finger"), with a little area of no weathering and then a small strip of weathering again near the saucer. 

























I don't see that on the newly painted version. (Only light weathering on the side.)


----------



## Gary K

Light23 said:


> I am referring to the original weathering to the side of the base of the dorsal/neck and the front facing lower edge of the dorsal/neck.
> 
> The weathering appears to be half way up the front facing edge of the dorsal (in the middle of the front dorsal in a small 'strip' or "middle finger"), with a little area of no weathering and then a small strip of weathering again near the saucer.
> I don't see that on the newly painted version. (Only light weathering on the side.)


You're seeing a shadow or something, since flash-lit, hi-res photos don't show anything on the leading edge. The new paint on the dorsal is based solely on our hi-res ref photos.

Gary


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## RossW

Gary K said:


> I just checked with Malcolm Collum at the museum. He said that their lighting guy was messing with the controls through much of the media preview, so he's guessing that the light must have been off for a bit. Otherwise, it works correctly when they power it up.
> 
> WHEW!
> 
> Gary


Fantastic! God, this has got me giddier than a school kid. So happy to see the Smithsonian give such love and attention to one of the greatest cultural artifacts of my generation (IMHO). Such a spectacular result from all the hard work of those involved.


----------



## Steve H

You know, I've suddenly had a REALLY stupid question pop into my head. Just how often was the 11 foot miniature put on the stage and filmed? There are a bunch of 'library' stock shots, there are occasional 'special' shots like for 'Space Seed' and that angle for 'Trouble with Tribbles', but other than that, it seems the 11 foot model spent MOST of its life disassembled and tucked in a corner of the stage. Am I thinking right on this?


----------



## phase_pistol

Gary, apologies if this has already come up, but I didn't see it. It appears on the Restoration that certain parts are now a pearly or ivory WHITE:

- intercoolers
- control reactor
- support ring for lower sensor dome
- photon torpedo emitter

Is this correct?


----------



## wpthomas

Steve H said:


> You know, I've suddenly had a REALLY stupid question pop into my head. Just how often was the 11 foot miniature put on the stage and filmed? There are a bunch of 'library' stock shots, there are occasional 'special' shots like for 'Space Seed' and that angle for 'Trouble with Tribbles', but other than that, it seems the 11 foot model spent MOST of its life disassembled and tucked in a corner of the stage. Am I thinking right on this?


I think you're correct. In fact, it is my theory that she was not in front of the cameras for the entirety of season three. I'd be very curious to know when in season two she was on film for the last time.


----------



## phase_pistol

Nope, wait, misunderstood question. Need coffee.


----------



## Light23

Gary K said:


> You're seeing a shadow or something


I thought because it kept showing up in different lighting situations and angles that it wasn't an optical illusion or shadow.


















Flash bounced off the neck and washed out the light weathering at the front base of the dorsal in this pic http://airandspace.si.edu/webimages/highres/15299h.jpg but I can still see it at the top of the neck in the middle. The weathering around the deflector dish didn't get washed ou because of its angle relative to the flash.

35mm film, even at a HD 60MP equivalent, doesn't do any good if your flash is too close and wash's the details out.



Gary K said:


> The new paint on the dorsal is based solely on our hi-res ref photos.


So you guys restored the paint details, based solely on the 1975 private collector provided images?


----------



## asalaw

So, Light23, you were 100% wrong in your assumption about the "green" running lights (surprising assumption given your supposed knowledge about color), not to mention the "metallic blue" leading edge, and now, without further comment on that, you're niggling over whether they got the weathering exactly right, even though you haven't seen 90% of their high-res photos, nor observed their test sandings, nor reviewed their scientific data? _Nor seen the model firsthand?_


----------



## Light23

asalaw said:


> So, Light23, you were 100% wrong in your assumption about the "green" running lights (surprising assumption given your supposed knowledge about color), not to mention the "metallic blue" leading edge, and now, without further comment on that, you're niggling over whether they got the weathering exactly right, even though you haven't seen 90% of their high-res photos, nor observed their test sandings, nor reviewed their scientific data? _Nor seen the model firsthand?_


Yup! 
(I have an opinion about something on the internet.:grin2: Go figure, right?)

And asalaw, you gotta admit, the running lights LOOKED pea green in that photo dude.


----------



## dcarty

Steve H said:


> OK, so we're looking and looking and looking.
> 
> ...And I'm still kind of bugged by the shuttlebay beacon being green. A couple of pics (including from '72) seem to show it was green AND white, and I only recall it being white on TV but I accept that could well be an artifact of multi-dupe syndication prints and not being a part of the ship I really focused on while watching. So is the beacon alternating colors, or like an aircraft carrier you see one color from one angle and another from a different approach (which would be not only logical but some impressive forward planning on their part  )?
> 
> BTW, it was impressive to actually be able to see stuff within that beacon dome. I know it was in the 1/350 kit but I had never seen it in the miniature. So neat.


Hi Steve, Didn't know if you, and others, had seen these photos from the Miarecki restoration but there's at least one really good shot of the green insert and the beacon housing for further reference.

TOS 11 Foot USS ENTERPRISE 1701 Studio Model Restoration #1 - Modelers Miniatures & Magic

Cheers 

Dave


----------



## Gary K

Light23 said:


> 35mm film, even at a HD 60MP equivalent, doesn't do any good if your flash is too close and wash's the details out.
> 
> So you guys restored the paint details, based solely on the 1975 private collector provided images?


No, we did not. We have a number of hi-res photos from 1966-67, 1972, etc, and they are not washed out. FYI, the leading edge of the dorsal is not perfectly straight, so shadows on the leading edge are very possible.

Look, if this thread is going the way of most Hobby Talk threads, and devolve into arguing, nitpicking, and people trying that they're the Alpha Expert, then I've got a lot of other things to do.

Gary


----------



## Y3a

I saw it in person on Tuesday. It looks PERFECT. Everything is very cleanly done. 
The only thing missing is a single Tribble in the bottom of the display case!

I may have to build my 1/350 scale model next, 
instead of the two Jupiter 2 models and the TV Seaview, which is 70 percent done.


----------



## Light23

Gary K said:


> If Light23 doesn't stop challenging my 'authority', or I will take what I know and go home...


"Do not challenge me, or I will take my toys and go home"

Jeeezuuss...
Dude...
I have no ego to bruise nor am I an Alpha Expert.
But do I need be 'shamed' for having an opinion either?

I didn't know it was offensive to you for having an observation or to have an opinion of my own.
Or to discuss it...

I'm out yo


----------



## Steve H

dcarty said:


> Hi Steve, Didn't know if you, and others, had seen these photos from the Miarecki restoration but there's at least one really good shot of the green insert and the beacon housing for further reference.
> 
> TOS 11 Foot USS ENTERPRISE 1701 Studio Model Restoration #1 - Modelers Miniatures & Magic
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Dave


Thank you, Dave! I've NOT see those pics. I don't mean to seem unkind, but man, those pics and the recent photos of the new restoration, night and DAY difference. 

Can't see the shuttle beacon guts very well in the pic, but I note that the dome is pretty heavily frosted. That, combined with running the image thru the optical printer, early '70s NTSC color TV, and image degradation due to 16mm syndication prints leads me to believe that the 'clear white' I remember was just that, memory and nothing more.


----------



## berropablo

Gary: Please, don´t be upset. All of us have been studying the Enterprise model over the decades here and in other forums. During the development of the Polar 1/350 model A LOT of unknown details surfaced. So we all have a lot of pics, all public.
This restoration is what we all expected for what the Enterprise model deserved.
As dcarty noted many of the details that are now confirmed or clearly shown for the first time (like the "orange" rings on the saucer underside) were there in the pictures; we just didn´t know what we were looking at. So, please, don´t think we are criticizing, we are trying to compare our data to what this professional work shows.


----------



## asalaw

Light23 said:


> Yup!
> (I have an opinion about something on the internet. Go figure, right?)
> 
> And asalaw, you gotta admit, the running lights LOOKED pea green in that photo dude.


Did you think to compare the Smith beauty shots with anything else, like, oh, the other 50 billion live photos and videos that have appeared in the last 48 hours? Or maybe, I dunno, _ask someone who had seen the model on display_? For someone with such vaunted expertise about color, your analytical methods are inept. All assumptions, no basic legwork, no allowance for missing data. Unsurprisingly, wrong every time.

I don't care if you have an opinion, or what it is. But you're not couching your challenges in the form of opinions. 

Instead, you've represented yourself as some sort of film stock expert, and from this position of self-described authority, you're raising completely unfounded (and frankly embarrassing) challenges in an increasingly disrespectful tone.

Go ahead, have an "opinion" like everyone else. It's a free country. But don't imply it comes from some sort of expert analysis when you're just conjecturing from a few photos. Your track record doesn't speak well of your methods or your knowledge. 

So here you go again, video showing the light colors as my iPhone 5S captured them on Tuesday. This is very close to how it looked to my eye.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/55142396/Big E NASM vid 6.28.16.mov


----------



## whereisanykey

http://www.modelermagic.com/wordpre...03/kg_star-trek_tos_1701_studio_model-029.jpg


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> No, we did not. We have a number of hi-res photos from 1966-67, 1972, etc, and they are not washed out. FYI, the leading edge of the dorsal is not perfectly straight, so shadows on the leading edge are very possible.
> 
> Look, if this thread is going the way of most Hobby Talk threads, and devolve into arguing, nitpicking, and people trying that they're the Alpha Expert, then I've got a lot of other things to do.
> 
> Gary


Well, arguing comes from failure to communicate AND listen, nitpicking, that's NEVER go away and Alpha Expert, that's a whole thing as old as fandom.There's no denying there are fans (of ALL fandoms) that just think they are king of the yard and that's how they end up defining themselves. There's no question we all can be an pretty entitled bunch when push comes to shove. 

But people who really pay attention listen to facts. I think when Gary put paid to the whole 'metallic blue pylon' business that ended up being a problem, not a solution for some involved. 

And let's be fair, I'm not picking on or calling out, but Gary, I'm pretty sure you used similar science to prove some things when you were doing the original color guide for the 1/350 kit. And I think you now know some of those choices were not quite right. yes? 

The difference is, you are doing exactly what you said you would do. You're letting the evidence speak for itself, tell its story and you've been good enough to share your growth with us. It's a journey of discovery. 

The MAIN difference is, while others have had only 'pottery shards' to try and decode the past, you've been at the actual 'city' and finding the shards in suit, so there is context. All those private photos are not only shards, some are actual complete amphora and bowls.

Boy I sure talk about context alot. I guess it's because so many don't. 

These are heady times. Emotions are running high. It's all OK. Yeah?


----------



## asalaw

Gary K said:


> No, we did not. We have a number of hi-res photos from 1966-67, 1972, etc, and they are not washed out. FYI, the leading edge of the dorsal is not perfectly straight, so shadows on the leading edge are very possible.
> 
> Look, if this thread is going the way of most Hobby Talk threads, and devolve into arguing, nitpicking, and people trying that they're the Alpha Expert, then I've got a lot of other things to do.
> 
> Gary


Please don't, Gary. There's nothing wrong with Light23 that a good banhammer can't fix. The rest of us are incredibly grateful for all the work you and your team have done, and I think most have been respectful. Of course, we can all do better.

We all have much to learn from you, and those of us who understand that (and can, like me, at least _impersonate_ an adult) should stick around and ask good questions respectfully. Those who don't, well, I'm sure the Cargo Six airlock has a broken safety...


----------



## John P

Yes, let's not repeat the squabbling that made Shaw abandon _his _thread.


----------



## sapper36

Yup - What Asalaw said! Please stick around & Dish!

& I almost never post - Mostly lurk & this has been some delicious lurking!


----------



## dcarty

Steve H said:


> Thank you, Dave! I've NOT see those pics. I don't mean to seem unkind, but man, those pics and the recent photos of the new restoration, night and DAY difference.


lol, I hear you! For years those were the best reference photos around, and I still wouldn't want to be without them, but they are definitely a product of their time and to have the easy access to what we have now is just stunning. Glad I could point to some additional info  

Dave


----------



## edge10

asalaw said:


> <snip>
> 
> So here you go again, video showing the light colors as my iPhone 5S captured them on Tuesday. This is very close to how it looked to my eye.
> 
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/55142396/Big E NASM vid 6.28.16.mov


Lucky that was a short clip. All the blood as rushing to my head! :wink2:


----------



## asalaw

edge10 said:


> Lucky that was a short clip. All the blood as rushing to my head! :wink2:


Uh... yeah... sorry about that, I kinda (massively) erred (colossally botched) my other shot, which turned out to be 22 seconds of my feet walking to another POV. Thank God it's not film. 

I'll get much more tomorrow night, and post it as quickly as I can via my Dropbox thingy. I apologize in advance for any drool or sweat smears on the lens. Gonna happen.


----------



## jheilman

Light23 said:


> "Do not challenge me, or I will take my toys and go home"
> 
> Jeeezuuss...
> Dude...
> I have no ego to bruise nor am I an Alpha Expert.
> But do I need be 'shamed' for having an opinion either?
> 
> I didn't know it was offensive to you for having an observation or to have an opinion of my own.
> Or to discuss it...
> 
> I'm out yo


Wow, that's quite a distortion of what happened. You questioned something, you were answered that hi-res reference photos showed otherwise. You then called into question the methods used by the Smithsonian team and suggesting they erred by basing everything off a single provided source (without knowing if that was factual - it wasn't). Then posted a gif animation shaking its head in shame. You are basically saying that since the restoration didn't validate what you are seeing in _your_ reference photos, the team obviously did it wrong. That produced a perfectly normal response from Gary. It wasn't that you questioned something, it's HOW you did it.:grin2:


----------



## phase_pistol

Looks like I picked the wrong day to duck in here and ask my little question about the ivory-white parts! :surprise:


----------



## Steve H

phase_pistol said:


> Looks like I picked the wrong day to duck in here and ask my little question about the ivory-white parts! :surprise:


Be cool, brother. It's a bump in the road, happens all the time. Just relax and the discussion will resume shortly. 

I have to say, those are interesting pictures you posted. Not only how white those parts are, but how subtle the weathering is (to duplicate the original of course) for '60s TV. I mean, there's no way any of that would register on the screen back then. 

The ol' gal sure had plenty of secrets!


----------



## Richard Baker

One thing I am curious about are the very tiny markings they scattered across the hull- far too small to be seen by the cameras of the day. Little hatch labels saying odd things, I remember a site had photos to them once but I cannot find it now.

Now those are some cool secretes- put on by the production team knowing that no body would ever see them...


----------



## phase_pistol

I shall keep my head down and carry on. :laugh:

And thank NASM for the amazing photos! I wish I could be there this week to see her in person, but I'll be depending on you guys to take all the great photos until I can get down there!

What an amazing time we live in... Starship Enterprise restored to former glory... the ultimate 22" Space 1999 Eagle kit...


----------



## whereisanykey

Do you mean like these

http://www.modelermagic.com/wordpre...03/kg_star-trek_tos_1701_studio_model-060.jpg

http://www.modelermagic.com/wordpre...03/kg_star-trek_tos_1701_studio_model-012.jpg

Greg


----------



## asalaw

phase_pistol said:


> I shall keep my head down and carry on. :laugh:
> 
> And thank NASM for the amazing photos! I wish I could be there this week to see her in person, but I'll be depending on you guys to take all the great photos until I can get down there!
> 
> What an amazing time we live in... Starship Enterprise restored to former glory... the ultimate 22" Space 1999 Eagle kit...


You left out the Wand phaser and communicator, and all the great swag we haven't seen yet! 

I still need to get a redundant HDD for my Time Machine dingus, but who cares about data security at a time like this?


----------



## phase_pistol

As to the little numbers, I think it was figured out awhile back that those are station numbers, which correspond to the number of inches back from the front of the engineering hull, if the 11-footer is 1:48 scale to the ship as she was sized for a crew of 200 in the first pilot episode.

Now I guess, the scale of the 11-footer is thought to be 1:96 to a 947-foot "real" Enterprise? Or are people still floating that 1,000-foot Enterprise theory...


----------



## asalaw

Richard Baker said:


> One thing I am curious about are the very tiny markings they scattered across the hull- far too small to be seen by the cameras of the day. Little hatch labels saying odd things, I remember a site had photos to them once but I cannot find it now.
> 
> Now those are some cool secretes- put on by the production team knowing that no body would ever see them...


You're probably talking about the old IDIC page by William McCullars. *Here's an archive of most of those photos.* I know exactly which ones you mean, but they don't seem to be in this particular gallery. I'll scrounge 'em up on my hard drive and post them here when I get the chance, if nobody else does first.


----------



## Steve H

phase_pistol said:


> As to the little numbers, I think it was figured out awhile back that those are station numbers, which correspond to the number of inches back from the front of the engineering hull, if the 11-footer is 1:48 scale to the ship as she was sized for a crew of 200 in the first pilot episode.
> 
> Now I guess, the scale of the 11-footer is thought to be 1:96 to a 947-foot "real" Enterprise? Or are people still floating that 1,000-foot Enterprise theory...


I might suggest to not oversell what any of the markings 'mean', ya know? All the markings exist solely as decoration, as fine detail, to make the hull visually interesting and 'busy'. 

Nobody ever discusses what the red stripes on the upper back of the saucer, connecting the spinal connection cover to the B/C deck hump, means, or the two curved red stripes on the under aft of the saucer. They're just there, ya know?

(myself? I think they're 'danger ram intake field boundary' markings, similar to the red stripe on jet aircraft that denotes where the spinning impeller is, and the potential danger of vanes breaking loose along that axis. Stay outside of the red lines to reduce the chance of having your nervous system fried by the magnetic fields.  )


----------



## Radiodugger

Ya know, it always happens. We get a good, intelligent Q & A going with Gary K, and some pusillanimous, pugnacious _preschooler_ comes in and wrecks the boat. Shaking my head, _ruefully_...

Doug


----------



## feek61

I remember when I first saw it in the mid 1970's I was surprised at how much detail was on the model including all of the various stripes and markings. I mostly was surprised by the markings on the bottom of the secondary hull and also the red markings under the nacelles


----------



## phase_pistol

Steve H said:


> I might suggest to not oversell what any of the markings 'mean', ya know? All the markings exist solely as decoration, as fine detail, to make the hull visually interesting and 'busy'.



That's a good caution. But I am always curious about what the intent was in the heads of the designers and builders. If it so happens that the numbers match what they would be IF the ship were 1:48 scale, so on and so forth, then I think you can deduce something from that! It was an intentional choice, and not just a random bunch of numbers.

Or one hell of a coincidence.


----------



## berropablo

Some labels where changed to in-jokes during one of the restorations. I´m still unable to upload pictures!


----------



## phase_pistol

berropablo said:


> I´m still unable to upload pictures!


I had the same problem! They appear to upload but don't show up in your post.

I got around it by uploading my pix to Dropbox and just including the image link.


----------



## jheilman




----------



## phase_pistol

Well, case in point. I doubt "TAIL PIPE SOCKET ADJUSTMENT ACCESS" had any particular hidden meaning for Matt Jefferies.


----------



## Gary K

phase_pistol said:


> As to the little numbers, I think it was figured out awhile back that those are station numbers, which correspond to the number of inches back from the front of the engineering hull, if the 11-footer is 1:48 scale to the ship as she was sized for a crew of 200 in the first pilot episode.
> 
> Now I guess, the scale of the 11-footer is thought to be 1:96 to a 947-foot "real" Enterprise? Or are people still floating that 1,000-foot Enterprise theory...


1. Kind of.

2. To paraphrase Yoda, "There is... another". Stay tuned, pending the arrival of some confirming data.

Gary


----------



## phase_pistol

Aaaah, sweet partial vindication! 

Thanks Gary! Can't wait to see what else you will share. Let me take the opportunity to say, she looks AMAZING and thanks so much for all your hard work and that of the entire restoration team!


----------



## Gary K

phase_pistol said:


> Looks like I picked the wrong day to duck in here and ask my little question about the ivory-white parts!


They're a very light, slightly bluish gray that dates to the Pilot versions, including intercoolers, bridge turbolift, belly markings, and impulse deck.

Gary


----------



## phase_pistol

Gary K said:


> They're a very light, slightly bluish gray that dates to the Pilot versions, including intercoolers, bridge turbolift, belly markings, and impulse deck


Reeeealllly! Wow, I never would have thought "bluish," since it looks like a warm color to me in the photos.

Can't wait to see her in person! Thanks for the info!


----------



## Gary K

phase_pistol said:


> Reeeealllly! Wow, I never would have thought "bluish," since it looks like a warm color to me in the photos.
> 
> Can't wait to see her in person! Thanks for the info!


That warmth is due to the warm brown weathering. The middle & dark gray trim colors were more neutral.

Gary


----------



## phase_pistol

Good to know!

As I cast an eye toward my Master Replicas, I wonder how much repainting it would take to get it to look "right"...


----------



## John F

*What is that ?*



Y3a said:


> Another image...
> 
> http://photos.hobbytalk.com/data/509/thumbs/DSC013062.jpg
> 
> http://photos.hobbytalk.com/data/509/thumbs/DSC01308_1_.jpg


Thank you to Y3a for the pictures


The second pic shows the "unfinished" side. 
What is the black thingie on the forward part of the nacelle just behind the dome cap. I don't recall ever seeing that before. It is on both nacelles, they can also be clearly be seen in one of the videos posted earlier.


----------



## Steve H

John F said:


> Thank you to Y3a for the pictures
> 
> 
> The second pic shows the "unfinished" side.
> What is the black thingie on the forward part of the nacelle just behind the dome cap. I don't recall ever seeing that before. It is on both nacelles, they can also be clearly be seen in one of the videos posted earlier.


I believe those are the places the original wiring for the nacelle dome effects came out. 

Shocking, innit?


----------



## phase_pistol

Holy carp! That seems about right!


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## robn1

Steve H said:


> Nobody ever discusses what the red stripes on the upper back of the saucer, connecting the spinal connection cover to the B/C deck hump, means, or the two curved red stripes on the under aft of the saucer. They're just there, ya know?
> 
> (myself? I think they're 'danger ram intake field boundary' markings, similar to the red stripe on jet aircraft that denotes where the spinning impeller is, and the potential danger of vanes breaking loose along that axis. Stay outside of the red lines to reduce the chance of having your nervous system fried by the magnetic fields.  )


That's exactly what I've always thought.



















As to the bottom markings on the secondary hull, here are my ideas:

The rectangle under the fantail is an emergency exit for the shuttlecraft hangar (the deck below the flight deck.

The others are pretty much the same as on the 1701 D, warp core ejection hatch, anti-matter refill, cargo hatch etc.


----------



## phase_pistol

alensatemybuick said:


> I don't have exact measurements to confirm that percentage, based it on some tracing of the borrowed schematic below and a "back of the envelope" calculation. Just one noob's guess...


THAT WAS IT!!!

I knew I remembered seeing that. :grin2:


----------



## John F

Steve H said:


> I believe those are the places the original wiring for the nacelle dome effects came out.
> 
> Shocking, innit?



Yes that is the spot where the wiring went into the nacelle, but look more closely there is something sticking out of the hole, are those the 12v motors they were talking about in the video? put on the outside for easier access?


----------



## Gary K

John F said:


> Thank you to Y3a for the pictures
> 
> 
> The second pic shows the "unfinished" side.
> What is the black thingie on the forward part of the nacelle just behind the dome cap. I don't recall ever seeing that before. It is on both nacelles, they can also be clearly be seen in one of the videos posted earlier.


Those are the simulated plugs for the nacelle motors and lights. They duplicate what's in our ref photos, except the museum didn't want to add ALL the excess wiring, run wires down the pylons, and clutter up the model. The actual wiring uses the channels created by Ed Miarecki.

Gary


----------



## phase_pistol

Regarding red stripes and markings on starship hulls, SteveH is right that, practically speaking, it's just to make the hull look cool and complicated. But Robn1 is also right, in that there has to be some sort of rationale at work, at least in the back of the mind of the creator, or else it's just random stuff with no purpose.

From about TMP through the end of the NX-01 era (basically the careers of Rich Sternbach and Mike Okuda) there may have been quite a LOT of thinking going on behind the scenes, about what those specific tiny details may have meant!

Of course now in the Abrams era, I fear we are back in an age of random detail for the sake of looking cool. Price scanners on the helm console, lens flares in your face. But perhaps I digress.


----------



## John F

Gary K said:


> Those are the simulated plugs for the nacelle motors and lights. They duplicate what's in our ref photos, except the museum didn't want to add ALL the excess wiring, run wires down the pylons, and clutter up the model. The actual wiring uses the channels created by Ed Miarecki.
> 
> Gary


 So your saying the original wiring had plugs on it that fit into a receptacle, sort of like a lamp cord, so they could unplug it when they stored the model. That makes sense now.
Thanks


----------



## Steve H

robn1 said:


> That's exactly what I've always thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As to the bottom markings on the secondary hull, here are my ideas:
> 
> The rectangle under the fantail is an emergency exit for the shuttlecraft hangar (the deck below the flight deck.
> 
> The others are pretty much the same as on the 1701 D, warp core ejection hatch, anti-matter refill, cargo hatch etc.


What amazes me, after all these years, and all that time I (and most others) bought into the Franz Joseph design of where Main Engineering was (his view, in the saucer near the impulse deck), and there, right on the model, with modern eyes we see the possibility of what Jefferies wanted- Engineering in the actual engineering hull. Because if you buy the idea that the giant cylinders behind the mesh are actually part of the M/AM intermix dealie and feed into the pylons to go up to the nacelles, that white square with the red border is in exactly the right place for a TOS core dump. 

I like the idea of the red rectangle on the fantail being an emergency shuttle exit. Looks like it would be a close fit but if you had to blow that panel to get out, obviously there were larger issues being worried about.


----------



## MGagen

alensatemybuick said:


>


The text wasn't mine, but the image is. It's the one I posted online back in 2003 when I first discovered the likely answer to the markings. Despite everyone saying that they were just numbers, I figured that there must be some logic behind them. Finding the preliminary construction blueprint fragment of the secondary hull, which Richard Datin confirmed had a real world scale on it, provided the key. Scale the secondary hull diameter to match the stated blueprint dimension and you have the original scale of the Enterprise as drafted. (Important note: the ship was rescaled to its final size before either model was finished; it was only ever this smaller scale on the drawing board, in the script, and in the bridge diagram in the alcove.) At the original drafted size, the numbers are a near exact match for scale inches. On the graphic I showed ideal locations for each marking with a band, and circled the actual location on the model. As you can see, they are darned close. 

The scale of the model and drawings has always been of special interest to me and I look forward eagerly to whatever new info Gary can share with us.

M.


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## crowe-t

Gary K said:


> In person, the paint is a *slightly* greenish gray, but it usually photographs as plain gray. The new paint replicates the existing lacquers, which have darkened somewhat with age. The "factory-fresh" paint would have been a shade or so lighter, but we didn't want to guess at the colors for the restoration - and besides, they would have clashed with the original paint on the saucer. I'm working on the de-aged paint scheme for Polar Lights, starting with the museum colors & adjusting them to match our ref photos.
> 
> Gary


So, the hull color is a *slightly* greenish gray. I thought that wasn't the case as mentioned on page 2.

Can you explain some more?


----------



## Gregatron

Hmmm. Determining color of the intercoolers and control reactors has been quite a ride, eh? For a long time, most people assumed them to be the base hull color--a light grayish. Then, Gary had seemingly pinned them down with the two-tone, hull color/Canada Voodoo Gray combination. And now, literally out of the blue, they would appear to have actually been the pale blue-gray of the pilot linear accelerator on the rear of the saucer.


To coin a phrase...fascinating!



Oh, and because it should be said--stunning job by everyone involved with the resotoration. I got misty-eyed seeing the gorgeous promo photos of the final result. Looks PERFECT. Just gorgeous.

What better 50th anniversary present could there be than to finally have answers to some longstanding questions, and to see the actual model restored to its classic state? (Well, I just received the Wand Company communicator phone, today...but this whole model thing is probably better, despite its not being a tangible anniversary present that I personally own...)


----------



## asalaw

Gary K said:


> In person, the paint is a *slightly* greenish gray, but it usually photographs as plain gray. The new paint replicates the existing lacquers, which have darkened somewhat with age. The "factory-fresh" paint would have been a shade or so lighter, but we didn't want to guess at the colors for the restoration - and besides, they would have clashed with the original paint on the saucer. I'm working on the de-aged paint scheme for Polar Lights, starting with the museum colors & adjusting them to match our ref photos.
> 
> Gary


SQUEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!:nerd::grin2:

This is way outside my knowledge zone, but...

I've seen debates on military modeling boards about the need to "scale" paints, with as many people saying it's essential as not. If I were to try to do that on my PL, I suppose I'd be treating the scale as 1/4, since it's really a scale model of the 11' model. Plus, we don't have any real 900+' starships handy to compare it to.

I don't remember which Tamiya FS number it was, but I think you recommended "IJN Gray" originally? I seem to recall it looked pretty nice to me.

The lighting kit may be a while on pre-order (no shipping date yet), so I guess I'll take my time with the paint scheme after all. It's not like the model's going anywhere...


----------



## asalaw

MGagen said:


> The text wasn't mine, but the image is. It's the one I posted online back in 2003 when I first discovered the likely answer to the markings. Despite everyone saying that they were just numbers, I figured that there must be some logic behind them. Finding the preliminary construction blueprint fragment of the secondary hull, which Richard Datin confirmed had a real world scale on it, provided the key. Scale the secondary hull diameter to match the stated blueprint dimension and you have the original scale of the Enterprise as drafted. (Important note: the ship was rescaled to its final size before either model was finished; it was only ever this smaller scale on the drawing board, in the script, and in the bridge diagram in the alcove.) At the original drafted size, the numbers are a near exact match for scale inches. On the graphic I showed ideal locations for each marking with a band, and circled the actual location on the model. As you can see, they are darned close.
> 
> The scale of the model and drawings has always been of special interest to me and I look forward eagerly to whatever new info Gary can share with us.
> 
> M.


I remember this post. It does strike me as too close to the mark to be coincidence. 

So if this is correct, there's a YUUUUUUGE treknerdical issue here. Namely: how do we retcon the markings in view of the revised scale? 

I have a theory:

Years in space have eroded part of the original markings on the ship's leading edges, leaving behind massive streaks of brown space dust. The missing text: _For a good time, call Janice..._


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Gary K said:


> Those are the simulated plugs for the nacelle motors and lights. They duplicate what's in our ref photos, except the museum didn't want to add ALL the excess wiring, run wires down the pylons, and clutter up the model. The actual wiring uses the channels created by Ed Miarecki.
> 
> Gary


So was there any additional structural support added to the nacelles? I see that there's a slight gap between the camera side nacelle pylon and the secondary hull. Was that gap always there or does this indicate something has been added to prevent nacelle droop? Even on my PL 1/350 I'm not totally convinced (decades of failure will do that) that simply gluing the pylons into the secondary hull will prevent sagging over time.


----------



## berropablo

So many questions!
Is the saucer the only place in the model where the pencil paneling was present? 
why is the laser beam emmiter under the lower sensor dome slightly different from previous info?
The small light on the sidewall of the saucer, between the the upper and lower position lights is a window or another position indicator? by the way Is the first time I notice it! 
Thanks!


----------



## John P

"Scaling paint" is a practice meant to simulate how a model plane would look through a scale distance of atmosphere. A 1/48 model should look lighter than the actual full-sized plane's paints at the same distance, but both should look the same shade at the same _scale _distance. (I don't do this, btw - too much trouble).

Anyhoo -spaceships aren't in atmospheres! there's no air between your eye and the subject. So there's no point to scaling the colors.


----------



## asalaw

John P said:


> Anyhoo -spaceships aren't in atmospheres! there's no air between your eye and the subject. So there's no point to scaling the colors.


Sez you, buddy. I'm trying to think of six impossible things to do before breakfast, and you're harshing my buzz.


----------



## Hunk A Junk

John P said:


> Anyhoo -spaceships aren't in atmospheres! there's no air between your eye and the subject. So there's no point to scaling the colors.


Very true. But I would also caution that we're talking about sci-fi spaceships as opposed to real spaceships. Filmmakers often (i.e. almost always) fudge physics (like sound in space) and optics to make things "look right" for audiences even though it's technically really really wrong. It's all about selling the illusion and telling the story.


----------



## Richard Baker

jheilman said:


>


Those are the markings I was remembering!

Hey Gary- were these duplicated on the restoration? They are too small to see from the photos thus far...


----------



## asalaw

Richard Baker said:


> Those are the markings I was remembering!
> 
> Hey Gary- were these duplicated on the restoration? They are too small to see from the photos thus far...


Ariel O'Connor said at the last open house that they were being made exactly as they were originally. It's the rare case where the online photos we've always had tell you how they look and where they go. 

I'll make sure I get close shots of those tonight. I'm hoping to get lots of detail shots, light permitting. My zoom lenses aren't very fast, unfortunately. But as close as I can get to the glass now, with the model at floor level, I should still get some gosh golly fine pix with my iPhone at least. :grin2:


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## MartyS

Richard Baker said:


> They are too small to see from the photos thus far...


You can tell from the large photos released that the joke text has been replaced with wording that looks the same size and shape as what was there originally.

Gary: Do you know if those are those new decals or is the text painted on? 

And back to the intercoolers, is there evidence they were always all white and the dark areas in the photos like the ones for Space Seed are just shadows? Or were there dark areas that were painted over before Trouble With Tribbles?


----------



## Gary K

alensatemybuick said:


> Why would anyone doubt the signage was accurately recreated, considering they have been a matter of record for so long?
> 
> The photo linked to below is fairly high res, sufficiently so to make out that there is signage is on the model in the proper locations, even if you can't quite read it. I think we can assume they didn't spell anything wrong.


Is this good enough? I've got a fairly hi-res scan of the original decals, and these are some early decal samples from Rick Sternbach.

Gary


----------



## Gary K

MartyS said:


> You can tell from the large photos released that the joke text has been replaced with wording that looks the same size and shape as what was there originally.
> 
> Gary: Do you know if those are those new decals or is the text painted on?
> 
> And back to the intercoolers, is there evidence they were always all white and the dark areas in the photos like the ones for Space Seed are just shadows? Or were there dark areas that were painted over before Trouble With Tribbles?


The letters on the small signage are only 0.06" tall, so they're decals, like the originals. The frame numbers are only 1/4" tall, but they're painted.

The intercoolers & control reactor loop started out as all-white (technically, a light, cool gray that appears to be white, or "white" for short), with no ribs. When they glued the ribs onto the 2nd Pilot intercoolers & port reactor loop, they masked off the ends and sprayed the ribbed section with Pilot hull gray (a cool gray). During the Production version conversion, the intercoolers were repainted all "white", but the reactor loop was left alone (probably because it would have been difficult to mask & paint). Look at the restored model - we even recreated the quick & dirty masking job they did on the non-camera side of each left-hand intercooler.

Everything is photo-documented, per museum policy.

Gary


----------



## crowe-t

Gary, The hull color of the 11 foot studio model is now a *slightly* greenish gray. I thought that wasn't the case as mentioned on page 2.

Can you explain some more?


----------



## Gary K

crowe-t said:


> Gari, The hull color of the 11 foot studio model is now a *slightly* greenish gray. I thought that wasn't the case as mentioned on page 2.
> 
> Can you explain some more?


To clarify: The Pilot versions were painted with a cool gray base coat, but about a year-and-a-half later, the Production version was repainted with the slightly greenish-gray paint. The tinting is subtle, and at first glance, the model would appear to be gray - not blue or green. Over the past 50 years, the lacquers have darkened and the clear shellacs have yellowed, so now the greenish tint is more pronounced.

Gary


----------



## crowe-t

Gary K said:


> To clarify: The Pilot versions were painted with a cool gray base coat, but about a year-and-a-half later, the Production version was repainted with the slightly greenish-gray paint. The tinting is subtle, and at first glance, the model would appear to be gray - not blue or green. Over the past 50 years, the lacquers have darkened and the clear shellacs have yellowed, so now the greenish tint is more pronounced.
> 
> Gary


Thanks Gary! Sorry I spelled your name wrong in my previous post. It was a typo.  It's fixed now.


----------



## Gary K

berropablo said:


> So many questions!
> Is the saucer the only place in the model where the pencil paneling was present?
> why is the laser beam emmiter under the lower sensor dome slightly different from previous info?
> The small light on the sidewall of the saucer, between the the upper and lower position lights is a window or another position indicator? by the way Is the first time I notice it!
> Thanks!


1. Yes.
2. It is?
3. It's just a porthole.

Gary


----------



## MartyS

Wow, thanks. So the flat areas inside the loops and the tabs in front of the intercoolers were always the same color as the "pipes". The darker grey look for those parts was always a shadow effect from the way it was lit?



Gary K said:


> The intercoolers & control reactor loop started out as all-white (technically, a light, cool gray that appears to be white, or "white" for short), with no ribs. When they glued the ribs onto the 2nd Pilot intercoolers & port reactor loop, they masked off the ends and sprayed the ribbed section with Pilot hull gray (a cool gray). During the Production version conversion, the intercoolers were repainted all "white", but the reactor loop was left alone (probably because it would have been difficult to mask & paint). Look at the restored model - we even recreated the quick & dirty masking job they did on the non-camera side of each left-hand intercooler.


----------



## dcarty

Gary K said:


> - we even recreated the quick & dirty masking job they did on the non-camera side of each left-hand intercooler.



Sentences like that make me drool, lol Thank you again, Gary, for everything that you are sharing!

Dave


----------



## MGagen

alensatemybuick said:


> Thank you for that significant borrowed (and re-borrowed) image, MGagen; would you say that a 194 foot length for the secondary hull (not including the deflector dish) is about right then? And thus 540 feet for the entire ship? The ratio of 540 to 194 = 2.78. So is the ratio of 947 feet to 340 feet, the numbers for the lengths of the entire ship and secondary hull (sans deflector) Jefferies used in his TMOST drawing.


Here's where things get a little bit complicated: The preliminary blueprint, with the "baby bottle" deflector shroud does not have the exact same proportions as the final configuration. As I recall, the primary and secondary hull shapes are the same, but the arrangement in relation to each other is a little different. The engine nacelles may have been different, too. The upshot is the overall length in real world dimensions listed on the preliminary BP is not 540'. That would be the length of the _final_ configuration _if_ the scale hadn't changed.

In my private correspondence with Mr. Datin, he confirmed that the preliminary BP listed the following "real world" measurements:
Length OA=543' - Width OA=235' - Hgt OA=140'. The preliminary BP also specifies the dimensions of the secondary hull, with the forward shroud, as 52' in diameter and 217' in length.



asalaw said:


> I remember this post. It does strike me as too close to the mark to be coincidence.
> 
> So if this is correct, there's a YUUUUUUGE treknerdical issue here. Namely: how do we retcon the markings in view of the revised scale?


Isn't it obvious? On the rescaled E, the units are listed in Bigfoot feet, not Human feet. As is acknowledged by all competent authorities, 1 Bigfoot foot equals 1-3/4 Human feet...
:grin2:
M.


----------



## Steve H

asalaw said:


> Ariel O'Connor said at the last open house that they were being made exactly as they were originally. It's the rare case where the online photos we've always had tell you how they look and where they go.
> 
> I'll make sure I get close shots of those tonight. I'm hoping to get lots of detail shots, light permitting. My zoom lenses aren't very fast, unfortunately. But as close as I can get to the glass now, with the model at floor level, I should still get some gosh golly fine pix with my iPhone at least. :grin2:


As an aside, have you considered an add-on lens for your iPhone? Something like this?

Olloclip 4-in-1 for iPhone 6/6+ | ThinkGeek

There are others available out there I'm sure for all the different iPhone marks and mods.


----------



## berropablo

Gary, I thank you for taking the time to awnser. I admire what you did with the Enterprise model.


> 2. It is?


 I feel that it is more than a question there...

This is one of the images that surfaced at the time of the PL model development (I was around here at the forum with username tuco_ilbrutto)


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## phase_pistol

berropablo said:


>


Well note the camera angle.. the top shot of the restored ship is from ABOVE the saucer, and the historical photo is from below the saucer, and the emitter is pointed more right at you. 

Foreshortening.

Or else the ship has been swimming.


----------



## robn1

Nope. The vintage pic shows a slim piece attached to the dome. The restored pic shows that piece protruding from a larger shaft, extending the length.


----------



## Steve H

asalaw said:


> I remember this post. It does strike me as too close to the mark to be coincidence.
> 
> So if this is correct, there's a YUUUUUUGE treknerdical issue here. Namely: how do we retcon the markings in view of the revised scale?
> 
> I have a theory:
> 
> Years in space have eroded part of the original markings on the ship's leading edges, leaving behind massive streaks of brown space dust. The missing text: _For a good time, call Janice..._


I would like to put forward a thought. The providence of the supposed hull measurement markings has as little actual relevance as the providence of the various wordings except in the larger context of the people who worked on the model (Daitin, Jefferies and so on). The reality is they all exist as surface detail and aren't really meant to actually mean anything. 

I really doubt we're meant to believe that the Enterprise carries a late '50s radar/radio antenna. All those instruction placards look familiar, did anyone ever track down if Jefferies sourced them from a model kit or a specific aircraft?

Now, playing the game of "what COULD this mean?" has value. The hull numbers could be key structural frame locations (stress points), they could be mooring points for hard docking, they could be something else entirely. The placards are pretty darn huge for actual maintenance work so I honestly have no idea why you would want that on the 'real' ship or what they might 'actually' say or reference. I guess the position of them all would be the main key for that round of speculation. 

Anyway, that's my thinking on the matter.


----------



## berropablo

phase_pistol said


> Well note the camera angle.. the top shot of the restored ship is from ABOVE the saucer, and the historical photo is from below the saucer, and the emitter is pointed more right at you.


Yes, that´s possible, but It seems that the restoration one is more complex and the historical seems to have just a traslucent shaft and a "mushroom". 

Very similar to this (IAM NOT SAYING IT IS), but I don´t know if this is the "thingy" or part of what´s under the shuttle bay beacon








These


----------



## Steve H

robn1 said:


> Nope. The vintage pic shows a slim piece attached to the dome. The restored pic shows that piece protruding from a larger shaft, extending the length.


I had assumed that was a grain o' wheat bulb at the end to act as a 'key light' for Phaser beams but I don't think there's any actual evidence it was actually used.


----------



## phase_pistol

In the b&w pic, some of the thickness is hidden by shadows that wrap around. This is probably a more apt comparison, tho there is still some difference in camera angle


----------



## feek61

berropablo said:


> phase_pistol said
> 
> Yes, that´s possible, but It seems that the restoration one is more complex and the historical seems to have just a traslucent shaft and a "mushroom".
> 
> Very similar to this (IAM NOT SAYING IT IS), but I don´t know if this is the "thingy" or part of what´s under the shuttle bay beacon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These


I believe that is one of the parts on the sides of the bridge.


----------



## JT1

Great thread. I guess I will be rewarded for procrastinating on my CR Enterprise.

I'm a little bummed some of the pictures from only a few days ago are already dead links about the Smithsonian's pictures, and the GW pictures).

The ones in this series: https://airandspace.si.edu/explore-and-learn/multimedia/detail.cfm?id=15301



Thought it was humorous that early on the discussion was that every picture the restoration team used should be made public, but then someone took their pictures down because someone else put them on FB, lol.

All in all a great restoration, glad there are motors, and the ship looks like it flew down from space into a glass box.


----------



## Gary K

berropablo said:


> Gary, I thank you for taking the time to awnser. I admire what you did with the Enterprise model.
> I feel that it is more than a question there...
> 
> This is one of the images that surfaced at the time of the PL model development (I was around here at the forum with username tuco_ilbrutto)


If you're talking about the length of the silver/aluminum "gun barrel", it's different in every picture, depending upon how far the guys at the studio would push it into the turret. In some photos, it's stuck waaay out, but in others, the red light is jammed up against the turret. Remember - these parts are tiny. The turret is on 3/4" wide.

When Doug Drexler saw the lower dome up close in 1977, all that was left was a red grain-o-wheat bulb hanging from a couple wires. 

Gary


----------



## whereisanykey

Gary, In all your research did you find locations for all the caption decals. I have seen where there are two on the lower saucer and one next to the pylon. Are there any more details regarding these. 

Greg


----------



## berropablo

Gary K said:


> If you're talking about the length of the silver/aluminum "gun barrel", it's different in every picture, depending upon how far the guys at the studio would push it into the turret. In some photos, it's stuck waaay out, but in others, the red light is jammed up against the turret. Remember - these parts are tiny. The turret is on 3/4" wide.
> 
> When Doug Drexler saw the lower dome up close in 1977, all that was left was a red grain-o-wheat bulb hanging from a couple wires.
> 
> Gary


That explains A LOT


----------



## dcarty

JT1 said:


> Great thread. I guess I will be rewarded for procrastinating on my CR Enterprise.
> 
> I'm a little bummed some of the pictures from only a few days ago are already dead links about the Smithsonian's pictures, and the GW pictures).


Actually the photos are still up they've just reorganized their site . I guess because of the in house event this evening (link courtesy asalaw):

https://airandspace.si.edu/multimedia-gallery


----------



## feek61

That's not all of the photos that they did have up. They had super hi-res photos of the 1972 college exhibit which seem to be missing.


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> If you're talking about the length of the silver/aluminum "gun barrel", it's different in every picture, depending upon how far the guys at the studio would push it into the turret. In some photos, it's stuck waaay out, but in others, the red light is jammed up against the turret. Remember - these parts are tiny. The turret is on 3/4" wide.
> 
> When Doug Drexler saw the lower dome up close in 1977, all that was left was a red grain-o-wheat bulb hanging from a couple wires.
> 
> Gary


This raises a question in my mind. Why would the guys at the studio be fooling around with the turret? If it wasn't being used for its designed purpose -I would assume to be shot close enough so that the bulb on the end could be seen to turn on (to be used as a key for the phaser animation) against the brightness of the lower sensor dome. As far as I can recall they never actually tried to use that cannon in a shot.

Cripes, I don't even know if that thing was there for the pilot. Was it part of the 'production' alterations?

Anyway, I guess the logical assumption why there would be fooling around with the turret would be having to take apart the lower sensor dome to replace bulbs. If that's a stock standard Grain 'o Wheat bulb then they probably had to replace THAT any time they tried to use it, if they did try to use it. Man, I just don't see how that would have had any visibility, between the stage lighting and that lower dome. 

I guess I'm just airing a bunch of thoughts about the nominal phaser cannon. The only clue I can recall about it even existing was that little bump on the AMT kit's lower dome. Always wondered what that was and now, decades later, I find out. I want to know more.


----------



## robn1

Gary K said:


> If you're talking about the length of the silver/aluminum "gun barrel", it's different in every picture, depending upon how far the guys at the studio would push it into the turret. In some photos, it's stuck waaay out, but in others, the red light is jammed up against the turret...


That explains it, thanks. I was really scratching my head on that one.

I just got back from the NASM, she looks great up close. Many thanks to all involved, you did a great job.


----------



## robn1

Steve H said:


> ...The only clue I can recall about it even existing was that little bump on the AMT kit's lower dome. Always wondered what that was and now, decades later, I find out...


I remember building the kit sometime in the 70s, and I sanded that little bump off :freak:


----------



## asalaw

Back from NASM. Wonderful! Hung out with Rob finally! Met the Okudas and Doug Drexler. Yes, I have proof. :nerd:

Pix and video this weekend, including a couple of good angles of the turret. Just one little shaft and the itty bitty red doodad on the end. I suppose if it were green, it could be the business end of a Leprechaun. 

I have to watermark the pix first (sorry), then I'll get them up over the weekend. It's a _lot_ of pictures (assuming they were all in focus -- it was very dark in there around the model). The basic approach I took was to get the wider, low-light beauty shots & video with the iPhone, and close-up detail stuff with a flash on the DSLR. Hopefully it all worked.

Oh, one more thing -- they _inexplicably_ closed McDonald's _and_ the gift shop, thereby incomprehensibly leaving a good six figures of revenue behind locked doors. The place was _packed_ with cash-heavy punters, with nothing to buy! Potential bonanza just walked out the door. Amazing. :surprise: 

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go review a very serious legal matter on the back of my eyelids.


----------



## edge10

Nice little article, linking to other articles on the restoration:

https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/enterprise-studio-model-back-display


----------



## asalaw

I am SO out of steam, but here's the first batch.


----------



## asalaw

Look mommy, it's a _boy_ ship!


----------



## Richard Baker

Thanks for those beautiful photos!


----------



## Owen E Oulton

mach7 said:


> I'll be there to see her on the 6th!


The true 50th anniversary of the first broadcast - yep, Canada showed it 2 days earlier than the US for part of the first season!


----------



## Owen E Oulton

asalaw said:


> Look mommy, it's a _boy_ ship!


And it looks like they restored thhe original data decals, notoriously changed in the '90's repaint! Still some warpage they couldn't fix, it seems, though...


----------



## asalaw

Richard Baker said:


> Thanks for those beautiful photos!


You're welcome! :grin2:



Owen E Oulton said:


> And it looks like they restored thhe original data decals, notoriously changed in the '90's repaint! Still some warpage they couldn't fix, it seems, though...


I've gotten the impression from Gary that it's not something that could be fixed without some sort of major intervention, which doesn't sound like what they were after with the restoration. I think he said it might've been a vac-forming defect, or could've happened under lamp heat, or even in storage. Somebody find the post and quote it, I _gotta_ get to bed at some point.

Having said that... stop me before I post again!


----------



## jheilman

To my knowledge, there's only a single shot in the series where this ion pod, phaser emitter, photon launcher is ever seen. During the opening credits of "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield." And here it looks like the extension tube is pushed all the way in, or it's just the angle of the shot, or both.


----------



## whereisanykey

If I recall correctly, according to Richard Datin, the saucer had warping issues at the outset.

Greg


----------



## JT1

feek61 said:


> That's not all of the photos that they did have up. They had super hi-res photos of the 1972 college exhibit which seem to be missing.



They're the ones I want to see :-(

Anyone who has been there want to share visiting/ parking hints? I looked at the parking map, looks like lot 5 is the best? Anyone know if you can park an F150 there? Is it usually full? Sorry of this isn't the place for this, I just want to load up the kiddos and head down...

http://www.si.edu/content/ovs/ParkingMap.pdf


----------



## CessnaDriver

I am surprised at the well lit top "bow light". I was expecting a softer illumination.


----------



## feek61

JT1 said:


> They're the ones I want to see :-(


Here are the photos. These are not however the hi-res versions that were momentarily on the NASM site


----------



## JT1

feek61 said:


> Here are the photos. These are not however the hi-res versions that were momentarily on the NASM site


Wow, thanks! Love how the incandescent lights look.


----------



## JediDad

feek61 said:


> Here are the photos. These are not however the hi-res versions that were momentarily on the NASM site


Thanks for posting those feek. Man those are some great photos.


----------



## phase_pistol

I snagged the hires versions

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19949348/hostedimages/15299h.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19949348/hostedimages/15300h.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19949348/hostedimages/15301h.jpg

Here they are montaged together and enhanced a bit for easier viewing


----------



## JediDad

Gary K said:


> To clarify: The Pilot versions were painted with a cool gray base coat, but about a year-and-a-half later, the Production version was repainted with the slightly greenish-gray paint. The tinting is subtle, and at first glance, the model would appear to be gray - not blue or green. Over the past 50 years, the lacquers have darkened and the clear shellacs have yellowed, so now the greenish tint is more pronounced.
> 
> Gary


That sounds very similar to what Master Replicas has on their replica. I was always very happy with the paint color they chose.


----------



## feek61

Funny the nacelles are not lit in those photos. They were list at least part of the time.


----------



## CessnaDriver

Ignore. Hi res already posted.


We always knew somebody must have taken more pics that day.
Man why oh why couldn't we have seen these years and years ago????


----------



## asalaw




----------



## MartyS

CessnaDriver said:


> I am surprised at the well lit top "bow light". I was expecting a softer illumination.


I had the same thought as well, I wonder why it wasn't painted over?


----------



## asalaw




----------



## asalaw




----------



## edge10

I appreciate the photos but that water marking is heinous.


----------



## Steve H

Want to make a special thank you and well done to Asalaw for his epic and prodigious photographic effort. I mentally hear the strains of 'Won't get fooled again' in terms of future discussions and the eternal record of posterity regarding the 11 foot Enterprise. Mind, there'll likely be arguments about colors due to display conditions, and some wag on the future internet will claim that the ship was painted overall with these light gray diagonal stripes* like a space zebra, but that's on them, hah? 

*For those what are humor impaired, that's the watermarking he's put on the pics. Regretful but all too necessary in this "if I find it on the internet it's mine" world.


----------



## asalaw

edge10 said:


> I appreciate the photos but that water marking is heinous.


So is stealing my pictures and posting them all over FaceBook, which happened yesterday morning. Once again, one entitled dufus abuses the privilege and ruins it for everybody. For a while there, I was going to just stop posting altogether, but I really hated that option.


----------



## scotthm

asalaw said:


>


So on these rings, are they entirely painted one color with the darker part being in shadow, or were the forward facing parts painted a darker grey color?

And by the way, thank you for the great photos.

---------------


----------



## edge10

asalaw said:


> So is stealing my pictures and posting them all over FaceBook, which happened yesterday morning. Once again, one entitled dufus abuses the privilege and ruins it for everybody. For a while there, I was going to just stop posting altogether, but I really hated that option.


I'm glad you decided not to stop. They are very nice photos.


----------



## asalaw

edge10 said:


> I'm glad you decided not to stop. They are very nice photos.


Thank you. I hate watermarking them as much as you do, but I really have no choice. When you take good pictures, people steal them. I tried to make them as unobtrusive as possible, but I can't make them invisible (yet).


----------



## asalaw

scotthm said:


> So on these rings, are they entirely painted one color with the darker part being in shadow, or were the forward facing parts painted a darker grey color?
> 
> And by the way, thank you for the great photos.
> 
> ---------------


2. You're welcome, and thank you. 
1. I'm sure Gary will chime in on that one.


----------



## mach7

JT1 said:


> They're the ones I want to see :-(
> 
> Anyone who has been there want to share visiting/ parking hints? I looked at the parking map, looks like lot 5 is the best? Anyone know if you can park an F150 there? Is it usually full? Sorry of this isn't the place for this, I just want to load up the kiddos and head down...
> 
> http://www.si.edu/content/ovs/ParkingMap.pdf


There is a good size garage at L'Enfant plaza. What day are you going? 

Weekdays sometimes street parking can be found of Jefferson Ave or 7th. Parking on 7th requires the DC parking app on your phone.

Weekends street parking can be found all over.


----------



## asalaw

mach7 said:


> There is a good size garage at L'Enfant plaza. What day are you going?
> 
> Weekdays sometimes street parking can be found of Jefferson Ave or 7th. Parking on 7th requires the DC parking app on your phone.
> 
> Weekends street parking can be found all over.


You can also use the Parking Panda app to park in the garage under the Holiday Inn two blocks down on 6th Street. It's open 24/7. That's how I got by yesterday and last night. 9am to 3am for $23. 

Also, the Holiday Inn lobby is a great staging/meetup area, and it's also open 24/7. They have a little 24/7 market next to the front desk, which came in handy at 1:30am when we were thirsty as h:grin2:ll.


----------



## Gary K

asalaw said:


> I'm sure Gary will chime in on that one.


If you insist...

Here's a set of photos of the freshly-painted nacelles that explains why the Enterprise's nacelle rings appeared to change color from shot to shot, even though they were painted the same color as the hull (with some minimal weathering that didn't affect the overall color). The facets of the rings were oriented at a different angle from the cylindrical hull, so they reflected light differently. The apparent color of the rings was simply a matter of which direction the lighting was coming from.

Under general lighting conditions, the rings appear very dark when viewed from the front, but they appear to be a medium gray when viewed from the rear.

If light, such as an on-camera flash shown here, is shining directly on the rings, they appear to be medium gray from the front, but light gray from the rear. In the rear view of the Enterprise approaching K7 in "The Trouble With Tribbles", light is shining on the rings from the rear, so they appear to be very light gray.

Good enough?

Gary


----------



## JediDad

That's something. Thanks for the photos.


----------



## asalaw

So glad you guys thought to document the impact of lighting on form and color! You didn't miss a trick, did you? 

I wish I had a dime for every time I banged my head against my desk in frustration over people who insist that "this [grainy, compressed B&W jpeg] photo PROVES CONCLUSIVELY that [insert favorite fan theory here _____]."

Well, a dime and a Tylenol.


----------



## berropablo

Ahhrghhh!!! Enterprise porn!!! My brain can not process all the beauty, the new info, the confirmed info, the discarded theories!!!
ASA_LAW; what about a zip with unwatermarked images for us fellow modellers from the forum? If no; these are great pictures anyway!


----------



## RossW

It looks like the amber LEDs (5 of them in a star pattern) blink, albeit more slowly, than the coloured lights. To my eye, they each blink at separate times but at roughly the same rate. I don't see any example of 'counter-rotation' (i.e. the amber lights blinking in a circular pattern opposite to the direction of the motor). Does anyone see that?

Gary - do you know if the ILM modellers did anything fancy with the blinking of the amber LEDs? Also, do you think the timings for both the warp engines and the running lights + strobes will be published at some point?

You can see the warp engine lights quite well at around the 1:10 mark:


----------



## feek61

A bunch of photos of the beautifully restored E have been posted at Trekcore here:

USS Enterprise at the Smithsonian - June 2016 - TrekCore Star Trek Original Series Screencaps


----------



## JediDad

:thumbsup: I was wondering when they were gonna get around to posting some pics.


----------



## SteveR

... and that answers the question, "what will they do with the port side?"


----------



## asalaw

berropablo said:


> Ahhrghhh!!! Enterprise porn!!! My brain can not process all the beauty, the new info, the confirmed info, the discarded theories!!!
> ASA_LAW; what about a zip with unwatermarked images for us fellow modellers from the forum? If no; these are great pictures anyway!


No.

The whole point of the watermarks is to keep my images from being used without my knowledge, permission, or credit. I'll give you two recent examples:

TrekCore snagged two of my shots of the hangar deck from the 2016 open house and stuck them in one of their videos. I let it slide, because they gave me photo credit on both images. But that doesn't mean it didn't bother me that they hadn't asked permission. They used my work, and I didn't get paid for it.

Yesterday morning, though, a guy whose business is making aftermarket parts for Trek models grabbed my images from Tuesday and posted them on FaceBook with other stuff he'd grabbed from the Smithsonian site and TrekCore. No attribution, no photo credit, nothing. I put my foot down, and he took them down. So this time, it worked out okay.

But I only found out about it because I was already following his feed. How would I ever know what's being done with my work or by whom if I just toss my images out into the wild? What if some unscrupulous downloader (present company excluded, I'm sure) actually _sells_ my images to a web site somewhere?

After these two incidents, my days of happily spraying my unprotected photography hither and yon out of generosity to my fellow fans are over. My generosity was abused, and the fact that it happened at all demonstrates that my images have value and therefore require protection. Nobody steals worthless stuff. 

Finally, guys, with all due respect and affection, please stop asking me for freebies. It's my _work_, whether I choose to exploit it for money or not. It's not public property. Nobody is entitled to it but me. I post it here because I enjoy doing it, and I love the discussions and revelations about the model. But if this is going to turn into a "gimme-gimme" page, I'm not interested.


----------



## Gary K

RossW said:


> It looks like the amber LEDs (5 of them in a star pattern) blink, albeit more slowly, than the coloured lights. To my eye, they each blink at separate times but at roughly the same rate. I don't see any example of 'counter-rotation' (i.e. the amber lights blinking in a circular pattern opposite to the direction of the motor). Does anyone see that?
> 
> Gary - do you know if the ILM modellers did anything fancy with the blinking of the amber LEDs? Also, do you think the timings for both the warp engines and the running lights + strobes will be published at some point?


John Goodson was the mad scientist in charge of the nacelle lights, and he spent many hours tweaking them (and the inner & outer domes) to get the right look using LEDs. He spent additional time adjusting them after we left DC, and then shipped them to the museum, so I don't know what he finally settled on. I'm sure the original lighting wasn't sophisticated enough to have counter-rotating amber lights, so I doubt that John went to the trouble to add that feature to his. I'll ask him sometime.

I went through a number of the MP4 clips that Doug Drexler sent and did a lot of frame-counting to establish a couple common ratios of on/off for the blinkers on the saucer & side of the sec hull. I'll probably include the info in the modelers guide, but the actual timing will probably be a matter of personal choice, since the spfx weren't done at 24 fps (although a few appear to be relatively close). 

Gary


----------



## JediDad

After looking at all the great photos, I think the thing that really stands out for me is the amount of brown weathering, especially around the Nav. deflector and intercoolers.

We all knew the ship was weathered for production, but I don't think anyone imagined it was in those amounts. Fasinating . . . .


----------



## Steve H

Asalaw, I addressed this back at post #716 but I'll revisit in light of this recent statement of yours. This is exactly the problem today, the use of the internet to claim the work of others. You could have put a nice, image friendly little 'bug' in the corner to attribute authorship, and I would bet many donuts that at least one of the sites you mention would have gone to the trouble to either trim out or blur or overwrite your mark.

Which of course is a complete overt act of intellectual property theft.

I thank you again for all that work you're doing to share with we who are unable to make it to the museum. 

And I share your confusion as to why the heck both the McDonalds and the gift shop are closed. I mean, are they being renovated as well? Are they behind sked or something? Or just crazy stupid?

FOURTH OF JULY WEEKEND, PEOPLE! BIG CROWDS HIT D.C.! PEOPLE LOOKING FOR THINGS TO DO! 

arrgggh I just cannot take the sheer foolishness of the world today. The ineptness. Is it so wrong to want more ept in the world? 

BTW, any pics of the top of the nacelles near the front? There's one pic that was mainly focused on the middle and lower and it looked like there was some kind of position light on the top of the nacelle. I'm sure it's an optical illusion but just in case...


----------



## phase_pistol

JediDad said:


> After looking at all the great photos, I think the thing that really stands out for me is the amount of brown weathering, especially around the Nav. deflector and intercoolers.
> 
> We all knew the ship was weathered for production, but I don't think anyone imagined it was in those amounts. Fasinating . . . .


Along those same lines, what's standing out for ME, is that all it takes is a flash photo, and all that detail melts away to invisibility!

They hit the weathering hard, and it barely showed up on screen.


----------



## asalaw

Steve H said:


> Asalaw, I addressed this back at post #716 but I'll revisit in light of this recent statement of yours. This is exactly the problem today, the use of the internet to claim the work of others. You could have put a nice, image friendly little 'bug' in the corner to attribute authorship, and I would bet many donuts that at least one of the sites you mention would have gone to the trouble to either trim out or blur or overwrite your mark.
> 
> Which of course is a complete overt act of intellectual property theft.
> 
> I thank you again for all that work you're doing to share with we who are unable to make it to the museum.
> 
> And I share your confusion as to why the heck both the McDonalds and the gift shop are closed. I mean, are they being renovated as well? Are they behind sked or something? Or just crazy stupid?
> 
> FOURTH OF JULY WEEKEND, PEOPLE! BIG CROWDS HIT D.C.! PEOPLE LOOKING FOR THINGS TO DO!
> 
> arrgggh I just cannot take the sheer foolishness of the world today. The ineptness. Is it so wrong to want more ept in the world?
> 
> BTW, any pics of the top of the nacelles near the front? There's one pic that was mainly focused on the middle and lower and it looked like there was some kind of position light on the top of the nacelle. I'm sure it's an optical illusion but just in case...


1. I hear ya -- and that's why I had to go with the pattern watermark. Because an unobtrusive one would get removed or blurred.

2. Thank you! 

3. No, McDonald's and the gift shop were fully intact. Except for the not openy-thing part.

4. Yes, that photo is among the ones I uploaded. I shot the bracket on the dome, and then I racked focus and shot the nav light. It did not appear to be lit.


----------



## Gary K

JediDad said:


> After looking at all the great photos, I think the thing that really stands out for me is the amount of brown weathering, especially around the Nav. deflector and intercoolers.
> 
> We all knew the ship was weathered for production, but I don't think anyone imagined it was in those amounts. Fasinating . . . .


This is what you get when you use original photography for a reference, rather than the miserable-quality screen & photos we've been using for all these years. What was striking to me is how there's NO green weathering anyplace on the model, except on the upper hull. Like I've said, Richard Edlund is familiar with the film stock that they were using, and he said that there was no technical reason to use the green paint - which leaves what??

Gary


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> This is what you get when you use original photography for a reference, rather than the miserable-quality screen & photos we've been using for all these years. What was striking to me is how there's NO green weathering anyplace on the model, except on the upper hull. Like I've said, Richard Edlund is familiar with the film stock that they were using, and he said that there was no technical reason to use the green paint - which leaves what??
> 
> Gary


Supposition #1. As we've discussed, Jefferies was really keen (or seemed to be) on the theory of 'stage make-up' painting and it's possible the idea of the green overspray was to make the top of the saucer 'pop' just a little more. I don't know if Edlund brought this into the discussion but it's not JUST about the type of film stock used, there's the contextual reality of filming for broadcast to millions of B&W TV sets. I recall there used to be a 'color wheel' that had to be used to see how a color chosen would 'read' as B&W. Spock's make-up famously was changed from the original intended red to yellow-ish green-ish because of how the red read on B&W TVs. So maybe that overspray was just the touch needed to make it look better.

(it's easy to forget that back in the '60s B&W was still the majority of TV sets in the country)

Supposition #2. Given what we've seen now (as re-creation) of how crazy subtle and intense the weathering on the model is, maybe Jefferies idea was that the top of the saucer would be more exposed to all the varied stellar radiations, the rays of thousands of distant suns, and so would be 'burned' just a little bit. 

Supposition #3. It was the only clear shellac in the shop at the time and they needed to seal the saucer so they could do the decal swapping thing without damaging the paint?


----------



## Gary K

asalaw said:


> 4. Yes, that photo is among the ones I uploaded. I shot the bracket on the dome, and then I racked focus and shot the nav light. It did not appear to be lit.


That's because the original nacelle running lights weren't lit. There was nothing left on the wooden nacelles - other than nail holes - and the lights were tiny, even in our hi-res photos. A friend of Greg Jein, who's an expert on the lights in the TOS props, put me on the right track. The "lights" are nothing more exotic than #4 surface washers, held in place by 6mm unholstery nails from the UK. Here's a photo of some space tourists alongside on of the lights.

Gary

PS: That's simply a test dome on the nacelle, so don't get excited.

PPS: Check out the nacelle rings, which, despite appearances, are hull color.


----------



## JediDad

Gary K said:


> This is what you get when you use original photography for a reference, rather than the miserable-quality screen & photos we've been using for all these years. What was striking to me is how there's NO green weathering anyplace on the model, except on the upper hull. Like I've said, Richard Edlund is familiar with the film stock that they were using, and he said that there was no technical reason to use the green paint - which leaves what??
> 
> Gary


Maybe it's as simple as Jeffries liked green :grin2:


----------



## JediDad

Gary K said:


> That's because the original nacelle running lights weren't lit. There was nothing left on the wooden nacelles - other than nail holes - and the lights were tiny, even in our hi-res photos. A friend of Greg Jein, who's an expert on the lights in the TOS props, put me on the right track. The "lights" are nothing more exotic than #4 surface washers, held in place by 6mm unholstery nails from the UK. Here's a photo of some space tourists alongside on of the lights.
> 
> Gary
> 
> PS: That's simply a test dome on the nacelle, so don't get excited.
> 
> PPS: Check out the nacelle rings, which, despite appearances, are hull color.


That brings up something I was wondering about with concern to the lighting. I was looking at the inside of the secondary hull photos, where you can see the pieces of what I assume to be plexiglass for the ports sticking through.

I am guessing that they would have cut holes and put these in when they decided to light the ship? There would be no reason to put them in otherwise.


----------



## Gary K

JediDad said:


> That brings up something I was wondering about with concern to the lighting. I was looking at the inside of the secondary hull photos, where you can see the pieces of what I assume to be plexiglass for the ports sticking through.
> 
> I am guessing that they would have cut holes and put these in when they decided to light the ship? There would be no reason to put them in otherwise.


Richard Datin installed the Plex windows during the after-the-fact installation of lighting in the 2nd Pilot version. He says he cut the holes in the hull very carefully because he didn't want to repaint "the monster".

Gary


----------



## JediDad

Gary K said:


> Richard Datin installed the Plex windows during the after-the-fact installation of lighting in the 2nd Pilot version. He says he cut the holes in the hull very carefully because he didn't want to repaint "the monster".
> 
> Gary


Hahaha I would imagine he was very careful. As many modelers know, cutting those rectangles nice and neat can be difficult.

Thanks Gary!


----------



## Gary K

JediDad said:


> Hahaha I would imagine he was very careful. As many modelers know, cutting those rectangles nice and neat can be difficult.
> 
> Thanks Gary!


I get the impression that Datin was less than thrilled by the fact that Roddenberry changed his mind re. lighting the ship. 

Gary


----------



## Gregatron

Gary K said:


> This is what you get when you use original photography for a reference, rather than the miserable-quality screen & photos we've been using for all these years. What was striking to me is how there's NO green weathering anyplace on the model, except on the upper hull. Like I've said, Richard Edlund is familiar with the film stock that they were using, and he said that there was no technical reason to use the green paint - which leaves what??
> 
> Gary



Something else of note--the first pilot version appears to have the same color scheme--green weathering on the saucer, brown and gray streaks everywhere else.

It would appear that the saucer was repainted after the first pilot, so as to eliminate the painted on registry markings, and allow for the reversible decals. Yet, when they re-weathered the saucer for the production version, they again used green (in addition to the new gridlines and tan/brown ring).

Which means this was some sort of deliberate creative choice, since they did it _twice_.


----------



## scotthm

Gary K said:


> Here's a set of photos of the freshly-painted nacelles that explains why the Enterprise's nacelle rings appeared to change color from shot to shot, even though they were painted the same color as the hull


Thank you very much. A 50 year old question has just been answered. :thumbsup:

---------------


----------



## Gary K

Gregatron said:


> Something else of note--the first pilot version appears to have the same color scheme--green weathering on the saucer, brown and gray streaks everywhere else.
> 
> It would appear that the saucer was repainted after the first pilot, so as to eliminate the painted on registry markings, and allow for the reversible decals. Yet, when they re-weathered the saucer for the production version, they again used green (in addition to the new gridlines and tan/brown ring).
> 
> Which means this was some sort of deliberate creative choice, since they did it _twice_.


None of our ref photos show a green upper saucer on either Pilot version - just some subtle weathering streaks, concentrated on the upper saucer, since that area got a close-up in "The Cage". That would not preclude a later deliberate choice of using green for whatever purpose.

Btw, check out the shot in "Mirror, Mirror" when the 2nd Pilot Enterprise moves from right to left. You're not seeing a reversed decal on the flopped footage. If you look closely at a good-quality image, you can see that they had painted the reversed lettering on a piece a gray paper and glued it over the painted-on lettering. A lot cheaper than repainting the nacelle and making new decals!

Gary


----------



## scotthm

Gary K said:


> Like I've said, Richard Edlund is familiar with the film stock that they were using, and he said that there was no technical reason to use the green paint - which leaves what??


It's _possible_ that even though _Star Trek_ was broadcast in color (on a network with a vested interest in the audience seeing it in color) that consideration was given to how it would look in black & white and that may have played a part in the choice of colors used.

---------------


----------



## berropablo

C´mon asalaw, is not I am like "gimme-gimme" or trying to take advantage, its that those are really beautiful pictures detailing a model I will probably never meet in person. The watermarks just interfere a bit, but not big problem. 
Sorry if I bothered you. Really :thumbsup:


----------



## Gregatron

Gary K said:


> None of our ref photos show a green upper saucer on either Pilot version - just some subtle weathering streaks, concentrated on the upper saucer, since that area got a close-up in "The Cage". That would not preclude a later deliberate choice of using green for whatever purpose.
> 
> Btw, check out the shot in "Mirror, Mirror" when the 2nd Pilot Enterprise moves from right to left. You're not seeing a reversed decal on the flopped footage. If you look closely at a good-quality image, you can see that they had painted the reversed lettering on a piece a gray paper and glued it over the painted-on lettering. A lot cheaper than repainting the nacelle and making new decals!
> 
> Gary


Hmmm. In that pilot-opening zoom-in shot, the weathering has always looked green, to my eye. An artifact of VHS/DVD/Blu-Ray color-correction, and/or the original optical compositing, I suppose.

And, yeah, I'd long-ago noticed the edges of that rectangular piece of paper, but, until now, assumed it was visible edges of the decal carrier film. And, it now occurs to me (in a forehead-slapping, "Duh!" moment) that each of the letters/numbers would have been placed on the model individually, and so there wouldn't be a big rectangle of carrier film for the entire "NCC-1701". Thanks for the info, as usual!


----------



## Steve H

scotthm said:


> It's _possible_ that even though _Star Trek_ was broadcast in color (on a network with a vested interest in the audience seeing it in color) that consideration was given to how it would look in black & white and that may have played a part in the choice of colors used.
> 
> ---------------


See post #739.


----------



## jheilman

Yes, there are small lights on the top front of each nacelle. I do not believe they were ever lit.


----------



## Steve H

I have to say, that optical illusion with the color on the nacelle rings is one of the most bizarre things I've ever witnessed. I'm not sure that's going to 'scale' for the 1/350 Enterprise, so what's the solution for the builder? Color flop paint? Hull color with a mild wash of smoke? Just tint the hull color a little darker and call it good? I just don't see the model kit being able to duplicate the illusion.


----------



## scotthm

Steve H said:


> See post #739.


Ah, I see we were thinking along the same lines.

The reason this occurred to me is that a lot of green paint was used on the sets of black & white television series.

---------------


----------



## phase_pistol

Regards B&W vs color, NBC was admittedly trying to sell color TVs with Star Trek, but they had to keep the larger B&W audience in mind as well.


----------



## Steve H

phase_pistol said:


> Regards B&W vs color, NBC was admittedly trying to sell color TVs with Star Trek, but they had to keep the larger B&W audience in mind as well.


Wasn't just Star Trek of course. NBC promoted itself as the All Color Network (again, sell them TVs!  ).

I wonder how much impact this mandate had on all studio's production. Color film did cost more and it's well known that NO network (there was only three back then, remember) was raising the fees they paid to offset those costs. 

It's an interesting speculation, wondering how well Star Trek would have done had that first season been filmed in B&W.


----------



## asalaw

Funny thing -- now that I think of it, Peter Boyle's makeup in Young Frankenstein was green. I recall Mel Brooks saying on the Mike Douglas show that the green read very well in B&W. Did this idea come up in the research? Did Edlund take B&W into account in his comments?


----------



## Daniel_B

Three years ago I had made a CGI color reference guide based of Gary K's comments at the time for my own reference, as well as for others to reference on this forum. It seems with the restoration, it now might have some inaccuracies. I would like to correct them and re-upload it as the "definitive" color guide for the Enterprise. I rendered two ways, one with lighting/shadowing, and one with colors only so the shading wouldn't confuse correct colors. Could someone please comment on the intercoolers and aft nacelle vent detail. My questions are in the images below. Once these are answered, I will update my CG illustration and upload it for reference.


----------



## asalaw

Steve H said:


> I have to say, that optical illusion with the color on the nacelle rings is one of the most bizarre things I've ever witnessed. I'm not sure that's going to 'scale' for the 1/350 Enterprise, so what's the solution for the builder? Color flop paint? Hull color with a mild wash of smoke? Just tint the hull color a little darker and call it good? I just don't see the model kit being able to duplicate the illusion.


Some builders just put a little shading in the creases, or a little soot, stuff like that -- a very light touch, just to enhance the natural shadow. When I do mine, I'm going to shoot some pix first and see how it looks straight-up naked in different light. Then we'll see.

There are numerous building pages on FaceBook where you can find those techniques -- search on starship modeling, enterprise, trek, and so forth.


----------



## RossW

Gary K said:


> John Goodson was the mad scientist in charge of the nacelle lights, and he spent many hours tweaking them (and the inner & outer domes) to get the right look using LEDs. He spent additional time adjusting them after we left DC, and then shipped them to the museum, so I don't know what he finally settled on. I'm sure the original lighting wasn't sophisticated enough to have counter-rotating amber lights, so I doubt that John went to the trouble to add that feature to his. I'll ask him sometime.
> 
> I went through a number of the MP4 clips that Doug Drexler sent and did a lot of frame-counting to establish a couple common ratios of on/off for the blinkers on the saucer & side of the sec hull. I'll probably include the info in the modelers guide, but the actual timing will probably be a matter of personal choice, since the spfx weren't done at 24 fps (although a few appear to be relatively close).
> 
> Gary


Thanks for confirming the non counter-rotation of the amber lights, Gary. That would have required a chaser circuit timed to the motors, and I think the motor rotation direction wasn't always the same from shot-to-shot (a DC motor will spin in the opposite direction if you switch the wires) so that would have been more complicated to set up.


----------



## phase_pistol

Window mystery!

OK on the port forward quadrant of the saucer, there's now one window










... but photos of her hanging in the Smithsonian from the 1980s show TWO windows (like the Master Replicas model has)!

Did somebody swipe a window? Check everyone's pockets!


----------



## DoctorGonzo

*Lighting/Nacelle Controller?*

Gary K, Quick question. After having access to all the Hi Res ref pics, were there or did they use a controller to change the rotation of the Nacelles and lighting to the model? I know this piece got lost to history, but what did they use?


----------



## asalaw

phase_pistol said:


> Window mystery!
> 
> OK on the port forward quadrant of the saucer, there's now one window
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... but photos of her hanging in the Smithsonian from the 1980s show TWO windows (like the Master Replicas model has)!
> 
> Did somebody swipe a window? Check everyone's pockets!


Somebody probably just snagged it and put it up on FaceBook. :grin2:


----------



## MartyS

Steve H said:


> I have to say, that optical illusion with the color on the nacelle rings is one of the most bizarre things I've ever witnessed. I'm not sure that's going to 'scale' for the 1/350 Enterprise, so what's the solution for the builder? Color flop paint? Hull color with a mild wash of smoke? Just tint the hull color a little darker and call it good? I just don't see the model kit being able to duplicate the illusion.


Isn't that always the dilemma with fictional ships...

Do you go with what the filming model looked like or what it looked like on screen, and under what lighting conditions when on screen? And if there is more than one filming model how to choose between them.......

People wanting to replicate the 11 footer now seem to have it easy. :grin2:

I built my models to try and replicate what was on screen during Space Seed, if I build another I'll probably stick with that color scheme. Of course when I get around to building the first pilot version I'll probably try to go more with what the 11 foot model looked like in the studio rather than what was on screen.


----------



## Gary K

phase_pistol said:


> Window mystery!
> 
> OK on the port forward quadrant of the saucer, there's now one window ... but photos of her hanging in the Smithsonian from the 1980s show TWO windows (like the Master Replicas model has)!
> 
> Did somebody swipe a window? Check everyone's pockets!


One window was painted over during the conversion into the Production version, but was put back on during the 1984 restoration.

Gary


----------



## phase_pistol

Window mystery solved! :grin2:

This one angle from "Metamorphosis" seems to show the one window.


----------



## Gary K

Daniel_B said:


> Three years ago I had made a CGI color reference guide based of Gary K's comments at the time for my own reference, as well as for others to reference on this forum. It seems with the restoration, it now might have some inaccuracies. I would like to correct them and re-upload it as the "definitive" color guide for the Enterprise. I rendered two ways, one with lighting/shadowing, and one with colors only so the shading wouldn't confuse correct colors. Could someone please comment on the intercoolers and aft nacelle vent detail. My questions are in the images below. Once these are answered, I will update my CG illustration and upload it for reference.


For starters, the Pilot hull color was a cool gray, while the Production hull was gray, with a slight green tint. There were 3 gray trim colors:

Light gray - very light, very slightly bluish gray that photographed as white. I'll call it "white", for short.
Medium gray - neutral gray, slightly darker than hull color.
Dark gray - darker shade on the Production impulse deck & elsewhere.

Here's the chronology of the color scheme:

Intercoolers:
Rollout & 1st Pilot - all white
2nd Pilot - Ribs added and the ribbed area was painted Pilot hull color
Production - All white again

Control reactor (loop only):
Rollout & 1st Pilot - all white
2nd Pilot - Ribs added and the ribbed area was painted Pilot hull color
Production - No changes, except for some brown weathering

Rectangular nacelle vents - Dark gray in all versions.

Ribbed endcaps:
Pilot hull gray on Rollout & Pilot versions
Production - Dark gray on camera side (we can't waste any paint on something that wasn't seen on camera.  )

Gary


----------



## JT1

Has the yellow/orange window on the dorsal been settled so long ago that it hasn't even come up in this thread?


----------



## asalaw

Gary K said:


> For starters, the Pilot hull color was a cool gray, while the Production hull was gray, with a slight green tint. There were 3 gray trim colors:
> 
> Light gray - very light, very slightly bluish gray that photographed as white. I'll call it "white", for short.
> Medium gray - neutral gray, slightly darker than hull color.
> Dark gray - darker shade on the Production impulse deck & elsewhere.
> 
> Here's the chronology of the color scheme:
> 
> Intercoolers:
> Rollout & 1st Pilot - all white
> 2nd Pilot - Ribs added and the ribbed area was painted Pilot hull color
> Production - All white again
> 
> Control reactor (loop only):
> Rollout & 1st Pilot - all white
> 2nd Pilot - Ribs added and the ribbed area was painted Pilot hull color
> Production - No changes, except for some brown weathering
> 
> Rectangular nacelle vents - Dark gray in all versions.
> 
> Ribbed endcaps:
> Pilot hull gray on Rollout & Pilot versions
> Production - Dark gray on camera side (we can't waste any paint on something that wasn't seen on camera.  )
> 
> Gary


SQUEEEEEEE!!!!!!! :grin2:

Thanks, Gary!

Also, the Gnomes have brought me what I need to begin Phase 1 -- underpants!!


----------



## Gregatron

So, the two-toned look for the intercoolers was only there for the second pilot, then. That makes a lot of sense, based on what can be seen in the various stock shots.


----------



## Steve H

JT1 said:


> Has the yellow/orange window on the dorsal been settled so long ago that it hasn't even come up in this thread?


We're still chewing on the top parts of the ship! We'll get around to the dorsal soon enough. 

No, that's a good question of course. As well as the various things that seem to be behind some of the windows, like a grid.

AARRGGHHH SO MUCH TO LEARN!


----------



## Daniel_B

Ok, based on careful observations of the restored model, as well as Gary's comments, I have made a version 1.0 of the TOS Enterprise Color guide. If anyone sees any inaccuracies or omissions, please let me know and I will amend them. This is colors only, not weathering. I did a render with shading, and one with no shading so you can see the pure colors.

RIGHT CLICK OPEN IN NEW TAB FOR FULL SIZE IMAGE


----------



## scotthm

Gary K said:


> Ribbed endcaps:
> Production - Dark gray on camera side (we can't waste any paint on something that wasn't seen on camera.


I noticed that. They must have saved about 25 cents by not painting the whole thing. 

---------------


----------



## Gary K

Daniel_B said:


> Ok, based on careful observations of the restored model, as well as Gary's comments, I have made a version 1.0 of the TOS Enterprise Color guide. If anyone sees any inaccuracies or omissions, please let me know and I will amend them. This is colors only, not weathering. I did a render with shading, and one with no shading so you only see the pure colors.


Several things off the top of my head:

1. Dorsal leading edge - make it turquoise (representing the original blue dorsal with yellowed shellac and/or a light coating of the transparent green from the upper saucer).

2. The rectangular shape on the belly should be light gray/"white" with a dark gray outline.

3. The phaser turret on the lower saucer dome is hull color, with an aluminum barrel & red tip.

4. The deflector antenna spike - The new one is made from archival turned aluminum. Even in our best color photos, the spike appeared silver, brass, or gold, so we compromised. The aluminum spike was given light, transparent coatings of brass & gold (with some brown to accentuate the shapes), creating a silver/brass/gold color. 

Gary


----------



## phase_pistol

Gary K said:


> Even in our best color photos, the spike appeared silver, brass, or gold, so we compromised.


Any chance it was silver, and picking up the warm brown hue of the copper dish?


----------



## phase_pistol

Also it seems to me that the support ring around the planetary sensor dome, is the same white/gray/spacedusted color, as the intercoolers et al.


----------



## robn1

phase_pistol said:


> Window mystery!
> 
> OK on the port forward quadrant of the saucer, there's now one window
> 
> ... but photos of her hanging in the Smithsonian from the 1980s show TWO windows (like the Master Replicas model has)!
> 
> Did somebody swipe a window? Check everyone's pockets!


There's a great vintage photo that's part of the display base (and I hope to be released soon) that shows the one window.


----------



## Steve H

MartyS said:


> Isn't that always the dilemma with fictional ships...
> 
> Do you go with what the filming model looked like or what it looked like on screen, and under what lighting conditions when on screen? And if there is more than one filming model how to choose between them.......
> 
> People wanting to replicate the 11 footer now seem to have it easy. :grin2:
> 
> I built my models to try and replicate what was on screen during Space Seed, if I build another I'll probably stick with that color scheme. Of course when I get around to building the first pilot version I'll probably try to go more with what the 11 foot model looked like in the studio rather than what was on screen.


Yes, as you know, I've discussed this very thing. Choices have to be made and in the end, what looks right to YOU, the builder, should really be the only consideration. 

Just like with the refit Enterprise, it's really tough to model the actual look because the size of the filming miniature IS an unavoidable consideration in terms of paint and finish. Even the recent advent of 'color flop' paints in general availability can't quite capture the look of a large miniature under stage lighting conditions, with the film stock and the multi pass mattes and the little mirrors for lights and everything. 

The optical illusion created by the nacelle rings is shocking. I really don't think one could even scale down the exact physical dimensions and shapes and achieve the same visual effect because size is part of the equation. 

I suspect I'll always paint that area a darker gray and call it good.


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> (snipped for space and to make more concise. Original post awesome  )
> 
> Ribbed endcaps:
> Pilot hull gray on Rollout & Pilot versions
> Production - Dark gray on camera side (we can't waste any paint on something that wasn't seen on camera.  )
> 
> Gary


OK, the endcap paint. Is it safe to say this was one of the places where penny-pinching reached absurd heights in your eyes?


----------



## Daniel_B

Revision to my color guide based on Gary's feedback. I have now included the inboard view of the nacelle, which I neglected to do earlier.

*RIGHT CLICK OPEN IN NEW TAB FOR FULL SIZE*


----------



## asalaw

Gary K said:


> Several things off the top of my head:
> 
> 1. Dorsal leading edge - make it turquoise (representing the original blue dorsal with yellowed shellac and/or a light coating of the transparent green from the upper saucer).
> 
> 2. The fat "T" shape on the belly should be light gray/"white" with a dark gray outline.
> 
> 3. The phaser turret on the lower saucer dome is hull color, with an aluminum barrel & red tip.
> 
> 4. The deflector antenna spike - The new one is made from archival turned aluminum. Even in our best color photos, the spike appeared silver, brass, or gold, so we compromised. The aluminum spike was given light, transparent coatings of brass & gold (with some brown to accentuate the shapes), creating a silver/brass/gold color.
> 
> Gary


OMG-OMG-OMG-OMG-OMG!!!!! :nerd: It's an early Christmas!



Steve H said:


> Choices have to be made and in the end, what looks right to YOU, the builder, should really be the only consideration.


IMO, that's the gold standard right there. Ima paint it my way, you paint it yours. This excellent paint guide shaping up here will be a teriffic departure point for many; others will follow it slavishly, and that's good too. 

I've often thought of doing mine up as the Mystery Machine from Scooby Doo, but fortunately I stopped smokin' that stuff over 20 years ago. So I'm sticking with the restoration. Unless paisley.


----------



## berropablo

Great drawings Daniel_B!
Why you choosed not to add the pencil paneling?


----------



## Daniel_B

berropablo said:


> Great drawings Daniel_B!
> Why you choosed not to add the pencil paneling?


As I said in my original post, I'm only attempting to keep all the colors and their locations straight with these images. Therefore I want to keep them simple and free of panel lining and weathering.

Anyone who wishes to add panel lining to their model will be able to find many many schematics which show the grids. There isn't a definitive color guide out there yet, so that is what I'm aiming for here.


----------



## phase_pistol

Daniel_B said:


> I have now included the inboard view of the nacelle, which I neglected to do earlier.


On that inboard view, note that the dark gray does not fill up the entire inset area. The top and bottom walls are hull gray, leading to a sort of teardrop shape to the rear. 


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...575897336.1073741857.665202335&type=3&theater


Also at the front, the hull gray curves around in a U shape.


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...575897336.1073741857.665202335&type=3&theater


----------



## Daniel_B

phase_pistol said:


> On that inboard view, note that the dark gray does not fill up the entire inset area. The top and bottom walls are hull gray, leading to a sort of teardrop shape to the rear.
> 
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...575897336.1073741857.665202335&type=3&theater
> 
> 
> Also at the front, the hull gray curves around in a U shape.
> 
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...575897336.1073741857.665202335&type=3&theater


Thank you, I will amend this.


----------



## Steve H

phase_pistol said:


> Any chance it was silver, and picking up the warm brown hue of the copper dish?


I think this may be a case for Occam's Razor. 

A copper or brass spike would probably be 'lost' against the dish. A silver spike given the same 'space mud' weathering so evident on the entire leading edge of the Engineering hull seems consistent and logical. Just enough contrast to stand out. 

I think that fits the vintage photos from what's been said.


----------



## phase_pistol

"Space mud," of course! That's why the sensor deflector dish is brown. It started out gold chrome.


----------



## Daniel_B

phase_pistol said:


> On that inboard view, note that the dark gray does not fill up the entire inset area. The top and bottom walls are hull gray, leading to a sort of teardrop shape to the rear.
> 
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...575897336.1073741857.665202335&type=3&theater
> 
> 
> Also at the front, the hull gray curves around in a U shape.
> 
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...575897336.1073741857.665202335&type=3&theater


Ok, I think this gets it. I will wait for others to chime in on version 2 before I update the whole set again. Thanks for catching this.


----------



## phase_pistol

:thumbsup: Looking good Daniel!

May I ask, what software do you use for 3D modeling?


----------



## Daniel_B

phase_pistol said:


> :thumbsup: Looking good Daniel!
> 
> May I ask, what software do you use for 3D modeling?


3ds max.


----------



## robn1

phase_pistol said:


> On that inboard view, note that the dark gray does not fill up the entire inset area. The top and bottom walls are hull gray, leading to a sort of teardrop shape to the rear.


This reminds me of a comment I made to asa the other night, that the painted on trench on the starboard nacelle looked very convincing even seeing it up close. Of course the light was pretty dim around midnight, but I had to move my head around to be sure the trench wasn't actually recessed.


----------



## asalaw

robn1 said:


> This reminds me of a comment I made to asa the other night, that the painted on trench on the starboard nacelle looked very convincing even seeing it up close. Of course the light was pretty dim around midnight, but I had to move my head around to be sure the trench wasn't actually recessed.


I remember. I have to go back and reshoot those areas because I just didn't get them in focus properly, due to the darkness. One thing, the faux grill on the stb inboard nacelle looks awesome. Margaret told me Gary counted the holes in the frisket, and it was 952. Which is just awesome.


----------



## robn1

We Chat Enterprise With Matt Jefferies from Doug Drexler

https://vimeo.com/144305493


----------



## CessnaDriver

Curious when it was time to draw the grid lines on the bottom saucer, what was used?


----------



## Steve H

robn1 said:


> We Chat Enterprise With Matt Jefferies from Doug Drexler
> 
> https://vimeo.com/144305493


Fascinating.

I have to say, it made my heart hurt to hear Jefferies mutter "too much time, too much time has passed", ya know?

Maybe I'm just too sentimental.

Anyway, so it sounds like Jefferies is saying he had nothing to do with any of the added deco on the Enterprise? I'm not sure how to 'unpack' that now.


----------



## JediDad

CessnaDriver said:


> Curious when it was time to draw the grid lines on the bottom saucer, what was used?


Good question, that's something I was wondering as well.


----------



## asalaw

Steve H said:


> Fascinating.
> 
> I have to say, it made my heart hurt to hear Jefferies mutter "too much time, too much time has passed", ya know?
> 
> Maybe I'm just too sentimental.
> 
> Anyway, so it sounds like Jefferies is saying he had nothing to do with any of the added deco on the Enterprise? I'm not sure how to 'unpack' that now.


Some of Jeffries' comments _seemed_ to conflict with Datin's in his kids' book, but I can't remember now which ones. I think in both cases, memories got fuzzy. I know mine is, and I'm only 51. Hopefully the conservators were able to pin a lot of that stuff down. It sounds like they did, anyway.


----------



## Steve H

asalaw said:


> Some of Jeffries' comments _seemed_ to conflict with Datin's in his kids' book, but I can't remember now which ones. I think in both cases, memories got fuzzy. I know mine is, and I'm only 51. Hopefully the conservators were able to pin a lot of that stuff down. It sounds like they did, anyway.


And I think he was aware of that as well.

One example where I give the benefit of any doubt, he keeps referring to 'Revell' when I'm positive he meant AMT. He does say AMT later, maybe prompted by Doug or someone else.

But he kept talking about "that guy at Revell" and I *think* one time he muttered 'Poe' which I assume to interpret as Stephen Edward Poe, aka Stephen E. Whitfield, the 'guy with AMT'. 

So, after unpacking and sorting that, it is possible that Poe did some 'off the books' work and did the detail deco work we've assumed was Jefferies?


----------



## asalaw

Who knows? Some things may forever remain secret. At some point I want to go spelunking through the files on the model at the Udvar-Häzy archives. Hell, I review complex documents for a living -- might as well do it for fun for once. 

Also, I just wanted to throw out a personal thank you to the lighting wizard, Larry. Those lights are very bright, yet not blinding. I suppose to simulate the brightness they would've needed to read on film under the set lights. But it has the fringe benefit that the lights don't wash out very much when you take flash pictures. As Tech Sergeant Chen says, "It's the little things."


----------



## jlwshere

Thanks for the pics. Looks like they cleaned it up a bit (a good thing) Too bad they didn't light it.


----------



## robn1

Steve H said:


> And I think he was aware of that as well.
> 
> One example where I give the benefit of any doubt, he keeps referring to 'Revell' when I'm positive he meant AMT. He does say AMT later, maybe prompted by Doug or someone else.
> 
> But he kept talking about "that guy at Revell" and I *think* one time he muttered 'Poe' which I assume to interpret as Stephen Edward Poe, aka Stephen E. Whitfield, the 'guy with AMT'.
> 
> So, after unpacking and sorting that, it is possible that Poe did some 'off the books' work and did the detail deco work we've assumed was Jefferies?


When he mentioned Revell, he was talking about the guy who built the "updated ship" meaning for Phase 2, then said it may have been Don Loos. The name he couldn't remember was Brick Price, who did work for Revell building up car kits for the box top photos. That's what Matt meant when he said the guy previously made automobile models for Revell.


----------



## Steve H

robn1 said:


> When he mentioned Revell, he was talking about the guy who built the "updated ship" meaning for Phase 2, then said it may have been Don Loos. The name he couldn't remember was Brick Price, who did work for Revell building up car kits for the box top photos. That's what Matt meant when he said the guy previously made automobile models for Revell.


Ah. OK, so I misunderstood the context of 'updated'. I didn't think discussions went beyond Original Series and I was taking 'updated' to mean the changes from Pilot to Production.

That's on me. 

So what exactly was Price doing? Was he taking test shots and building them up pretty for photography or was he scratch building cars because the final tooling hadn't produced kits for that purpose yet and they had to have the boxes done?

I have to backdate my brain and remember that Revell used to do everything in-house and in the USA, like all the other model companies.


----------



## berropablo

One thing I don´t understand:
When the model was filmed for "The Cage"; was symetrically decorated, I mean was it detailed on both sides? 
I know there are traces of a "hidden side decoration". Apparently this was when the
Enterprise arrived at the Smithsonian.










And I have no idea when this picture was taken (aside the copyright date)


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## Gary K

berropablo said:


> One thing I don´t understand:
> When the model was filmed for "The Cage"; was symetrically decorated, I mean was it detailed on both sides?
> I know there are traces of a "hidden side decoration". Apparently this was when the
> Enterprise arrived at the Smithsonian.
> 
> And I have no idea when this picture was taken (aside the copyright date)


In "The Cage" the 3-footer was used in all shots, except for the opening shot, the zoom into the bridge. For whatever reason, they put the banners on the left nacelle & sec hull of the 11-footer.

I don't know where the IDICpage picture came from, but that's not the 11-footer. I can ask William McCullars about it later.

Gary


----------



## robn1

Steve H said:


> Ah. OK, so I misunderstood the context of 'updated'. I didn't think discussions went beyond Original Series and I was taking 'updated' to mean the changes from Pilot to Production.
> 
> That's on me.
> 
> So what exactly was Price doing? Was he taking test shots and building them up pretty for photography or was he scratch building cars because the final tooling hadn't produced kits for that purpose yet and they had to have the boxes done?
> 
> I have to backdate my brain and remember that Revell used to do everything in-house and in the USA, like all the other model companies.


Yeah I had to replay it a few times to catch it all. Someone asked who built the model (original) and he couldn't remember the name, (must be Volmer Jensen or Mel Keys). Then he said _another _name he couldn't remember was the guy who made the "updated" model, and he said that was when he was working on "Little House" so that would be Phase 2. Someone mentioned Don Loos (who also worked on Phase 2) and Matt said it could be, but the "built autos for Revell" part would have to be Brick Price.

Starlog had an article on Price during the Project Blue Book days, where he said when he was younger he did build ups for Revell for the box photos, at $20 each! Matt must have been aware of his background, but just couldn't remember his name. 

This video is great. I've seen pics of Matt and read interviews, But never seen video or film of him so this is the first time I've heard him speak. I liked when he said he was having a ball looking at the photos.


----------



## Steve H

It's missing the lights along the spine forward of the shuttle beacon, and obviously none of the windows are lit.

Might that be a close pic of the elusive 33 inch model? Something taken before it's mysterious vanishing from the Brick Price workshop post-Phase II?


----------



## asalaw

Steve H said:


> It's missing the lights along the spine forward of the shuttle beacon, and obviously none of the windows are lit.
> 
> Might that be a close pic of the elusive 33 inch model? Something taken before it's mysterious vanishing from the Brick Price workshop post-Phase II?


McCullars had a number of pix of Greg Jein's 1/2-scale E made for DS9, and I remember it always seemed to look light gray like that. The white dome light also makes me think this is GJ's model. Plus the date is around a year after T&T aired.


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## Steve H

asalaw said:


> McCullars had a number of pix of Greg Jein's 1/2-scale E made for DS9, and I remember it always seemed to look light gray like that. The white dome light also makes me think this is GJ's model. Plus the date is around a year after T&T aired.


I didn't link the date on the watermark as necessarily being the date the photo was taken. I didn't have that context. 

But I'm surprised Jein didn't get those spine lights on there. I'd think he'd have known about them.


----------



## Gregatron

Gary K said:


> Several things off the top of my head:
> 
> 1. Dorsal leading edge - make it turquoise (representing the original blue dorsal with yellowed shellac and/or a light coating of the transparent green from the upper saucer).
> 
> Gary



Ah-ha!

Back when the blue pilot dorsal was a topic of hot debate, a few years back, I theorized that the production dorsal's leading edge retained the original color, whereas the rest was repainted the base hull color.

However, around the time of the 1/350 kit's release, you seemed pretty darn sure that the leading edge was a greenish color. Still, it looks awfully blue to me in many stock composites from the show.

I hadn't considered that age-yellowed shellac might account for the apparent greenish color we've been seeing, post-TOS! Makes sense to me.


----------



## Gary K

Gregatron said:


> Ah-ha!
> 
> Back when the blue pilot dorsal was a topic of hot debate, a few years back, I theorized that the production dorsal's leading edge retained the original color, whereas the rest was repainted the base hull color.
> 
> However, around the time of the 1/350 kit's release, you seemed pretty darn sure that the leading edge was a greenish color. Still, it looks awfully blue to me in many stock composites from the show.
> 
> I hadn't considered that age-yellowed shellac might account for the apparent greenish color we've been seeing, post-TOS! Makes sense to me.


Actually, while I was making color chips for Polar's 2012 release, I was doing a lot of color correcting on the better-quality screen caps, and I found a lot of blue in the leading edge. I remember that I mixed green with the ironically-named 'Paramount Blue' to arrive at the greenish-blue chip I sent to Jamie. 

In our hi-res color pics from the 60s, the leading edge doesn't seem to be as pure a blue as was on the Pilot dorsal, which is why I said that I wouldn't be surprised if they'd sprayed it with some of the transparent green from the upper saucer in 1966, during the conversion to the Production version.

Gary


----------



## MGagen

The port side secondary hull shot is definitely one of the _copies_ of Jein's Trials and Tribbleations model. They were selling non-lit models from the same molds for a time. I recall seeing these photos on the late lamented IDIC page.

M.


----------



## Gregatron

Gary K said:


> Actually, while I was making color chips for Polar's 2012 release, I was doing a lot of color correcting on the better-quality screen caps, and I found a lot of blue in the leading edge. I remember that I mixed green with the ironically-named 'Paramount Blue' to arrive at the greenish-blue chip I sent to Jamie.
> 
> In our hi-res color pics from the 60s, the leading edge doesn't seem to be as pure a blue as was on the Pilot dorsal, which is why I said that I wouldn't be surprised if they'd sprayed it with some of the transparent green from the upper saucer in 1966, during the conversion to the Production version.
> 
> Gary


Hmmm. That again raises the question of why the green color factors in. It's not as if the green was necessary to help ensure that there be no issues with bluescreen filming--the second pilot version and its blue dorsal were successfully shot against bluescreen.

For whatever reason--perhaps mere aesthetics--, someone decided to add that greenish weathering to the saucer and maybe also the dorsal, and brownish everywhere else.

A possible kneejerk reaction of your average TREK fan would be that maybe they were thinking about showing standard "space mud" on the secondary hull, with distinctly different, greenish weathering on the saucer to imply that the saucer had at some point landed on an alien world, via saucer separation.

Of course, there's no friggin' way that could have been the reasoning behind the changes to the model, at that time! That's your standard "nerdy overthinking of things with the aid of hindsight and retroactive continuity" nonsense.


----------



## Gary K

Gregatron said:


> That's your standard "nerdy overthinking of things with the aid of hindsight and retroactive continuity" nonsense.


You'll find that 99.99% of the time, spfx guys add things to their models because "it looks cool".  The better designers, like Andy Probert & Rick Sternbach, created designs with features that both "looked cool" and had some functionality.

Gary


----------



## jheilman

It is the Jein Enterprise. I found it in my archive in a Jein folder from the IDIC page.


----------



## jheilman

Here's another view of the port side.


----------



## Gregatron

Gary K said:


> You'll find that 99.99% of the time, spfx guys add things to their models because "it looks cool".  The better designers, like Andy Probert & Rick Sternbach, created designs with features that both "looked cool" and had some functionality.
> 
> Gary


Exactly.


----------



## Gregatron

jheilman said:


> Here's another view of the port side.


Yeah, that's one of the copies sold through Viacom stores, back in the day. I saw one myself (along with copies of the T & T D-7 and "Flashback" _Excelsior_) at the Chicago store, around '97. I took a bunch of photos (not sure if I still have them). They were all suspended by wires. The deflector/sensor dish was missing, which was unfortunate.


----------



## Steve H

Gregatron said:


> Hmmm. That again raises the question of why the green color factors in. It's not as if the green was necessary to help ensure that there be no issues with bluescreen filming--the second pilot version and its blue dorsal were successfully shot against bluescreen.
> 
> For whatever reason--perhaps mere aesthetics--, someone decided to add that greenish weathering to the saucer and maybe also the dorsal, and brownish everywhere else.
> 
> A possible kneejerk reaction of your average TREK fan would be that maybe they were thinking about showing standard "space mud" on the secondary hull, with distinctly different, greenish weathering on the saucer to imply that the saucer had at some point landed on an alien world, via saucer separation.
> 
> Of course, there's no friggin' way that could have been the reasoning behind the changes to the model, at that time! That's your standard "nerdy overthinking of things with the aid of hindsight and retroactive continuity" nonsense.


I'm gonna hang onto my theory that the transparent green overspray was to help the ship look better on B&W TVs.

The subtlety of the 'space mud', I'm lost on that. That stuff was NEVER gonna show up except as vague occasional smudges. 

Were I more crazy I would speculate that the work was done because Roddenberry anticipated modern HD and 4k digital scanning of film.


----------



## berropablo

Gary K said


> For whatever reason, they put the banners on the left nacelle & sec hull of the 11-footer.


Just the banners or you found traces of windows, numbers and markings?
May be the Pilot model was first thought to be filmed from ANY angle?


----------



## asalaw

Another thing -- when we were at the NASM on Friday, Rob pointed out that the penant on the port nacelle is up above the centerline. I wonder if that was deliberate (in 1964), or if there was a rush to get the thing to Howard Anderson? Or the fatigue factor? Inquiring fanboys want to know.


----------



## Gary K

asalaw said:


> Another thing -- when we were at the NASM on Friday, Rob pointed out that the penant on the port nacelle is up above the centerline. I wonder if that was deliberate (in 1964), or if there was a rush to get the thing to Howard Anderson? Or the fatigue factor? Inquiring fanboys want to know.


I'm glad somebody noticed. The banner IS about a half-inch (off the top of my head, before my breakfast coffee) too high. We've got one good photo of the left side of the port nacelle, so I could measure how far the banner was off. I suppose this was an accident because the Production Models Ship guys didn't have a rectangular vent with which to align the banner. 

Gary


----------



## Gary K

berropablo said:


> Gary K said
> 
> 
> Just the banners or you found traces of windows, numbers and markings?
> May be the Pilot model was first thought to be filmed from ANY angle?


Nope - nothing but the banners. Like I say below, we've got one good photo of the model's left side circa 1966-67, and aside from the banners, the left side is a grotty mess of wires, tape, and tape residue.

Gary


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> Nope - nothing but the banners. Like I say below, we've got one good photo of the model's left side circa 1966-67, and aside from the banners, the left side is a grotty mess of wires, tape, and tape residue.
> 
> Gary


So, this is different than the 'recently uncrated' pic taken when NA&SM first got the miniature?

There are no pics of the left side from the pilot, or pre-lighting?


----------



## berropablo

I know that sometimes we see what WE want to see (like the Mars canali); but there are windows near that relative position on the filming side...


----------



## Daniel_B

Hopefully 3rd time's the charm on this color guide.


----------



## Gary K

Daniel_B said:


> Hopefully 3rd time's the charm on this color guide.


Oops - I was in a hurry and screwed up in my comment on the belly markings. Sorry about that. I'll go back & edit my original comment, but here are the correct colors of the belly markings, starting at the rear:

"White" square with red outline.
"White" rectangle with dark gray outline.
Medium gray "T" shape with dark gray outline.
Yellow circle with red outline.

In our sanding tests, the fat "T" provided the only surviving example of the medium gray (the same color as under the fronts of the nacelles).

One other thing... I can't tell how you've colored yours, but the triangles under the saucer have a medium gray raised base, with dark gray outlines.

Gary


----------



## Gary K

berropablo said:


> I know that sometimes we see what WE want to see (like the Mars canali); but there are windows near that relative position on the filming side...


I've got hi-res versions of this photo, plus another photo taken circa 1966-67, and there are no visible windows on the left side of the sec hull & port nacelle pylon. That's how the model was restored. Re. the "window" you pointed out, I doubt they they would have applied one window to the left side - and not oriented horizontally, to boot.

I don't want to get too dogmatic about the issue, since the Enterprise has surprised us before, but based on all available evidence, and until somebody comes up with a previously unknown photo of the Pilot model, this is how the window situation currently looks.

Gary


----------



## MartyS

Edit: I see Gary posted just before I did, guess this forum doesn't warn you when someone else posts a reply just before you do...




berropablo said:


> I know that sometimes we see what WE want to see (like the Mars canali); but there are windows near that relative position on the filming side...



That one square does seem to be in nearly the correct place, but it's a bit large, and if that was a window why is there no evidence of all the others that should be next to it:










My overlay doesn't account for the angle the picture was taken at, but enough to show approximately where the other windows should be.


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## Gary K

alensatemybuick said:


> Here's a so-so photo (resolution-wise) of the post side of the ship showing the port side pennant as it appeared during series production, overspray and all.
> 
> You can see the hangar deck model in the foreground.


We've got the hi-res, uncropped version of that picture.

Gary


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## Daniel_B

Gary K said:


> Oops - I was in a hurry and screwed up in my comment on the belly markings. Sorry about that. I'll go back & edit my original comment, but here are the correct colors of the belly markings, starting at the rear:
> 
> "White" square with red outline.
> "White" rectangle with dark gray outline.
> Medium gray "T" shape with dark gray outline.
> Yellow circle with red outline.
> 
> In our sanding tests, the fat "T" provided the only surviving example of the medium gray (the same color as under the fronts of the nacelles).
> 
> One other thing... I can't tell how you've colored yours, but the triangles under the saucer have a medium gray raised base, with dark gray outlines.
> 
> Gary


Amended. My version 3 post above had been swapped with the corrected one as well. I had the fat "T" correct on my version 1, but when you told me to change it to white, I figured...who am I to argue with your final word. :grin2: It's all good though.  You've been a great help.


----------



## whereisanykey

One thing I happen to notice is how colors look different under fluorescent vs incandescent lighting. What appears as a light gray under fluorescent lights will show the green tinted gray under incandescent. I noticed that on my big model when on the bench is looked plain gray. I haven't done a 350 yet so I don't know if it is as obvious on that size.

Greg


----------



## asalaw

Gary K said:


> I've got hi-res versions of this photo, plus another photo taken circa 1966-67, and there are no visible windows on the left side of the sec hull & port nacelle pylon. That's how the model was restored. Re. the "window" you pointed out, I doubt they they would have applied one window to the left side - and not oriented horizontally, to boot.
> 
> I don't want to get too dogmatic about the issue, since the Enterprise has surprised us before, but based on all available evidence, and until somebody comes up with a previously unknown photo of the Pilot model, this is how the window situation currently looks.
> 
> Gary


Given the surrounding context in the photo, I think that rectangle is as likely to be tape residue as anything else.


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## phase_pistol

Enhanced that a bit 4 U. You can clearly see the puff of smoke above the grassy knoll...


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## feek61

MartyS said:


> Edit: I see Gary posted just before I did, guess this forum doesn't warn you when someone else posts a reply just before you do...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That one square does seem to be in nearly the correct place, but it's a bit large, and if that was a window why is there no evidence of all the others that should be next to it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My overlay doesn't account for the angle the picture was taken at, but enough to show approximately where the other windows should be.


The "window" in question was not there; just a illusion of tape residue, dirt or something else I suspect. There is no evidence what-so-ever of a hole on that side looking into the secondary hull (which is on the RH side of this photo)



There would be no reason for it; even if it was painted on.


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## Gary K

alensatemybuick said:


> Feek61, not sure any of us suggested lit Windows on the port side, only _*possibly*_ painted ones, that may have been covered by overspray in mid-1966 when the model was repainted. There wouldn't have been much reason for the port side pennants either. Perhaps painted details (like the simulated trench on the inner starboard nacelle as well, which we know was also later obscured by overspray only to be redone later ahead of "TTWT" episode) were considered worth the effort to apply even if other details that would gave required extra effort to fabricate were not.


If you could see the uncropped version of the b&w photo of the left side in Post #832, you'd see they they didn't even bother to completely paint the non-camera sides of the ribbed endcaps or the port nacelle banner, and they didn't fully mask off the non-camera sides of each port-side intercooler (all of which we duplicated on the 11-footer). I doubt they would have completely repainted every window on the left side of the model during the Production conversion, which would have gotten overspray on the wiring, tape, and tape residue.

Gary


----------



## asalaw

What was that old punk song? _Pareidolia Will Destroy Ya_...


----------



## JT1

Datin's book says both sides of the 11 footer were detailed, although I think the missing "clamp"'says otherwise.


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## feek61

JT1 said:


> Datin's book says both sides of the 11 footer were detailed, although I think the missing "clamp"'says otherwise.


I think he was confusing the 11' miniature with the 3' one which was detailed on both sides. There other errors in the book as well which I account to failing memories. After-all, this was just one of many jobs back in the day. None of them suspected it still have such a following.


----------



## mach7

I'm stopping by the NASM Wednesday, I'll be there at opening- 10AM,
Is there a lighting schedule? I have heard 11, 1, and 3.

Also will any other hobby talkers be there?


----------



## Maurice

Datin was clear that the port side of the 11'er was never intended to be photographed, hence leaving off the "clamp" on that side...which of course does not explain the banners on that side. Here's an email exchange I had with Mr. Datin in 2005: 



> Hi Maurice:
> 
> See below for my replies. Please remember quite a "few" years have passed since I worked for the show--thusly the memory banks have fallen on lean times.
> 
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > Thanks for taking the time to write back!
> >
> > Please excuse me if I ask you questions you've answered a billion times
> > before.
> >
> > Here we go...
> >
> > 1. I saw there was an article about you in the Star Trek magazine. Are there
> > other interviews you've done that you feel give a fully rounded picture of
> > your work on the show?
> 
> No, but take a look at Wm McCullars website IDICPage.
> 
> > 2. Space Station K7. I enjoyed seeing the S-IV B pieces that were in its
> > construction. Can you tell me what kind of modifications you made to the
> > Douglas pieces, and what the rest of the station was composed of, and what
> > markings it had? I've heard that you felt the model used in "Trials and
> > Tribbleations" wasn't accurate. Is this so?
> 
> There was a considerable amout of work to convert it to the K7. That model was entirely too large. The modelers who built it never contacted me for info, though they were well aware of who built it. Someone told me that they were too busy due to the sho schedule. The original pieces of the Douglas model was made of some sort of plastic that I was not familiar with at the time. It had a rubbery feel to it and not easy to work with.
> 
> > 3. Was there any indication from Jeffries as to what some of the elements on
> > the ship were supposed to be? For instance, the little window above the
> > hangar deck doors.
> 
> No.
> 
> > 4. Why does the large Enterprise model lack the indented detail near the
> > front of the engineering hull on it's left (port) side? I'm curious why it
> > was left off.
> 
> Do you mean the secondary hull? I don't know of the "indented detail" you speak of. Are you referring to the "restored" Enterprise model at NASM in DC? If so, that was the side of the model never photographed. The Enterprise flew from left to right on the screen so it was not necessary to detail the other side..
> 
> > 5. Would you have liked an opportunity to restore the model, rather than
> > what happened to it?
> 
> No, not after all those years had passed, besides I no longer lived in LA. It was not a craftsman type of restoration!
> 
> 
> > Thanks in advance, sir!
> 
> You're welcome!


----------



## berropablo

Gary and all the people involved with the restoration:
The restoration you made is AMAZING. All my questions are just my own modeller and Star Trek Fan (that´s what all of us have in common after all) couriosity and by no means a judgment of your work.

If the "hidden pilot side had the banners and the old style "1"s in the registry, it´s a possibility that at one point they may have thought to complete all the details, at least on the pilot version.


----------



## Steve H

OK, look, everybody keep a cool stool. We, out here in internet land, have only what we see to comment on. Gary, bless him, has had access to photos we've never seen, and much better versions of things we have seen. So let's accept that reality.


My OPINION is that for unknown reasons when they built the 11 foot model they went ahead and painted the pendant and registry on the left side with no real expectation of it actually being seen. It seems, surprisingly enough, they did it just because they wanted to. It may well be Roddenberry said something and had it added. It sure would be nice if those old photos of the 'roll-out' had a few shots of the left side. 

When the model was refitted for the second pilot and some lighting was installed, I see no evidence they performed any new paint on the left side, just making the alterations required by the lighting modifications and whatever paint repairs (and some new markings) were needed. (aside, I think the second pilot version seems the least documented) It *appears* that whatever footage was shot employed the hanging of the model instead of using the pipe stand it was designed with. That raises more questions. Onward.

Then we get to the production version and the massive alterations of more lighting and that left side was NEVER going to get screen time now. I'm honestly surprised there was any original paint left after all that gaffer's tape. 

So I think the missing link in a better understanding of the 11 foot model is that entire period of the second pilot. I would assume being an unprecedented second pilot they weren't given a LARGER budget, they were probably on a shoestring so there wasn't big money for the revamp of the model. Wait, I can check this...yes, 'These are the Voyages' vol. 1 pg. 68. "NBC gave them a budget of $216,000, a staggering $400,000 less than the first pilot" and that money had to cover all the sets being revamped to make them more suitable for series production as well as all the necessary things like paying for script and so on. So, logic says not much money was shoveled onto the ship. Somehow when the second pilot was picked up and they went into production they had more money available for that third refitting.


----------



## berropablo

Steve said:


> We, out here in internet land, have only what we see to comment on. Gary, bless him, has had access to photos we've never seen, and much better versions of things we have seen. So let's accept that reality.


 And this is why we all ask him the questions we have! :smile2:


I understand from this picture that during the second pilot they repainted the model


----------



## Gary K

berropablo said:


> Steve said:
> And this is why we all ask him the questions we have! :smile2:
> 
> 
> I understand from this picture that during the second pilot they repainted the model


Dr Buck's samples were taken before I started nosing into the project, and unfortunately, she didn't take core samples where I thought original paint might be. I don't know who annotated this graphic, but Dr Buck didn't know the history of the model and only identified the layers of paint as Generations 1, 2, 3, etc. More likely, The Production Models Shop applied two base coats of paint originally. As I mentioned earlier, during the conversion into the 2nd Pilot version in his garage workshop near Studio City, Datin cut the windows into the model as carefully as possible because he didn't want to repaint "the monster". On the upper saucer, he simply filled into the gray outlines on the upper saucer with black paint.

The whole paint business is complicated, and it would be better to go into details in a later article.

Gary


----------



## Gregatron

Yeah, it seems abundantly clear that the entire model didn't get any complete repaints/overhauls between the two pilots, and then again between the pilots and the series. Just key structural/detail changes and partial repaintings. Quick and dirty!


----------



## spacecraft guy

mach7 said:


> I'm stopping by the NASM Wednesday, I'll be there at opening- 10AM,
> Is there a lighting schedule? I have heard 11, 1, and 3.
> 
> Also will any other hobby talkers be there?


I was there on July 1, the 11am and 1pm lighting sessions did not work, was fixed for the 3PM session and I missed it, was talking to Malcolm Collum. 

Went back for the night opening gala, got in at 10PM and she was lit up beautifully. Malcolm said they are going to consider once an hour. BUt 11 1 and 3 is correct as far as I know.


----------



## robn1

mach7 said:


> I'm stopping by the NASM Wednesday, I'll be there at opening- 10AM,
> Is there a lighting schedule? I have heard 11, 1, and 3.
> 
> Also will any other hobby talkers be there?


I was there Fri. night and my poor old knees are still recovering, otherwise I'd go for a meetup. I'll see how I feel Wed.

@asalaw, would you be available that early?


----------



## spacecraft guy

Was at the NASM most of July 1 and stayed all night, left about 6:30 AM, thought I would pass on what news I have. 

Talked to Malcolm Collum and Ariel O'Connor. Asked Malcolm about a book or TV project about the restoration, a book project is being launched but they are having a hard time getting a publisher. I thought that with John Van Citters on the consult team this shouldn't be a problem, some friendly expressions of interest to Paramount?Viacom might help. I suggested Insight Editions, they published the Star Trek Costumes book and similar ones for Star Wars and they are in Marin County in the same location the old ILM Model Shop used to be.

Ariel was really great about answering questions about the restoration, I asked about the nacelle lighting (they had frost the inner dome as well as the outer one to get the effect to look right) and I always wondered how they got the bridge module/ B-C Deck off the primary hull without damaging the Royalite plastic. It was secured with wood screws that were puttied over. 

The model looks great, but is in a dark case with highlights above and below lit with micro spots - details are very difficult to see and its surroundings are very bright. I saw her during the day, at night and in early morning sunlight, I think I got the best shots of her unlit just before I left at 6:30 AM. She was fully lit when I got back at 10PM, it really does bring her to life. Still wading through the pictures, if anyone wants to see them I'll post them. 

The video panel behind the case has features about the model's restoration that I haven't seen elsewhere as yet, so take sone time and check it out. 

Thanks to Gary (aka "Oracle"), Malcolm, Ariel, Dr. Margaret and all involved for a fantastic job!


----------



## Steve H

I'm surprised they're having problems finding a publisher. Maybe they didn't manage the 'pitch' right. I suspect part of the problem is the narrow thinking of some, they've got their slate for the 50th Anny all set and pretty much figure 2017 is *pfft* "Star Trek? Who cares? That was last year."

I would consider reaching out to Paula Block on this. She was in charge of ST books for Paramount for YEARS and now she and her hubby are carving our a nice niche in 'boutique' subjects in re. Star Trek. 

Aside: She was part of the Kalamazoo/Lansing Trek fandom in the '70s. I'd met her a few times, I doubt she remembers me at all, being busy being a pro-fan all those years.


----------



## asalaw

robn1 said:


> I was there Fri. night and my poor old knees are still recovering, otherwise I'd go for a meetup. I'll see how I feel Wed.
> 
> @asalaw, would you be available that early?


Yeah, I could pop over from work for a few minutes.


----------



## Maurice

asalaw said:


> Yeah, I could pop over from work for a few minutes.


I'll be there! Oh, wait. I'm on the wrong coast. dammit.


----------



## Maurice

Steve H said:


> I would assume being an unprecedented second pilot...


That the second pilot was "unprecedented" is another myth. There were many many second pilots long before Trek (there's an excellent summation on must-read Star Trek Fact Check Blog.

So, here's a thought about those portside pennants. There IS a stock shot in the show where you can momentarily glimpse that side: it's the start of the shot TallGuy describes as Planet Towards. Could it be possible they stuck those as a "just in case" for a shot like that?


----------



## asalaw

robn1 said:


> I was there Fri. night and my poor old knees are still recovering, otherwise I'd go for a meetup. I'll see how I feel Wed.
> 
> @asalaw, would you be available that early?


Check that -- definitely not. Wife's grandmother is at the end. She's on just morphine now. It'll be any time.


----------



## John P

spacecraft guy said:


> Still wading through the pictures, if anyone wants to see them I'll post them. !


"IF" anyone wants to see them?!?!?! :surprise:
:nerd:


----------



## John P

I'm going thru my files and _deleting _all the now-useless Meireckiprise photos.


----------



## Richard Baker

asalaw said:


> Check that -- definitely not. Wife's grandmother is at the end. She's on just morphine now. It'll be any time.


So sorry to hear that- my condolences...


----------



## Steve H

John P said:


> I'm going thru my files and _deleting _all the now-useless Meireckiprise photos.


Well, hang on. One shouldn't erase the mistakes of the past, otherwise one hasn't learned. It's valuable to be able to say "this, this was misguided, this was wrong".

Context. it's useful. "we thought this was not bad but boy did we learn different"

just a thought.


----------



## robn1

asalaw said:


> Check that -- definitely not. Wife's grandmother is at the end. She's on just morphine now. It'll be any time.


Sorry to hear that :crying:

I'm also out, my car's been on the fritz and I have no ride for tomorrow. Sorry @mach7


----------



## berropablo

One thing that is still not clear for me:
Was the penciling on the saucer there from the very beggining?


PS: Sorry for yor family sadness, asalaw


----------



## Gary K

berropablo said:


> One thing that is still not clear for me:
> Was the penciling on the saucer there from the very beggining?


Matt Jefferies added the grid lines, himself, during the model's conversion into the Production version in 1966.

Gary


----------



## Captain Han Solo

Doug Drexler spoke to Matt about the grid lines here ...

https://vimeo.com/144305493


----------



## asalaw

Gary, I have a dome question.

I'm seeing slightly confused statements hither and yon as to which domes or parts of domes are frosted, and where the ink/clear paint was applied (either that, or the statements are clear, and I'm just old). So is it:

1. Outer dome frosted on both sides, inner dome not frosted, but both domes inked;
2. Outer dome frosted & inked on the outside only, inner dome frosted & inked on its outside only;
3. Some other combination/permutation of the above?

I just tripped over a bottle of Liquitex Transparent Burnt Sienna Ink that seems to be a dead ringer for whatever's on the model, though I may need to thin it a hair. Of course, that's relying on my fuzzy middle-aged memory sieve from four days ago, so for all I know, the domes are really supposed to be fuchsia. 

EDIT -- Here's the composition text from the Liquitex color chart:

TRANSPARENT BURNT SIENNA: SYNTHETIC IRON OXIDE RED (PR101)

Turns out the Liquitex inks are all acrylic and can mix with any other liquitex acrylic anything (or any acrylic paint for that matter, I assume).

Note: They also have interference colors and irridescent colors, also acrylic. So that's probably what I'll use on my refit.


----------



## mach7

robn1 said:


> Sorry to hear that :crying:
> 
> I'm also out, my car's been on the fritz and I have no ride for tomorrow. Sorry @mach7



Oh well, More BBQ for me.

I'll post photos tomorrow afternoon.


----------



## Gary K

asalaw said:


> Gary, I have a dome question.
> 
> I'm seeing slightly confused statements hither and yon as to which domes or parts of domes are frosted, and where the ink/clear paint was applied (either that, or the statements are clear, and I'm just old). So is it:
> 
> 1. Outer dome frosted on both sides, inner dome not frosted, but both domes inked;
> 2. Outer dome frosted & inked on the outside only, inner dome frosted & inked on its outside only;
> 3. Some other combination/permutation of the above?
> 
> I just tripped over a bottle of Liquitex Transparent Burnt Sienna Ink that seems to be a dead ringer for whatever's on the model, though I may need to thin it a hair. Of course, that's relying on my fuzzy middle-aged memory sieve from four days ago, so for all I know, the domes are really supposed to be fuchsia.
> 
> EDIT -- Here's the composition text from the Liquitex color chart:
> 
> TRANSPARENT BURNT SIENNA: SYNTHETIC IRON OXIDE RED (PR101)
> 
> Turns out the Liquitex inks are all acrylic and can mix with any other liquitex acrylic anything (or any acrylic paint for that matter, I assume).
> 
> Note: They also have interference colors and irridescent colors, also acrylic. So that's probably what I'll use on my refit.


Here's the original design:
1. Outer dome sandblasted inside & out, and then sprayed with transparent orange ink, inside & out.
2. Inner dome clear with tapered black fan blades applied to the exterior (probably made with graphic tape, gaffers tape, or similar).

John Goodson had to modify the inner dome and make it frosted, so the effect would look right, using LEDs, instead of Christmas lights.

Gary


----------



## asalaw

Gary K said:


> Here's the original design:
> 1. Outer dome sandblasted inside & out, and then sprayed with transparent orange ink, inside & out.
> 2. Inner dome clear with tapered black fan blades applied to the exterior (probably made with graphic tape, gaffers tape, or similar).
> 
> John Goodson had to modify the inner dome and make it frosted, so the effect would look right, using LEDs, instead of Christmas lights.
> 
> Gary


Awesome! Went back through my pictures, and it is a lighter orange than I remembered. Maybe I'll go with the Tamiya clear orange, maybe with a little smoke mixed in if I think it's still too bright. I have lots of clear plastic to test with, so we'll see.


----------



## Gregatron

Yet another question for the esteemed Mr. Kerr--

I'd almost forgotten about this! A lot of the early-first season stock shots of the Production version seem to distinctly show red and green blinker lights on the UNDERSIDE of the saucer (and possibly even swapped in those occasional reverse-decal shots). Has any definitive evidence shown up to prove that the lights originally started out as red and green (like on the upper saucer), but ended up being changed to white? Thanks in advance!


----------



## Gary K

Gregatron said:


> Yet another question for the esteemed Mr. Kerr--
> 
> I'd almost forgotten about this! A lot of the early-first season stock shots of the Production version seem to distinctly show red and green blinker lights on the UNDERSIDE of the saucer (and possibly even swapped in those occasional reverse-decal shots). Has any definitive evidence shown up to prove that the lights originally started out as red and green (like on the upper saucer), but ended up being changed to white? Thanks in advance!


The short answer - I have no idea if the red/green lights were an experiment, a fluke or whatever. I was able to document that the original white bulbs were 5/8" in diameter, but by around the filming of "Space Seed", they had been replaced with bulbs half that size.

Gary


----------



## Gary K

FYI, I may be scarce online for a few days. I have a massive amount of cleaning to do to prep for a large birthday/pool party for a friend this weekend. If it doesn't kill me, it'll make me stronger! 

Gary


----------



## actias

Hey Gary. Am I correct in noticing in Doug Drexlers' video of the new restoration, that the 5 amber lights in each dome are NOT constantly lit?


----------



## robn1

National Air And Space Museum’s 40th Celebration from Doug Drexler

https://vimeo.com/173421565


----------



## robn1

Star Trek Original Series Enterprise Reference Shots from Doug Drexler

https://vimeo.com/153272017


----------



## mach7

I just got back to my hotel. I got to the NASM about 10:30am and they lit her up at 11:03am for 10 min. There was 
no announcement, She just lit up for 10 min and then went dark after 10 min. I could hear no noise from the nacelle motors. 

I took about 70-75 photos with my iPhone 6. I'll post some here.


----------



## mach7




----------



## mach7




----------



## mach7

She really comes to life when the lights turn on!

I took some video of the nacelle endcaps. 

A few questions for Gary.

As in other restorations the top of the saucer was not repainted, was it cleaned or treated at all?

The small saucer side running lights, next to the big red/green lights. Are they original? I had no idea that they were teardrops.

Are the Nacelle cap lights dimmer than the Christmas lights that were originally installed. The effect looks good in person but did not record well on my iPhone. They look dim to my untrained eye.

Great job to you and everyone on an outstanding restoration! She looks beautiful! 

The "space mud" is everywhere! but it is lost in photographs. You have to see her in person to get the full effect.

She was drawing a very good crowd! Many people did not know she was there and seemed very impressed that it was the actual filming model.

The rest of the NASM milestones of flight gallery is also very well done!


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## mach7

My pleasure.

Yes all 4 of the running lights light up, even the tiny teardrop light. That small one is VERY dim. I'm guessing its just reflected light from inside the saucer and not a direct light. 

So the upper green/red large lights, the small white side rim light, and the large white lower light all light together.

Is that what your asking?

Also I'm happy to share all my photos full size, It's just a big chunk of MB.

Also I have some video I just don't know how to post them.


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## mach7

Yes, and if youtube ever finishes loading my videos you can see them flashing.


----------



## mach7

Lets see if this works.


----------



## Gary K

mach7 said:


> A few questions for Gary.
> 
> As in other restorations the top of the saucer was not repainted, was it cleaned or treated at all?
> 
> The small saucer side running lights, next to the big red/green lights. Are they original? I had no idea that they were teardrops.
> 
> Are the Nacelle cap lights dimmer than the Christmas lights that were originally installed. The effect looks good in person but did not record well on my iPhone. They look dim to my untrained eye.


VERY quickly....

1. Grime & crud were cleaned off the upper saucer, but it wasn't repainted (other than the bridge & B/C deck, which had been repainted in 1992).

2. The "jellybean lights", as we called them, are recreations. The footprints of the originals were still in the virgin paint on the upper saucer. I used these footprints, plus some oblique photos, to draw up some blueprints, and John Goodson fabricated the faux lights from Plexiglas.

3. John Goodson devoted many long hours to replicating the lighting in the nacelles with LEDs, with different combinations/sizes/styles of domes. The problem is that light from the 16-24 Christmas bulbs is omnidirectional, while LEDs are directional. Also, I suspect that the museum isn't running the lights at full brightness.

Gary


----------



## MisterM

Gary, I was wondering if the lighting kit from Round 2 will get an update to add leds to the 10 already there for each nacelle? No rush for an answer at all. Awesome job on the studio model. The old girl looks great! Thanks for all of your hard work. 

Mark


----------



## Steve H

MisterM said:


> Gary, I was wondering if the lighting kit from Round 2 will get an update to add leds to the 10 already there for each nacelle? No rush for an answer at all. Awesome job on the studio model. The old girl looks great! Thanks for all of your hard work.
> 
> Mark


Wouldn't that also call for a new 'back plate' for the lights?


----------



## asalaw

Got some more shots today, both lit and unlit. Lights came on right at 3. I went for much closer detail shots and focused my shooting on the weathering. Interesting that the dish is copper, while the rings behind it are gold.


----------



## wpthomas

Since everybody is going to be seriously swarming this model with cameras over the coming days and weeks could I make a request for some photos?

Could I get some close up shots of the aft end of the inboard nacelle trench? Where it meets up with the nacelle body. If it's accessible to cameras, of course.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## asalaw

wpthomas said:


> Since everybody is going to be seriously swarming this model with cameras over the coming days and weeks could I make a request for some photos?
> 
> Could I get some close up shots of the aft end of the inboard nacelle trench? Where it meets up with the nacelle body. If it's accessible to cameras, of course.
> 
> Thanks in advance!


I got smotherage of those areas today. If they're in focus, I'll post them.


----------



## Steve H

asalaw said:


> Got some more shots today, both lit and unlit. Lights came on right at 3. I went for much closer detail shots and focused my shooting on the weathering. Interesting that the dish is copper, while the rings behind it are gold.


Ya know, I'm kind of wondering. 

Given how much 'space mud' is on the Engineering hull, and it does seem to be applied in a way that models aerodynamic splash (space mud from space wind?  ), is it POSSIBLE the 'production' version of the sensor/deflector dish was silver (aluminum) with a heavy overspray of the 'space mud' weathering?

Gary got me thinking about this when he mentioned they just couldn't seem to nail down one color for the dish spike. 

I mean, naturally this is one of the points we can never know unless by some miracle the original dish were to surface. 

Makes me wonder if there was one more box at Paramount with the dish and the inner/outer nacelle domes that got lost.


----------



## asalaw

Yeah... if time travel suddenly became a thing, I'd beat up all those useless historians ahead of me in line and hit Desilu in '66.


----------



## asalaw

mach7 said:


> She really comes to life when the lights turn on!
> 
> I took some video of the nacelle endcaps.
> 
> A few questions for Gary.
> 
> As in other restorations the top of the saucer was not repainted, was it cleaned or treated at all?
> 
> The small saucer side running lights, next to the big red/green lights. Are they original? I had no idea that they were teardrops.
> 
> Are the Nacelle cap lights dimmer than the Christmas lights that were originally installed. The effect looks good in person but did not record well on my iPhone. They look dim to my untrained eye.
> 
> Great job to you and everyone on an outstanding restoration! She looks beautiful!
> 
> The "space mud" is everywhere! but it is lost in photographs. You have to see her in person to get the full effect.
> 
> She was drawing a very good crowd! Many people did not know she was there and seemed very impressed that it was the actual filming model.
> 
> The rest of the NASM milestones of flight gallery is also very well done!


Gorgeous shots! Boy, that iPhone 6 has quite a camera! I'm still using my 5S, won't be upgrading till the fall. Great color, really good exposure. Really, really nice! 

Great video, too! Thanks for posting!


----------



## asalaw

I got lots and lots of detailed coverage today, and it looks very good. Of course, I need to go back and get still more. 

Unfortunately, I'm too wiped out from work to post tonight, plus my wife's grandmother passed about three hours ago. I'll get on it as soon as I can.


----------



## Steve H

asalaw said:


> Yeah... if time travel suddenly became a thing, I'd beat up all those useless historians ahead of me in line and hit Desilu in '66.


Well, that, but I'd also head over to 20th Century Fox and spend a LOT of time on the stage they shot the effects for Lost in Space et al.  Hope back and forth to catch ALL the shows at the start. 

HAW HAW HAW sudden thought. Wouldn't it have been a hoot to discover that the Seaview also had a clear green shellac overspray?


----------



## MartyS

Gary K said:


> 1. Grime & crud were cleaned off the upper saucer, but it wasn't repainted (other than the bridge & B/C deck, which had been repainted in 1992).


Is this why the round porthole light on the top front was not painted over like it was during filming? No good way to only paint that part and have it match the surrounding area?


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> Ya know, I'm kind of wondering.
> 
> Given how much 'space mud' is on the Engineering hull, and it does seem to be applied in a way that models aerodynamic splash (space mud from space wind?  ), is it POSSIBLE the 'production' version of the sensor/deflector dish was silver (aluminum) with a heavy overspray of the 'space mud' weathering?
> 
> Gary got me thinking about this when he mentioned they just couldn't seem to nail down one color for the dish spike.
> 
> I mean, naturally this is one of the points we can never know unless by some miracle the original dish were to surface.
> 
> Makes me wonder if there was one more box at Paramount with the dish and the inner/outer nacelle domes that got lost.


The dish was apparently broken completely off the model at some point before 1972, since the Plex backing was badly cracked and had to be repaired before the model went on display in 1974. The dish was definitely metallic copper, with a little darker weathering around the rings. No space dirt on it.

Gary


----------



## Gary K

MartyS said:


> Is this why the round porthole light on the top front was not painted over like it was during filming? No good way to only paint that part and have it match the surrounding area?


The bow light was not painted over (except partly by a subtle streak of weathering). The feeble light coming from below pretty much balanced out with light from above and made the sandblasted disk appear to be about the same color as the hull.

Gary


----------



## Gary K

alensatemybuick said:


> Thanks again, Mach7l I was asking obout the white "light" (or port?) on the saucer edge, or rim as you called it; I think from your response you are saying it is actually lit? This has been a matter of some debate over the years.


The round light is supposed to be a darkened porthole, but when they were instaling the lighting they forgot to block the Plex rod from picking up light from the blinking bulb inside the saucer. I suspect this is what they did in 1966, too, since I've never seen any filmed footage where the port is illuminated. It'll be fixed the next time they open the case, which is a royal pain.

Gary


----------



## actias

Hi Gary. What was the brand and name of the color orange ink you guys use for the domes? The only transparent orange I found was called Liquitex Yellow Orange ink.


----------



## Gary K

actias said:


> Hi Gary. What was the brand and orange color of ink did you guys use for the domes? The only transparent orange I found was Liquitex Yellow Orange ink.


John tried the orange Pelikan ink that Jefferies probably used, but thought it was too opaque. I think he settled on amber Krylon Sea Glass, and then took it down a bit with a Scotch Brite pad. I could be wrong, so I'll have to ask him sometime. Remember - the 7" domes were sandblasted and had a surface like sandpaper, which is different from your small 1:350 domes.

Gary


----------



## MartyS

Gary K said:


> The bow light was not painted over (except partly by a subtle streak of weathering). The feeble light coming from below pretty much balanced out with light from above and made the sandblasted disk appear to be about the same color as the hull.


That's surprising, you wouldn't think sandblasted plexiglass would behave like that. You would think it would stand out, not blend in. Was it covered with lacquer?


----------



## actias

Thank You!


----------



## Gary K

MartyS said:


> That's surprising, you wouldn't think sandblasted plexiglass would behave like that. You would think it would stand out, not blend in. Was it covered with lacquer?


The four pieces of sandblasted Plex were so thin that when the interior lights were off, the Plex was translucent & darker than the hull. Apparently enough light leaked from below the bow light to make it appear to be about a bright as the hull, but not as bright as the glowing rectangles. 

That's all tonight, folks!

Gary


----------



## mach7

wpthomas said:


> Could I get some close up shots of the aft end of the inboard nacelle trench? Where it meets up with the nacelle body. If it's accessible to cameras, of course.
> 
> Thanks in advance!


Both sides? I have some I think. I'll look. 
Thats not am easy area to get good photos.


----------



## wpthomas

asalaw said:


> I got smotherage of those areas today. If they're in focus, I'll post them.


Thanks so much!



mach7 said:


> Both sides? I have some I think. I'll look.
> Thats not am easy area to get good photos.


I thought that might be the case that it would be difficult to get to.

IMHO it's one of the hardest areas to model (at least in CG) so I tend to be obsessed with it. 

And thanks to everyone who is posting photos and videos! This is Christmas!


----------



## mach7

If these are to big I'll resize them. 

I know I have some of the other nacelle I just cant seem to find them.


----------



## mach7

These are the only others I can find





































The last shot you can really see that the indent is just painted on
and not built in like the other side. 
The illusion with the paint is excellent.


----------



## mach7

asalaw said:


> Gorgeous shots! Boy, that iPhone 6 has quite a camera! I'm still using my 5S, won't be upgrading till the fall. Great color, really good exposure. Really, really nice!
> 
> Great video, too! Thanks for posting!


Thanks,

I've stopped carrying a separate camera now. The Iphone does an outstanding job for 95% of the photos I take. The other 5% are utter garbage. 
I'm not a professional or a camera guy so it works good for me.


----------



## asalaw




----------



## asalaw




----------



## asalaw




----------



## asalaw




----------



## asalaw




----------



## asalaw




----------



## asalaw




----------



## asalaw

It's looking to my middle-aged eyeballs like the ILM peeps used a combination of airbrushing and dry-brushing. Can't tell for sure if any of that is washes. Your Garytude, wouldst thou fain dribble us with thy smarty stuff?


----------



## asalaw

mach7 said:


> Thanks,
> 
> I've stopped carrying a separate camera now. The Iphone does an outstanding job for 95% of the photos I take. The other 5% are utter garbage.
> I'm not a professional or a camera guy so it works good for me.


Actually, there _are_ pro camera guys who've ditched their gear for the iPhone 6, including a Pulitzer Prize-winner I read about just the other day. You're in good company!


----------



## mach7

I guess, I think you can open up manual settings on the iPhone but I'm not that smart.

We bought a nice digital camera 2 years ago. 13 MP, a nice Zies lens with optical zoom and it does not seem 
to do a better job than the iPhone.

It's funny thou, when the AI gets it wrong it gets it very wrong.


----------



## Steve H

I have GOT to say, the faux trench on the inside of the starboard nacelle is one of the most impressive bits of art and downright misdirection I have ever seen in my life. As boggling as the 'color changing because of light' rings are, that 'it's-not-a-trench-really' deal is just wow. 

Thank you, Asalaw, for further beautiful pics. I wouldn't have known you were standing a bit aways, and there's a display in the way and all the other obstacles if you weren't talking about the taking of them.


----------



## Gary K

asalaw said:


> It's looking to my middle-aged eyeballs like the ILM peeps used a combination of airbrushing and dry-brushing. Can't tell for sure if any of that is washes. Your Garytude, wouldst thou fain dribble us with thy smarty stuff?


Mayhaps I shall. It was mainly airbrushing, with various semi-transparent colors for weathering. As far as I know, the only brushwork was when I painted the itty-bitty nacelle running lights.

Gary


----------



## mach7

asalaw,

Beautiful photographs, That shows what can be done with a good camera in the hands of
someone who knows how to use it.


----------



## Steve H

OK, Gary, tell us the story of the dorsal. The grid behind some of the windows, that little light that seems red from some angles and yellowish head on, I thhought it was a piece of plex rod like the little 'horns' on the bridge dome but seems not to be.

And I assume that some of the windows are direct lit and others are indirect. 

The 'offside' is pure trainwreck with all those wires. I had thought the dorsal was hollow but the wires makes it appear like they drilled thru a solid hunk of wood. Honestly, that wiring rat's nest doesn't make...oh, wait. they ran the bulbs and wires that way so they could just *yank* and replace them without taking the ship apart, right?


----------



## cbear

Gary
Do the triangular panels/landing legs on the lower saucer have raised edges or are they flush with recessed edges like the 1/350 kit?

Chuck


----------



## asalaw

mach7 said:


> I guess, I think you can open up manual settings on the iPhone but I'm not that smart.
> 
> We bought a nice digital camera 2 years ago. 13 MP, a nice Zies lens with optical zoom and it does not seem
> to do a better job than the iPhone.
> 
> It's funny thou, when the AI gets it wrong it gets it very wrong.


I have no idea how to do anything manual other than what's accessible on the camera screen, and that's fairly limited. Still a great camera -- the two-color flash gives perfect fleshtones every time. 



Steve H said:


> I have GOT to say, the faux trench on the inside of the starboard nacelle is one of the most impressive bits of art and downright misdirection I have ever seen in my life. As boggling as the 'color changing because of light' rings are, that 'it's-not-a-trench-really' deal is just wow.
> 
> Thank you, Asalaw, for further beautiful pics. I wouldn't have known you were standing a bit aways, and there's a display in the way and all the other obstacles if you weren't talking about the taking of them.


You're welcome! I've been wanting to take these for the better part of 20 years, and I finally got my wish! 

Yeah, that artwork just blows me away, too. The illusion onscreen is perfect. The fact that the intercooler is actually on there just tells your brain to accept the whole thing. I love it.



Gary K said:


> Mayhaps I shall. It was mainly airbrushing, with various semi-transparent colors for weathering. As far as I know, the only brushwork was when I painted the itty-bitty nacelle running lights.
> 
> Gary


Thanks! Not to rivet count, but I would've sized those as teeny weeny, as I think itty bitty is metric. But YMMV, of course. 



mach7 said:


> asalaw,
> 
> Beautiful photographs, That shows what can be done with a good camera in the hands of
> someone who knows how to use it.


Aw, shucks, thanks!  I've been taking pictures since I got my first SLR when I was 12. The secret is to try to take the pictures you've always wanted to see. On the Enterprise, that's easy. _All_ of them!


----------



## Gary K

cbear said:


> Gary
> Do the triangular panels/landing legs on the lower saucer have raised edges or are they flush with recessed edges like the 1/350 kit?
> 
> Chuck


They're flush, like the kit.

Gary


----------



## cbear

Thanks!


----------



## asalaw

Gary K said:


> They're flush, like the kit.
> 
> Gary


I love the way they painted those. They added a light gray edge around the perimeter of the triangles, and it makes it look as though there's actually a thin piece of triangular plastic glued to the surface. I had to _really_ look closely at my photos to be sure. It absolutely fools your eye in person, unless (I assume) you put some bright light on it. Right click on it to open it in another tab or window, and you'll see the shot full size. Notice that while my flash creates a shadow on the raised "hot dog" feature (™!), there's no shadow at all anywhere on the edges of the triangle.


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> OK, Gary, tell us the story of the dorsal. The grid behind some of the windows, that little light that seems red from some angles and yellowish head on, I thhought it was a piece of plex rod like the little 'horns' on the bridge dome but seems not to be.
> 
> And I assume that some of the windows are direct lit and others are indirect.
> 
> The 'offside' is pure trainwreck with all those wires. I had thought the dorsal was hollow but the wires makes it appear like they drilled thru a solid hunk of wood. Honestly, that wiring rat's nest doesn't make...oh, wait. they ran the bulbs and wires that way so they could just *yank* and replace them without taking the ship apart, right?


Nothing special about the dorsal - rectangular & round Plex windows on one side, and lights stuck in from the other side, just like the original, but a little neater. The red/yellow light is simply a clear Plex rod, with the incandescent-colored LEDs photographing differently, depending upon the angle at which the photo was taken. Ed Miarecki drilled a hole through the middle of the dorsal so the saucer wiring could be run through it, rather than being duct-taped to the exterior of the dorsal.

Gary


----------



## Steve H

OK, suddenly a themed question, GRIDS! 

1. So, the bits of grid behind some of the dorsal windows. Intentional or happenstance? As in there's something re-enforcing the dorsal and it's visible in a couple of places?

2. the grid inside the intercooler trench (the real one). Lots of little round holes. Suddenly it hits me, is that the same material (brass sheet?) that makes up the Communicator flip-up grid antenna? I'm sure I'm insane to think that but I'm having a problem truly understanding proportions and size of the model. 

But even saying that, if the metal sheet is similar but smaller compared to what's used on the Communicator, is that a thing? brass sheet with holes? And you can get it with different size holes? If so, it must be an industrial thing. I would guess. maybe.


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> OK, suddenly a themed question, GRIDS!
> 
> 1. So, the bits of grid behind some of the dorsal windows. Intentional or happenstance? As in there's something re-enforcing the dorsal and it's visible in a couple of places?
> 
> 2. the grid inside the intercooler trench (the real one). Lots of little round holes. Suddenly it hits me, is that the same material (brass sheet?) that makes up the Communicator flip-up grid antenna? I'm sure I'm insane to think that but I'm having a problem truly understanding proportions and size of the model.
> 
> But even saying that, if the metal sheet is similar but smaller compared to what's used on the Communicator, is that a thing? brass sheet with holes? And you can get it with different size holes? If so, it must be an industrial thing. I would guess. maybe.


1. The metal grills behind the windows are just details that wouldn't be clearly visible on a low-res TV screen, but would add some visual interest.

2. The brass grill behind the one dorsal window is the same material as in the nacelle pylons. The grill in the nacelle trench isn't the same material as in a communicator grill, since the pattern of holes is different.

Gary


----------



## MartyS

Steve H said:


> is that a thing? brass sheet with holes? And you can get it with different size holes? If so, it must be an industrial thing. I would guess. maybe.


Metal sheet with holes is pretty easy to get. Used to be more common when electronics were tube based and needed lots of airflow to keep them from overheating. I've thrown lots of it away over the years tossing out old equipment from the labs at work.

Round holes, oval holes, honeycomb, lots and lots of patterns and sizes used in metal grills.


----------



## Gary K

MartyS said:


> Metal sheet with holes is pretty easy to get. Used to be more common when electronics were tube based and needed lots of airflow to keep them from overheating. I've thrown lots of it away over the years tossing out old equipment from the labs at work.
> 
> Round holes, oval holes, honeycomb, lots and lots of patterns and sizes used in metal grills.


But we couldn't get perforated metal sheet (as it's usually called) in a pattern to match the missing original nacelle grills, so a friend of John Goodson's used my plans to fabricate some custom sheets.

Gary


----------



## MartyS

Gary K said:


> But we couldn't get perforated metal sheet (as it's usually called) in a pattern to match the missing original nacelle grills,


50+ years is a long time, the company that made that stuff is probably long gone. Even if they were still around chances of them making the same exact pattern for 50 years would be slim, really no reason to ever need the exact same ventilation hole pattern year after year.


----------



## Gary K

MartyS said:


> 50+ years is a long time, the company that made that stuff is probably long gone. Even if they were still around chances of them making the same exact pattern for 50 years would be slim, really no reason to ever need the exact same ventilation hole pattern year after year.


The pattern is basically a 0.10" grid pattern, but the X and Y spacing is slightly off 0.10", due to the way it was originally punched. I had to adjust the pattern microscopically to match the original so the replacement grills would have the same number of holes as the originals, and I think/hope that I succeeded. 

Gary


----------



## Steve H

MartyS said:


> Metal sheet with holes is pretty easy to get. Used to be more common when electronics were tube based and needed lots of airflow to keep them from overheating. I've thrown lots of it away over the years tossing out old equipment from the labs at work.
> 
> Round holes, oval holes, honeycomb, lots and lots of patterns and sizes used in metal grills.


Oh CRAP. I should have known that. Airflow and some heat sink ability as well. Our B&W TV was a big beast, filled with tubes. Our cat LOVED to sleep on top of it because it was so toasty warm.


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> 1. The metal grills behind the windows are just details that wouldn't be clearly visible on a low-res TV screen, but would add some visual interest.
> 
> 2. The brass grill behind the one dorsal window is the same material as in the nacelle pylons. The grill in the nacelle trench isn't the same material as in a communicator grill, since the pattern of holes is different.
> 
> Gary


Thanks, Gary! I thought I saw grill behind at least two windows, so that's why I wondered if it was some kind of support material. I thought that grill material might be the same as the nacelle pylon (heat sink? Solar panels? re-enforcement plates? vents?) but again, I don't have the 'scale', the impression of physical size from seeing in person, embedded in my brain yet.


----------



## asalaw

Gary K said:


> The pattern is basically a 0.10" grid pattern, but the X and Y spacing is slightly off 0.10", due to the way it was originally punched. I had to adjust the pattern microscopically to match the original so the replacement grills would have the same number of holes as the originals, and I think/hope that I succeeded.
> 
> Gary


Looks pretty good to me! 

The Paragrafix photo-etch set for the PL 1/350 has the right pattern of holes there. Such a wonderful time to build that model!! :grin2:


----------



## mach7

Gary K said:


> The pattern is basically a 0.10" grid pattern, but the X and Y spacing is slightly off 0.10", due to the way it was originally punched. I had to adjust the pattern microscopically to match the original so the replacement grills would have the same number of holes as the originals, and I think/hope that I succeeded.
> 
> Gary


It looks great to my fanboy eyes!

The grills look great, much better than the Miraki ones!


----------



## jheilman

I don't know if it was a time issue or a budget issue, but one (or both) of those is probably why Miarecki used a different metal grid. He used what was readily available.

I had heard rumors of the bits and bobs behind the dorsal windows for years. Nice to see them so clearly.

By the time I see the ship in person (probably spring break 2017) every possible picture will have been taken and posted and downloaded. But that won't prevent me from taking a bunch of my own.:wink2:


----------



## MartyS

Gary K said:


> The pattern is basically a 0.10" grid pattern, but the X and Y spacing is slightly off 0.10", due to the way it was originally punched.


Ha, what you needed were sheets run on the exact same machine used 50+ years ago... Yeah, that's not going to be an off the shelf item. :grin2:


----------



## jheilman

Unless it's a very old, forgotten shelf.:grin2:


----------



## Owen E Oulton

Question for Gary Kerr regarding the so-called "rust ring" or 'coffee stain' on the upper hull. Is it actually a painted detail, just discoloured paint covering up a repair done during production or overzealous weathering? I don't seem to see much of it in the pics being posted, so if it is actually there it must be much fainter than most builders/decal makers depict.


----------



## asalaw

jheilman said:


> I don't know if it was a time issue or a budget issue, but one (or both) of those is probably why Miarecki used a different metal grid. He used what was readily available.
> 
> I had heard rumors of the bits and bobs behind the dorsal windows for years. Nice to see them so clearly.
> 
> By the time I see the ship in person (probably spring break 2017) every possible picture will have been taken and posted and downloaded. But that won't prevent me from taking a bunch of my own.:wink2:


Pursuant to federal law and enabling regulations, it is prohibited to assume that enough pictures have been taken of the Enterprise. All visitors to NASM are required to exhaust their data cards, phone/cloud storage, and film rolls covering the model. Violators are subject to arrest and prosecution.

Anyway, that's what it says in my head law.


----------



## Gary K

Owen E Oulton said:


> Question for Gary Kerr regarding the so-called "rust ring" or 'coffee stain' on the upper hull. Is it actually a painted detail, just discoloured paint covering up a repair done during production or overzealous weathering? I don't seem to see much of it in the pics being posted, so if it is actually there it must be much fainter than most builders/decal makers depict.


The tan-colored arc is real, and it was painted with layers of a tan-tinted shellac. Note that it DOESN'T extend around the entire saucer, like many modelers portray it. After talking to some paint experts, I think it's possible that the tinted shellac has faded over the years, making the arc less noticeable. Same with the grid-centric weathering. Adding to the confusion is the fact that the lacquer-based hull paint has chemically darkened over the years.

What we really need is Doc Brown's DeLorean!

Gary


----------



## asalaw

Another question -- this totally escaped me till just a few hours ago. It looks like they actually got rid of the tension cracking on the saucer top, or somehow disguised it. Is that the case, or have I just missed it because of the low lighting? Malcolm said they were going to try to stabilize it, but I never heard about it again.


----------



## mach7

There is cracking on the top of the saucer. I saw it on Wednesday. 

When I'm back next week I'll try and get some photos of it.


----------



## asalaw

mach7 said:


> There is cracking on the top of the saucer. I saw it on Wednesday.
> 
> When I'm back next week I'll try and get some photos of it.


Ah. I've been meaning to take my eyeballs into the shop for a cleaning and lube, but I've been putting it off. I'd better get on that, I guess.


----------



## mach7

You really have to look for it. It's not very noticeable.
Where I first saw it was on the mid/aft saucer, behind the B/C deck area.


----------



## Proper2

Gary K said:


> The tan-colored arc is real, and it was painted with layers of a tan-tinted shellac. Note that it DOESN'T extend around the entire saucer, like many modelers portray it. After talking to some paint experts, I think it's possible that the tinted shellac has faded over the years, making the arc less noticeable. Same with the grid-centric weathering. Adding to the confusion is the fact that the lacquer-based hull paint has chemically darkened over the years.
> 
> What we really need is Doc Brown's DeLorean!
> 
> Gary


Alas, "is there in truth no beauty"? 

After all these intense scientific analyses and attempts to uncover the penultimate truth about what this lady should look like, it seems that there is probably a fairly wide range of what is/was/can be her reality for use by the individual modeller. As the wisdom of Spock suggests: "After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing after all as wanting."


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> The tan-colored arc is real, and it was painted with layers of a tan-tinted shellac. Note that it DOESN'T extend around the entire saucer, like many modelers portray it. After talking to some paint experts, I think it's possible that the tinted shellac has faded over the years, making the arc less noticeable. Same with the grid-centric weathering. Adding to the confusion is the fact that the lacquer-based hull paint has chemically darkened over the years.
> 
> What we really need is Doc Brown's DeLorean!
> 
> Gary


This is one of the things I wonder about. I want to be perfectly clear (and this statement will be seemingly ironic when one considers the entire post  ) I am not challenging the experts. 

But I am wondering if proper consideration is being given to 50 year old shellac, the aging process and all the outside factors of the times.

I'm mindful of historical restorations of various paintings such as 'The Last Supper', and how time and air pollution tended to darken clear shellac, and how usually it tends to yellow over time. I recall the restoration team working on 'The Last Supper' were astonished by how vibrant the original colors were when the clear varnish was carefully stripped away.

And who knows, varnish and shellac may be two completely different animals in terms of chemical makeup. I always thought they were the same thing. 

I was going to speculate if maybe the tan ring was just some spot clear coating laid down to better allow replacing the big name/number decals and the intense heat of the filming lights prematurely aged it, tanned it if you will, but it's in the wrong place to serve that purpose. 

I guess the only other thing that makes sense is as we've discussed previously: it's 'stage makeup', to help define the outline and curve of the saucer to better register on B&W TVs.


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## scotthm

alensatemybuick said:


> I have trouble reconciling these two statements


Perhaps that's because you haven't seen all the information that was available to the restoration team.

---------------


----------



## Gary K

alensatemybuick said:


> I have trouble reconciling these two statements; in the case of the upper bow light, in original effects shots it was never visibly lit as seen onscreen, and yet it was lit on the model, at least dimly. So just because the *much smaller* saucer rim port cannot be seen onscreen, why assume IT wasn't actually lit? Also, it seems a bit counter-intuitive that the port hole was drilled completely through the saucer edge if the intent was not to allow light to show through, and to end up requiring effort NOT to let light show through.
> 
> This is not a criticism, or a "gotcha" attempt; it just goes to show that the uncertainty principle is (as always) in effect.


The dimly-lit bow light IS visible in good-quality screen caps, "good-quality" being the key words. 

The side port hole is clearly illuminated in one of the early publicity shots that was taken before the Production model was fully finished (the lower saucer registry numbers were not yet rotated, and the bezel for the hangar bay side light was in some photos, but not in others). We know that a blinking light was located directly below the 1" marble that served as the upper stbd nav light, and that bulb would have been much less than 2" away the Plex rod that comprised the porthole. 

With a light bulb that close to the side porthole, there is no way that we wouldn't have seen it blinking in unison with the upper & lower nav lights unless it had been modified so it wouldn't transmit the light from the bulb. Since the porthole is NOT blinking in any of the hi-quality MP4 clips that Doug Drexler sent me, it is logical to conclude that the inner end of the Plex rod had, indeed, been altered before filming began.

Gary


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## scotpens

Steve H said:


> . . . I'm mindful of historical restorations of various paintings such as 'The Last Supper', and how time and air pollution tended to darken clear shellac, and how usually it tends to yellow over time. I recall the restoration team working on 'The Last Supper' were astonished by how vibrant the original colors were when the clear varnish was carefully stripped away.


I believe you're thinking of the Sistine Chapel ceiling frescoes by Michelangelo. Leonardo da Vinci's _Last Supper_ is extremely faded and deteriorated, even with the most recent restoration attempts.


----------



## Steve H

scotpens said:


> I believe you're thinking of the Sistine Chapel ceiling frescoes by Michelangelo. Leonardo da Vinci's _Last Supper_ is extremely faded and deteriorated, even with the most recent restoration attempts.


You are correct, my apologies. Otherwise, I do have the substance of it, yes? 

The frescoes at least had the protection of distance from human contact, even if they had to deal with modern pollution and vintage pollution such as smoke from torches and candles and the like.


----------



## CessnaDriver

A two-hour documentary on the restoration of the USS Enterprise model restoration will air in September.

The “Smithsonian Channel will celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of Star Trek with a two-hour special that will take a look at the lasting influence the original Star Trek series has had on the world.”

Building Star Trek “will follow the conservation team from the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum as they attempt to restore and conserve the original eleven-foot, two-hundred-and-fifty-pound model of the U.S.S. Enterprise from the original series. The special also will track the effort to rebuild a model of the original U.S.S. Enterprise bridge by using authentic set pieces and props, which recently went on display at Seattle’s EMP Museum.

“The two-hour special also profiles a new generation of engineers and scientists who are making Star Trek’s visionary technology real, pushing the boundaries of physics with inventions first conceived on the iconic series: warp drives, medical tricorders, cloaking devices and tractor beams.

Building Star Trek will premiere Sunday, September 4 at 8 p.m. ET/PT on Smithsonian Channel.


----------



## jheilman

yay. :grin2::grin2::grin2::grin2::grin2:


----------



## Steve H

CessnaDriver said:


> A two-hour documentary on the restoration of the USS Enterprise model restoration will air in September.
> 
> The “Smithsonian Channel will celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of Star Trek with a two-hour special that will take a look at the lasting influence the original Star Trek series has had on the world.”
> 
> Building Star Trek “will follow the conservation team from the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum as they attempt to restore and conserve the original eleven-foot, two-hundred-and-fifty-pound model of the U.S.S. Enterprise from the original series. The special also will track the effort to rebuild a model of the original U.S.S. Enterprise bridge by using authentic set pieces and props, which recently went on display at Seattle’s EMP Museum.
> 
> “The two-hour special also profiles a new generation of engineers and scientists who are making Star Trek’s visionary technology real, pushing the boundaries of physics with inventions first conceived on the iconic series: warp drives, medical tricorders, cloaking devices and tractor beams.
> 
> Building Star Trek will premiere Sunday, September 4 at 8 p.m. ET/PT on Smithsonian Channel.


Assuming, of course, one actually has the Smithsonian Channel, indeed yay. 

Mind, I expect more 'puff' than substance, but that's OK. I would hope for a later physical media release with maybe more content. This would pair nicely with a deluxe coffee table book on the restoration but THAT would have to be a 2017 event I suspect.

Still and all, and I know I sound like Mr. Grumpybutt, this is a grand thing and a nice 'push' for the team that did the job. Well done, all!


----------



## JGG1701

CessnaDriver said:


> A two-hour documentary on the restoration of the USS Enterprise model restoration will air in September.
> 
> The “Smithsonian Channel will celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of Star Trek with a two-hour special that will take a look at the lasting influence the original Star Trek series has had on the world.”
> 
> Building Star Trek “will follow the conservation team from the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum as they attempt to restore and conserve the original eleven-foot, two-hundred-and-fifty-pound model of the U.S.S. Enterprise from the original series. The special also will track the effort to rebuild a model of the original U.S.S. Enterprise bridge by using authentic set pieces and props, which recently went on display at Seattle’s EMP Museum.
> 
> “The two-hour special also profiles a new generation of engineers and scientists who are making Star Trek’s visionary technology real, pushing the boundaries of physics with inventions first conceived on the iconic series: warp drives, medical tricorders, cloaking devices and tractor beams.
> 
> Building Star Trek will premiere Sunday, September 4 at 8 p.m. ET/PT on Smithsonian Channel.


Would you care to burn a DVD copy for me, please?:nerd:
-Jim G.G.


----------



## asalaw

I won't be surprised if they make it available online for purchase and streaming, as well as in their various gift shops.  Hopefully I'll buy it on iTunes.


----------



## RossW

I think I saw that it will be available to stream from their website after it airs.


----------



## Owen E Oulton

scotpens said:


> I believe you're thinking of the Sistine Chapel ceiling frescoes by Michelangelo. Leonardo da Vinci's _Last Supper_ is extremely faded and deteriorated, even with the most recent restoration attempts.


You are correct about the condition of The Last Supper. Unfortunately Leonardo tried an unsuccessful experimental technique with that painting. He tried doing a fresco (painting into wet plaster) with the then-new oil paints which, unlike the traditional egg tempera (water based) paints did not bond properly with the plaster, making the surface extremely fragile. It began to deteriorate immediately and there were many touch-ups by less gifted artists, and damage during various wars including one time when the building was used as a stable and a door punched through the lower part of the painting. As such, very little is left of the original art on the wall. Many lessons can be garnered by modellers from this, such as compatibility of paints and materials.


----------



## goose814

She really looks awesome. I can't wait to see her in person. Thank you to all involved with her refurbishment. For now though, I have a few questions for Gary about the model after looking at some of the photos posted. First, am I to understand that the detail inside the intercoolers on the back of the nacelles are not mounted along the centerline of them but offset towards the edges? Second, what is the small button like protuberance on the bottom of the secondary hull forward of where the stand goes in? Thank you for any clarification and, again, for a great job.

Gus


----------



## mach7

I should be in DC again on Friday and will go see her again. If anyone wants any particular photos let me know and I will do my best to get them.


----------



## Gary K

goose814 said:


> She really looks awesome. I can't wait to see her in person. Thank you to all involved with her refurbishment. For now though, I have a few questions for Gary about the model after looking at some of the photos posted. First, am I to understand that the detail inside the intercoolers on the back of the nacelles are not mounted along the centerline of them but offset towards the edges? Second, what is the small button like protuberance on the bottom of the secondary hull forward of where the stand goes in? Thank you for any clarification and, again, for a great job.
> 
> Gus


Correct - the patterned pieces of Plex were not positioned on the centerline of each intercooler. 

There's a 1/4" hemisphere on the bottom flat panel of the sec hull, near the front edge. It was definitely on the Production version, but I haven't seen any Pilot version photos that are clear enough to definitively say whether or not the hemisphere was on the Pilot versions. The part vanished sometime after the 11-footer arrived at the museum, but curator Malcolm Collum fashioned a replacement from the head of an aircraft rivet. No idea what it was supposed to be, but if I were building my own 11-ft model, I might make it a strobe light, somewhat similar to the one on the Refit.

Gary


----------



## asalaw

mach7 said:


> I should be in DC again on Friday and will go see her again. If anyone wants any particular photos let me know and I will do my best to get them.


I haven't shot one frame of the underside of the engineering hull (including the fantail), and I'm not going back till my new (used) camera arrives, which probably won't be till Monday or Tuesday. I also don't have anything very good of the impulse deck. Also, my current camera's rear screen doesn't work as a viewfinder (it's pretty old), so I couldn't hoist it and shoot down at the top anywhere. It's one of the very early EOS Rebels, and it's only 6.3 MP -- hence the upgrade. 

If you could grab any of those, that would be awesome.


----------



## Steve H

asalaw said:


> I haven't shot one frame of the underside of the engineering hull (including the fantail), and I'm not going back till my new (used) camera arrives, which probably won't be till Monday or Tuesday. I also don't have anything very good of the impulse deck. Also, my current camera's rear screen doesn't work as a viewfinder (it's pretty old), so I couldn't hoist it and shoot down at the top anywhere. It's one of the very early EOS Rebels, and it's only 6.3 MP -- hence the upgrade.
> 
> If you could grab any of those, that would be awesome.


When you do get to that, can you try and really focus on the 'landing approach' lights on the fantail? I know Gary said they were supposed to be green, amber and red (which is very logical for visual approach) but all I see is green and red and red. Is it the LEDs don't register right on digital or something?


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> When you do get to that, can you try and really focus on the 'landing approach' lights on the fantail? I know Gary said they were supposed to be green, amber and red (which is very logical for visual approach) but all I see is green and red and red. Is it the LEDs don't register right on digital or something?


The green, amber, and red colors are there. You're just seeing color balance issues in the photos that people have taken.

Gary


----------



## Steve H

Thank you, Gary! I assume the dome is off-center because it's just resting on the hull and not properly fitted. 

Man, gotta say, those little space hitchhikers do a LOT to make the miniature more 'real'.

OK, so I see that cutout on the fantail, I'm guessing that's the access point for the approach lights bulb. A single bulb? My guess would have been a single brake light bulb, as those seem to have been a standard thing in many miniatures. If it was just a regular bulb, that area would have been hot enough to fry an egg after only a few minutes!


----------



## JGG1701

mach7 said:


> I should be in DC again on Friday and will go see her again. If anyone wants any particular photos let me know and I will do my best to get them.


I do , I do!!!:wave::wave::wave::wave:
*Anything* & *everything* would be *GREAT!!!!!*:nerd:
-Jim G.G.
P.S.
A mini-video that I can upload/download would be awesome as well.
Thank you in advance.:grin2:


----------



## asalaw

Steve H said:


> Thank you, Gary! I assume the dome is off-center because it's just resting on the hull and not properly fitted.


I vote perspective issue. WHO'S WITH ME?!?!


----------



## Gary K

asalaw said:


> I vote perspective issue. WHO'S WITH ME?!?!


Not me! 

Gary


----------



## asalaw

Gary K said:


> Not me!
> 
> Gary


Ha HAAAA!!!! I KNEW IT!!! WE'LL STORM THE BASTILLE TOGETH--

Wait, what?


----------



## mach7

asalaw said:


> I haven't shot one frame of the underside of the engineering hull (including the fantail), and I'm not going back till my new (used) camera arrives, which probably won't be till Monday or Tuesday. I also don't have anything very good of the impulse deck. Also, my current camera's rear screen doesn't work as a viewfinder (it's pretty old), so I couldn't hoist it and shoot down at the top anywhere. It's one of the very early EOS Rebels, and it's only 6.3 MP -- hence the upgrade.
> 
> If you could grab any of those, that would be awesome.


I will do my best!


----------



## mach7

JGG1701 said:


> I do , I do!!!:wave::wave::wave::wave:
> *Anything* & *everything* would be *GREAT!!!!!*:nerd:
> -Jim G.G.
> P.S.
> A mini-video that I can upload/download would be awesome as well.
> Thank you in advance.:grin2:


I posted a few videos on youtube. 

I'm happy to share them with anyone. 

Any ideas?


----------



## feek61

I would love to see them!!

So, my idea is to post a link!!!


----------



## asalaw

mach7 said:


> I posted a few videos on youtube.
> 
> I'm happy to share them with anyone.
> 
> Any ideas?





feek61 said:


> I would love to see them!!
> 
> So, my idea is to post a link!!!


Yes. Yes. Link is good. No link is bad. Zathras aprrove of link.


----------



## CessnaDriver

Short but awesome...


----------



## asalaw

Say, Gary, about the gold rings aft of the deflector: Do you know if ILM used gold paint, or a transparent yellow over metallic silver/aluminum? Thanks.


----------



## mach7

asalaw said:


> Yes. Yes. Link is good. No link is bad. Zathras aprrove of link.


They are in post 889


----------



## Gary K

asalaw said:


> Say, Gary, about the gold rings aft of the deflector: Do you know if ILM used gold paint, or a transparent yellow over metallic silver/aluminum? Thanks.


Richard Datin described using a paint that was gold, almost copper in tone, and in this case, Datin's recollection matched reality. John Goodson says he mixed a dozen different paints together - including metallic gold and gloss orange - to match the color. 

If you have a fan deck of Eckart Effects Pigments, the color is midway between the chip of TopStar 06 2021 Orange 100% and the chip of TopStar 06 2021 60% plus TopStar 06 2001 Yellow 40%.

Pantone-wise, the color is close to 873C in their Metallic Formula Guide.

Gary


----------



## JGG1701

mach7 said:


> I posted a few videos on youtube.
> 
> I'm happy to share them with anyone.
> 
> Any ideas?


Maybe "photobucket" them as well , then I could upload and burn them to a CD or somthing.
Looking forward to your pics as well.:nerd:
-Jim G.G.


----------



## asalaw

Gary K said:


> Richard Datin described using a paint that was gold, almost copper in tone, and in this case, Datin's recollection matched reality. John Goodson says he mixed a dozen different paints together - including metallic gold and gloss orange - to match the color.
> 
> If you have a fan deck of Eckart Effects Pigments, the color is midway between the chip of TopStar 06 2021 Orange 100% and the chip of TopStar 06 2021 60% plus TopStar 06 2001 Yellow 40%.
> 
> Pantone-wise, the color is close to 873C in their Metallic Formula Guide.
> 
> Gary


No fan deck (can't even find how to get one via their site), but there's lots of Pantone converters on the interwebs. Comes out to RAL 8000.

When I get the chance (helluva time to be slammed at work), I'll try 60/40 Tamiya clear orange/yellow over something like an Alclad aluminum and see what that does. It's so cool that I can spray me up a couple of chips, then mosey on over and compare them to the model. 

Thanks yet again!


----------



## mach7

Lets try this.






Bad news. I can't make it to DC this week.


----------



## asalaw

mach7 said:


> Bad news. I can't make it to DC this week.


Nice videos!

Sorry to hear that. I have to give my new camera a shakedown cruise when it gets here anyway, so I'm going to blow billions of ones and zeroes on the Enterprise, and then on the National Gallery Sculpture Garden up on 7th and Constitution.

They have a 10-foot eraser. Which is good, because A LOT of my past needs rubbing out. 

(Also eventually I'll get around to shooting some of that other stuff they have at NASM. Apollo 11's no Enterprise, but it'll do, I guess.)


----------



## Steve H

You know, it's really strange to think about how the digital world has changed things. Think how much money it would have cost to shoot all these pics back in the day, how many rolls of 35mm film it would have taken, weeding thru the spoiled shots for the best...

Now, there's really no practical limit to how many pictures one might take, other than the size and number of SD cards (or other storage medium) one has. It's not even a problem swapping out the cards! Not that loading a modern 35mm camera was difficult but one tended to be more paranoid, wanting at least SOME darkness swapping out the film rolls.

(man, if Apple ever wises up on a future iPhone and has an external SD card slot, that's gonna change the WORLD. But they probably won't, just like they won't let you have access to the battery to swap)


----------



## asalaw

And even on DSLRs, you can get a wifi hotshoe attachment that will create a wifi network so you can offload the photos to your phone and share them right there and then -- thus extending the phone's social media advantage to the DSLR! I think eventually built-in wifi will be standard on even inexpensive cameras -- it'll have to be, to stay competitive with phone cameras.

Apple doesn't belive in physical media's future. They were the first to eliminate the floppy drive in '97, they've eliminated the optical drive recently, and they've never even done a BD drive. Their goal is wireless everything, cloud everything. They're on a mission to stamp out inconvenience.

I'm getting warm fuzzies thinking about the shots I'm going to get of the Enterprise with the new DSLR! The seller couldn't find the 4GB SD card he offered with it, so he's sending me a 16GB he had handy. Camera takes up to 32GB. _*SWEEEEEET!*_ :grin2:


----------



## asalaw

It's here! It's awesome!!! The color reproduction is gorgeous and freakin' PERFECT! 15.1 MP of crisp, yummy digital goodness!! Does low-light like a champ with very low noise at ISO 800! I'm taking a few hours off tomorrow and Sunday to shoot the Enterprise to death (again!!!!)!!! (Yes, I'm working the weekend -- but I work in the Reagan Building, which is a $4 Über ride away from the Church of Our Lady of Perpetual Warp.)

SQUEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:grin2:

(First thing I'm reshooting is all those tiny decals...):nerd:

(Oh -- the 16GB SD card holds over 2,300 photos at full 15.1MP resolution. That may last me for the Enterprise.  )


----------



## Gary K

asalaw said:


> It's here! It's awesome!!! The color reproduction is gorgeous and freakin' PERFECT! 15.1 MP of crisp, yummy digital goodness!! Does low-light like a champ with very low noise at ISO 800! I'm taking a few hours off tomorrow and Sunday to shoot the Enterprise to death (again!!!!)!!! (Yes, I'm working the weekend -- but I work in the Reagan Building, which is a $4 Über ride away from the Church of Our Lady of Perpetual Warp.)
> 
> SQUEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Stop beating around the bush. Did you like it or not?? 

Gary


----------



## whereisanykey

I'd like to see more on the text decals. As far as I can tell there seems only three on the ship, but the decal sheet has more than a dozen. I've been wondering if some of the others were part of the first production since there were decals that didn't follow later on, that were on the saucer top.


Greg


----------



## Steve H

whereisanykey said:


> I'd like to see more on the text decals. As far as I can tell there seems only three on the ship, but the decal sheet has more than a dozen. I've been wondering if some of the others were part of the first production since there were decals that didn't follow later on, that were on the saucer top.
> 
> 
> Greg


It COULD be that they just ran up a bunch of different text and then just picked a couple of them to use. All the rest were 'just in case' markings. maybe. 

I still wonder about the source. I swear they all remind of something, some kit's decals. Some of the text makes me think of all the stuff that covers the X-15 but by the text blocks themselves it clearly can't be just from that. 

But I logic myself out of that thinking, because brother, kits back in the '60s just didn't strive for 100% complete and accurate decals. Some of those planes you were darn lucky to get Stars and Bars and USAF. 

(I recall the Monogram B-58 had nice decals but of course they were prototype test markings and not actual service deco. bah.)


----------



## electric indigo

Gary K said:


> Pantone-wise, the color is close to 873C in their Metallic Formula Guide.


You don't happen to also have a Pantone reference for the hull color, do you?


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## Radiodugger

Ya know, guys, I am saving all these pictures in a file folder on my HD. I may use them in the future for reference or discussion. _No_ $$$ will be made with these. 

I am grateful for it all!

Doug


----------



## Gary K

electric indigo said:


> You don't happen to also have a Pantone reference for the hull color, do you?


Not yet. I've only just retweaked the hull colors (Pilot & Production) for Polar Lights two days ago. I talked to Margaret Weitekamp from the Smithsonian a couple days ago, and we're working as fast fast as we can to compile a modelers guide to the TOS E. 

Gary


----------



## Proper2

Does the Smithsonian dim the room lighting when they light up the Enterprise three times a day? I hope that they do but somehow I doubt it.


----------



## Gary K

alensatemybuick said:


> Three of the smaller text decals were used on the Galileo filming miniature:
> 
> 1. INSPECTION DOOR VENT SYSTEM CONNECTIONS (located near the upper right of the main hatch)
> 2. HATCH ACCESS (located at lower left of main hatch)
> 3. NITROGEN PURGE REDUCER VALVE ACCESS (located on the right rear access panel)
> 
> I recall reading somewhere that some other decals from the big decal sheets meant for the 33" and 11' models may even have been used as signage on the hangar bay maquette, but I'm not 100% sure of that (or if so, which ones).
> 
> *ON EDIT*: The source for some of the flight deck model signage I was thinking of is from Richard Datin's old website (though I am aware of no photos that could serve to demonstrate this to be true):
> 
> https://web.archive.org/web/20110830111922/http://www.startrekman.us/pages/4/index.htm


The only signs I'm aware in the hangar bay miniature are FUELING STATION, WARNING FIRE, <ELEVATOR, and ELEVATOR>.

What was your source for the decals on Galileo miniature? The small markings on the mock-up are - surprise - completely different.

Gary


----------



## mach7

Proper2 said:


> Does the Smithsonian dim the room lighting when they light up the Enterprise three times a day? I hope that they do but somehow I doubt it.



They didn't when I was there.

Also there is no warning, she just lights up for 10 min and then goes dark again.


----------



## Proper2

mach7 said:


> They didn't when I was there.
> 
> Also there is no warning, she just lights up for 10 min and then goes dark again.


I really wish that she had been set up within her own space (pun intended), such as a filming stage recreation, without outside visual distractions such as unintended lighting, color noises and backgrounds. After all the nuanced and scientific analyses for color authenticity and all, seems kind of a defeated purpose...


----------



## Steve H

Proper2 said:


> I really wish that she had been set up within her own space (pun intended), such as a filming stage recreation, without outside visual distractions such as unintended lighting, color noises and backgrounds. After all the nuanced and scientific analyses for color authenticity and all, seems kind of a defeated purpose...


I don't disagree on the whole. I suggested just such a display myself way back early in the thread. 

What I had wished for was some serious effort to find or 100% confirm the loss of the control console. That would have been a major task and take a good amount of time and likely several people (altho I'm sure they could have found unpaid interns willing to go spelunking in storage, there would still have to be a paid staff member to oversee.  )

Everything always boils down to time and money. And in the case of NA&SM, space. Physical space. 

I seem to recall the Smithsonian (the institution as a whole) being called 'America's Attic' and what we see is only like, what, 10-20% of the material held? So what doesn't get displayed in order to give a hunk of wood and metal and plastic from an old TV series its own room?

Actually, as I type, it strikes me that where the Enterprise is now, it's actually in a way more secure for the future of the model than if it WAS in its own room. Anyone can see it, there's no line, or time limitation, or 'closes on Mondays' to worry about, there's no need to buy a special ticket to wait in line, it simply exists.

And that means there's no real way to 'track eyeballs', is there? No way to close the exhibit because it's no longer 'generating enough traffic'. No way for the faceless gray men in their gray suits to 'crunch numbers' and decide to trash the model with no warning. 

So while I would have wished for a diorama placing the 11 foot miniature in its context of a studio circa the mid-60s, with control console, wires taped to the side with gaffer's tape, and colored fabric (or was it paper?) wrapped around the pipe stand holding it up, I think, from my distant view via the lovely pictures of others, it's a pretty decent space and place. 

Hey, it could be hanging from the ceiling again, mostly inaccessible!


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> What I had wished for was some serious effort to find or 100% confirm the loss of the control console. That would have been a major task and take a good amount of time and likely several people (altho I'm sure they could have found unpaid interns willing to go spelunking in storage, there would still have to be a paid staff member to oversee.


The museum people searched high & low for the console, but they couldn't find it. I suspect that in 1974, the museum didn't keep the console because the Enterprise was *just* a prop from a TV show, and it would never be lit again.

Gary


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> The museum people searched high & low for the console, but they couldn't find it. I suspect that in 1974, the museum didn't keep the console because the Enterprise was *just* a prop from a TV show, and it would never be lit again.
> 
> Gary


Gary, I don't dispute what you're saying, I'm just a skeptical old fart who has seen way too many people sluff off on something they feel isn't that important. 

If you said to me "I looked myself, spent about a month pouring over logs and invoices and another month prowling around the storage areas both on and off-site and had no luck-found some other cool stuff not related to the project but man, I want to get back to that" I would take that as 100%. 

I can easily see some bored staffer or intern lazily flipping thru microfiche, doing searches on the in-house computer system and saying "nope. must be gone." and that's that.

Among my many stupid jobs in the past I've worked inventory and stock maintenance. People can be very lazy storing, cataloging and documenting items. Occam's Razor says that it's likely true the console was thrown out way back then, but when the mandate of the institution is 'preservation of history', where they have boxes and boxes of flight logs from WW II pilots sitting in storage and nuts and bolts from god knows where, I can't help but feel they just closed up the crate with the control console and tucked it in the back somewhere, thinking they might get back to it and they never did. 

But, I can do nothing about it. If those there feel it's a lost cause that, again, is that.


----------



## asalaw

Gary K said:


> Stop beating around the bush. Did you like it or not??
> 
> Gary


Sorry. We law types like to play it close to the vest. 



Proper2 said:


> Does the Smithsonian dim the room lighting when they light up the Enterprise three times a day? I hope that they do but somehow I doubt it.


 There's really no need, far as I can see. It's shielded from direct sunlight by the Sally Ride exhibit (which is a very good thing), and the hall windows are tinted. The center of the hall is much brighter (I assume there's a big skylight, though in 20 years I've never looked up  ), but the E's lovely little nook in front of the Bob McCall mural is nicely shaded. No problem at all with the lights washing out even on a bright day like today.:grin2:


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> Gary, I don't dispute what you're saying, I'm just a skeptical old fart who has seen way too many people sluff off on something they feel isn't that important.
> 
> I can easily see some bored staffer or intern lazily flipping thru microfiche, doing searches on the in-house computer system and saying "nope. must be gone." and that's that.


I totally disagree. In this case, we're talking about scary-smart, dedicated curators who were searching for what would have been a primo discovery for the exhibit. There are 138 million artifacts in the Smithsonian's collections, and the museum does NOT have excess personnel that it can send off to spend months, if not years, searching through boxes at various storage sites throughout the country.

Gary


----------



## Shaw

Gary K said:


> What was your source for the decals on Galileo miniature? The small markings on the mock-up are - surprise - completely different.


Me... and I was surprised too when I realised it.


----------



## feek61

I would love to hear more details regarding the Galileo miniature decals and also would love to see a photo of the original Enterprise miniature control panel.


----------



## asalaw

Gary K said:


> I totally disagree. In this case, we're talking about scary-smart, dedicated curators who were searching for what would have been a primo discovery for the exhibit. There are 138 million artifacts in the Smithsonian's collections, and the museum does NOT have excess personnel that it can send off to spend months, if not years, searching through boxes at various storage sites throughout the country.
> 
> Gary


Oh, yeah. I've worked in some hyper-professional environments, from high-end film sets to political policy groups to white-shoe law firms. High-end pros are obviously so when you meet them. These people are the real deal.

Trust me, there is _nothing_ half-assed at Udvar-Hazy. Those guys are working fully assed at all times. :smile2:


----------



## Gary K

asalaw said:


> Trust me, there is _nothing_ half-assed at Udvar-Hazy. Those guys are working fully assed at all times.


I can't say enough good things about the people I met at Udvar-Hazy: super-smart, super-nice, and super-dedicated. If I tried to keep up with their workload, I'd drop from exhaustion in a week. Whatever they're taking, I want some!

Gary


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## Steve H

asalaw said:


> Oh, yeah. I've worked in some hyper-professional environments, from high-end film sets to political policy groups to white-shoe law firms. High-end pros are obviously so when you meet them. These people are the real deal.
> 
> Trust me, there is _nothing_ half-assed at Udvar-Hazy. Those guys are working fully assed at all times. :smile2:


Fair enough, but what Gary expanded on is in step with some of what I was saying. Within the limitations of time, money and staffing, the search could not find the control console. That does not say to me it is 100% confirmed the thing was thrown away, it just says they couldn't find it given the time and resources available. I am crazed enough to believe that even back then there would be some paperwork involved in destroying objects donated. 

I guess I would rather hope the door was still open, ya know? *hah* Maybe someone might start a Kickstarter to hire a team to do the deep digging.


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## robn1

alensatemybuick said:


> I assume that with only slightly better image quality than I have access to (!), a comparison of the wording on the rear access panel to the different signage from the decal sheet for example could be made, counting the number of lines, number of words, and the length of each word (to convincingly narrow it down).


I'm going to say it's from the small ones at top, the one that says 

EQUIPMENT
HATCH​
It makes sense based on the location, and it seems to match the letter sizes and spacing.


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## robn1

Here's a size comparison.


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## JGG1701

mach7 said:


> Lets try this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bad news. I can't make it to DC this week.


Thank you for what you have available , much appreciated.:wink2:
Let me know when you can make it out to DC. Looking forward to MORE pics.
-Jim G.G.


----------



## feek61

alensatemybuick said:


> I posted a photo of the control console in post 57 in this thread; Gary was quick to say that he had access to a much better photo.
> 
> Here it is again in the foreground:


Yes, I have seen that photo; I was hoping to get a clear picture of it.


----------



## Steve H

Request for Asalaw or others

Could folk please focus some attention on the 'lighted panels' and the infamous 'bow light' areas? I'm looking to see how well they fitted the plexi to the hull, the screws (I assume covered or painted) holding the plexi in place, is the plexi flush or slightly inset, blah blah. 

Thank you in advance!


----------



## mach7

I'll look to see if I have any photos of the area, but I looked when I was there. My impression was the fit VERY well and flush.


----------



## mach7

If no one else gets some before, I get some closeups next week.


----------



## Captain Robert April

My suspicion is that the console, being a rather nondescript electrical box, got shoved into a corner forty years ago and is still waiting there, or some other corner it was subsequently shoved into, waiting for someone to stumble across it, recognize it for what it is, and be reunited with the model.


----------



## The_Engineer

^^^^^ This. I was thinking the same thing. It reminds me of a story that I read a few years ago where someone was going through some boxes in a museum storage room and in one of them was stored some bones of a new type of dinosaur that had been put into storage and forgotten for a few decades.


----------



## DoctorGonzo

Gary K said:


> The museum people searched high & low for the console, but they couldn't find it. I suspect that in 1974, the museum didn't keep the console because the Enterprise was *just* a prop from a TV show, and it would never be lit again.
> 
> Gary


Can you please explain what this control console was and what it did exactly?? I know there aren't many clear pictures of it, it would be great to know more. Thanks


----------



## Steve H

DoctorGonzo said:


> Can you please explain what this control console was and what it did exactly?? I know there aren't many clear pictures of it, it would be great to know more. Thanks


That's part of the mystery. Obviously it controlled the lights and the motors in the nacelles, the question would be how refined the control was. Were there rheostats so brightness could be altered or the speed of the spinning rotors? Was the blink rate of the navigation lights manually controlled (a grip standing there with a stopwatch flicking the switch)? 

Knowing the number of controls, if any were rheostats, whatever original labels, stickers, placards existed to identify what the controls...controlled. All these things would be useful to know, to understand the actual mechanics of filming the miniature. As it is, we guess, we assume, we suppose. 

Perfect example. We know that Christmas Tree bulbs were used inside the nacelle domes. It's assumed the blink rate was controlled by the bulbs themselves, just like on a Christmas tree but what if the blink was manually controlled? What if the blink was externally driven, fed thru a rheostat so it could be faster or slower? Mind, that's PROBABLY not the case but it's possible, and without the console, we'll never be sure. 

Does it matter? Depends. I feel it does matter both in terms of context and in appreciation of the craft of the people who built the miniature. 

Others, I believe, wish to only appreciate the model itself, as a model, holding their nose when forced to acknowledge that uncomfortable truth of the 'unfinished' side and praising the finished, photographed side. Seeing the miniature with wires taped to the hull, snaking down to a clunky unassuming box is like seeing a beautiful actress before her make-up and hair styling and costuming is done- still good looking but mundane, common, ordinary. No gloss, no flash and not terribly sexy.

I'm probably different. I see beauty in craft. Craftmanship. I'm in awe of the kind of jackleg engineering that saw some lights, a windshield wiper motor and a dome and turned it into a magical space drive that propelled a vessel across the stars. It seems so simple in hindsight but someone had to IMAGINE it, then build it, then refine it so it worked on the stage. 

And it had to be controlled.


----------



## Proper2

mach7 said:


>


It surprises me to see the bow light illuminated so brightly (100% brightness?) in this pic. Is that the case? Also, I didn't think that a display phase of lights-on has all the lights on and the nacelle lights and motors off... or is just an optical "delusion" due to less than dim room lighting?


----------



## Steve H

Proper2 said:


> It surprises me to see the bow light illuminated so brightly (100% brightness?) in this pic. Is that the case? Also, I didn't think that a display phase of lights-on has all the lights on and the nacelle lights and motors off... or is just an optical "delusion" due to less than dim room lighting?


I think there has to be all kinds of oddball perspective illusions going on, unintended. 

Looking at that pic it appears that the 'aft starboard' glowing rectangle is a completely different shape from the 'forward starboard' rectangle. I'm pretty sure that's not the case.

And yes, that nominal bow light seems tons more bright than we've believed it to be.


----------



## Proper2

Steve H said:


> I think there has to be all kinds of oddball perspective illusions going on, unintended.
> 
> Looking at that pic it appears that the 'aft starboard' glowing rectangle is a completely different shape from the 'forward starboard' rectangle. I'm pretty sure that's not the case.
> 
> And yes, that nominal bow light seems tons more bright than we've believed it to be.


Actually, the two aft lighted rectangles _are_ considerably more square-ish than the narrower fore ones:


----------



## scotthm

Steve H said:


> Looking at that pic it appears that the 'aft starboard' glowing rectangle is a completely different shape from the 'forward starboard' rectangle. I'm pretty sure that's not the case.


They are different shapes, that's not just an illusion.

---------------


----------



## Steve H

scotthm said:


> They are different shapes, that's not just an illusion.
> 
> ---------------


Well gosh darn it, do I know ANYTHING anymore? 

Aren't the rectangles usually depicted as identical and symmetrical by everybody? Isn't that how they are on the 1/350 kit?


----------



## Proper2

Steve H said:


> Aren't the rectangles usually depicted as identical and symmetrical by everybody? Isn't that how they are on the 1/350 kit?


Actually, no...


----------



## asalaw

mach7 said:


> If no one else gets some before, I get some closeups next week.


*NIIIIIIIIIICE!!!! Great job!!!!!* :smile2:


----------



## asalaw

Proper2 said:


> It surprises me to see the bow light illuminated so brightly (100% brightness?) in this pic. Is that the case? Also, I didn't think that a display phase of lights-on has all the lights on and the nacelle lights and motors off... or is just an optical "delusion" due to less than dim room lighting?


The latter. The whole light show goes on and off at once. But the nacelle domes are frosted translucent orange, and the sides are not the best viewing angle to see them lit. Same happened on the show -- the side shots often make the domes look washed-out or even unlit.


----------



## Steve H

Proper2 said:


> Actually, no...


*bangs head against keyboard*

OK, so now I pay the price for not having the kit. 

thank you for the correction!


----------



## Proper2

Steve H said:


> *bangs head against keyboard*
> 
> OK, so now I pay the price for not having the kit.
> 
> thank you for the correction!


Did you already build your own w/ equal light panels?


----------



## Richard Baker

Those white rectangle lights are one of my favorite features on the TOS-E- unlike later ships we have no idea what function they performed. They could have some bizarre function that exists in the future that was necessary to ships operations but never was crucial in any of the 'historical tapes' we watched.


----------



## Steve H

Proper2 said:


> Did you already build your own w/ equal light panels?


Oh heck no! Lighting? pssshaw, last time I lit a kit was the AMT Enterprise with the grain 'o wheat bulbs in the nacelles and saucer domes! 

I'll tell you what I think went on in my mind. I think somewhere over the years my mind blended the (relatively recent) knowledge of the lighted panels with those old creaky Franz Joseph blueprints (which, just looked at, is COMPLETELY WRONG about those things. yeesh.) and a natural subconscious assumption of symmetry, as I don't recall seeing any pic of the top of the saucer complete and whole like what you posted. 

So, boom.


----------



## Steve H

Richard Baker said:


> Those white rectangle lights are one of my favorite features on the TOS-E- unlike later ships we have no idea what function they performed. They could have some bizarre function that exists in the future that was necessary to ships operations but never was crucial in any of the 'historical tapes' we watched.


That's some of the beauty of that miniature. Unlike many spaceships made since 1968, stuff that was done to the Enterprise to make it 'visually interesting' or 'look cool' actually are a part of the whole, and not just the engine block from a '68 Corvette model glued on top of a 1/35 scale Tamiya SdKFz 251 upper hull shell.

Mind, a 'greebly ship' does look interesting, no doubt about it but often times they just don't look functional.


----------



## Proper2

Steve H said:


> That's some of the beauty of that miniature. Unlike many spaceships made since 1968, stuff that was done to the Enterprise to make it 'visually interesting' or 'look cool' actually are a part of the whole, and not just the engine block from a '68 Corvette model glued on top of a 1/35 scale Tamiya SdKFz 251 upper hull shell.
> 
> Mind, a 'greebly ship' does look interesting, no doubt about it but often times they just don't look functional.


One of my favorite filming miniatures, the SS Botany Bay (which was the only miniature to be built at the same scale as the 11-foot Enterprise), sports little parts from car kits, such as the dashboard from a Model T, along w/ various intake manifolds and valve covers from other car kits.


----------



## feek61

Richard Baker said:


> Those white rectangle lights are one of my favorite features on the TOS-E- unlike later ships we have no idea what function they performed. They could have some bizarre function that exists in the future that was necessary to ships operations but never was crucial in any of the 'historical tapes' we watched.


Gary I'm sure will correct me if I'm wrong but I think those rectangular hatches were cut into the saucer when it was retrofitted for lighting. They were needed in order to fish the wires through the saucer and to get the bulbs in there. Basically they are real world access panels that happen to look cool. Notice how they line-up with the windows around the edge and also notice the back one on the non-filming side is only painted on which makes sense because there is no light back there. Also, they are not present on the first pilot "Cage" version which of course was not lit but appear on the "WNMHGB" 2nd pilot version after lighting was added. Really an elegant solution to the problem of access to the inside of the saucer


----------



## Steve H

Proper2 said:


> One of my favorite filming miniatures, the SS Botany Bay (which was the only miniature to be built at the same scale as the 11-foot Enterprise), sports little parts from car kits, such as the dashboard from a Model T, along w/ various intake manifolds and valve covers from other car kits.


Indeed, but there the use was subtle. I honestly can't say I have any memory of even seeing detail that small on TV, and I'd have a hard time calling them out from those pics of the filming miniature that surfaced some little time back. 

When I refer to a 'greebly ship' I'm thinking of, say, the Battlestar Galactica.


----------



## Gary K

feek61 said:


> Gary I'm sure will correct me if I'm wrong but I think those rectangular hatches were cut into the saucer when it was retrofitted for lighting. They were needed in order to fish the wires through the saucer and to get the bulbs in there. Basically they are real world access panels that happen to look cool. Notice how they line-up with the windows around the edge and also notice the back one on the non-filming side is only painted on which makes sense because there is no light back there.


You are correct. I don't bother with trying to determine what function the panels serve, since they could involve technologies that we aren't yet aware of. It'd be like showing Ben Franklin a 747 and asking him to identify every part and explain its function.

Gary


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> You are correct. I don't bother with trying to determine what function the panels serve, since they could involve technologies that we aren't yet aware of. It'd be like showing Ben Franklin a 747 and asking him to identify every part and explain its function.
> 
> Gary


To be fair to Franklin, I'm confident he could do an expert job of naming and explaining. It would be complete and utter B.S. and have nothing to do with reality but he'd do a manly job of it. As long as he was getting paid of course.


----------



## mach7

Proper2 said:


> It surprises me to see the bow light illuminated so brightly (100% brightness?) in this pic. Is that the case? Also, I didn't think that a display phase of lights-on has all the lights on and the nacelle lights and motors off... or is just an optical "delusion" due to less than dim room lighting?



As others have said, The whole Kit and Caboodle comes on at the same time. The LEDs in the engine domes are very directional and you only get the full effect looking straight on, They apparent light dims the further from center you get. I think one of my videos shows that effect.

As for the sole top bow light, It seems dimmer to my eye than all the 
other lights, but it is not barely lit.
I suppose if you throw 6 large movie light on her it will appear dimmer, but thats just my conjecture.


----------



## Proper2

mach7 said:


> As others have said, The whole Kit and Caboodle comes on at the same time. The LEDs in the engine domes are very directional and you only get the full effect looking straight on, They apparent light dims the further from center you get. I think one of my videos shows that effect.
> 
> As for the sole top bow light, It seems dimmer to my eye than all the
> other lights, but it is not barely lit.
> I suppose if you throw 6 large movie light on her it will appear dimmer, but thats just my conjecture.


Hmm, I wonder if that's an unfortunate drawback of LEDs in the domes. The entire effect definitely does appear more subdued to me in general than the onscreen effect.


----------



## Steve H

Proper2 said:


> Hmm, I wonder if that's an unfortunate drawback of LEDs in the domes. The entire effect definitely does appear more subdued to me in general than the onscreen effect.


I think that's something Gary mentioned, how LEDs are directional (mostly) while Incandescent bulbs are omnidirectional, thus creating a more diffused yet somehow 'warmer' look. Or something.


----------



## whereisanykey

What I did on my half-studio scale model was use bright white LED's and tinted them to the appropriate color and slightly tilted them which has given a pretty good effect. You can get LED's that have a much wider angle that don't appear so directional.

Greg


----------



## feek61

^^^^

Indeed, like these 360 degree LEDs:

https://www.superbrightleds.com/cat/through-hole/filter/Viewing_Angle,121,39,360:


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## RossW

feek61 said:


> ^^^^
> 
> Indeed, like these 360 degree LEDs:
> 
> https://www.superbrightleds.com/cat/through-hole/filter/Viewing_Angle,121,39,360:


If only those came in 3mm or smaller, they'd be perfect for the 1/350 TOS E.


----------



## jerrlaro

Hello everyone.
I'm a long time lurker. Following everything Trek very closely. Invaluable resources here.
My first post - regarding the lettering on the port side of the Galileo shuttlecraft, to the right of the door. Check out this pic of the restored ship:
-----:surprise:
OK. Apparently I can't post a link unless I have 5 posts under my belt.
So, go to Google and google "9413342366 restored galileo". Should be only one item found. That's it. See if it works.


----------



## feek61

The text on the full size Galileo is NOT the same as on the miniature. I would have to look in my files for the exact text but the text on the full scale is a series of serial numbers as I recall.


----------



## mach7

feek61 said:


> The text on the full size Galileo is NOT the same as on the miniature. I would have to look in my files for the exact text but the text on the full scale is a series of serial numbers as I recall.



Yah, there is nothing near the door on the fullsize (3/4 scale) prop.


----------



## whereisanykey

http://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x16hd/thegalileosevenhd100.jpg

When I tried uploading it hobbytalk couldn't see it as a valid image file. 

Greg


----------



## feek61

mach7 said:


> Yah, there is nothing near the door on the fullsize (3/4 scale) prop.


Ummm, yes there is.


----------



## Steve H

It's interesting, I never noticed that 'push' rectangle. Does anyone remember if the actors used that to open the door/ramp? I mean, seems logical to me. 

(mind, I know it's not an actual button or anything, it's just paint or a decal. But having an actor mime pushing so the AD can call for a grip to work the door, that makes sense to me)


----------



## Proper2

mach7 said:


> The LEDs in the engine domes are very directional and you only get the full effect looking straight on, They apparent light dims the further from center you get. I think one of my videos shows that effect.


So back to the subject of this thread, if that's the case that's a little alarming and unfortunate. Not sure if Gary has commented specifically on this issue. That side view of yours shows the domes as practically unlit.


----------



## Steve H

Proper2 said:


> So back to the subject of this thread, if that's the case that's a little alarming and unfortunate. Not sure if Gary has commented specifically on this issue. That side view of yours shows the domes as practically unlit.


I believe Gary has talked about it. I wonder if any attempts to make 'diffusion caps' over the LEDs took place. There must be some way to take water clear resin or maybe glass or crystal and make a 'bulb' that would spread the directed light of the LEDs more like incandescent bulbs. That and some mirror pieces on the 'bulkhead' that holds the lights. 

That old creaky 'stone knives and bear skins' mechanical effect sure seems more and more sophisticated as time goes on, doesn't it?


----------



## Richard Baker

The sign company I work for has been shifting illumination to LEDs from neon and florescent for several years. Light spread is the biggest issue- a lot of the LED strips we use have rather exotic prisms and lenses molded in to diffuse. It can be done but it alters the shape/size of the emitters a lot. I would love to see one of those 360 degree LEDs in person to see how they did it- I have my vehicle running with SuperBrightLED fixtures.


----------



## SteveR

Steve H said:


> There must be some way to take water clear resin or maybe glass or crystal and make a 'bulb' that would spread the directed light of the LEDs more like incandescent bulbs.


I think we'd need LEDs that act like a tiny, omnidirectional filament -- the diode itself would have to be set away from its base and surrounded by water clear material as you suggest.


----------



## Steve H

SteveR said:


> I think we'd need LEDs that act like a tiny, omnidirectional filament -- the diode itself would have to be set away from its base and surrounded by water clear material as you suggest.


I have a crazy, insane, possibly impossible idea. 

Take 5 of the super micro LEDs. 4 in a line side-by-side, then one on top so it's like an 'L', OK? Then carefully bend them to form a box so you have all emitters facing outward and on top, the bottom is of course where the leads trail. 

ETA: I was a little unclear here. I'm suggesting mounting the 5 micro LEDs on some form of substrate, like thin plastic sheet or some other non-conductive material. If one was able to just glue the edges of the LEDs together to make the box, as long as nothing shorted it out, that's just as good.

Would that work? would there be just enough 'scatter' to fill the gaps of the 4 distinct sides? Would there still need to be some kind of clear globe over the unit to blend the light?

I know we have insane geniuses and miesters of lighting here, would anyone attempt this just to see if it would work? I mean, it might be useful for other projects if it does work, right? Always good to add to the knowledge bank and all that?


----------



## Skyking918

asalaw said:


> It will be a 360 display in front of the Robert McCall mural. It's a beautiful spot, incredibly appropriate. Not hanging. The case will be temp- and climate controlled to keep the model stable. Listen to Gary -- be patient (said the guy who just confessed to jonesing). This is the A Team, they know what they're doing.
> 
> It'll be in front of this mural:


There couldn't be a more appropriate spot!


----------



## mach7

feek61 said:


> Ummm, yes there is.



Well what do you know, I was wrong. :surprise:

Oh well, it won't be the last time.


----------



## MGagen

My favorite Christmas LED lights do a great job of deflecting the light in all directions. Unlike some I have seen which, act like little spot lights, these have a solid cylinder of colored plastic over them, but the end is not round or flat. It is an inverted cone. Picture a solid plastic version of the glass body of an original incandescent Christmas light, but the end isn't pinched off into an outward point: instead it is an inward-facing point.

This shape, and it being a solid, refractive piece of plastic, causes it to light up very much like an incandescent bulb. The LED in the base shines the light up through the body of the plastic cylinder. Where it meets the inverted point, it flares up. You get what looks like a bright spot in the middle of the lens that shines in all directions -- as if it were a glowing filament. If you look into the end of the lens, you don't get that bright spotlight effect, either. The inverted cone deflects much of the directional light, leaving only the same brightness visible as from any other direction.


----------



## RossW

MGagen said:


> My favorite Christmas LED lights do a great job of deflecting the light in all directions. Unlike some I have seen which, act like little spot lights, these have a solid cylinder of colored plastic over them, but the end is not round or flat. It is an inverted cone. Picture a solid plastic version of the glass body of an original incandescent Christmas light, but the end isn't pinched off into an outward point: instead it is an inward-facing point.
> 
> This shape, and it being a solid, refractive piece of plastic, causes it to light up very much like an incandescent bulb. The LED in the base shines the light up through the body of the plastic cylinder. Where it meets the inverted point, it flares up. You get what looks like a bright spot in the middle of the lens that shines in all directions -- as if it were a glowing filament. If you look into the end of the lens, you don't get that bright spotlight effect, either. The inverted cone deflects much of the directional light, leaving only the same brightness visible as from any other direction.


Mark - do you mean like these?

3mm & 5mm White Inverted Cone leds for 360 Degree Structure and Building Lighting for HO Scale Model Railroads


----------



## SteveR

RossW said:


> Mark - do you mean like these?
> 
> 3mm & 5mm White Inverted Cone leds for 360 Degree Structure and Building Lighting for HO Scale Model Railroads


Nice link, Ross -- thanks.

Would it be possible to make such a thing by (carefully!) drilling a conical depression into a regular LED?


----------



## RossW

SteveR said:


> Nice link, Ross -- thanks.
> 
> Would it be possible to make such a thing by (carefully!) drilling a conical depression into a regular LED?


You won't know until you try!


----------



## Steve H

RossW said:


> Mark - do you mean like these?
> 
> 3mm & 5mm White Inverted Cone leds for 360 Degree Structure and Building Lighting for HO Scale Model Railroads


That (those) could well change the face of how people light their models. Fascinating! Well done!


----------



## RossW

Steve H said:


> That (those) could well change the face of how people light their models. Fascinating! Well done!


If only I could find them in red/green/blue/pink/yellow, I'd be set. You might be able to use artist's ink or Tamiya clear paints to colour them, but I don't know how well that would look.


----------



## whereisanykey

Tinting clear LED's works quite well. In fact I think it may be even better than pre-colored ones, since the entire plastic container is tinted instead of just a surface coat.


----------



## Richard Baker

From what I have seen, red LEDs not only have red plastic but a red emitter as well. If you tint the white/clear LED with red paint/ink/dye you are just blocking wavelengths.
This is why when you order automotive LEDs you buy yellow LEDs for amber turn signals and red LEDs for brakelights, even tough the plastic housing may be tinted the correct color. I used white lights in my front turn signal array and they appeared greenish to the real world...


----------



## whereisanykey

Of course the emitter is a particular color and that's why you'll find clear LED's that are of different colors. There are times when a bright clear white that is tinted works better.


----------



## Opus Penguin

RossW said:


> If only I could find them in red/green/blue/pink/yellow, I'd be set. You might be able to use artist's ink or Tamiya clear paints to colour them, but I don't know how well that would look.


I emailed the sales team to see if they have any plans to release other colors. I will post the response if I get one.


----------



## Steve H

Opus Penguin said:


> I emailed the sales team to see if they have any plans to release other colors. I will post the response if I get one.


Good! Thank you for taking initiative! 

It's only logical for them to consider colors, even if only in model railroading you need at least red and green for the..wow,what, the various signals that show if a line is clear or in use and stuff like that. 

I think they'd come in handy for R/C airplanes as well. 

Now, if there's some technical or manufacturing reason why they can only make them in 'white', well, that's not the end of the world.


----------



## Steve H

Gary, all this LED talk, a new question. Is the budget for the restoration 'done'? Did they allocate any money for future fixes or tweaks or corrections that may be desirable due to information that didn't come to light until later?

Could the Bussard effect be re-worked, if it's decided there's a better solution than what's in place?


----------



## feek61

Steve H said:


> Good! Thank you for taking initiative!
> 
> It's only logical for them to consider colors, even if only in model railroading you need at least red and green for the..wow,what, the various signals that show if a line is clear or in use and stuff like that.
> 
> I think they'd come in handy for R/C airplanes as well.
> 
> Now, if there's some technical or manufacturing reason why they can only make them in 'white', well, that's not the end of the world.


The link to the 360 degree LEDs that I posted earlier in the thread come in white, warm white, red, blue, green and yellow . . . . just saying. Here it is again in case someone missed it. I have used these numerous times and they work great.

Link (again)
https://www.superbrightleds.com/cat/through-hole/filter/Viewing_Angle,121,39,360:


----------



## Steve H

feek61 said:


> The link to the 360 degree LEDs that I posted earlier in the thread come in white, warm white, red, blue, green and yellow . . . . just saying. Here it is again in case someone missed it. I have used these numerous times and they work great.
> 
> Link (again)
> https://www.superbrightleds.com/cat/through-hole/filter/Viewing_Angle,121,39,360:


Those seem nice, and if they're working for you that's good to know, but it's always good to investigate all potentials, and something about those other LEDs seems to be well suited as well. 

Lots of stuff out there I never knew about! Man, if only I had any 'soldering iron and breadboard' skills whatsoever.


----------



## MGagen

RossW said:


> Mark - do you mean like these?
> 
> 3mm & 5mm White Inverted Cone leds for 360 Degree Structure and Building Lighting for HO Scale Model Railroads


From the photo it looks like these are similar in configuration. The Christmas ones (which I got a few years ago at Walmart) are longer in proportion and look like flat tipped incandescent "twinkle lights" in size and shape. Only when you look closer do you see that the end isn't flat, it is a cone shaped depression.

As for drilling out the end of standard LEDs -- I suppose it would work, if you could think of a way to polish the depression you make.


----------



## RossW

feek61 said:


> The link to the 360 degree LEDs that I posted earlier in the thread come in white, warm white, red, blue, green and yellow . . . . just saying. Here it is again in case someone missed it. I have used these numerous times and they work great.
> 
> Link (again)
> https://www.superbrightleds.com/cat/through-hole/filter/Viewing_Angle,121,39,360:


Yes, but those are all 5mm or 8mm sized - too big for the 1/350 TOS E at that scale.


----------



## John P

I keep coming back for more dish from Gary and I get 3 pages of LED talk. :/


----------



## asalaw

John P said:


> I keep coming back for more dish from Gary and I get 3 pages of LED talk. :/


I don't think Gary did the dish. I think he did other parts. 0

So have we figured out whether those cone LEDs come in 3mm colors? Just curious -- I'd prefer just to tint the white ones. Tamiya clear colors are fantastic paints.


----------



## Gary K

asalaw said:


> I don't think Gary did the dish. I think he did other parts.


Well, I *designed* the dish, and the ILMers fabricated it. 

Gary


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> Gary, all this LED talk, a new question. Is the budget for the restoration 'done'? Did they allocate any money for future fixes or tweaks or corrections that may be desirable due to information that didn't come to light until later?
> 
> Could the Bussard effect be re-worked, if it's decided there's a better solution than what's in place?


As Spock said, "There are always possibilities." 

Gary


----------



## asalaw

Gary K said:


> Well, I *designed* the dish, and the ILMers fabricated it.
> 
> Gary


Sorry about that -- I was poking fun at John P for complaining about us talking LEDs instead of you "dishing." 




Gary K said:


> As Spock said, "There are always possibilities."
> 
> Gary


SQUEEE!!!! :grin2:


----------



## Steve H

John P said:


> I keep coming back for more dish from Gary and I get 3 pages of LED talk. :/


Discussions wander, propelled by desiring new knowledge. 

People have been commenting that it's a bit of a letdown that the way ILM designed the new, modern digital (i.e. LEDs) Bussard effect, the choice made seems to be a really good effect from directly head-on but lacking from the side. 

This led (HAW! sorry) to what we fans do. We want to help, to make it better. Discussion went from wondering if there was a way to create a diffusion device or crystal to make a directional LED into a more functional equivalent of the omnidirectional glow of an incandescent light bulb, the original lighting element of the 11 foot miniature. 

Then it was discovered that not only are there LEDs that are supposed to be more omnidirectional, there's actually a new (ish?) kind of LED that is SPECIFICALLY designed to better emulate incandescent glow, which led (HAW again, sorry  ) to me asking Gary about the restoration budget and a mandate to maintain and ability to change or improve work on the miniature, and his reply "anything is possible", while NOT a blanket official statement that yes, indeed, there is money set aside for this very thing, is at the very least NOT a shutting of the door in the way that a statement like 'well, ILM was only contracted for this duty, and their duty is officially considered finished' would be. 

So maybe, just maybe, our little digression could lead to making the miniature look even better. Isn't that worthwhile? I kind of think it is.


----------



## Proper2

Steve H said:


> Discussions wander, propelled by desiring new knowledge.
> 
> People have been commenting that it's a bit of a letdown that the way ILM designed the new, modern digital (i.e. LEDs) Bussard effect, the choice made seems to be a really good effect from directly head-on but lacking from the side.
> 
> This led (HAW! sorry) to what we fans do. We want to help, to make it better. Discussion went from wondering if there was a way to create a diffusion device or crystal to make a directional LED into a more functional equivalent of the omnidirectional glow of an incandescent light bulb, the original lighting element of the 11 foot miniature.
> 
> Then it was discovered that not only are there LEDs that are supposed to be more omnidirectional, there's actually a new (ish?) kind of LED that is SPECIFICALLY designed to better emulate incandescent glow, which led (HAW again, sorry  ) to me asking Gary about the restoration budget and a mandate to maintain and ability to change or improve work on the miniature, and his reply "anything is possible", while NOT a blanket official statement that yes, indeed, there is money set aside for this very thing, is at the very least NOT a shutting of the door in the way that a statement like 'well, ILM was only contracted for this duty, and their duty is officially considered finished' would be.
> 
> So maybe, just maybe, our little digression could lead to making the miniature look even better. Isn't that worthwhile? I kind of think it is.


Yeah, as much as I love the lady's new look, personally I'm very disappointed with the bussard lighting—which to me has always been the "beating heart" of the look of the ship! Reminds me of why I own a plasma TV and not an LED one. At this point I don't know if there is any room or desire left in the powers that be to rectify the problem. :|


----------



## KUROK

I have only seen youtube video of the new nacelle lighting and I think it looks VERY good.
I was worried it would look so-so but was pleasantly surprised.


----------



## RossW

Bear in mind that they may be keeping the bussard lights dimmer than they would normally be so they'll last longer and produce less heat.


----------



## Steve H

RossW said:


> Bear in mind that they may be keeping the bussard lights dimmer than they would normally be so they'll last longer and produce less heat.


Understood, but I didn't think heat generation was a problem with LEDs. OTOH they do have to be careful about the life of the motors (and those ARE a heat source) spinning the fans. Those things are going to eventually break no matter what, it's the nature of electrical motors.


----------



## asalaw

LEDs do generate some heat, though it's very low. Margaret Weitekamp said that was one of the concerns in limiting the lighting times, as well as the motors obviously.


----------



## scotthm

Proper2 said:


> as much as I love the lady's new look, personally I'm very disappointed with the bussard lighting


Unfortunately I haven't been able to see it in person, but I've been very impressed by the videos I've seen of the newly restored Enterprise, bussards and all.

---------------


----------



## Proper2

KUROK said:


> I have only seen youtube video of the new nacelle lighting and I think it looks VERY good.
> I was worried it would look so-so but was pleasantly surprised.





scotthm said:


> Unfortunately I haven't been able to see it in person, but I've been very impressed by the videos I've seen of the newly restored Enterprise, bussards and all.



The issue is when viewing from an angle or the side: the lights in the domes basically disappear or appear way too dim. For me, that's a pretty big flaw. I hope they can and will fix it... but there may not be enough incentive to do so. :frown2:


----------



## Steve H

So. That piece of detail on the saucer rear, the piece that covers up the bolt (bolts?) that secure the saucer to the dorsal. Is that press fit into the cavity or secured by screws?


----------



## Owen E Oulton

Proper2 said:


> Reminds me of why I own a plasma TV and not an LED one.


You mean besides the fact that there's no such thing as an LED TV? Or are you confusing LCD TVs (which DO exist) with LED TVs?


----------



## feek61

There are TVs that are illuminated by LEDs instead of florescent lights. An LCD must be illuminated by some method and LEDs are used.


----------



## Proper2

Sorry, duplicate post.


----------



## Proper2

Owen E Oulton said:


> You mean besides the fact that there's no such thing as an LED TV? Or are you confusing LCD TVs (which DO exist) with LED TVs?


Google LED TVs. They are quite popular! And they use efficient light emitting diodes (LEDs) to illuminate the screen. It's what enables these TVs to be so thin. But the viewing angle sucks in comparison to plasma screens whose image does not deteriorate when viewed at an angle!


----------



## asalaw

I have a cheapo LED TV from Walmart, and the viewing angle is outstanding. In my particular case, though, I prefer to watch it from the front. Of course as always, YMMV.


----------



## Owen E Oulton

Proper2 said:


> Google LED TVs. They are quite popular! And they use efficient light emitting diodes (LEDs) to illuminate the screen. It's what enables these TVs to be so thin. But the viewing angle sucks in comparison to plasma screens whose image does not deteriorate when viewed at an angle!


They're just LCD TVs using LEDs as backlights, That's not really an LED TV at all. Just marketing BS. A true LED TV would be using individual tiny LEDs as pixels. Just because the marketing dweebs who are one of the lowest lifeforms on the planet call a product something, doesn't mean it is so.


----------



## Proper2

Owen E Oulton said:


> They're just LCD TVs using LEDs as backlights, That's not really an LED TV at all. Just marketing BS. A true LED TV would be using individual tiny LEDs as pixels. Just because the marketing dweebs who are one of the lowest lifeforms on the planet call a product something, doesn't mean it is so.


OK, I suggest you Google the subject. You're the one who said that there are no such thing as LED TVs. Which is not true. LCD TVs use mainly larger fluorescent lights and are even worse when viewing at an angle. LEDs make use of tiny LEDs. Nevertheless, the point is that LED lights may not have been the most ideal choice for the domes of the said subject. That is the point. Not whether LED TVs exist or not. :wink2:


----------



## MartyS

Owen E Oulton said:


> They're just LCD TVs using LEDs as backlights, That's not really an LED TV at all. Just marketing BS. A true LED TV would be using individual tiny LEDs as pixels. Just because the marketing dweebs who are one of the lowest lifeforms on the planet call a product something, doesn't mean it is so.


Look up OLED, many 4K TVs are using them, along with most smartphones.

That type of display could be put on the inside surface of a dome, it would have had the best chance at being a non mechanical reproduction of the bussards, and have the least amount of heat. Since it would be a one off fabrication it would have cost a bundle, orders of magnitude more than a motor and some regular LEDs.


----------



## Proper2

MartyS said:


> Look up OLED, most 4K TVs are using them, along with most smartphones.
> 
> That type of display could be put on the inside surface of a dome, it would have had the best chance at being a non mechanical reproduction of the bussards, and have the least amount of heat. Since it would be a one off fabrication it would have cost a bundle, orders of magnitude more than a motor and some regular LEDs.


In retrospect, I think they should've recreated the lighting and spinning domes exactly as they were originally done. They don't run them very often or very long anyway, so I don't understand why they felt compelled to mess around with a substitute system that results in a sub-par and unauthentic look. And let's not kid ourselves, the domes just don't look as bright!


----------



## scotthm

Proper2 said:


> let's not kid ourselves, the domes just don't look as bright!


I've seen Star Trek episodes where the domes were much darker than they are now.

---------------


----------



## Proper2

scotthm said:


> I've seen Star Trek episodes where the domes were much darker than they are now.


No way! Not from a side view. If you did, your TV picture would be badly in need of adjustment! Look at the pic in post #1099 and tell me that.


----------



## John P

Proper2 said:


> In retrospect, I think they should've recreated the lighting and spinning domes exactly as they were originally done. They don't run them very often or very long anyway, so I don't understand why they felt compelled to mess around with a substitute system that results in a sub-par and unauthentic look.


That's actually a pretty good point. 10 minutes three times a day?
The only thing I could think of that might be a problem is that it will be going on that way for decades. Heat on/heatoff 3 times a day for 20 years might cause damage through heat flexing.


----------



## Richard Baker

If they built duplicate lighting modules which could be swapped out once a year it could work.


----------



## KUROK

Proper2 said:


> The issue is when viewing from an angle or the side: the lights in the domes basically disappear or appear way too dim. For me, that's a pretty big flaw. I hope they can and will fix it... but there may not be enough incentive to do so.


I am amazed that such a fine and faithful restoration gets nitpicked...
Dont Look a Gift Horse in the Mouth Phrase Meaning, Idiom Origin


----------



## Steve H

KUROK said:


> I am amazed that such a fine and faithful restoration gets nitpicked...
> Dont Look a Gift Horse in the Mouth Phrase Meaning, Idiom Origin


Be fair. The issue is that we all want the 11 foot model to look the best it can so it can be admired by all. The skill and work put into the restoration is impressive, stunning. Were the miniature to remain unlit I think many of us would consider that as perfect as possible.

But lighting effects are as much a part of the miniature as the color of the paint. Nobody is saying the bussard effect is WRONG, just that it should, and could, be better, to more accurately duplicate the original mechanical effect. If the color matters, so should the lights. It's part of the whole.

Recall, they (seemingly) reluctantly backed away from a 'solid state' effect (some kind of projection or maybe CG image 'wrapped' around the inside of the dome or something, I don't think it was ever publicly stated or defined) and put a motor and spinning fan in the dome with LEDs replacing incandescent bulbs. That's fine, if you look at it head on.It's beautiful. But it's not quite enough. There's no 'spread' to the light and it seems you can't even tell it's on from the side. That's not right at all. 

So, what's wrong with wanting to make it better? 

Aside, I've wondered if part of the glow effect back in the day came from those intense studio lights shining onto the tinted plexi domes, bouncing off the mirror pieces and all that. To have the INTERNAL lights be visible thru all that, dang. Bulb life must have been timed to minutes, not days.


----------



## asalaw

KUROK said:


> I am amazed that such a fine and faithful restoration gets nitpicked...
> Dont Look a Gift Horse in the Mouth Phrase Meaning, Idiom Origin


:lol:

On opening night, I had a brief chat with Malcolm Collum and just gushed about the job they did. He said he was really glad to hear it, because the big worry was the endless nitpicking (or outright backlash) that they'd get from the fans. I said, "You're gonna get that," because it's inevitable. I followed up with, "But they'll be a small minority." 

In several visits to the model, while I've overheard many people expressing surprise that it's the actual screen-used model (or even asking, "what's Star Trek?"), I have heard absolutely not one criticism of anything about the way the model looks. All the nitpicks I've seen have been online, almost exclusively from people who've only seen photos or video. 

I try not to get bent out of shape over it myself; as I said that night, I view it as inevitable. It's human nature to criticize anything that doesn't meet one's own standards of perfection. I don't think it's very polite, well-informed, or educated, but it's certainly human.

The people who put a bee in my bonnet, though, are critics who imply that their uninformed speculation is superior to the judgment of trained, experienced professionals on the scene. In other words, armchair quarterbacks. I often wonder if they pick such arguments with their doctors. :wink2:


----------



## Proper2

KUROK said:


> I am amazed that such a fine and faithful restoration gets nitpicked...
> Dont Look a Gift Horse in the Mouth Phrase Meaning, Idiom Origin


You're entitled to your amazement. And I appreciate the link to the wisdom-filled idiom. Here's another: Nitpicking is in the eye of the beholder. I won't keep repeating my point for those who dismiss the issue. My sole hope is that the said issue can be corrected and not swept under the rug. :wink2:


----------



## mach7

Ok, I'm sorry I brought the subject up.

First, you can see the bussard effect from the side. It's just dimmer. 
My videos don't show it well, but you can see it with your eye.

Second, She is AMAZING! Seeing her in the new paint is incredible,
when the lights come on she really comes to life.

Third, The fact that they spent the time to replicate the bussard as accurately
as they did speaks to the care and effort they took.

The effect is very well done, It just fades a bit as you get far off center.


----------



## RMC

*yep,........the Anal-ists are nitpicking.....*lol


----------



## feek61

As someone who when I first saw the Enterprise it had these garish red blinking domes on the nacelle ends and a half dome at the deflector disk; I am thrilled with the current restoration and looking so very forward to seeing it next month!


----------



## Proper2

RMC said:


> *yep,........the Anal-ists are nitpicking.....*lol


Yeah, God forbid anyone has an opinion other than yours....."_lol_" Because modellers and those who appreciate models and sweat every little detail are not nitpickers, now are they? You'll spend countless hours debating stupid little decal nuances the size of ant-doo but when someone else points out something important on the grand lady restoration, something that can be improved upon, you get your hypocritical whities all in a bunch. The restoration is magnificent! But the dome lights in my opinion could have been and can be done differently to better effect—more authentic to TOS! My opinion and I'm sticking to it. So, take your "_Anal-_istic" labels and stick 'em... elsewhere.



feek61 said:


> I am thrilled with the current restoration...


So am I.


----------



## asalaw

mach7 said:


> Ok, I'm sorry I brought the subject up.
> 
> First, you can see the bussard effect from the side. It's just dimmer.
> My videos don't show it well, but you can see it with your eye.
> 
> Second, She is AMAZING! Seeing her in the new paint is incredible,
> when the lights come on she really comes to life.
> 
> Third, The fact that they spent the time to replicate the bussard as accurately
> as they did speaks to the care and effort they took.
> 
> The effect is very well done, It just fades a bit as you get far off center.


First, yes.
Second, YES!!
Third, YEEEEEEESSSSSS!!!!!

:grin2:


----------



## Proper2

mach7 said:


> ... you can see the bussard effect from the side. It's just dimmer.
> 
> The effect is very well done, It just fades a bit as you get far off center.


Yeah, that's right. Except that it fades quite a bit from the side. That is obvious. It's less than true to the original domes. Isn't truth and authenticity that prompted all those hours upon hours to research and perfect authentic hull color, along with dozens of other fine details? Isn't the "real" hull color an issue that modellers have been obsessing over for years--and for which they're still clamouring like babies? Why is the most iconic feature of this beauty, and the one that breathes life into it, any less important? Well, to me it's not! This dome lighting issue could be fixed if only there is a will to do so. Or it can just be ignored and left alone. There's always a choice. But the choice is for those involved in the project. It's not up to huffy individuals throwing insults and sarcasm toward those who would like to see if it's possible for the issue to be addressed and the final product perfected. You would want nothing less for your model at home, so don't be hypocritical! As fans we all want the same thing of the greatest miniature ever made! If nothing is done about the issue, fine! I can accept that, as nothing is ever perfect, and the restoration is still breathtaking! But it's not up to you... or you, or you to dismiss and ridicule others for their inputs and opinions!


----------



## asalaw

So, Gary, do I remember correctly that the new dish is turned aluminum, or is that just the spike?


----------



## Steve H

Proper2 said:


> Yeah, that's right. Except that it fades quite a bit from the side. That is obvious. It's less than true to the original domes. Isn't truth and authenticity that prompted all those hours upon hours to research and perfect authentic hull color, along with dozens of other fine details? Isn't the "real" hull color an issue that modellers have been obsessing over for years--and for which they're still clamouring like babies? Why is the most iconic feature of this beauty, and the one that breathes life into it, any less important? Well, to me it's not! This dome lighting issue could be fixed if only there is a will to do so. Or it can just be ignored and left alone. There's always a choice. But the choice is for those involved in the project. It's not up to huffy individuals throwing insults and sarcasm toward those who would like to see if it's possible for the issue to be addressed and the final product perfected. You would want nothing less for your model at home, so don't be hypocritical! As fans we all want the same thing of the greatest miniature ever made! If nothing is done about the issue, fine! I can accept that, as nothing is ever perfect, and the restoration is still breathtaking! But it's not up to you... or you, or you to dismiss and ridicule others for their inputs and opinions!


Bravo, I say, sir, Bravo. And ditto.

but it's not going to change anyone's opinion I fear. This is the world we're in now. In the internet, agreeing to disagree just isn't good enough, acceptance has become a one-way street and opinion? If it's not what the 'in' crowd (and the gatekeepers they listen to and follow) believes, you'd best not express it. It sounds like I'm dancing dangerously close to politics but no, I refer to everything. And the fact I HAVE to say even that disclaimer makes me want to really cut loose on a rant, but I'm not going to. 

Because here's the thing. We're now dealing with feelings. Feelings don't allow logic, or objective proof. 

Some people feel that 'good enough' is all they need. That whatever the disagreement is, it's not the hill they'll die on, so who cares? Remember the guy who was completely, 100% sure the dorsal was painted metallic blue? He was SURE, man. He had what he thought was uncontestable proof. People started to come around, question, I surely was in that group because the person seemed to know his stuff and made convincing argument, but Gary laid the truth, the 100% fact with science (not metallic blue, ever), and there were red faces all around. 

Of course there's an unfair (but explained and understandable) advantage, Gary has not only the work of all kinds of science experts behind him, he also had the mysterious magical file of private and hence secret pictures that the NA&SM has been loaned. 

Know what? I bet the Metallic Blue dorsal paint person, deep inside, still believes he's right, regardless of the facts. That's emotion at work. 

So here we are. You, me, others both vocal and silent, praising the work the restoration crew has done, some visiting in person to gaze in awe, many more enjoying vicariously via the beautiful photography of others. And with all that beauty, we note that the lighting effect on the nacelles, the 'bussard' effect as we've come to call it, is pretty good but, honestly, not quite there. 

Part of it may be the factor of it not running at 'full power' due to the stated concerns about heat and wear. That's fair enough. But there's also the issue of the directional nature of the LEDs employed to copy the original incandescent bulbs. Baldly stated, it's just not that bright from the side, as it was when original. The picture in post# 1099 really does show how dim it seems, compared to the brightness of all the other lights. To MY poor eyes I can barely tell the effect is even on!

Now, those that have visited, they say it's not THAT bad in person. I will point out that phrasing like that infers that maybe it's not as bad as a picture shows but it's not as good as it might be, per the original mechanical effect. 

Nobody is shouting "OH NO THEY COMPLETELY BLEW IT THAT SUCKS!!!", I think we're saying "hey, guys, this seems a bit lacking, maybe you wanna look into this? It can be corrected and here's some ideas". 

Because emotion. We love the Enterprise. We want it to be what she is, a national treasure. We want it to look as mighty and proud and impressive as she was when we watched Star Trek on crappy '60s B&W or Color TV sets. 

So let's dial the hate back a little, hah?


----------



## fire91bird

Proper2 said:


> Yeah, God forbid anyone has an opinion other than yours....


Ha! Irony. :wink2:


----------



## Radiodugger

Steve H said:


> This is the world we're in now. In the internet, agreeing to disagree just isn't good enough, acceptance has become a one-way street and opinion? If it's not what the 'in' crowd...believes, you'd best not express it.


I am constantly finding that out. I have received _death threats_ from expressing my opinions! Nothing earth-shattering. But sheesh. I'm 60 years old. I ain't gonna change now! I believe what I have always believed! It's how _we treat each other_ that matters! Not our religion, lifestyle or beliefs!

We CAN disagree! Without melting down into a childish p***ing contest!  I love this new restoration! No. It ain't perfect. But...this helps ME in MY model building! Segue back on topic...

Mark Myers built his TOS Enterprise with the motors _and_ lights, and it blows me away! Take a look:






Doug


----------



## scotthm

Proper2 said:


> It's less than true to the original domes.


We have known all along that this would be the case. In fact, they originally told us that there would be no moving parts which is quite a departure from "original".



> This dome lighting issue could be fixed if only there is a will to do so.


And you could be satisfied with what exists if only there was the will to be so.

---------------


----------



## Radiodugger

Hey Mark Myers did it! Here is his latest mod:






No real SIDE view, but I can see this being exactly what you want!

Doug


----------



## MartyS

Proper2 said:


> This dome lighting issue could be fixed if only there is a will to do so.


And money. Same as when it was originally built, parts are built as good as the budget allows.


----------



## Steve H

I want to be careful and not put words into mouths, but it's been implied that there is some budget for repairs, upgrades and maintenance. An 'active' display (stuff is going on, not just a static subject) would demand such, I would think. 

My thinking is, better to try and address ANY concerns now, while it's fresh and new and the team is still around (i.e. alive. I take nothing for granted anymore.).


----------



## Gary K

asalaw said:


> So, Gary, do I remember correctly that the new dish is turned aluminum, or is that just the spike?


The spike is turned aluminum, but the dish is turned acrylic. Btw, the first acrylic dish "exploded" on the lathe.

Gary


----------



## asalaw

Gary K said:


> The spike is turned aluminum, but the dish is turned acrylic. Btw, the first acrylic dish "exploded" on the lathe.
> 
> Gary


Haha! I've totally had that happen. Acrylic is not easy to machine, especially if you're leaving it clear. I blew up a couple of feet of rod before I learned you're supposed to use cast acrylic, not extruded, and turn at very low rpm. 

And if expert machinists are still shattering it, I don't see much hope for my phaser emitters...


----------



## mach7

Proper2 said:


> ..... But the choice is for those involved in the project. It's not up to huffy individuals throwing insults and sarcasm toward those who would like to see if it's possible for the issue to be addressed and the final product perfected. You would want nothing less for your model at home, so don't be hypocritical! As fans we all want the same thing of the greatest miniature ever made! If nothing is done about the issue, fine! I can accept that, as nothing is ever perfect, and the restoration is still breathtaking! But it's not up to you... or you, or you to dismiss and ridicule others for their inputs and opinions!


Firstly, I'm not throwing insults and sarcasm. Nor am I huffy.
Second, Why are you calling me a hypocrite? What have I been hypocritical about? I'm the one that first raised the subject.

Gary answered me, I accept his explanation. Case closed as far as I'm
concerned. 

The real world is full of compromises. Sure with unlimited money and time they might have been able to replicate 100% of what we saw on
screen. With the time and money allowed I'm happy with the 95% that 
we got. 

You were not involved in the restoration. It seems to me that those who
were tried to be true to the filming model in the 1960s. 
You are entitled to your opinion, and to post them here or anywhere else, But we can also try to be civil. We can disagree without name calling.


----------



## Radiodugger

Is the Mark Myers Enterprise I show above closer to what you want? He really should have been involved with this. The man is _STELLAR_ talented!

Doug


----------



## Proper2

Radiodugger said:


> Is the Mark Myers Enterprise I show above closer to what you want? He really should have been involved with this. The man is _STELLAR_ talented!
> 
> Doug


Yes, it definitely seems to be. I wish he had a view from more of an angle or the side.


----------



## Captain Robert April

Installing more omnidirectional lights doesn't strike me a particularly hard fix, and certainly not getting this worked up over.

Give 'em time to figure this out.


----------



## Steve H

Captain Robert April said:


> Installing more omnidirectional lights doesn't strike me a particularly hard fix, and certainly not getting this worked up over.
> 
> Give 'em time to figure this out.


It's the internet. Some people feel they have to choose a 'side', express opinions that the 'other side' are complete idiots and should shut the heck up, and it goes from there. 

Myself, I don't worry about anyone thinking I'm an idiot. heck, I beat EVERYONE to that conclusion!  I do get bothered when I'm told to shut up and accept whatever. I do have a problem with that mentality, yes sir. 

It's said that things are like 95% there and we should be happy with that. If all doors were closed, OK, 95% is decent. But there are still options, it seems, and it really is best to explore those options while there is time and money to do so. A year from now, heck, the budget for the display may well be cut in half in order to showcase whatever new 'hotness' needs promotion at NA&SM. Eventually there'll be just enough money to open the showcase once in a while to check for cracks or other age caused damage.

So, 95% is decent, Why can't we try for 98%? As long as the potential is there, why not?


----------



## asalaw

:beatdeadhorse:


----------



## JGG1701

mach7 said:


> Lets try this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bad news. I can't make it to DC this week.


What happened to the mini-movies Thanks mach7 for those.
Any one get any more still pics??????????????:nerd:
Thanks,
-Jim G.G.


----------



## mach7

They should still open when you click on them. 

I should be there Wednesday to take some more photos. 

Any requests?


----------



## JGG1701

mach7 said:


> They should still open when you click on them.
> 
> I should be there Wednesday to take some more photos.
> 
> Any requests?



Anything & everything would be GREAT!!!!!:nerd:
-Jim G.G.

Thank you in advance.


----------



## Joeysaddress1

After watching Mach7's videos from the Smithsonian, it appears that what's missing from the nacelle's are the constantly on orange LED's. They all seem to be blinking. Gary...wasn't there handful of bulbs that always stayed on and didn't blink?


----------



## asalaw

I only have one word for this, and it rhymes with yuck.

Star Trek: Discovery Announced As Name Of New Series - CBS.com


----------



## Joeysaddress1

Don't they know the McQuarrie-prise was passed over for ST: MP. Why would they haul out that old design for a new show? And they want us to pay to see it? No thanks!


----------



## Steve H

asalaw said:


> I only have one word for this, and it rhymes with yuck.
> 
> Star Trek: Discovery Announced As Name Of New Series - CBS.com


We have a whole other thread to discuss this trainwreck. 

I can't make any sense out of the design philosophy for this ship whatsoever. Darn think looks like a spin mop bucket inside a wok. Anyway.


----------



## RossW

Joeysaddress1 said:


> After watching Mach7's videos from the Smithsonian, it appears that what's missing from the nacelle's are the constantly on orange LED's. They all seem to be blinking. Gary...wasn't there handful of bulbs that always stayed on and didn't blink?


Gary said that new information led them to have the orange/amber LEDs blink, although more slowly than the coloured ones.


----------



## Steve H

RossW said:


> Gary said that new information led them to have the orange/amber LEDs blink, although more slowly than the coloured ones.


It would be interesting to learn just what that new information was.

I'm still thinking that it's possible the reason the orange glow was so pronounced had to do with the intensity of the studio lighting reflecting off the mirror shards glued inside.


----------



## Proper2

Steve H said:


> It would be interesting to learn just what that new information was.
> 
> I'm still thinking that it's possible the reason the orange glow was so pronounced had to do with the intensity of the studio lighting reflecting off the mirror shards glued inside.


Interesting thought. If that's the case, recreating the bussards as brightly as they looked in the studio would require some tricky noodling. Did Gary say if mirrors were used in the restored domes?


----------



## Steve H

Proper2 said:


> Interesting thought. If that's the case, recreating the bussards as brightly as they looked in the studio would require some tricky noodling. Did Gary say if mirrors were used in the restored domes?


Don't recall it being said. Then again, don't recall much of all spoken about the mechanics of what's been done, other than it uses LEDs in place of incandescent bulbs and, to my reading, the implication that as much as they really wanted a 100% solid state solution they had no choice but to go back to motor and fan blades to approximate the original effect. 

I admit to editorializing there.


----------



## mach7

Steve H said:


> I'm still thinking that it's possible the reason the orange glow was so pronounced had to do with the intensity of the studio lighting reflecting off the mirror shards glued inside.


An interesting idea. That was the idea with using Swarovski crystals 
on the communicators. They would reflect the studio lights to appear 
"lit". At least that's my understanding.

But I think in this case its unlikely. The studio lights would have to go through 2 domes, one frosted. This would serve to scatter the light.
Then they would have to hit the small pieces of mirror and reflect back 
out, going through both domes again, scattering the light again.

I think that Gary's explanation of the LEDs having a narrower field of view is sufficient.


----------



## asalaw

mach7 said:


> An interesting idea. That was the idea with using Swarovski crystals
> on the communicators. They would reflect the studio lights to appear
> "lit". At least that's my understanding.
> 
> But I think in this case its unlikely. The studio lights would have to go through 2 domes, one frosted. This would serve to scatter the light.
> Then they would have to hit the small pieces of mirror and reflect back
> out, going through both domes again, scattering the light again.
> 
> I think that Gary's explanation of the LEDs having a narrower field of view is sufficient.


Yeah, you're not going to get hard reflections by diffusing your light twice.

EDIT -- Not to mention, each time your light passes through the diffusion, you're losing anywhere between 1/4 stop and a full stop. Do that twice, and whatever does come back to camera won't read. It'll just be too dark. Also, none of the available VFX production photos show anything but a general lighting setup on the model -- skypans on the bluescreen and various tungsten units broadly lighting the model. Nothing appears to be hitting just the domes, which you'd have to have to overcome the difference in reflected light values. To complicate matters even more, the model got turned on a geared camera head. That would make for a much more complicated setup if you're relying on exterior lighting to bounce back to camera from the domes, which means much more time and money every time you turn the model.

I call this myth busted by a preponderance of technical challenges. Quod Enterprise Demonstratum.


----------



## feek61

Gary,

Could you go into a little detail on the nacelle effect? I would love to know if there were mirrors used and any other details.


----------



## Joeysaddress1

Also Gary, are there any photos/videos of the updated bussards with the domes off so we can see the internals that you can post with the permission of the Smithsonian?


----------



## Gary K

feek61 said:


> Gary,
> 
> Could you go into a little detail on the nacelle effect? I would love to know if there were mirrors used and any other details.


I didn't see the final final design of the lighting because John continued to refine it after we left DC. I'm making inquiries for photos.

Gary


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## Steve H

The story of the nacelle lighting effect, how it came to be, the process of developing the mechanics and forward to the entire process of the work done for the restoration could well be a book by itself. 

It was my understanding that originally it was hoped that a 'solid state' solution could be found, I think there was talk of some form of projection onto the inside of the domes, but I can't really figure how that would have worked in practice. OTOH I'm still unclear how the lights in the warp core of the Enterprise (TMP) actually worked, the articles I've read skimp on specifics. 

I imagine there may have been some thinking of using EL strips to 'fake' the rotating fans. Like this: Paper the inside of the dome with EL strips, then in the reverse of a 'chaser sequence' you have the majority of the strips lit and the 'off' ones represent the spin of the fan. The problem with that, if that was one of the considerations, problems actually, are 1. having the light be either the right orange/amber/reddish or pure enough white for the tint to carry the glow, and more importantly, if you've papered the entire inside surface of the dome, there's no way for the 'sparks' or 'highlights' of color to show thru.

So, yeah, I'd really like to hear the entire process of what was done, how they came to the conclusion that on the whole, the 'old way' really worked the best.


----------



## jerrlaro

I don't remember if I found the link to this here or someplace else. Here is Doug Drexler's rendition of projected dome lights. Very interesting.
Still can't do links.
Try googling "Nacelle Dome Bussard Test - Projected on Vimeo Doug Drexler".


----------



## Radiodugger

Let's try this:

https://vimeo.com/114050210

Doug


----------



## Captain Han Solo

Here's what I have come up with...using a dozen smaller leds along with the five Amber lEDs, with the shards of mirror inside each dome. Many thanks to Gary Kerr for his very helpful and appreciated suggestions to me. Of course the rotation speed of the inner domes have been slowed to(hopefully) match the 11' filming miniature. There was some disagreement with the five amber/orange less flashing on and off...here I have them on steady, but may actually fade them in and out as well.


----------



## Steve H

Radiodugger said:


> Let's try this:
> 
> https://vimeo.com/114050210
> 
> Doug


Thank you Doug and Jerrlaro!

Well, that's interesting. Maybe with some refining that would be outstanding, I dunno.

But there's a bit of a hangup. He mentions the projector is like a foot back from the dome. I'm not sure that's quite do-able in the nacelle without more physical alterations to the original miniature. Plus, projectors, even LCD projectors, famously are heat monsters. 

Well, wait. the original wiper motor wasn't a tiny thing. Maybe there is room enough for a small projector. Heat's still gonna be a thing tho. Seems to me. 

So, physical stuff is best. My opinion, that's all.


----------



## asalaw

Captain Han Solo said:


> Here's what I have come up with...using a dozen smaller leds along with the five Amber lEDs, with the shards of mirror inside each dome. Many thanks to Gary Kerr for his very helpful and appreciated suggestions to me. Of course the rotation speed of the inner domes have been slowed to(hopefully) match the 11' filming miniature. There was some disagreement with the five amber/orange less flashing on and off...here I have them on study, but may actually fade them in and out as well.
> 
> 1/350 ENGINES beauty shots - YouTube


That looks frakkin' amazing. :grin2:


----------



## Radiodugger

Mark Myers is a MASTER model builder. I mean LOOK at that Enterprise! That effect is EXACTLY what people are saying the 11 ft needs! I dunno. Mark would have been my _FIRST_ choice on the team. Maybe I'm biased. But does anyone agree that:

Mark Myers' 1:350 TOS Enterprise should be THE example of what to do? Or is this a Dead Horse already?

Doug


----------



## Steve H

Radiodugger said:


> Mark Myers is a MASTER model builder. I mean LOOK at that Enterprise! That effect is EXACTLY what people are saying the 11 ft needs! I dunno. Mark would have been my _FIRST_ choice on the team. Maybe I'm biased. But does anyone agree that:
> 
> Mark Myers' 1:350 TOS Enterprise should be THE example of what to do? Or is this a Dead Horse already?
> 
> Doug


Be careful, you might end up as dismissed as I seem to have become, saying such things and all. 

Mark has done a magnificent build there, it's a thing of beauty, no doubt about it. But even there, at least to my eyes, now I see the flaw of LEDs and their directionality. The video posted, you can see the light falloff on the side, that edge of the dome. It's not a dealbreaker, the scale helps in this case and the LEDs have more 'fill' but it's still there.

Of course solving that issue is a much harder thing with the 1/350 kit, there's only so much room. Again, I wager most folk don't even see it but man it just doesn't go away for me now. 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh, man. maybe my eyes are going bad or I'm not processing visual information correctly all of a sudden. I watched the clip again and I would almost swear the blink of the nav lights aren't actual blinking lights but simple animation overlaid on top of the bulbs. Like an animation cel. That's just crazy. I must need more rest.


----------



## mach7

I just got back from NASM.


----------



## mach7




----------



## Captain Han Solo

Steve H said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh, man. maybe my eyes are going bad or I'm not processing visual information correctly all of a sudden. I watched the clip again and I would almost swear the blink of the nav lights aren't actual blinking lights but simple animation overlaid on top of the bulbs. Like an animation cel. That's just crazy. I must need more rest.


Hey Steve...sorry to hear about your eye problem. hope this video clears things up...Also sorry to interrupt this thread but my name has been mentioned several times(Thank you very much indeed).


----------



## mach7




----------



## mach7




----------



## Radiodugger

Wow! Look at that beauty! I am awestruck...

Doug


----------



## mach7

A couple of observations.

The mustard rings on the bottom of the saucer look beautiful in person but I can't get a good, clean photo of them.

The aft "window" just above the ion pod is green.

The bow light is much dimmer than the other lights.

The lights are way too bright to be in scale, I'm guessing that they needed to be this way because of the strong studio lights.
I know they are LEDS now, but I'm guessing that the resto team was going for the original look.

The bussards look MUCH better in person than in photos.


----------



## whereisanykey

The strobe light looks more like a nav light. As I recall it should be more of a quick flash.


----------



## Steve H

Captain Han Solo said:


> Hey Steve...sorry to hear about your eye problem. hope this video clears things up...Also sorry to interrupt this thread but my name has been mentioned several times(Thank you very much indeed).
> 1/350 ENGINES beauty shots - YouTube


(didn't clip the embedded vid because it's so darn beautiful)

Hey, Mark. Don't worry, it's all part of a slow 'complete system failure' going on with me. I was trying to make an obtuse joke, not complain about anything, ANYTHING about your build. 

Because of the steady photography, the position, the background, it all suddenly looked like hand drawn animation but way better than the Filmation shots. 

Like I said, it's me going gaa-gaa, that's all. Keep up the great work!


----------



## Steve H

First up, Massive kudos to mach7 for his recent batch of pictures. Fantastic. 

But now, wow wo wow. Let's talk intercoolers! Specifically the 'handles' at the back of the 'tubes' (to use the original notes  ). 

I'm really not sure how to process them. I'm thinking in terms of 'interpretation' for the 'real' ship which we all strive to model, not the 'get it done we're behind schedule' filming miniature. 

Let's see if this works. http://i.imgur.com/MNStftvh.jpg

What I see, and I'm making the assumption that's the starboard/ 'right' Nacelle aft, is that the intercooler on the 'inside' is flat, with the grill detail being a 'plant-on' part. The 'outside' intercooler has a cavity that makes me assume it also is flat' on the outside and probably the grill detail is planted on. 

ETA: looked closer, as close as I could, saw the flux chiller and barely make out a sign outside of the case so I guess that's actually the port/left nacelle. OK, otherwise, statements hold. 

I seem to see the same paint effect on the 'inside' intercooler to make it appear more inset, same as the faux trench on the inside face of the starboard nacelle. 

So, then, the intercoolers are like small drawers, or drawer handles with one side faced over? OK, that's how they built it. 

So, question to Gary. What's the thought on how to deal with this? Should we maintain the 'illusion' we've had for decades that the intercoolers are like a tube with a something in the middle (heat sink or whatever) as seen first on the AMT kit and echoed ever on, or should we think now that this feature should be recreated, flat on one side, grill planted on top of the flat and so on?

(haw. new photoetch part for the market to develop!  )

Of course the correct answer is "build what you want it to look like" but I'd like some thoughts on this.


----------



## Proper2

mach7 said:


> The bussards look MUCH better in person than in photos.
> 
> https://youtu.be/jeD0EcB2wpw


Well, all I can go by is photos and videos like this one that show the bussard lighting as way too dim at the edges and when viewed from the side. That's my opinion. Thanks very much for sharing these videos!


----------



## JGG1701

mach7 said:


> I just got back from NASM.



Thanks buddy! 

Very much appreciated!
-Jim G.G.


----------



## mach7

Proper2 said:


> Well, all I can go by is photos and videos like this one that show the bussard lighting as way too dim at the edges and when viewed from the side. That's my opinion. Thanks very much for sharing these videos!


They are dimmer than we saw on tv, but brighter than they appear in the video I posted.


----------



## John P

My work firewall blocks every single image and video posted. GAAAAH!!!


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> So, question to Gary. What's the thought on how to deal with this? Should we maintain the 'illusion' we've had for decades that the intercoolers are like a tube with a something in the middle (heat sink or whatever) as seen first on the AMT kit and echoed ever on, or should we think now that this feature should be recreated, flat on one side, grill planted on top of the flat and so on?
> 
> (haw. new photoetch part for the market to develop!
> 
> Of course the correct answer is "build what you want it to look like" but I'd like some thoughts on this.


The patterned Plexiglas pieces inside the intercooler loops follow Star Trek's real Prime Directive: "If it doesn't show on camera, then don't build/paint it." If they left some of the 1/16" ribbing off the non-camera side of the port intercooler on each nacelle, then you just know that they left off the non-camera side patterned Plex pieces. Besides leaving off the ribs, they didn't even completely mask off the non-camera side of those intercoolers when they repainted them. Furthermore, the Plex pieces aren't positioned on the center line of each intercooler.

In short, if you're modeling the spaceship, and not the studio miniature, then the pattern should be on both sides of the filler pieces.

Gary


----------



## Proper2

Gary K said:


> In short, if you're modeling the spaceship, and not the studio miniature, then the pattern should be on both sides of the filler pieces.
> 
> Gary


Not to mention finishing the entire port side of the ship! :grin2:

I would love to see someone with the cojones to pay real homage to the studio miniature by building a replica with unfinished port side and wires spilling out, etc!


----------



## MartyS

Gary K said:


> In short, if you're modeling the spaceship, and not the studio miniature, then the pattern should be on both sides of the filler pieces.


I would think the intended effect was to make the intercoolers look solid? So it would be more correct to put a filler piece on both sides, basically filling in the open area of the "handle" completely. Or maybe they were intended to be grills, like the pylon squares and inside the trenches (other areas where patterns were used to simulate grills).


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> The patterned Plexiglas pieces inside the intercooler loops follow Star Trek's real Prime Directive: "If it doesn't show on camera, then don't build/paint it." If they left some of the 1/16" ribbing off the non-camera side of the port intercooler on each nacelle, then you just know that they left off the non-camera side patterned Plex pieces. Besides leaving off the ribs, they didn't even completely mask off the non-camera side of those intercoolers when they repainted them. Furthermore, the Plex pieces aren't positioned on the center line of each intercooler.
> 
> In short, if you're modeling the spaceship, and not the studio miniature, then the pattern should be on both sides of the filler pieces.
> 
> Gary


I fear terminology is crossing signals. 

"plex piece" = the seeming grid planted on the 'faced' side of the intercooler, yes?

I find myself in need of some education 'backdating' the miniature. The pilot version, the intercoolers were undetailed and opened, an elongated 'u', correct? Then Roddenberry called for revision and that's when they did something (glue and thin wood?) to cover the 'visible' side, and paint and the plexi detail were done. Is that the gist of it? 

So then again, this was a quick and dirty and cheap change, budget time blah blah, got that. My key question, was the INTENT the detail change represents that there was a grid of some kind inset within the center of the intercooler per decades of models made, or are we to believe that the 'real' look should be glue thin plastic card to the intercoolers and glue some fine grid onto it?

This would be SOOOO much easier if I had any ability to draw.


----------



## Gary K

MartyS said:


> I would think the intended effect was to make the intercoolers look solid? So it would be more correct to put a filler piece on both sides, basically filling in the open area of the "handle" completely. Or maybe they were intended to be grills, like the pylon squares and inside the trenches (other areas where patterns were used to simulate grills).


Richard Datin said that everybody referred to the intercoolers as "handles", and Roddenberry hated the term. The original plan was to "shorten height of Pod handles", and it seems that it was simpler/easier to fill in the loops of the intercoolers so they wouldn't look like handles.

Gary


----------



## Steve H

MartyS said:


> I would think the intended effect was to make the intercoolers look solid? So it would be more correct to put a filler piece on both sides, basically filling in the open area of the "handle" completely. Or maybe they were intended to be grills, like the pylon squares and inside the trenches (other areas where patterns were used to simulate grills).


The only thing I have against the idea of 'pave over the hollow and plant a grid on it' is the paint job. At least to my eyes it looks like the same 'optical illusion' they used on the faux nacelle trench, to create the illusion of depth. 

That says to me (and why I'm trying to make sure I have a clear picture from Gary) the desire and intent was for the grid to be inset to the intercoolers, as seen with the AMT kit and ever onward. They just didn't have the time/money to do such a finicky revision.

And again, we go to '60s TV. It LOOKED like what the AMT kit offered. That paint illusion did a good job. 

I dunno. solid intercoolers with a little grid glued on seems klunky, visually. The 'handle' effect seems like they DO something. 

I guess the distance between 'build it like it was real' and 'build it like the miniature' grows more wide. 

*whisper* I'm not gonna duplicate the crackle/orange peel on the saucer near the B/C deck.


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## feek61

Proper2 said:


> I would love to see someone with the cojones to pay real homage to the studio miniature by building a replica with unfinished port side and wires spilling out, etc!


I have ALWAYS wanted to do just that!!! Hopefully I will have time to do it before I die!


----------



## asalaw

feek61 said:


> I have ALWAYS wanted to do just that!!! Hopefully I will have time to do it before I die!


I've had something similar in mind for a few years now... :wink2:


----------



## MGagen

mach7 said:


> I just got back from NASM.


There! On the right. Isn't that Stanley Adams from The Trouble with Tribbles?!?
>
M.


----------



## Gary K

mach7 said:


> I just got back from NASM.





Check out those dark nacelle rings - which are actually the same color as the hull.

Gary


----------



## Steve H

Ya. Still trips me out. What an incredible optical illusion. 

Ya know, in that shot, the back of the B/C deck looks odd. I think part of it is the weathering where the bulge meets the saucer but it looks more...MAN I can't figure out how to express it. Like where it curves on its way down? It's more bulged at the top than one would think. Or the taper doesn't quite taper so much. Something just looks strange there.


----------



## jerrlaro

Steve H said:


> Ya. Still trips me out. What an incredible optical illusion.
> 
> Ya know, in that shot, the back of the B/C deck looks odd. I think part of it is the weathering where the bulge meets the saucer but it looks more...MAN I can't figure out how to express it. Like where it curves on its way down? It's more bulged at the top than one would think. Or the taper doesn't quite taper so much. Something just looks strange there.


Now that you mention it, it does look like...a jock cup.>


----------



## Trekkriffic

jerrlaro said:


> Now that you mention it, it does look like...a jock cup.>


:lol:

OMG... A JOCK CUP! Now I've heard it all!


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> Ya. Still trips me out. What an incredible optical illusion.
> 
> Ya know, in that shot, the back of the B/C deck looks odd. I think part of it is the weathering where the bulge meets the saucer but it looks more...MAN I can't figure out how to express it. Like where it curves on its way down? It's more bulged at the top than one would think. Or the taper doesn't quite taper so much. Something just looks strange there.


You're just looking at the bridge from an unusual angle. Nobody did anything to the bridge except repaint it.

Gary


----------



## asalaw

Yeah, if you think it's a jock cup, I'd say that's _definitely_ an unusual angle...


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> You're just looking at the bridge from an unusual angle. Nobody did anything to the bridge except repaint it.
> 
> Gary


Just wanted to be clear, I didn't say anything was done, just the shape seems a little different than it's usually rendered. Like the nacelle rings, there's what we've thought all these years and then there's reality. 

That back part of the B/C deck seems more bulge-y at the mid-point. As funny as it was meant to be, jock cup isn't too far off.


----------



## mach7

Gary K said:


> You're just looking at the bridge from an unusual angle. Nobody did anything to the bridge except repaint it.
> 
> Gary


I took that photo at an odd angle, I was trying to show the painted on 4th "light".

The odd shape is mostly an optical illusion I think.


----------



## Zombie_61

jerrlaro said:


> Now that you mention it, it does look like...a jock cup.>


"These are the voyages of the Starship Moose Knuckle..."


----------



## Captain Robert April

I'm just gonna leave this here...

https://vimeo.com/176999007


----------



## Proper2

Captain Robert April said:


> I'm just gonna leave this here...
> 
> https://vimeo.com/176999007


Nothing short of a labor of absolute love!


----------



## Zombie_61

Captain Robert April said:


> I'm just gonna leave this here...
> 
> https://vimeo.com/176999007


Teaser trailer for a future DVD/Blu-Ray release, perhaps? :grin2:


----------



## Steve H

Beautiful thing indeed. 

I get a little chuckle at the paint/marking test article. "Hey! You put the belly markings on the side!!"


----------



## mhvink

Captain Robert April said:


> I'm just gonna leave this here...
> 
> https://vimeo.com/176999007


You know, I've been following this from the beginning and never felt an inclination to comment until now.

That video shows the absolute professionalism and dedication by the entire NASM staff and I am in total AWE of their accomplishment.

And that is all I am going to say on the subject.

Mike


----------



## asalaw

mhvink said:


> You know, I've been following this from the beginning and never felt an inclination to comment until now.
> 
> That video shows the absolute professionalism and dedication by the entire NASM staff and I am in total AWE of their accomplishment.
> 
> And that is all I am going to say on the subject.
> 
> Mike












That's worth repeating. As often as possible. The job they did is exactly what the model deserved. Look at that little boy's face in the photo above. She's already inspiring a new generation. :smile2:


----------



## TomD66

Sorry to be so late to this discussion. Any idea when Gary is going to release the correct painting guide? I have a 1/1000 Enterprise I'm building for my Stepson in the Philippines, and it's just about ready for paint. I do have some time before I go, and I want it to paint it as accurate as possible.


----------



## Gary K

TomD66 said:


> Sorry to be so late to this discussion. Any idea when Gary is going to release the correct painting guide? I have a 1/1000 Enterprise I'm building for my Stepson in the Philippines, and it's just about ready for paint. I do have some time before I go, and I want it to paint it as accurate as possible.


I'm not sure when the official Smithsonian modelers guide will be ready, but we're working on it because the Smithsonian wants it out ASAP. I've sent preliminary paint chips to Polar Lights so they can work on decals & a painting guide for the re-release of the 1:350 kit, but I don't have hobby paint matches because I have an acute shortage of fully-equipped hobby shops around here - and I don't want to guess and order several dozen bottles of expensive paint online. 

The museum is compiling a list of matches for the colors used in the restoration, but they'd be of limited interest to modelers because they represent the darkened, 50-year-old lacquer. I need to discuss my estimates of the original colors (de-aged, with yellowed clear-coats removed, and lightened very slightly for scale effect) with the museum people, and I'm also working as fast as I can on the accurized drawings.

In short, I'm not sure exactly when the info will be released, but we're working on it. Here's a screen cap of the current state of the latest Autocad file for the revised Enterprise.

Gary


----------



## mach7

asalaw said:


> That's worth repeating. As often as possible. The job they did is exactly what the model deserved. Look at that little boy's face in the photo above. She's already inspiring a new generation. :smile2:


I took that photo on one of my 2 visits to see her.
One thing that is amazing to me is how much attention she
draws and the positive reaction. And the reaction only gets better when 
the lights come on. 
I would say of all the exhibits in the Boeing Milestones of Flight hall
the Enterprise gets as much attention as any of the other artifacts on 
display, including the LM or the Mercury and Gemini capsules!

It's actually hard to get good photos due to the number of people around her.
My 1st visit was June 7th, just a week after she went on display. 
Then the docents did not know anything about the Enterprise. 2 weeks 
later they knew a lot more. Apparently they have been asked many questions and had to learn how to answer them.


----------



## TomD66

Thanks a lot for the reply Gary!!!! I can certainly be patient because of all the hard work you're doing on this project. I'm not going until mid December so I will keep an eye out for any updates. Thanks again for the wonderful information you've provided on the restoration!!!!

Tom


----------



## Steve H

Gary: Wow, that's a ton of notes! So stupid question, did you end up feeling that you've had to rethink EVERYTHING you thought you knew about the Enterprise, or was it mostly affirmation of what was previously speculation, or a confusing mix of the two?


----------



## JediDad

Great stuff Gary!! I'm in no hurry; I won't even be looking at my kit anyway until the smooth saucer pieces are out.


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> Gary: Wow, that's a ton of notes! So stupid question, did you end up feeling that you've had to rethink EVERYTHING you thought you knew about the Enterprise, or was it mostly affirmation of what was previously speculation, or a confusing mix of the two?


From a design standpoint, it was a big relief to finally get all the actual measurements I needed to fill in the blanks in my drawings, where before I'd been forced to guess. It was quite interesting to discover that the builders often used simple hardware - eyelets, finish washers, cap nuts - to detail the model, and to learn that nav lights could be made from commonplace items, like marbles.  A couple surprises were the lack of grid lines between the twin red lines aft of the B/C deck, plus finally seeing what the interior dome lighting mechanism looked like - clear inner domes and mini Christmas lights, instead of larger C7s.

Colorwise, I was extremely surprised to learn that the green upper saucer was painted completely different from the rest of the ship, which was more gray, with mostly brown weathering, plus a smidgen of dark gray. I also learned that the overall weathering was extremely subtle, and was not applied heavily, like theatrical makeup. I was amazed to see how much lacquer paint can darken in 50 years, and I was pleasantly surprised to be able to confirm the existence of the original blue dorsal paint.

Gary


----------



## MGagen

Gary K said:


> ...plus finally seeing what the interior dome lighting mechanism looked like - clear inner domes and mini Christmas lights, instead of larger C7s.


It is good to have confirmation. I had wondered about this years ago when I did a scale study of what C7s might look like crammed under a 6" inner dome, as opposed to the little twinkle variety:


----------



## Gary K

MGagen said:


> It is good to have confirmation. I had wondered about this years ago when I did a scale study of what C7s might look like crammed under a 6" inner dome, as opposed to the little twinkle variety


Yep, the lighting consisted of nothing more than strands of tightly-spaced mini-lights wrapped round & round the 10 or so nails that were driven into the wooden front end of each nacelle.

Gary


----------



## Steve H

MGagen said:


> It is good to have confirmation. I had wondered about this years ago when I did a scale study of what C7s might look like crammed under a 6" inner dome, as opposed to the little twinkle variety:



I'm not sure if I'm confused (always the possibility!  ) or if Gary was using imprecise terminology, but he said 'mini' lights, not the midgets. I recall back in the '60s having Christmas lights that were like half-size of the 'C7' but larger than the now-standard Midget. I was very young but I recall them being 'Edison screw-in' bases and not the 'bayonet' push-in of the midget. 

(either way, I think your diagram has the lights MUCH more neatly arrayed compared to what seems to have been done, based on that old B&W photo of the cord kinda hanging off or wrapped around the nails...I don't think you've accounted for the broken mirror shards. It's beautiful work,you've shown that not only would C7s be kind of impossible, the sheer heat generated would have melted that dome!)

I guess part of the thing that throws me is, somehow my brain made the Enterprise larger than it is. I would have sworn the nacelles had a larger diameter but no, that 'behind the scenes' video recently posted shows they're smaller than I had thought.

Crazy stuff.


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> I'm not sure if I'm confused (always the possibility! ) or if Gary was using imprecise terminology, but he said 'mini' lights, not the midgets. I recall back in the '60s having Christmas lights that were like half-size of the 'C7' but larger than the now-standard Midget. I was very young but I recall them being 'Edison screw-in' bases and not the 'bayonet' push-in of the midget.
> 
> I guess part of the thing that throws me is, somehow my brain made the Enterprise larger than it is. I would have sworn the nacelles had a larger diameter but no, that 'behind the scenes' video recently posted shows they're smaller than I had thought.
> 
> Crazy stuff.


I'm talking about the mini-bulbs that you push into the socket. Just do a Google image search for "christmas mini lights" and you'll see what I mean.

I think we all subconsciously assume that starship parts are larger than they actually are in real life. When the 11-footer was disassembled, each of the individual sections (with the possible exception of the saucer) weren't all that huge. On the Refit model, the photon torpedo launcher area at the base of the dorsal is only about 4" wide.

Gary


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> I'm talking about the mini-bulbs that you push into the socket. Just do a Google image search for "christmas mini lights" and you'll see what I mean.
> 
> I think we all subconsciously assume that starship parts are larger than they actually are in real life. When the 11-footer was disassembled, each of the individual sections (with the possible exception of the saucer) weren't all that huge. On the Refit model, the photon torpedo launcher area at the base of the dorsal is only about 4" wide.
> 
> Gary


Fair enough. I'm confident that they didn't spend the money for 'close up' parts like larger nacelles, there's never been any shot that would have called for such a thing. It's not like they were going to 'super' Kirk walking around on the thing. 

What's confused me, see, was that old '70s Paramount 'War of the Worlds' TV series promo reel where they tour the 'production office' (snicker. giggle I say, giggle) and leaning against the wall, one of the Enterprise nacelles. It just seems larger than what it really is per the restoration video. 

"and this is a martian power unit" no, fool, that's the primary engine cluster from the Mars ship in Conquest of Space. Duh. And THAT is a Tholian strike that, it's the Aurora, an ex-Tholian ship right there.  (I know. Whatever they had laying around was used as set dressing)

Hey, let's see if this works. Bugger, it doesn't. Site tells me my jpeg isn't a valid image file. Well heck. won't take a Gif either. well smoke you, stupid thing!


----------



## Captain Robert April

Gary K said:


> I'm talking about the mini-bulbs that you push into the socket. Just do a Google image search for "christmas mini lights" and you'll see what I mean.


Were those mini-bulbs available in '65? I don't recall seeing them until the early 70s.


----------



## Gary K

Captain Robert April said:


> Were those mini-bulbs available in '65? I don't recall seeing them until the early 70s.


I don't know when the mini-bulbs became available, but that's what we see in the 1966 photos, and that's how the guy who replaced them in 1972 described them.

Gary


----------



## Roberty-Bob

Pretty sure the mini-bulbs were available in the mid to late 60s. We started using them on our artificial Xmas tree my dad got. Pretty sure I have a pic with the Enterprise model kit under the tree somewhere...


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## dcarty

AAMB and i were burning up the Christmas tree websites, lol! From the same, and similar, websites I found that GE introduced the Merry Midget Christmas lights in 1965. So there were definitely options available to them.


----------



## Captain Robert April

Okay then...


----------



## Richard Baker

dcarty said:


> AAMB and i were burning up the Christmas tree websites, lol! From the same, and similar, websites I found that GE introduced the Merry Midget Christmas lights in 1965. So there were definitely options available to them.


Cutting edge technology back tben...


----------



## DoctorGonzo

Garry K quick question... 

I was just watching that great Spacedock video from William George. At 5:26 they show the Enterprise getting her final paint job, in the background there seems to be a second secondary hull. Did they build a secondary model to to testing with, or what did they use this section for?

I tried to add a photo, but it wouldn't upload.

Thanks


----------



## phase_pistol

Yep, they constructed a short secondary hull for paint and decal tests. Plus those nacelles are duplicates too, right?


----------



## swhite228

Captain Robert April said:


> Were those mini-bulbs available in '65? I don't recall seeing them until the early 70s.


My dad worked for a local power company and bought a xmas tree set (tree, decorations, lights) from them. It was around 63-64 and it came with 6 sets of GE Merry Mini Christmas lights which were the same plug type lights Gerry is talking about.


----------



## taneal1

*Under the Dome?*

If this question has already been answered I must have missed it, because I have read this entire thread.

I'm assuming they didn't wrap strands of Christmas bulbs around 10 nails as in the original, so... How many separate bulbs, and what color pattern was used under the Nacelle domes for the restored Enterprise?

Thanks for any info!

Tom


----------



## asalaw

taneal1 said:


> If this question has already been answered I must have missed it, because I have read this entire thread.
> 
> I'm assuming they didn't wrap strands of Christmas bulbs around 10 nails as in the original... How many separate bulbs, and what color pattern was used under the Nacelle domes for the restored Enterprise?
> 
> Thanks for any info!
> 
> Tom


It's all LEDs now, for longevity, power consumption, and heat abatement. I'm looking forward to seeing the new rig too, whenever they get it released. I think things are still a bit busy over there.

This is one of those watershed moments in fandom, guys. All our decades-old questions are being answered in exquisite detail. What a great time to be a fan. :smile2:


----------



## Steve H

Well, not ALL the questions. We have gaps in first hand knowledge regarding the 'second pilot' version and seem to mostly understand things from 'backdating' the changes made for series and making assumptions.

But then again, I'm not sure how much new footage was actually shot for the second pilot. Changes made to the deco on the saucer would clash with stock footage, I would think. 

My understanding at this point is that for the filming of the second pilot the Enterprise was suspended (something Datin said it wasn't intended to be) and I think power was run down fine wires for the new. minimal lighting. That's all supposition based on the few pics I've seen. My guess would be that the same mounting hardware for suspension was used for the early NA&SM displays.


----------



## asalaw

phase_pistol said:


> Yep, they constructed a short secondary hull for paint and decal tests. Plus those nacelles are duplicates too, right?


Dude, where'd you find those? I've scoured the NASM site with no luck. TrekCore? 

Or, perhaps... low friends in high places?


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> Well, not ALL the questions. We have gaps in first hand knowledge regarding the 'second pilot' version and seem to mostly understand things from 'backdating' the changes made for series and making assumptions.
> 
> But then again, I'm not sure how much new footage was actually shot for the second pilot. Changes made to the deco on the saucer would clash with stock footage, I would think.
> 
> My understanding at this point is that for the filming of the second pilot the Enterprise was suspended (something Datin said it wasn't intended to be) and I think power was run down fine wires for the new. minimal lighting. That's all supposition based on the few pics I've seen. My guess would be that the same mounting hardware for suspension was used for the early NA&SM displays.


Actually, we've got some good, unpublished photos of the 2nd Pilot ship in action. The 1st Pilot model was suspended from wires, but the 2nd Pilot model was filmed just like the Production model - on a metal stand and in front of a blue screen. The blue screen is why they changed the shiny blue dorsal and gave it a flat finish.

Gary


----------



## robn1

asalaw said:


> Dude, where'd you find those? I've scoured the NASM site with no luck. TrekCore?
> 
> Or, perhaps... low friends in high places?


That's from the video Bill George posted recently https://vimeo.com/176999007


----------



## taneal1

asalaw said:


> It's all LEDs now, for longevity, power consumption, and heat abatement. I'm looking forward to seeing the new rig too, whenever they get it released. I think things are still a bit busy over there.


Thanks for the response. Do you know how many LEDs were used, and in what color pattern they were arranged?

Tom


----------



## jerrlaro

Tom,

I can't post pics or links yet, so if you Google "Reroute the Power Conduits - Enterprise at the Smithsonian (2016)", at the 57 second mark there is a view of the bussard innards. However, I don't know if this picture of the lights is the final version.


----------



## Gary K

jerrlaro said:


> Tom,
> 
> I can't post pics or links yet, so if you Google "Reroute the Power Conduits - Enterprise at the Smithsonian (2016)", at the 57 second mark there is a view of the bussard innards. However, I don't know if this picture of the lights is the final version.


Nope, it's not. After two weeks in DC, we went home & John took the innards back with him. John continued to refine the design and then sent the innards back to the museum. I'm waiting to see pics of the final design, myself.

Actually, John be still be refining the LEDs to make them look more like incandescents.

Gary


----------



## whereisanykey

I don't know if it's been answered, but what is the color of the dorsal blue. Can one use a variation of duck-egg blue. Colors on a computer monitor may not be accurate enough.

Greg


----------



## MGagen

Steve H said:


> (either way, I think your diagram has the lights MUCH more neatly arrayed compared to what seems to have been done, based on that old B&W photo of the cord kinda hanging off or wrapped around the nails...I don't think you've accounted for the broken mirror shards.


My drawings were not meant to convey the actual and complete interior arrangement of the domes; merely to illustrate how much space would be taken up by each type of light. Someone had stated at the time that the interior lights were C7s and this didn't seem very workable to me. The drawing shows why. 

Now, thanks to our friends on the Smithsonian project, we _know_ better...

M.


----------



## taneal1

Gary K said:


> Nope, it's not. After two weeks in DC, we went home & John took the innards back with him. John continued to refine the design and then sent the innards back to the museum. I'm waiting to see pics of the final design, myself.
> 
> Actually, John be still be refining the LEDs to make them look more like incandescents.
> 
> Gary


Thanks for the info, Gary. Will you be allowed to post pics of the final design when you receive them? (I hope!)

I'm especially eager to compare them to the PL/Refit Light Kit!

Tom


----------



## asalaw

whereisanykey said:


> I don't know if it's been answered, but what is the color of the dorsal blue. Can one use a variation of duck-egg blue. Colors on a computer monitor may not be accurate enough.
> 
> Greg


It's more of a green-blue, like a pale pastel turquoise. Very Miami Beach Deco, actually. There were lots of old hotels painted in colors just like that back in the 80s, and maybe they still are -- haven't been there in years. It's very similar to the turquoise in the Miami Vice logo (from the series). Lighter than this example, but it's in the ballpark.










Uh... or I suppose I could post an actual photo.


----------



## Steve H

Hurrrrr, I dunno. Maybe it's my monitor. That picture makes the blue look more British Duck Egg Blue to me. 

I blame years of buying tins of Humbrol paint.


----------



## phase_pistol

robn1 said:


> That's from the video Bill George posted recently https://vimeo.com/176999007


Good eye! That is correct.


----------



## Jhjorlando

Gary K said:


> I'm not sure when the official Smithsonian modelers guide will be ready, but we're working on it because the Smithsonian wants it out ASAP. I've sent preliminary paint chips to Polar Lights so they can work on decals & a painting guide for the re-release of the 1:350 kit, but I don't have hobby paint matches because I have an acute shortage of fully-equipped hobby shops around here - and I don't want to guess and order several dozen bottles of expensive paint online.
> 
> The museum is compiling a list of matches for the colors used in the restoration, but they'd be of limited interest to modelers because they represent the darkened, 50-year-old lacquer. I need to discuss my estimates of the original colors (de-aged, with yellowed clear-coats removed, and lightened very slightly for scale effect) with the museum people, and I'm also working as fast as I can on the accurized drawings.
> 
> In short, I'm not sure exactly when the info will be released, but we're working on it. Here's a screen cap of the current state of the latest Autocad file for the revised Enterprise.
> 
> Gary


Polar Lights reissue, eh? Is this a retooling of hard parts and the lighting kit, or decal and paint updates?


----------



## Opus Penguin

Jhjorlando said:


> Polar Lights reissue, eh? Is this a retooling of hard parts and the lighting kit, or decal and paint updates?


The reissue has the smooth saucer without grid lines.


----------



## Jhjorlando

Opus Penguin said:


> The reissue has the smooth saucer without grid lines.


Are new hard parts going to be available seperately, to update kits already purchased?


----------



## asalaw

Jhjorlando said:


> Are new hard parts going to be available seperately, to update kits already purchased?


The smooth saucer is already available for pre-order on places like culttvman.com and such. I think they're around 15 bucks, but don't quote me.


----------



## Steve H

I have hopes they'll do a new 'fine pencil line' decal set to properly mirror the miniature altho I think in reality it's all but invisible when scaled to 1/350. 

*koff koff should have done it this way when originally released koff hack koff*


----------



## dcarty

Culttvman.com has the saucer parts available at a special pre-order price of $29.95, plus shipping. I think I recall hearing the MSRP will be $39.95.


----------



## asalaw

Steve H said:


> I have hopes they'll do a new 'fine pencil line' decal set to properly mirror the miniature altho I think in reality it's all but invisible when scaled to 1/350.
> 
> *koff koff should have done it this way when originally released koff hack koff*


Which brings me to a question I've been meaning to ask (but forgetting to, because old). 

Gary, would you have an idea how to calculate what size pencil or pen would work for the gridlines on the 1/350? I've seen as small as 0.3mm at Michael's, but I'm not sure.

Do you happen to know what gauge pencil was used by the conservators on the lower saucer? I suppose I could multiply that by 87.whatever HO is and then divide by 350...

I was thinking of going on there with a very fine pen, and then lighly airbrushing over with thin hull color if it gets too heavy.


----------



## MartyS

Smallest pencil I've ever seen is 0.2mm, can't imagine how hard it must be to handle the sticks without breaking them.

Freezing the video shows that it's not a large sized pencil, but can't tell if it's a standard 0.7 or a smaller one. If it is a standard .7 then .2 would be only slightly larger than needed (divide by 4).

Doing some googling it seems .2s were first made in the 70s, the first .3 was in 68, so if the quote about using the smallest pencil available is true, looks like .5 was the smallest mechanical pencil in the mid 60s. But there was only one company making .5 in the mid 60s, so probably the smallest in the shop at the time would have been the .9s or .7s that came out in the early 60s


----------



## dcarty

I've been kicking around ideas for drawing the lines for a while now and hadn't really considered a mechanical pencil as I didn't know if I'd be able to get the point fine enough. I've been thinking more along the lines of a regular artists pencil with a harder lead -- 4H-6H. Sharpen it to a very fine point and then draw the lines with what a friend of mine always described as an "imaginary" amount of pressure. 

I'm a loooong way from doing any of this but it'll be fun to make some tests some day.

Dave


----------



## The_Engineer

I bought a mechanical 0.2 pencil years ago (I always used 0.5) and I found the lead breaks quite abit so I rarely used it. I'm not sure what lead I have but that makes a difference.


----------



## asalaw

MartyS said:


> Smallest pencil I've ever seen is 0.2mm, can't imagine how hard it must be to handle the sticks without breaking them.
> 
> Freezing the video shows that it's not a large sized pencil, but can't tell if it's a standard 0.7 or a smaller one. If it is a standard .7 then .2 would be only slightly larger than needed (divide by 4).
> 
> Doing some googling it seems .2s were first made in the 70s, the first .3 was in 68, so if the quote about using the smallest pencil available is true, looks like .5 was the smallest mechanical pencil in the mid 60s. But there was only one company making .5 in the mid 60s, so probably the smallest in the shop at the time would have been the .9s or .7s that came out in the early 60s


Dang! That's quite a bit of info, thanks!



dcarty said:


> I've been kicking around ideas for drawing the lines for a while now and hadn't really considered a mechanical pencil as I didn't know if I'd be able to get the point fine enough. I've been thinking more along the lines of a regular artists pencil with a harder lead -- 4H-6H. Sharpen it to a very fine point and then draw the lines with what a friend of mine always described as an "imaginary" amount of pressure.
> 
> I'm a loooong way from doing any of this but it'll be fun to make some tests some day.
> 
> Dave


I think the key is to go back over it with thin hull color if it's too thick or heavy, but I haven't tried it yet. But I like your idea. I'm pretty sure I have some 4H around here, at least. Graphite won't create any of the issues that could happen with inks, especially going over Future acrylic.



The_Engineer said:


> I bought a mechanical 0.2 pencil years ago (I always used 0.5) and I found the lead breaks quite abit so I rarely used it. I'm not sure what lead I have but that makes a difference.


Hardness issue maybe?


----------



## Trekkriffic

I think I used a 2H artist's pencil when I drew my gridlines on. Followed by an overspray of the basecoat before some weathering with pastel chalks. The rust ring was airbrushed on before I did the final overspray though. The effect is very subtle as you can see in this photo:

*Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet*


----------



## John P

Now THIS is AMS at it's best!! :lol:


Ya know what I'd use to draw on my pencil lines? 
A pencil.


----------



## asalaw

Trekkriffic said:


> I think I used a 2H artist's pencil when I drew my gridlines on. Followed by an overspray of the basecoat before some weathering with pastel chalks. The rust ring was airbrushed on before I did the final overspray though. The effect is very subtle as you can see in this photo:
> 
> *Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet*


That's actually even subtler than what I want to get to, and looks great! Thanks for the info. :smile2:


----------



## SteveR

One advantage of a mechanical pencil is that as it wears down, it doesn't change width, because it's not conical. So if we wanted to use hard leads to prevent that width change, we wouldn't have to do that if we used a mechanical pencil. 

So once we pick a width, we'd only choose hard leads for a lighter, less smudgeable mark, or soft leads to avoid scratching the paint. But I guess that a conical point with a hard (wood) pencil might end up being narrower than a mechanical pencil lead. YMMV.

Picking the Perfect Pencil Hardness Grade - JetPens.com


----------



## Steve H

I'm still of the belief that at 1/350 scale you really shouldn't see the pencil lines. Then again very few people build the kit and paint it with the somewhat heavy 'accents' (around the B/C deck mating to the saucer, around the rim of the Bridge ring, so on) so who knows.


----------



## asalaw

SteveR said:


> One advantage of a mechanical pencil is that as it wears down, it doesn't change width, because it's not conical. So if we wanted to use hard leads to prevent that width change, we wouldn't have to do that if we used a mechanical pencil.
> 
> So once we pick a width, we'd only choose hard leads for a lighter, less smudgeable mark, or soft leads to avoid scratching the paint. But I guess that a conical point with a hard (wood) pencil might end up being narrower than a mechanical pencil lead. YMMV.
> 
> Picking the Perfect Pencil Hardness Grade - JetPens.com


Great link, thanks! :smile2:


----------



## John P

1/1000 kitbashes with light pencil lines (4H lead)


----------



## robn1




----------



## mhvink

I think that the TV and movie FX model builders could learn a lot from the Smithsonian "Imagineers" (sorry, Disney).


----------



## Daniel_B

mhvink said:


> I think that the TV and movie FX model builders could learn a lot from the Smithsonian "Imagineers" (sorry, Disney).


What do you mean? There are no TV and movie FX model builders anymore. Everything is CG.


----------



## Richard Baker

Not everything is CGI- just a lot of it.


----------



## Proper2

Richard Baker said:


> Not everything is CGI- just a lot of it.


Most of it is, if not almost all of it. Let's put it this way, don't quit your day job to become a professional sci-fi spaceship model builder for the movie industry.


----------



## Y3a

Depends on time til its required and how complex it is. CGI still LOOKS like CGI most of the time.


----------



## Irishman

Y3a said:


> Depends on time til its required and how complex it is. CGI still LOOKS like CGI most of the time.



That's because you're looking at bad CGI. 

Can you give some examples?


----------



## Proper2

Y3a said:


> Depends on time til its required and how complex it is. CGI still LOOKS like CGI most of the time.


Really? What about the last 3 Star Trek movies? Those ships n' things look pretty amazing to me! Like Irishman suggested, you're looking at bad CGI.


----------



## mach7

Proper2 said:


> Really? What about the last 3 Star Trek movies? Those ships n' things look pretty amazing to me! Like Irishman suggested, you're looking at bad CGI.


Funny, I was going to use those as examples of CGI that looks like CGI. 
To me the CGI in the Star Trek movies is obviously not practical model work,
and looks less "real".

Like others here I tend not to like CGI. To me it always looks worse than good model work. 

The CGI in The Force Awakens is less pleasing to me than the practical effects.

I should specify that I mean CGI ships, not the CGI to remove/add background. 

It's my opinion only, but I just don't care for CGI.


----------



## Steve H

Let's define it a little bit. Like everything else in Hollywood, CG effects are ruled by time and money. When the production has the proper attitude towards their effects, and gives the work the time and money to do the best job possible, you get stellar results. Cameron's Avatar and the first Jurassic Park come to mind, at least for me. 

When the production takes the "Oh, yeah, we need to do that stuff huh?" attitude and they don't give the CG people the time, all the money in the world can't make that kind of poo into gold. That's when you get effects that look like '90s videogame 'cut scenes'. 

But as pretty as CG can be, as magical the 'god's eye' camera diving and swooping around can be, reality still has that unfathomable, undefinable edge. There's something in knowing that there's a physical object sitting in the water or hanging from a wire under a real sky and real sunlight that makes it more real.

I'll take the Attack on Pearl Harbor from Tora Tora Tora any day over the overly slick attack from the more recent movie Pearl Harbor. Watching real (replica) P-40s blowing up on a real airfield carries much more weight and impact. All those 'happy accidents' that take place (the stunt man who almost died, the way the prop from an exploded P-40 spins off and keeps rolling along, the sad fate of that PBY Catalina...) just don't exist in CG. It becomes so artificial. 

That's why I'm glad the 11 foot model of the Enterprise still lives. It's REAL.


----------



## Irishman

mach7 said:


> Funny, I was going to use those as examples of CGI that looks like CGI.
> To me the CGI in the Star Trek movies is obviously not practical model work,
> and looks less "real".
> 
> Like others here I tend not to like CGI. To me it always looks worse than good model work.
> 
> The CGI in The Force Awakens is less pleasing to me than the practical effects.
> 
> I should specify that I mean CGI ships, not the CGI to remove/add background.
> 
> It's my opinion only, but I just don't care for CGI.




Are you saying that CGI looks bad compared to real spaceships you've seen or to physical models of spaceships you've seen? Because I'll grant you, CGI spaceships by and large do not look like physical models of spaceships.


----------



## mach7

Irishman said:


> Are you saying that CGI looks bad compared to real spaceships you've seen or to physical models of spaceships you've seen? Because I'll grant you, CGI spaceships by and large do not look like physical models of spaceships.


If I understand you correctly, Yes. To me quality model work looks better than quality CGI.
It's a preference of mine. After I saw The Force Awakens I was astonished at the fact that much
of the CGI worked looked so "real", until I found out most of was model work.


----------



## Daniel_B

mach7 said:


> If I understand you correctly, Yes. To me quality model work looks better than quality CGI.
> It's a preference of mine. After I saw The Force Awakens I was astonished at the fact that much
> of the CGI worked looked so "real", until I found out most of was model work.


There is not a single model spacecraft in Force Awakens at all.

As far as CGI not looking as good as a physical model, I disagree. Given enough time and enough quality CG artists, you can get there.

This shot of the Enterprise from Beyond looks 100% real to my eyes.










I also personally did this render of Voyager in an attempt to get as close to a miniature look as possible. I think I got it in the ballpark at least.


----------



## Proper2

mach7 said:


> Funny, I was going to use those as examples of CGI that looks like CGI.
> To me the CGI in the Star Trek movies is obviously not practical model work,
> and looks less "real".
> 
> Like others here I tend not to like CGI. To me it always looks worse than good model work.
> 
> I should specify that I mean CGI ships, not the CGI to remove/add background.
> 
> It's my opinion only, but I just don't care for CGI.


Wow, well, we'll have to agree to disagree! I find all Trek movie CGI ships amazing-looking! I don't know if physical models would look better or not, and neither does anyone else, since oranges are not available to compare to apples and never will be. Additionally, building a model to look good is just a small part of the show. The model has to do amazing stuff. It has to move a certain way and fire and blow things up and explode into bits and reflect and absorb light and color and other effects. None of that is possible without CGI-ship footage. A CGI ship appears to do all these things seamlessly and practically. Most of us here are obviously model makers and so we may tend to be a little biased.


----------



## jheilman

CGI and models are tools. Any idiot can pick up a tool. A craftsman can make the tool do amazing work. Most of this bias comes from people thinking CGI is an easy cop-out from doing real work. You simply hit the spaceship button and, boom, it's there. 

I've built both physical and CG spaceships and they both take skill and attention to detail. As someone who is a professional in 2D design, I've seen plenty of amateur design and Photoshop work. Doesn't mean that digital design and Photoshop are crap, but it opens the door for less talented folks to build things and get them out there. 

2001 is possibly the top in model FX. But, look at Interstellar or Gravity. Beautiful CGI FX that are also stunning. 

My biggest gripe with CGI is when it breaks the reality barrier. When things move and act in ways that our eyes flag as unreal. CG characters moving too fast, ships defying the laws of physics, etc. But, when reality in movement is respected, it can be done well.


----------



## John P

I thought the Star Wars folks were using physical models in addition to CG.


----------



## mach7

Daniel, 

My understanding of The Force Awakens was that most of the ship work was practical model, with exceptions. Mainly the Falcon
flying through the star destroyer. I'm sure there are others, But my reading and research show that JJ chose to go with more actual
modelwork because it looks better and the fans wanted it.

That shot from Beyond looks good, but I think the similar shot in TMP looks better to me.

Proper2,

We do agree to disagree, I respect your views and I'm fully willing to accept my biases. I like models, I have seen many filming 
models over the years and I'm always impressed with the work/artistry that goes into them. 

As jheilman posted the work done in 2001 is unparalleled. By far the best work I have ever seen on screen.
Interstellar and Gravity to me, are examples of a movie that could not be bothered to do things the correct way.
Both movies I was really looking forward to and I ended up being very disappointed in.
Bad science, marginal script masked with flashy, splashy CGI, good direction, and above average acting.

Gravity particularly annoyed me. The CGI weightless scenes looked MUCH worse than Apollo 13.

Lastly, in my defense, visit the Enterprise at the NASM. Bask in her beauty. When the lights come on watch
as she comes to life in front of you. 50 years old and she still brings a tear to my eye!


----------



## Daniel_B

mach7 said:


> Daniel,
> 
> My understanding of The Force Awakens was that most of the ship work was practical model, with exceptions. Mainly the Falcon
> flying through the star destroyer. I'm sure there are others, But my reading and research show that JJ chose to go with more actual
> modelwork because it looks better and the fans wanted it.


Let's just say I contributed a few things to The Force Awakens. I can guarantee you there is not a single miniature model shot in the entire movie. Now, JJ may have at one point considered it, and even said he was going to, but there is none in the final product. Now, he did use full size physical X-wings and Falcons on set for the actors to stand next to. And some of the creature work were puppets enhanced with CG. But when you see a TIE, X-wing, or Falcon zipping around in the air or in space, it's CG.


----------



## Steve H

jheilman said:


> CGI and models are tools. Any idiot can pick up a tool. A craftsman can make the tool do amazing work. Most of this bias comes from people thinking CGI is an easy cop-out from doing real work. You simply hit the spaceship button and, boom, it's there.
> 
> I've built both physical and CG spaceships and they both take skill and attention to detail. As someone who is a professional in 2D design, I've seen plenty of amateur design and Photoshop work. Doesn't mean that digital design and Photoshop are crap, but it opens the door for less talented folks to build things and get them out there.
> 
> 2001 is possibly the top in model FX. But, look at Interstellar or Gravity. Beautiful CGI FX that are also stunning.
> 
> My biggest gripe with CGI is when it breaks the reality barrier. When things move and act in ways that our eyes flag as unreal. CG characters moving too fast, ships defying the laws of physics, etc. But, when reality in movement is respected, it can be done well.



And you kind of touch on what is the key problem.

Above, I mentioned that Time and Money are important to having decent CG effects. I feel Time is more important but Hollywood, Money matters.

Back in the old days, when Studios ruled and they had all those departments, everything was controlled. (This of course was good and bad but that's a long, long other discussion but wait) Larger Studios could do more things. Desilu had a very small, pretty much nonexistent effects department, one more geared to physical effects like fire, smoke, making things fall apart. Roddenberry and Star Trek had to go 'outside' to get the Enterprise built, to shoot the footage and so on.

20th Fox, OTOH, had a huge in-house effects department. They had craftsmen who could design and build whatever,and in addition to that they had a warehouse of previously built stuff that could be tapped at will. Say what you will about the stories of the Irwin Allen shows, I would posit that the effects department always delivered. 

I say all that to contrast to today. There ARE no real Studios in the classic sense. Everything is farmed out to contractors who farm out to sub-contractors and EVERYTHING is ruled by... the lowest bid. 

In the old Studio system the guy in charge would say "well, it's gonna take $20,000 and 2 months to build that model you want" and that's what it was. You either go with it or change what you want. Now you say "Hey, I got some stuff I want done, who can do it for $10 Million in 4 weeks?" (and in terms of the desired effect it really needs 2 months to really make it look the best) and there's a hungry CG group out there that's invested $200 million in server farms and workstations and they NEED the job, and the production then says "hey, you know, can we make that 3 weeks and $8 million?" and they'll say yes...

And that's the state of effects today. Lowest bidder hiring cheap labor (fresh out of school types) working under insane deadlines. Blah blah. 

There was a level of quality in the old days, even in 'quick and dirty' shots. All kinds of tricks with perspective and lighting. Forced perspective, foreground miniatures, matte paintings. 

Sorry to dive more into Irwin Allen stuff but it's a great example. Lost in Space. That first crash of the Jupiter II (nee Gemini 12 blah blah), that shot of the ship screaming past those HUGE outcrops and rocks! What a horrible planet! And those giant pinnacles were just a few feet tall, close to the camera as the model slid down its Lydecker rig a few feet further back... That STICKS with you, that image. It was so visually dramatic it was used for years in promos for Lost In Space. The play of light, the smoke drifting, all the little 'happy accidents' of light and shadow and reflection and so on. You could spend weeks creating that scene in CG, use the 'god's eye' camera to swoop around the ship as it careens (and shaky-cam. Of course there would be shaky-cam) and maybe it would be thrilling but it also become ho-hum. Seen it. 

I'm all over the place here now. Sorry. I kind of wish Star Trek had more shots like what they did over at Fox. I can't think of anything quite as visually exciting as that Jupiter II crash for Star Trek. But then again, the memorable moments in ST are the totality, not the isolated. Doomsday Machine, Decker takes the Galileo to the Machine in a suicide run. The effects aren't as gripping (they get the job done) but the drama of the moment generated by the actors, the script, the MUSIC oh god the music of that episode... Yeah, you remember it. Every one of you remember it.


----------



## Y3a

And the CGI falcon doesn't look like the Empire falcon going through the asteroid field. The CGI action would have the pilot blacking out due to the G forces. Being that the falcon is older doesn't help the argument. CGI has issues with contrast, flatness, movement and texture.

Jim Cameron mostly used physical models in Titanic.


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Daniel_B said:


> Let's just say I contributed a few things to The Force Awakens. I can guarantee you there is not a single miniature model shot in the entire movie.


It's been well documented that Episode I had more models (including spaceships) than the entire OT combined. In my experience, the subjective quality of the CG is directly proportional to how much someone likes the overall movie.


----------



## whereisanykey

I think what the difference is with CG is that you are dealing with perfect polygon geometry, whereas in a physical model there aren't perfect polygonal shapes. It is so subtle that the mind "knows" something is different but cannot define the source. In some more recent technology there is CG that increases the polygon count the closer the camera is to the object. This would help in the perception, when the polygon count result is astronomical.


----------



## Daniel_B

Hunk A Junk said:


> It's been well documented that Episode I had more models (including spaceships) than the entire OT combined. In my experience, the subjective quality of the CG is directly proportional to how much someone likes the overall movie.


Yep, the prequels had tons of miniatures. I am a visual effects artist for a living, and I'd say CG in the past hasn't looked fully real because up until recently it was a "cheat" to get an image. However, over the past 3-4 years, modern render engines no longer cheat light/shadow or surface properties. Now CG render engines do a full calculation of surface properties and lighting/shadow. You absolutely can get a 100% photoreal CG render, if the artist is good enough and has enough time. However, directors often ask CG artists to do things that break physical laws, so the CG isn't as credible. Some directors want a "style" of CG, instead of a perfect emulation of reality. Especially with animation/weight/speed. You can make a CG model look just as heavy and slow as the old miniature days, but they want faster action action action. That's why the Falcon flies like a fighter jet in The Force Awakens. If J.J. had told the CG artist to give the Falcon weight and heft, it could be done.


----------



## Proper2

Hunk A Junk said:


> In my experience, the subjective quality of the CG is directly proportional to how much someone likes the overall movie.


Very true. It's amazing what the mind decides it likes or dislikes when it's being convinced that it _should_ or _shouldn't_ like it.


----------



## Opus Penguin

https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/revealing-colors-star-trek-enterprise

Smithsonian releases colors used for restoration of Enterprise model.


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Opus Penguin said:


> https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/revealing-colors-star-trek-enterprise
> 
> Smithsonian releases colors used for restoration of Enterprise model.


Sweet! And we can move on from the 'Great Why CG Suck Just Shoot Me Now Debate of 2016.'>


----------



## Steve H

Hunk A Junk said:


> Sweet! And we can move on from the 'Great Why CG Suck Just Shoot Me Now Debate of 2016.'>


Or CAN we? >

It's all good. Now the debate will be matching the colors stated to off-the shelf hobby paint. And then the debate over 'scale color' Vs. 'matching the 11 foot miniature' stuff. And the length of Spock's toenails.


----------



## mach7

Steve H said:


> Or CAN we? >
> 
> It's all good. Now the debate will be matching the colors stated to off-the shelf hobby paint. And then the debate over 'scale color' Vs. 'matching the 11 foot miniature' stuff. And the length of Spock's toenails.


But it always looked white on my TV in the '70s! :grin2:


----------



## Daniel_B

I like to know the colors so that I have an idea of where to go. But once I have that info, it's just up to eyeballing it from there until you pick a color (or mix colors) that look right.


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Daniel_B said:


> I like to know the colors so that I have an idea of where to go. But once I have that info, it's just up to eyeballing it from there until you pick a color (or mix colors) that look right.


Rather than directly matching each color down to the micron, I think the value of knowing the real colors is to get a clear sense of how they relate to each other on the model. The grey accent colors, for example, could look more greenish or bluish depending on the hue of the base color. I've seen many wonderfully built refit kits with terrific aztek base coats that then have detail colors that are too dark, too blue, too green, etc. I know that the lighting conditions in which my TOS E will be displayed will change (sometimes natural night, sometimes CF bulbs), but if the relationships between the colors are right, it will look "right" regardless.


----------



## Proper2

Hunk A Junk said:


> Rather than directly matching each color down to the micron, I think the value of knowing the real colors is to get a clear sense of how they relate to each other on the model. The grey accent colors, for example, could look more greenish or bluish depending on the hue of the base color. I've seen many wonderfully built refit kits with terrific aztek base coats that then have detail colors that are too dark, too blue, too green, etc. I know that the lighting conditions in which my TOS E will be displayed will change (sometimes natural night, sometimes CF bulbs), but if the relationships between the colors are right, it will look "right" regardless.


As much an issue I think would be the balance or the color of the light in which you are going to be viewing your model on display. And I assume everyone is building their 1/350 to display in some special way. I still think your best bet is to match the color of the real thing scientifically, based on this new info, and then build your type of lighting around it to best match what you feel looks right to you. If you know the true color of the studio model why would your model deviate. Even at the different scale, the color would be pretty identical. Weathering might be a more individual matter, affected more by scale.


----------



## Steve H

mach7 said:


> But it always looked white on my TV in the '70s! :grin2:


Our TV gave it a blue-ish tint. I've assumed it was also due to the really worn syndication prints WKZO TV used to get.


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Proper2 said:


> If you know the true color of the studio model why would your model deviate.


Well, I'm not going to Sherwin Williams and ten other sources to get the exact perfect hue of paint. We should soon have some near equivalent recipes for using Tamiya and other model paints, so I'll certainly use those. But making sure all the colors and tones relate well to each other is more important to me than perfect symmetry with the NASM paints used.


----------



## Rahn

Steve H said:


> Our TV gave it a blue-ish tint. I've assumed it was also due to the really worn syndication prints WKZO TV used to get.


It was the same here.

In fact, when I first built the Enterprise and Klingon Cruiser back in the early 70s (about 10 years old), I painted them light blue.


----------



## Daniel_B

The blue tint was because of the bluescreen reflecting off the model.


----------



## Steve H

Daniel_B said:


> The blue tint was because of the bluescreen reflecting off the model.


That's completely possible and a rational thought, but I suspect the real cause was the fact that local stations were running 16mm syndication prints duped from the 35mm broadcast originals. They may have even been dupes of a dupe. That puts the image several generations down to begin with, then there was the mess that was early '70s NTSC color broadcasting. WKZO TV channel 3 in Kalamazoo, Michigan did not have a reputation for fine tuning their signal output.


----------



## Daniel_B

Alright, I updated my CG model by converting the LAB colors to my surface shaders. This is slightly more accurate than my version 3.


----------



## Steve H

Very pretty and well done! What's the consensus on the rings on the nacelles now that we know the 'color' we see is naught but a really funky optical illusion created by the design of the rings themselves? Should they be shaded to reflect the illusion (because the kit isn't cut the same and scaling of the part comes into play as well), should they be left 'hull color' which will likely render that part of the nacelle a bit toy like, or just toss a little light gray wash in there or what?

It's really kind of troublesome, those rings. Darn them.


----------



## Proper2

Steve H said:


> Very pretty and well done! What's the consensus on the rings on the nacelles now that we know the 'color' we see is naught but a really funky optical illusion created by the design of the rings themselves? Should they be shaded to reflect the illusion (because the kit isn't cut the same and scaling of the part comes into play as well), should they be left 'hull color' which will likely render that part of the nacelle a bit toy like, or just toss a little light gray wash in there or what?
> 
> It's really kind of troublesome, those rings. Darn them.


Yeah, them rings are right up there with "ring around the collar!" I remember Gary noting that they are the hull color? In the immortal voice of the late, great Jack Palance: "Believe it... or not."


----------



## MHaz

Steve H said:


> Very pretty and well done! What's the consensus on the rings on the nacelles now that we know the 'color' we see is naught but a really funky optical illusion created by the design of the rings themselves? Should they be shaded to reflect the illusion (because the kit isn't cut the same and scaling of the part comes into play as well), should they be left 'hull color' which will likely render that part of the nacelle a bit toy like, or just toss a little light gray wash in there or what?
> 
> It's really kind of troublesome, those rings. Darn them.


Based on this information, I'm pondering preshading the rings with something darker than my primer coat (say, MM Gunship Grey 36118), then spraying the base coat on top of this, followed by a Tamiya Smoke wash to give it some depth.


----------



## Steve H

MHaz said:


> Based on this information, I'm pondering preshading the rings with something darker than my primer coat (say, MM Gunship Grey 36118), then spraying the base coat on top of this, followed by a Tamiya Smoke wash to give it some depth.


I think you're on to something there, pre-shading may be the key to it. 

It's too bad that with the recent development (or better, mass public release as opposed to highly specialized 'trade' item) of prismatic or 'color flop' paints there isn't something that goes 'light gray/darker gray' depending on lighting and angle. That would be perfect I think, the paint doing the job of the specially and seemingly magical cut/sculpting of the rings. 

Man, that whole thing still messes me up, how they look so dark but they just aren't!


----------



## Zombie_61

mach7 said:


> But it always looked white on my TV in the '70s! :grin2:


Same here. When I saw one of the remastered episodes for the first time (Balance of Terror) and saw the Enterprise, my first thought was, "It's too dark." Now, after this beautiful restoration, I watch them and think, "Hey, where's the space dirt?" :lol:


----------



## mach7

For the rings I'm thinking of dusting some slightly darker powder in there. I will probably use makeup if I can find the correct color
but there are hobby options out there.


----------



## Trekkriffic

I used Tamiya gunmetal pastel chalk in the bussard collar grils for my 1/350 build.


----------



## SteveR

Hunk A Junk said:


> Well, I'm not going to Sherwin Williams and ten other sources to get the exact perfect hue of paint.


I was planning to go to those locations and get the paint _chips_, so I could mix my hobby paints to match.


----------



## SteveR

mach7 said:


> For the rings I'm thinking of dusting some slightly darker powder in there.


Yep. I think we're talking about ambient occlusion (AO), which is the darkening of crevices, divots and inside corners on an object.

It's something that can enhance the scale effect on _all_ scale models, but it just seems odd on this ship because that particular spot is the only place where AO seems to apply (that is, there aren't a lot of nooks & crannies on this model).

If we wanted to really apply AO overall, we would also do a _bit_ of preshading at the nacelle roots and the places where the major body sections (e.g. secondary + dorsal) meet. The filming miniature seems to have done this to some extent.

Here's some AO applied to some CG fruit: http://ucbugg.github.io/learn.ucbugg/images/lighting-a-scene/FruitbowlAO.jpg


----------



## asalaw

SteveR said:


> Yep. I think we're talking about ambient occlusion (AO), which is the darkening of crevices, divots and inside corners on an object.
> 
> It's something that can enhance the scale effect on _all_ scale models, but it just seems odd on this ship because that particular spot is the only place where AO seems to apply (that is, there aren't a lot of nooks & crannies on this model).
> 
> If we wanted to really apply AO overall, we would also do a _bit_ of preshading at the nacelle roots and the places where the major body sections (e.g. secondary + dorsal) meet. The filming miniature seems to have done this to some extent.
> 
> Here's some AO applied to some CG fruit: http://ucbugg.github.io/learn.ucbugg/images/lighting-a-scene/FruitbowlAO.jpg


Wow, thanks! I never realized the connection between AO in CG and preshading on models. Nice little lesson! You can throw these little nuggets our way any time you want. :smile2:


----------



## whereisanykey

One of the problems in CG is the use of specularity. It's nothing more than a cheat of the proper use of lighting, diffusion and reflection.


----------



## Daniel_B

whereisanykey said:


> One of the problems in CG is the use of specularity. It's nothing more than a cheat of the proper use of lighting, diffusion and reflection.


In modern render engines, you don't have to use specularity anymore. You can use physically based rendering/shaders to use actual lighting, diffusion, and reflection.


----------



## whereisanykey

True, it is not needed anymore, and hasn't been for quite some time, regardless of newer rendering engines, But there are still quite a few who seem to think it is part of reality shading.


----------



## Steve H

whereisanykey said:


> True, it is not needed anymore, and hasn't been for quite some time, regardless of newer rendering engines, But there are still quite a few who seem to think it is part of reality shading.


Well, some things tend to stick. Some of us doubtlessly still think in terms of Microweld and Squadron Green Putty even as they use different styrene cement and putty brands.


----------



## asalaw

All of which is funny, because 25 years ago, when I was first getting my head around Lightwave on the Amiga Video Toaster, I _thought_ the renderer was just calculating reality. It wasn't till maybe the last 10 years that I learned about the cheating aspect of raytracing. Thank God I can unlearn that poodoo now.


----------



## Daniel_B

The past couple of weeks I've been researching physically based rendering(PBR). My renders are already far more realistic and natural.


----------



## MGagen

As I did before with Gary Kerr's paint mixes for the 1:350 PL model, here is a handy reference guide I've created to the new Smithsonian colors for digital modelers. Click to enlarge:



And here is the earlier Kerr paint scheme for Polar Lights. 



Once the Smithsonian releases the specs for their actual restoration paint scheme I will prepare a similar document for those colors.

Enjoy!
M.


----------



## asalaw

MGagen said:


> Once the Smithsonian releases the specs for their actual restoration paint scheme I will prepare a similar document for those colors.
> 
> Enjoy!
> M.


First, THANK YOU. Deeply and profoundly. I'm a middle-aged TOS guy, but I want to have your baby. 

Second, I'm confused -- are the Smithsonian's recently published LAB colors different from what they restored the model with? Please keep it simple, if you would, cuz I'm just getting over the flu, and I'm still gooey-brained from 8 days of dextromethorphan, throat drops, pain relievers, sudafed, and 2 1/2 seasons of Nikita on Netflix. The OTC drugs were no problem, but I think that last item did permanent damage. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to do something about the snakes on my ceiling. I'm thinking DIY flamethrower.


----------



## Daniel_B

MGagen said:


> As I did before with Gary Kerr's paint mixes for the 1:350 PL model, here is a handy reference guide I've created to the new Smithsonian colors for digital modelers. Click to enlarge:
> 
> 
> 
> And here is the earlier Kerr paint scheme for Polar Lights.
> 
> 
> 
> Once the Smithsonian releases the specs for their actual restoration paint scheme I will prepare a similar document for those colors.
> 
> Enjoy!
> M.


Excellent, MGagen. Those numbers seem to match up to my conversions as well. However I had to go one step further and convert them from sRGB to linear RGB so because I use linear color space in my files.


----------



## Gary K

MGagen said:


> As I did before with Gary Kerr's paint mixes for the 1:350 PL model, here is a handy reference guide I've created to the new Smithsonian colors for digital modelers. Click to enlarge:
> 
> 
> 
> And here is the earlier Kerr paint scheme for Polar Lights.
> 
> 
> 
> Once the Smithsonian releases the specs for their actual restoration paint scheme I will prepare a similar document for those colors.
> 
> Enjoy!
> M.


Don't start painting yet, unless you're building an 11-ft replica of a 50-year-old model. The colors that the Smithsonian published are an incomplete list of age-darkened lacquers, and are too dark for a 1:350 scale or smaller model. There are additional caveats, but they can be discussed at a later time. The Smithsonian can't publish a list of hobby-appropriate colors because that would be outside their purview. Consequently, I am apparently going to write a blog on the color of the TOS Enterprise, and CBS will use their resources to help publicize it. I talked to one of the museum curators yesterday, and I'm going to run my methodology & results past the museum's paint expert before I write the blog.

Gary


----------



## MGagen

What Gary said. 

If you read the intro paragraph on my paint graphic it explains that the colors don't match what they were when fresh, nor do they match what they actually restored them with. They are the colors found on the model with all the aging and chemical changes of the ensuing fifty years. I am hopeful that the Smithsonian will also give us colorimeter readings of the restoration paints as well. But as Gary says, hobby paint matches are beyond their purview. Luckily, Gary is on the case and will give us formulas for that. 

My contribution is to make the data available in a form useful for digital modelers. L*a*b measurements of the actual restoration paints would be best for that purpose. Hopefully they will be forthcoming as well. If they are, watch this space... 

M.


----------



## Gary K

MGagen said:


> What Gary said.
> 
> If you read the intro paragraph on my paint graphic it explains that the colors don't match what they were when fresh, nor do they match what they actually restored them with. They are the colors found on the model with all the aging and chemical changes of the ensuing fifty years. I am hopeful that the Smithsonian will also give us colorimeter readings of the restoration paints as well. But as Gary says, hobby paint matches are beyond their purview. Luckily, Gary is on the case and will give us formulas for that.


I've got actual restoration paint samples on spray cards, as well as Pantone & Fed Std numbers and other info, so I'm using all this data in the formulations. I used to think that all we had to do was to sand the 11-footer in the right spots and match the original paint from the 1960s. Boy, was I wrong!

Gary


----------



## asalaw

Gary K said:


> I've got actual restoration paint samples on spray cards, as well as Pantone & Fed Std numbers and other info, so I'm using all this data in the formulations. I used to think that all we had to do was to sand the 11-footer in the right spots and match the original paint from the 1960s. Boy, was I wrong!
> 
> Gary


OMG!!! Just when I thought the anticipation was over -- WOOHOO!! :grin2:


----------



## Gregatron

This whole thing really has been the best possible 50th anniversary present for the TOS modeling community. The last few months have been fantastic! Thanks again to all those responsible.


----------



## asalaw

Gregatron said:


> This whole thing really has been the best possible 50th anniversary present for the TOS modeling community. The last few months have been fantastic! Thanks again to all those responsible.


And irresponsible!


----------



## MartyS

The restored model is on the cover of this months' Air & Space, got excited thinking it was an article on the restoration but it's just a bunch of little interviews with famous fans. But there is a nice picture of the model on the first page of the article, spanning 2 pages.


----------



## asalaw

I cannot believe I'm bumping this thread...


----------



## robn1

asalaw said:


> I cannot believe I'm bumping this thread...


I can't believe you bumped the thread and didn't add any of those new pics :wave:


----------



## JGG1701

*One Word......... Awesome!*

Good Lord I love this::nerd:






http://www.startrek.com/article/building-star-trek-world-premiere

-Jim G.G.


----------



## John P

"This video is private" :freak:


----------



## robn1

Full show on Youtube.


----------



## JGG1701

JGG1701 said:


> Good Lord I love this::nerd:
> Sneak Peek: Building Star Trek - YouTube
> 
> 
> Star Trek Building Star Trek World Premiere
> 
> -Jim G.G.





John P said:


> "This video is private" :freak:



Heh! Go figure.
Thanks for the back up robn1.:wink2:

Does anyone care to burn me a copy of this show coming up?*(PLEASE)*
I do not have the "Smith" channel.
-Jim G.G.


----------



## robn1

JGG1701 said:


> Heh! Go figure.
> Thanks for the back up robn1.:wink2:
> 
> Does anyone care to burn me a copy of this show coming up?*(PLEASE)*
> I do not have the "Smith" channel.
> -Jim G.G.


Me neither, I just saved it from YT.


----------



## MartyS

robn1 said:


> Me neither, I just saved it from YT.


That's what I did as well, in case anyone wants to know the HD version is about 2GB.

And it's not private, you just have to go to Youtube to view it, you can't view it embedded on another site.

I'm starting to dislike most stuff like this that is produced these days, the editing is just terrible, camera work not so great, and a lot of filler added. Although in this one the filler was spread out so not too annoying, but still add up all the bits of filler and there's probably 20 minutes that could have been more info on the objects in the museums.

I would think the Smithsonian would have to stay away from political ads, but YouTube might not give people control over their ads...


----------



## SteveR

Unavailable in Canada.

Pity.


----------



## Captain Robert April

I wish they'd spent a bit more time on the restoration of the model and less on the history we've already heard a thousand times before.


----------



## Proper2

Captain Robert April said:


> I wish they'd spent a bit more time on the restoration of the model and less on the history we've already heard a thousand times before.


My thoughts exactly. There should be a one- to two-hour docu on the restoration alone.


----------



## JGG1701

robn1 said:


> Me neither, I just saved it from YT.


I would just like to get some kind of _hard copy_ is all.:|

Not quite sure how to upload the video to my compuer.
-Jim G.G.


----------



## jheilman

I too get tired of the filler in these type of shows. Here's a bit about Star Trek, now here's a bit about how the Trek tech is becoming real. That stuff can be interesting on its own, but when there's a 2-hour special about Star Trek, I just want info on Star Trek, please.

Should have had much more on the restoration of the ship, maybe more interviews with cast and crew, more on props?


----------



## Irishman

The full video is viewable on the Smithsonian Channel website, though.


----------



## John P

I was getting rather tired of seeing that guy walk up the stairway with all the decorative piping.


----------



## jerrlaro

SteveR said:


> Unavailable in Canada.
> 
> Pity.


Yeah. I had to download it from a torrent.


----------



## spock62

For me, this special was a real disappointment. Spending most of the 2 hrs going over how Trek influences modern day tech has been handled by other shows on other stations. Been there, did that, nothing new to see here. And the bits about the Seattle museum exibit, while somewhat interesting, really didn't add all that much. I was hoping the special would have concentrated on the original Trek show and the restoration of the 11 footer and nothing else, but I guess they were trying to reach the largest audience possible. If you take out the modern tech and Seattle stuff, there's about 30 minutes of video worth watching. The 1966 show deserves better.


----------



## MartyS

spock62 said:


> And the bits about the Seattle museum exibit, while somewhat interesting, really didn't add all that much.


The Seattle stuff was a big disappointment. They showed a few seconds of a few TOS props and set pieces, how about some more on the pieces instead of going on and on about how little time there was to get it all displayed.

Odd that all the talking about recreating the bridge I kept thinking they should have just gone to upstate NY. :grin2: That rebuilt bridge is now open for tours.


----------



## Torgo

I just watched the Smithsonian Channel video, and here's a fun suggestion for those of you who haven't seen it yet: take a shot of your favorite liquor whenever someone says "iconic". You'll be completely sh*tfaced no later than halfway into it.


----------



## asalaw

I've been skipping the science parts and just watching the props and models stuff.


----------



## Irishman

jerrlaro said:


> Yeah. I had to download it from a torrent.



So, you weren't able to stream it from the Smithsonian Channel website??


----------



## Irishman

asalaw said:


> I've been skipping the science parts and just watching the props and models stuff.




The restoration of the 11' model is, of course, the highlight, but the real-life tractor beam is pretty freaking sweet!!


----------



## jerrlaro

Irishman said:


> So, you weren't able to stream it from the Smithsonian Channel website??


No, I couldn't. :frown2: And everywhere else I went on the internet I was unable to view the video because I'm in Canada. :surprise: So I just found a torrent and downloaded it. (One must be very careful with torrent sites; they can infect your computer.)


----------



## Irishman

jerrlaro said:


> No, I couldn't. :frown2: And everywhere else I went on the internet I was unable to view the video because I'm in Canada. :surprise: So I just found a torrent and downloaded it. (One must be very careful with torrent sites; they can infect your computer.)


I always wince when someone mentions torrenting licensed or copywrited content.


----------



## jerrlaro

Irishman said:


> I always wince when someone mentions torrenting licensed or copywrited content.


Understood. However, if one lives in the US and one can see this vid on YouTube, then one can download it right from there with no difficulty (as someone has already mentioned here).


----------



## JediDad

JGG1701 said:


> Heh! Go figure.
> Thanks for the back up robn1.:wink2:
> 
> Does anyone care to burn me a copy of this show coming up?*(PLEASE)*
> I do not have the "Smith" channel.
> -Jim G.G.


Download a program called Keepvid which will let you copy videos from Youtube to your computer. It's very easy to use and works great.


----------



## jerrlaro

JediDad said:


> Download a program called Keepvid which will let you copy videos from Youtube to your computer. It's very easy to use and works great.


Alternatively, for those who are using Firefox, the add-on 'Download YouTube Videos as MP4 1.8.8' puts a download button under each YouTube video for quick and easy saving.


----------



## Captain Robert April

Here...


----------



## JediDad

I might go in and edit out all the future technology crap. If I want to hear about that I will watch a show on it.


----------



## jerrlaro

Captain Robert April said:


> Here...
> 
> Building Star Trek (Full Episode) - YouTube


----------



## John P

Firefox has an add-on called *Download Helper* that works great.


----------



## Owen E Oulton

Not available in Canada...


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Yeah, could've done without all the filler, but always great to see video of the model in "drydock" so to speak.


----------



## asalaw

My gig ends this week. I pinky-swear I'll bump this thread with my latest pictures of the model next week.


----------



## feek61

^^^
Looking forward to it!!!


----------



## wpthomas

asalaw, that sounds terrific.

So how many grooves are on the aft nacelle caps?


----------



## Proper2

wpthomas said:


> So how many grooves are on the aft nacelle caps?


...The world may never know. :|


----------



## wpthomas

Proper2 said:


> ...The world may never know. :|


So... Three?


----------



## asalaw

GAGH!!!! And those SOB's sent out an e-mail this afternoon -- we're stuck on this gig till at least middle of next week. I _so_ hate putting RL on hold while I earn the money to support it. GRRR. 

Still pinky swearing about the pix, just not mid-week as I'd hoped. Sorry.


----------



## asalaw

wpthomas said:


> asalaw, that sounds terrific.
> 
> So how many grooves are on the aft nacelle caps?


If you knew the spacing between the groove centers, and the circumference of the end caps, you could do the math. I don't know either (but I'd guess 1/4" on center, from fuzzy memory), and my math sucks (hence lawyer and not engineer). 

I suppose you could get the radius off the 1/350, multiply that by 4, and then *2πr* (or is that *πr^2*?) <---- that's pi, not an "n."

That should give you a rough estimate if you can get the right spacing.

Or just go with Mr. Owl. Three.


----------



## Zombie_61

asalaw said:


> GAGH!!!!


Only if it's still alive.


----------



## mach7

I'll be back in 2 weeks to see her again. I'll take requests and post photos again


----------



## bigjimslade

wpthomas said:


> asalaw, that sounds terrific.
> 
> So how many grooves are on the aft nacelle caps?












You tell me?


----------



## Proper2

wpthomas said:


> So how many grooves are on the aft nacelle caps?


Is this a serious inquiry, or a conversation from a past thread that is supposed to be important?


----------



## Trek Ace

157. +/-1


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Trek Ace said:


> 157. +/-1


Were you measuring the peaks or the valleys? C'mon, people, this is important stuff! If I'm off by even 1 I'll bring shame onto my family.


----------



## KUROK

wpthomas said:


> So... Three?


Ha! Is this a reference to that old tootsie pop ad where the wise owl ate that kids candy in three licks?


----------



## edge10

Hunk A Junk said:


> Were you measuring the peaks or the valleys? C'mon, people, this is important stuff! If I'm off by even 1 I'll bring shame onto my family.


Reminds me of this old joke:


----------



## John P

Tom Sasser told me 156 grooves while he was designing the 1/1000 PL kit. 

And if you notice one of the previously posted photos of the 11-footer, the grooved sheet (or whatever it is) doesn't meet correctly on the portside where the seams are!

http://www.inpayne.com/temp/nasm024.jpg


----------



## Proper2

KUROK said:


> Ha! Is this a reference to that old tootsie pop ad where the wise owl ate that kids candy in three licks?


Exactly! That question was important as well. >


----------



## Richard Baker

John P said:


> And if you notice one of the previously posted photos of the 11-footer, the grooved sheet (or whatever it is) doesn't meet correctly on the portside where the seams are!
> 
> http://www.inpayne.com/temp/nasm024.jpg


Now there's a detail for the hard core rivet counters to latch on to...


----------



## wpthomas

Proper2 said:


> Is this a serious inquiry, or a conversation from a past thread that is supposed to be important?


Sadly, it was a serious inquiry.



KUROK said:


> Ha! Is this a reference to that old tootsie pop ad where the wise owl ate that kids candy in three licks?


Absolutely!



John P said:


> Tom Sasser told me 156 grooves while he was designing the 1/1000 PL kit.


Outstanding! Thank you. Now I need to record that someplace!



John P said:


> And if you notice one of the previously posted photos of the 11-footer, the grooved sheet (or whatever it is) doesn't meet correctly on the portside where the seams are!
> 
> http://www.inpayne.com/temp/nasm024.jpg


Sonofagun! Makes me wonder how they constructed that.


----------



## asalaw

Gary said it was corrugated plastic wrapped around the circumference. That patch you see is where the ends meet, on the off-camera side.


----------



## edge10

John P said:


> Tom Sasser told me 156 grooves while he was designing the 1/1000 PL kit.
> 
> And if you notice one of the previously posted photos of the 11-footer, the grooved sheet (or whatever it is) doesn't meet correctly on the portside where the seams are!
> 
> http://www.inpayne.com/temp/nasm024.jpg


An even bigger gaffe is, they forgot to put the wires on the inside of the ship, on the port side of the secondary hull! :surprise:


----------



## Zombie_61

Richard Baker said:


> Now there's a detail for the hard core rivet counters to latch on to...


And to complain that all of the kit producers got it wrong. :lol:


----------



## Proper2

Also need to know: How many squares on the pylon and nacelle screens.


----------



## Gary K

asalaw said:


> Gary said it was corrugated plastic wrapped around the circumference. That patch you see is where the ends meet, on the off-camera side.


I forget the exact number, but I counted the number of ribs on a rubbing I made of the original endcap. In the 1:350 kit, the ribbed portion tapers along with the nacelle, so there are no mismatches on the non-camera side of the model. The same ribbed plastic is used on the rectangular vents near the ends of the nacelles, so I stood a resin casting of a vent on end and made a hi-res scan of the pattern. I traced the pattern in Autocad and duplicated it for the rectangular vents & endcaps on the kit.

For the 2016 restoration, I counted the number of holes in hi-res photos of the original metal grills in the nacelle recess, so we were able to make exact duplicates for the 11-footer.

Gary


----------



## asalaw

Gary K said:


> I forget the exact number, but I counted the number of ribs on a rubbing I made of the original endcap. In the 1:350 kit, the ribbed portion tapers along with the nacelle, so there are no mismatches on the non-camera side of the model. The same ribbed plastic is used on the rectangular vents near the ends of the nacelles, so I stood a resin casting of a vent on end and made a hi-res scan of the pattern. I traced the pattern in Autocad and duplicated it for the rectangular vents & endcaps on the kit.
> 
> For the 2016 restoration, I counted the number of holes in hi-res photos of the original metal grills in the nacelle recess, so we were able to make exact duplicates for the 11-footer.
> 
> Gary


I remember that -- Margaret told me exactly how many on opening day, but I'm fuzzy now. Was it 158? Obviously not enough to fill the Albert Hall...


----------



## jheilman

asalaw said:


> Obviously not enough to fill the Albert Hall...


And though the holes were rather small 

They had to count them all

:grin2:


----------



## Zombie_61

And now they know how many holes it takes...oh, you know.


----------



## Proper2

...I'd love to... Oh, never mind.


----------



## wpthomas

Oh boy.


----------



## jheilman

Confirming Beatles reference fully exploited. :beatdeadhorse:


----------



## Zombie_61

Nobody was really sure.


----------



## asalaw

952. I had to go back and look it up. That may actually be enough for the Albert Hall. 

https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/enterprise-studio-model-back-display


----------



## mach7

I visited NASM again today. I noticed something that I hadn't seen before.

The filming side nacelle, outboard:










Non filming side nacelle, inboard:










filming side nacelle, inboard:










Notice the rectangle below the intercoolers, The camera sides are faired in nice,
but the non camera side is not. It has gaps around it.

And obviously it's not even on the non filming side, outboard


----------



## Steve H

Good job! 

Isn't it AMAZING how many 'cheats' there are, and how we never noticed them? I mean, a lot of that was of course shots were composed to minimize any flaws or shortcuts and the joy of low rez '60s over-air broadcast NTSC signal. 

I used to joke about how 'nobody ever builds the Enterprise as an exact replica of the 11 foot filming miniature' but now, I honestly believe it would be a huge challenge to do just that. It would be fascinating to see.


----------



## asalaw

I never noticed that detail. That's pretty awesome! 

I've gone back and looked at some of the episodes with the original VFX, and now that I know what to look for, I can see more of the model's flaws on the show. In those reverse angle shots that show the starboard inboard nacelle, you can indeed see the lack of that front intercooler detail, and you don't even see the trompe l'oeil on the nacelle because of the angle. I never even noticed that in HD before, so I can't imagine anyone noticing that in the 60s on their little B&W TV sets.

Very often our eye just fills in what it expects to see, even when it doesn't.


----------



## Steve H

Not our eyes so much as our mind 'fills in the gaps'. There's been studies over the years, it's part of human intelligence to seek patterns. It's why we can see 'pictures' in clouds and stuff like that. 

I want to give an extra shout-out to Mach7 for those pictures, because once again I stumble on an 'HUH! Will you look at THAT?' moment. 

Inboard starboard nacelle. We know there's an amazing optical illusion going on with the 'flux chiller' trench that isn't a trench, but this angle is the very first time I can recall seeing that part of that illusion, there seems to be a long rounded end rectangle (wood?) actually planted on the inside of the nacelle. 

I have never noticed that before. I had thought it was just clever paint. But there's a physical component, more than just the 'flux chiller' handle thing. If you will, an 'outie' that creates the illusion of an 'innie'. 

Just amazing.


----------



## mach7

Thanks Steve,

Are you referring to the metal grid detail on the painted on trench?










I think this angle shows it, I'll look and see if I have a better photo. 
I'm in DC again and if I can I'll get to the museum again tomorrow and
see if I can get a good photo.


----------



## Steve H

OK, that's right, they added the grid for Trouble with Tribbles, right? Because the shot needed some extra detailing and all. 

For some reason, when I saw the earlier picture it looked as if the faux trench was 'outlined' by wood or something but now I see, as you say, it's the grid planted on top of the paint. 

Still amazing and quite the optical illusion, that trench.


----------



## mach7

Steve H said:


> OK, that's right, they added the grid for Trouble with Tribbles, right? Because the shot needed some extra detailing and all.
> 
> For some reason, when I saw the earlier picture it looked as if the faux trench was 'outlined' by wood or something but now I see, as you say, it's the grid planted on top of the paint.
> 
> Still amazing and quite the optical illusion, that trench.


It was added for the Trouble with Tribbles? I never knew that. Cool.
I always assumed it was there when the model was built.

And the optical illusion is outstanding. It almost fools me when I look at it
in person.


----------



## mach7

Ok,

Next mystery.



















The light marks at 10 an 2 O clock in the 2nd ring of the deflector mount.

They look like shadows, but I looked from many angles.


----------



## Steve H

Huh. looks like some kind of brace or fin. Is that what you're seeing? Otherwise that's a REALLY weird shadow somehow being thrown.


----------



## dcarty

It's funky shadowing -- though it certainly gives the illusion of "something" rather like the inside of the right nacelle. If you compare Mach7's photo with similar photos from Trek Core where there is more ambient light in the area you see the same light patterns falling on the model but can see the construction of the model more clearly:

http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/smithsonian-model-june16/ent-smithsonian-june-2016-26.jpg


----------



## mach7

Yup, it's a funky shadow.

I went back today and really looked at the area.




























It looks like they come from the LED lights on the bottom of 
the display.


----------



## Steve H

This is important. Think about it. If these pics had appeared...oh, 15, even 10 years ago, there would be some of our circle who would leap to assume there WAS 'secret' detail in the sensor rings, and they would point to this and that as unquestionable proof that it was there, and may even haul out some early Jefferies sketch or doodle that may seem to imply that indeed there is some something jammed in that area. 

And then they would get very upset when others question that 'fact'.

Of course we are lucky, this isn't a case of ONLY the photographs existing, we still have the physical model, right there, for all to see, and we have the restoration team and all those pictures that, sadly, we don't get to see, but regardless of that there are pictures taken of the actual model in all the stages of de-construction and investigation, then the repair and re-construction and refinishing and ultimate restoration. The subject itself is the unarguable truth.


----------



## Richard Baker

Agreed- for decades we only had bits of information and blurry photos to go by.
Now we know a lot of things for sure- no speculation or educated guesses.

(of course there will always be people who will still argue regardless)


----------



## Gary K

mach7 said:


> It was added for the Trouble with Tribbles? I never knew that. Cool.
> I always assumed it was there when the model was built.
> 
> And the optical illusion is outstanding. It almost fools me when I look at it
> in person.


Margaret Weitekamp told me that a TV film crew recently tried to recreate the between-the-nacelles shot from "Tribbles". They complained that on film they couldn't tell that the one recess was fake, and Margaret replied, "Duh - that's the point!" 

Gary


----------



## asalaw

Gary K said:


> Margaret Weitekamp told me that a TV film crew recently tried to recreate the between-the-nacelles shot from "Tribbles". They complained that on film they couldn't tell that the one recess was fake, and Margaret replied, "Duh - that's the point!"
> 
> Gary


The lovely thing about that trompe l'oeil* is you can only find it if you already know it's there. 


*French for Wile E. Coyote. Datin subbed it out to him after seeing his incredible tunnel paintings in Monument Valley.


----------



## Richard Baker

asalaw said:


> The lovely thing about that trompe l'oeil* is you can only find it if you already know it's there.
> 
> 
> *French for Wile E. Coyote. Datin subbed it out to him after seeing his incredible tunnel paintings in Monument Valley.


Wile E. Coyote Painted train tunnels so realistic that trains came out of them...

I think the fake recess was a brilliant way to save money- 
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference"
-Napoleon


----------



## mach7

Ok, here is the shot in question.










A few things stick out to me.

1st, if you look close you can see the bulge of the power wires on the non-filming side
of the dorsal/neck

2nd, they tucked the nacelle wires in front of the filming nacelle, you can just barely see 
them at the junction of the strut/nacelle.

3rd, how obvious the inside of the filming side nacelle's intercooler is less detailed.

4th, how well the painted trench works!

And last , how the non-lighted saucer panel has "disappeared" with the lighting/processing.


----------



## mhvink

You gotta remember, when this was broadcast in the late '60s, it was an establishing shot that was onscreen for what? 2-3 seconds tops?
Back then there were no DVDs or consumer VCR's. Your mind's eye filled in all the details. Heck, it could have been a dinner plate and two pencils
and you would have thought, "Whoa, cool . . .", or, actually back then, "Far out, dude".


----------



## Gary K

mhvink said:


> You gotta remember, when this was broadcast in the late '60s, it was an establishing shot that was onscreen for what? 2-3 seconds tops?
> Back then there were no DVDs or consumer VCR's. Your mind's eye filled in all the details. Heck, it could have been a dinner plate and two pencils
> and you would have thought, "Whoa, cool . . .", or, actually back then, "Far out, dude".


I was there, taking pictures with my 35mm camera mounted on a tripod and a Kodak CC40R filter over the lens. But I was photographing a low-res TV screen. The kids nowadays don't realize how easy they have it (said in my best grumpy old man voice).

Gary


----------



## mach7

Gary, 

Me too, but with my kodak instamatic! (126 I think).

It did not work well!


----------



## John P

mach7 said:


> Gary,
> 
> Me too, but with my kodak instamatic! (126 I think).
> 
> It did not work well!


110 Pocket Instamatic here!

Ever get a shot where the shutter is faster than the TV scan cycle, and you only get the top half of the picture?

:lol:


----------



## mhvink

John P said:


> 110 Pocket Instamatic here!
> 
> Ever get a shot where the shutter is faster than the TV scan cycle, and you only get the top half of the picture?
> 
> :lol:


yep, 535 vertical lines of resolution, redrawn 30 times a second. You needed to have your shutter speed set to 1/15th of a second to capture the whole screen, because
it drew alternating lines each rescan (30 odd lines and 30 even lines per second).

Ahhh, isn't technology great?


----------



## Steve H

Oh, you want fun? Trying to take pictures off a TV using a Polaroid SX-70.

Not a whole lot of control over variables like shutter speed with that beautiful piece of technology.


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Pfttt. All you guys had it so cush, what with your "TVs" and "cameras." When I was a kid, we were so poor we didn't have none of those things. If I wanted to "watch" Star Trek I had to get one of the neighbor kids who had a TV to draw the ships on an Etch-a-sketch and act out the show's plot through interpretive dance!

:nerd:


----------



## mhvink

Hunk A Junk said:


> Pfttt. All you guys had it so cush, what with you "TVs" and "cameras." When I was a kid, we were so poor we didn't have none of those things. If I wanted to "watch" Star Trek I had to get one of the neighbor kids who had a TV to draw the ships on an Etch-a-sketch and act out the show's plot through interpretive dance!
> 
> :nerd:


Etch-a-sketch? Ach, luxury! When I was a kid, we had to use slate and chalk to draw the pictures!


----------



## Captain Robert April

Ooooooooooooooh, we used to _dream_ of having chalk!

We 'ad to use a pointed stick, dipped in the blood of that night's dinner, an' draw on wildebeest skins!


----------



## Steve H

mhvink said:


> Etch-a-sketch? Ach, luxury! When I was a kid, we had to use slate and chalk to draw the pictures!


Slate? SLATE? Ohhh larrr dee darrr, get Mr. rich person here! Slate. *pffft*

We would have gladly killed a neighbor for slate.


----------



## mach7

Right.....

We had to get up 'alf an 'our before we went to bed, work 28 hours a day licking the road clean with our
tongues before my dad would let me go to a friends cave and watch him draw on the cave walls, describing
what his cousins, friend who had a radio had heard what the episode 3 weeks ago was about!


----------



## mach7

John P said:


> 110 Pocket Instamatic here!
> 
> Ever get a shot where the shutter is faster than the TV scan cycle, and you only get the top half of the picture?
> 
> :lol:


Most of the time I got the big black line through the Enterprise!

Maddening.


----------



## Trekkriffic

All we had when I was a kid was rocks. No sticks. 
We smeared blood on the rocks with our fingers to make red. 
Blueberries made... blue. 
Grass made green when we could find it. 

I won't even mention how we made yellow...


----------



## jheilman

Steve H said:


> Oh, you want fun? Trying to take pictures off a TV using a Polaroid SX-70.


I also did exactly that. :grin2:


----------



## Steve H

As much as I love my SX-70 (which I need to get repaired eventually) I don't miss carrying around a big 'ol camera bag to hold the special lenses, the extra film, the insanely large strobe unit, the flashbars (because they worked better than the strobe in some cases), the pocket tripod, the remote shutter release device...

No, I do think I prefer having a digital camera, smaller than a pack of cigarettes, that can hold hundreds of pictures and even more if I carry some extra SD memory cards and a couple of extra AA batteries. 

Still want a slate however. stupid rich people and their fancy slate and chalk. CHALK.


----------



## Trekkriffic

And you can get chalk now in different COLORS! 

Man we've come a long way since I was a kid with... rocks.

rockman by trekriffic, on Flickr


----------



## Skyking918

All this reminiscing about the old days has been entertaining (I was there, too), but can we please return to the topic of the thread, namely the USS Enterprise NCC-1701 model in the Air & Space Museum???!!


----------



## asalaw

Hey Gary, any news on the paint scheme that's under development for the PL kit? I just organized all my paints, and now they just stare at me, forlorn, unused, from a pit of existential depression. I gotta stop showing them Bergman films.


----------



## Gary K

asalaw said:


> Hey Gary, any news on the paint scheme that's under development for the PL kit? I just organized all my paints, and now they just stare at me, forlorn, unused, from a pit of existential depression. I gotta stop showing them Bergman films.


I'm just waiting for Jason Eaton...

Gary


----------



## Fraley_1701

Still waiting?


----------



## Gary K

Fraley_1701 said:


> Still waiting?


Yep.

Gary


----------



## Captain Robert April

Cue the theme to Jeopardy....


----------



## TomD66

I see that some folks are already receiving the smooth saucers, and that the updated kit is supposed to be released soon. Hopefully we'll hear something shortly.


----------



## Captain Robert April

Saw a saucer in a LHS earlier. Nice hunk o' plastic.


----------



## John P

Yeah, $35 for two nice hunks of plastic. :freak:


----------



## spock62

John P said:


> Yeah, $35 for two nice hunks of plastic. :freak:


True, but at least Round 2 is giving people who already have unbuilt kits the chance to get the updated primary hull parts without having to buy an entire new kit. Unlike how they're handling the new decal sheet that comes with the "special" edition of the Eagle kit, i.e. you have to buy a new kit, at $100 increase over the standard kit, just to get the decals!


----------



## Captain Robert April

And remember, it's two very nice hunks of plastic.


----------



## MHaz

spock62 said:


> True, but at least Round 2 is giving people who already have unbuilt kits the chance to get the updated primary hull parts without having to buy an entire new kit. Unlike how they're handling the new decal sheet that comes with the "special" edition of the Eagle kit, i.e. you have to buy a new kit, at $100 increase over the standard kit, just to get the decals!


Plus, it's a lot easier for kitbashing purposes than buying a TOS kit, especially if you're doing custom nacelles and engineering hulls.


----------



## Hunk A Junk

So what is the hold up getting the paint specs?

The NASM restoration was finished months ago. What is the big mystery in telling us, "This part is _____ color, this detail is _______, and these parts here are ________."

I mean, I hate to sound impatient, but I just don't understand why this is like some national security secret.


----------



## Captain Robert April

The Smithsonian's priorities are not our priorities...


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Captain Robert April said:


> The Smithsonian's priorities are not our priorities...


Is it really the Smithsonian staff? What, is there an embargo on this information? There were like a dozen people working on this. It was all documented. They just painted a model. "Hey, what color was in that can you used?" "It was green." "Perfect. Thanks!" It's not like they were part of some secret society that burned all their notes when they were finished. 

Or were they?


----------



## jheilman

Good morning Mr. Kerr. Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to design an all-encompassing painting guide for the TOS Enterprise kit. As always, should you or any of your team specify an inaccurate color, the secretary at Round 2 will disavow any knowledge of your actions. But you must be quick. All of your records will self-destruct in 5 seconds. Good luck Gary.

:grin2::grin2::grin2:


----------



## spock62

Hunk A Junk said:


> Is it really the Smithsonian staff? What, is there an embargo on this information? There were like a dozen people working on this. It was all documented. They just painted a model. "Hey, what color was in that can you used?" "It was green." "Perfect. Thanks!" It's not like they were part of some secret society that burned all their notes when they were finished.
> 
> Or were they?


Exactly, the original has been finished for awhile now, and the people that repainted it know the colors used. How long could it take to translate that info into which Tamiya paints to use?


----------



## Zombie_61

spock62 said:


> Exactly, the original has been finished for awhile now, and the people that repainted it know the colors used. How long could it take to translate that info into which Tamiya paints to use?


In the listing for the updated "smooth hull" 1:350 scale TOS Enterprise kit on CultTVMan's website, it states "This new version will also include painting information based on the restoration of the studio model." Unfortunately, there's no mention of this in the listing for only the "Smooth Saucer" kit parts. So the information is available, they're just being selective about how they're dispersing it.


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Zombie_61 said:


> So the information is available, they're just being selective about how they're dispersing it.


In other words, "We'll tell you when we're ready to sell our product." Or to put it another way, "Nah-nah. We know something you don't know. And why should we tell you unless there's something in it for us?" 

Is that really where we are?

There's a thing called 'customer outreach.' If you tell people, "Don't paint your 1/350 kits just yet," and then sit on new information as you upgrade your product, that's just annoying. People already paid money-money for these kits -- kits that had mistakes and controversial decisions that now have to be corrected. So it seems to me the least R2 can do is be good to their customers who have already paid them and have been waiting patiently.

And they wonder why people are skeptical of R2's decisions.

Or maybe I'm reading this entirely wrong.


----------



## TomD66

I received an email from Round 2 with a link to a video of their upcoming releases and it featured the 1/350. The gentleman in the video held the new box so I'm going to speculate that the new paint guide is ready. Unless he was just holding the prototype.


----------



## Hunk A Junk

TomD66 said:


> I received an email from Round 2 with a link to a video of their upcoming releases and it featured the 1/350. The gentleman in the video held the new box so I'm going to speculate that the new paint guide is ready. Unless he was just holding the prototype.


Could you post that link?

So if it's ready, how hard is it for R2 to make a post with the info? What, we have to wait until the type setters and graphic artists finish all the printed materials first and it all gets neatly boxed up and shrinkwrapped?

I have a feeling I'm going to get some pissy "you're a rude ingrate for being impatient" response, but, jeezus, I've invested close to $400 in this kit so far. I bought the kit (that I spent hours fixing mistakes and filling gridlines, not to mention jumping through hoops to replace misshapen nacelle spinners), I bought the light kit, bought the R2 PE set (that had a staple through it that had to be returned and replaced), the Paragraphix PE set, and the Aztek Dummy paint masks. For me, this is REAL MONEY for one model kit! And now we have the Keepers of the Holy Information telling us to wait to paint our kits but then taking their sweet time blessing us with their knowledge that one would THINK they would be eager to get out as a customer service. "Hey, thanks for investing so much time and money in our product. We know you want this info -- we even told you to stop working on it until we could get it -- and here it is. Just finished figuring out the formulas 30 seconds ago. Can't wait to see what our loyal customers do with this amazing kit!" Am I wrong to think that this should be the bare minimum we should expect???


----------



## Captain Robert April

Skip to 3:07.


----------



## Hunk A Junk

So they changed the color of the plastic based on the research conducted by the NASM.

Wonderful.

And the kits are done and sealed, which means they've had the color conversion information for weeks if not months -- long enough to formulate a new color for the plastic.

"Hey, don't paint those kits just yet."


----------



## mach7

Sorry, but I'm a bit confused.

Did R2 say stop painting a new color guild is coming out?

I thought Gary posted about the new information found during the restoration.

I also think that Gary posted color references that were used during the last restoration.

It's not the Smithsonian's responsibility to post a modelers color guild for us. Nor is it R2's
responsibility to publish one outside of what they supply with the kit. They did their best with that 1st kit run based on the info that was available.
That information has been updated. I'm fairly sure R2 will supply the paint guilds with the new release. They will probably post it on their web site also. 

But as I said, Gary has posted about the colors used already.

Myself and others have posted many photos of the restored Enterprise, you can look at those and deduce most of the colors.
They are posted in this thread.


----------



## Hunk A Junk

This was a little over a month ago.



Gary K said:


> Originally Posted by asalaw
> "Hey Gary, any news on the paint scheme that's under development for the PL kit? I just organized all my paints, and now they just stare at me, forlorn, unused, from a pit of existential depression. I gotta stop showing them Bergman films. "
> 
> I'm just waiting for Jason Eaton...
> 
> Gary


Way back during the NASM restoration, we were told (jokingly?) to stop painting our kits because there would be new paint information based on the research. Obviously, not an order, but a friendly suggestion. I believe that's what was promised: an updated paint scheme translated to hobby paints we're all familiar with. Round 2 clearly has that information now and has had it long enough to change the color of the plastic they used to mold the updated (which are now finished) kits.

So, I guess my beef is that clearly R2 is sitting on this updated info. They have it, but haven't passed it along to consumers who bought the original kits and have been waiting patiently for the promised updated info. So now that the kits are made, what's the hold up? Maybe I'm wrong to be so impatient, but I've already sent them hundreds of dollars. So do i have to buy an entire new kit in order to learn the information they've promised to deliver?


----------



## Richard Baker

Maybe the new color guide will be included in a special edition kit that costs $40 more-

after that special edition eagle kit mess I would not be surprised by anything their marketing department comes up with to get at more of our money...


----------



## spock62

Back on 5/26/16, Star Trek Models: 1:350 scale developments | Collector Model ,Jamie Hood had this to say about the updated paint guides:

"..._we will be updating the color reference to reflect new-found information_ gleaned by the team of experts that are restoring the Enterprise filming miniature. Our go-to Star Trek guy, Gary Kerr, has played a key role in the restoration and is dutifully documenting the untouched/unseen areas of the miniature to determine the exact paint colors that were used. _We’ll finish off the offering with an updated 50th anniversary scheme on the packaging. We plan on giving the Pilot parts accessory pack the same treatment and everything should be out by the end of the year_..."

Additionally, someone asked if the updated colors would be available to customers that had already bought the original kit (with grid lines). Jamie's reply: _"No plans to do that, but I’m betting you’ve got friends that will share."_

So, assuming they have the color info and based on what Jamie Hood said, Round 2 has *NO* intention of posting the updated colors on their blog or Facebook page. Only people purchasing the 1/350 Anniversary/Pilot accessory kits will have the updated info. The rest of us will have to rely on someone purchasing the updated 1/350 kit and posting the info on this forum or other forums. I wouldn't call this good customer service.

Assuming they don't have the updated color info (as Gary Kerr indicated in his last post), that means the updated 1/350 kit comes with the original color references. If that's the case, I would think Jamie Hood would post the updated colors on their blog.

Bottom line, Round 2 promised to include updated color info in the reissued 50th Anniversary 1/350 kit, so it should be in the box. But, they didn't promise to include it with the separate saucer upgrade kit (which makes no sense).

Since they promised to provide this info, they should post it on their blog/Facebook page. So far, they way they're going about it, it seems like their favoring customers who will buy the 1/350 Anniversary kit and telling the rest of us to shove off.


----------



## Steve H

See, this is the kind of nonsense that makes me crazy. Or more crazy. 

There's no logical reason to NOT publish the updated color data. What I would do, I would make some special packages and offer them online only, like a nice fancy color booklet that includes the new color guide, and special 'pencil line grid' decals. Maybe for fun include registry numbers and names for the Constellation and Defiant. I would make an abridged version of the new color guide a free PDF. I would consider making cardboard stencils for the grid lines for those that would want to draw or even airbrush them on. 

I would do these things to enhance the model building experience. I would NOT seek to punish the customers who lovingly invested in the first release of the kit by forcing them to buy a whole new kit for the color guide. They KIND OF understood that when they made the new tool smooth saucer available on its own. But now they somehow forgot. 

I don't know what's going on over at R2 but man, somebody is sure making all the wrong choices when decisions are made.


----------



## Hunk A Junk

The fact that they've had to make a smooth saucer, and fix the position of lights, Round 2 is implicitly admitting that their first release had flaws. Yet, to all the customers who bought that release, and who've corrected those flaws that Round 2 admits to making, it seems like the LEAST they could do is to make the color guide available to existing 1/350 customers without cynically hoping to yank even more money from our wallets. Gawd, I'm all for capitalism, but... man.

I'd rather be wrong about this. I'd rather Jamie, Gary, or some other official at R2 would simply say, "Oh no, we ARE going to let existing customers know the proper paint colors. Here's the link to the pdf..." I'd be great if they did that, I dunno, today sometime.

But considering they've had this information for months now, 'm not holding my breath.


----------



## John P

Oy vay, people. :freak:


----------



## Hunk A Junk

John P said:


> Oy vay, people. :freak:


I know. I get into the weeds on this stuff, but still... it's Hobby _talk._

I had this thought. Did Round2/PL pay for the NASM restoration? Were they a driving force/financial partner in it? The Enterprise model, as part of the Smithsonian collection, now belongs to the American people, so I assume the restoration was paid for by taxpayers. So was Gary's consultant work on the project paid for by taxpayers or Round 2? If Round 2 wasn't paying him a salary for his work, or if he was a freelance consultant, why can't he tell us the "secrets" about the paint used and what that would translate to in hobby paint? Why does Round 2 get to be the gatekeeper of the sacred knowledge?

Granted, this will all be a moot point when someone finally gets their hands on a kit and scans the color guide info, but I'd argue there's a principle involved. We could've known this stuff months ago but for whatever reason the people who have been blessed with access to the original model that belongs, ostensibly, to "the people" seem to have decided they alone get to determine when and how that information is distributed. With great power comes great responsibility, and all that...


----------



## robn1

Hunk A Junk said:


> I had this thought. Did Round2/PL pay for the NASM restoration?...


The Enterprise is part of The Milestones of Flight Hall, which was funded by a grant from Boeing. As far as I know the Enterprise restoration was paid for out of this grant.


----------



## Trek Ace

My impression is that this so-called "promise" is being taken too far. All of the original color information that was sampled and gathered by the Smithsonian has already been released. If the restoration was indeed paid for with tax payer money or even a grant, then the Smithsonian has been more than generous with disclosing their findings on the different paint colors used on the original paint layers and component parts, even to the point of listing some of the model paint colors. This information was all released a few months back as a series of articles on the Smithsonian website and blog. Therefore, anyone was free to use that information to come up with their own paint equivalents using the many online resources that are available, or visiting their local auto paint store to have a professional do color matches and provide custom mixes.

Now, if Round 2 is paying Gary (or some other individual) to determine exact matches or formulae for mixing model paint equivalents, then they should be able to determine when, how and in what venue the information is released. It may not be the answer that we want to hear, but if they are paying for it, then they can determine how that information is released - whether it be in the form of the new model kit re-release, their blog, etc., despite our own sense of entitlement.


----------



## Richard Baker

So the official revised color guide is a lever to get people to buy the 50th anniversary edition of the kit.
A had hoped Round 2 would come up with something extra special to honor the Star Trek Anniversary but this does seem to be an odd choice.
Apparently Jamie expects the information to begin circulating amongst sharing friends regardless of how Round 2 plans to release it- what on earth could be gained but restricting that information with a cynical ploy to push a kit release? Quite frankly it does seem to be a slap in the face to all those loyal builders who already have the kit, the very people who made this TOS-E kit so profitable to Round 2 in the first place.

Why restrict information which is going to circulate anyway? It just pisses off loyal customers who have been waiting since the restoration began to make their build as accurate as possible and will probably sell no better that that stupid special edition Eagle kit they are pushing.

I think the Round 2 marketing department is their own worst enemy.


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Trek Ace said:


> Now, if Round 2 is paying Gary (or some other individual) to determine exact matches or formulae for mixing model paint equivalents, then they should be able to determine when, how and in what venue the information is released. It may not be the answer that we want to hear, but if they are paying for it, then they can determine how that information is released - whether it be in the form of the new model kit re-release, their blog, etc., despite our own sense of entitlement.


True, but I would take issue with the word "entitlement" which implies, whether intended or not, a demand that exceeds what was is considered fair. Many of us have invested hundreds of dollars in our kits so far. Round 2 happily took our money. Is buying that kit and all the supplemental stuff a binding contract that Round 2 OWES us updates and new information? Of course not. But dammit, it sure would be good customer service to budge just an inch on something that will eventually become public knowledge anyway -- especially since the original release had flaws that Round2 is now clearly correcting. And it's not exactly asking for free smooth saucers or other goodies. It's really more an issue of treating existing customers like, I dunno, customers and not suckers.


----------



## Opus Penguin

In the video above he stats the model will come with a new color guide. Isn't this what we were waiting for?


----------



## Newbie123

Too bad there isn't some kind of way of sharing information quickly with people in different locations. That way, when someone gets something like an "official" color scheme in their new kit, they could copy it and share it with whoever wanted it. Then no one would have to buy a new kit just to get some mixing instructions. Ah, if there was only some way of doing that. Or of going back and looking at all the information that was already released. Too bad that's lost in the past and all gone forever. If only we had computers like they did in Star Trek.


----------



## Proper2

Newbie123 said:


> Too bad there isn't some kind of way of sharing information quickly with people in different locations.


You mean like digitally via a website or PDF? Crazy idea, but maybe someday... :surprise:


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Newbie123 said:


> Too bad there isn't some kind of way of sharing information quickly with people in different locations. That way, when someone gets something like an "official" color scheme in their new kit, they could copy it and share it with whoever wanted it. Then no one would have to buy a new kit just to get some mixing instructions. Ah, if there was only some way of doing that. Or of going back and looking at all the information that was already released. Too bad that's lost in the past and all gone forever. If only we had computers like they did in Star Trek.


Weird how despite "computers" that can exchange "information" quickly, this information has been known for months and yet we still don't have it.

Wouldn't it have been great if Round 2 had used THIER "computers" to spread this "information" to their existing customers months ago?


----------



## Captain Robert April

Anyone wanna speculate on how fast the guide gets posted once the kit becomes available?


----------



## gene1138

Captain Robert April said:


> Anyone wanna speculate on how fast the guide gets posted once the kit becomes available?


Within hours would be my guess.


----------



## Steve H

Newbie123 said:


> Too bad there isn't some kind of way of sharing information quickly with people in different locations. That way, when someone gets something like an "official" color scheme in their new kit, they could copy it and share it with whoever wanted it. Then no one would have to buy a new kit just to get some mixing instructions. Ah, if there was only some way of doing that. Or of going back and looking at all the information that was already released. Too bad that's lost in the past and all gone forever. If only we had computers like they did in Star Trek.


*pfft* Crazy talk. Why, next thing you'd suggest is some way to capture information, like taking a picture, and being able to store it, sort it, and call it up with a few strokes of a keyboard. Like a...super microfiche only the information was malleable. Like an encyclopedia with large blank spaces so you could add your own thoughts. 

HAHAHAAHAHA what insane thinking! What next, watching movies in your home, any movie any time you want? Oh like Hollywood would allow THAT!


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Captain Robert April said:


> Anyone wanna speculate on how fast the guide gets posted once the kit becomes available?


Minutes.

But good on Round 2 for getting more suckers-- uh, customers to buy their updated kit. Then finally they'll have the resources they need to produce more of the kits we want -- like a re-pop of the Scorpion with an exclusive lithograph and friendship pin!


----------



## spock62

Trek Ace said:


> All of the original color information that was sampled and gathered by the Smithsonian has already been released. If the restoration was indeed paid for with tax payer money or even a grant, then the Smithsonian has been more than generous with disclosing their findings on the different paint colors used on the original paint layers and component parts, even to the point of listing some of the model paint colors. This information was all released a few months back as a series of articles on the Smithsonian website and blog. Therefore, anyone was free to use that information to come up with their own paint equivalents using the many online resources that are available, or visiting their local auto paint store to have a professional do color matches and provide custom mixes.


I didn't follow the blogs your referring to, and this is the only page I came across: https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/revealing-colors-star-trek-enterprise

At the bottom of the page there are colors listed based on _*house paints*_, *not* model paints. Most colors are listed as approx matches with notes like "less green, slightly more red, etc.". Maybe your OK with having to make "guesstimates" in converting this info to usable model paint choices or having auto paint mixed for the job, but I, and I expect many others, are not. 

The original issue of the kit listed the paints needed (Tamyia) and what ratios to mix different colors to achieve the desired result. The reissued kit will have the same. Listing these updated model paints/mix ratios is all some of us are asking for.



Trek Ace said:


> Now, if Round 2 is paying Gary (or some other individual) to determine exact matches or formula for mixing model paint equivalents, then they should be able to determine when, how and in what venue the information is released. It may not be the answer that we want to hear, but if they are paying for it, then they can determine how that information is released - whether it be in the form of the new model kit re-release, their blog, etc., despite our own sense of entitlement.


This has nothing to do with entitlement, but everything to do with Round 2 showing their customers that they appreciate their continued support. Withholding the info and requiring you to purchase the reissued kit or wait for someone who purchases the kit to post the info online, shows quite the opposite.

I know someone will post the info. The real point of all of this is why Round 2 doesn't care enough to post it themselves.


----------



## Captain Robert April

Y'know, there are some of us who've held on buying the kit in the first place, for various reasons, and as for myself, I'm feeling rather vindicated for waiting.


----------



## Trek Ace

spock62 said:


> Maybe your OK with having to make "guesstimates" in converting this info to usable model paint choices or having auto paint mixed for the job, but I, and I expect many others, are not.


That's why, when the Smithsonian published that article with the paint information, instead of whining, I took the paint codes and translated them into a color chip chart, where I then created custom paint mixes to match.

I'm pushing 81, and I stay sharp by actually exercising my brain with creative challenges instead of crying about how someone else won't just "give" me the information I seek without any effort on my part.

So, here is a copy of my own color chart (watermarked, of course!) that I made fifteen minutes after that article was posted. 










So, knock yourself out! Take this chart and do what should be a most basic skill for most modelers and mix or match the chips to your favorite brand of model paint. Or, continue whining until someone takes pity on your pathetic situation. :freak:



You're welcome.


----------



## electric indigo

You might take into consideration that computer screens produce an amazing variety of color deviations. That might also have withhold some modelers here from relying on the countless reference photographs available since the restoration...


----------



## Proper2

electric indigo said:


> You might take into consideration that computer screens produce an amazing variety of color deviations. That might also have withhold some modelers here from relying on the countless reference photographs available since the restoration...


This is exactly right. That chart served up as an image, with a side of attitude, is practically useless unless it includes numbers. Just sayin'...


----------



## Richard Baker

Each monitor at work displays differently- we use C/Y/M/K or R/G/B to communicate. The Pantone Color Matching System also works but it is stepped and has some blind spots.


----------



## mach7




----------



## JGG1701

Personally I will stick with my "rattle can" Light Ghost Gray. :nerd:
-Jim G.G.


----------



## Gary K

Some observations & comments:

1. Creating a painting guide for R2 is not part of the Smithsonian's responsibilities. They can use Pantone and other color-matching systems in-house, but they're prohibited from giving Pantone colors publicly, because it's a proprietary color space. Fortunately, there are no rules that say that I can't use their in-house color matches.

2. Jamie Hood at Round 2 couldn't formulate a painting guide because he doesn't have access to full lines of various hobby paints - and he's swamped with work, as usual. I'm pretty much in the same boat. The nearest surviving hobby shops are nearly an hour's drive from me, and they're mere shadows of their former selves, with limited selections of paint.

3. Jamie was able to incorporate my corrected colors for the red & yellow markings on the decal sheet, but the instructions had to go to press before the color matches were made.

4. The article on the painting guide and annotated orthos are all done, and I'm just waiting for Jason Eaton to make the color matches. Jason has been delayed by work & a host of other factors, but says he'll bust his ass this weekend on color matching.

5. Don't bother trying to match colors by looking at charts or photos on computer monitors. 'Tain't possible.

Gary


----------



## JGG1701

So Light Ghost Gray it is then.:grin2:
-Jim G.G.


----------



## Captain Robert April

I recall an observation that simply applying a glosscoat to the bare plastic did the job pretty well, especially if the plastic is already the right color. It would just be a matter of the details at that point.


----------



## Paulbo

Captain Robert April said:


> I recall an observation that simply applying a glosscoat to the bare plastic did the job pretty well, especially if the plastic is already the right color. It would just be a matter of the details at that point.


That was the plastic's color before the restoration - i.e. the old best guess. The new color chart is based on all the research that was done peeling back 50 years of paint to get to the original layer, then color correcting it for oxidation. (Gary, please correct my poor interpretation of your work on this if I don't have the process right.)


----------



## Proper2

The only people to observe the original color that everyone is so obsessed with are those in the studio during filming. And the restorers, of course—but even then, colors age and change over time, so the color that it was on the first day of filming was different than that on the last day of filming. And different again years later before the first restoration. So, the "real" color of the Enterprise is an elusive "holy grail." And for the fans who watched the show, this color varies as widely as everyone's televisions and their color settings. So, when you think about it, what does it matter what the "true" color is/was as long as it is a version of what you believe you saw on screen?


----------



## jimkirk

Trek Ace said:


> That's why, when the Smithsonian published that article with the paint information, instead of whining, I took the paint codes and translated them into a color chip chart, where I then created custom paint mixes to match.
> 
> I'm pushing 81, and I stay sharp by actually exercising my brain with creative challenges instead of crying about how someone else won't just "give" me the information I seek without any effort on my part.
> 
> So, here is a copy of my own color chart (watermarked, of course!) that I made fifteen minutes after that article was posted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, knock yourself out! Take this chart and do what should be a most basic skill for most modelers and mix or match the chips to your favorite brand of model paint. Or, continue whining until someone takes pity on your pathetic situation. :freak:
> 
> 
> 
> You're welcome.



Some of have lives and don't have the time to spend doing all that. We are not retired like you.
It is enough to research all the other stuff to get the model close to correct.
So get off your high horse there and quit being an asshole.


----------



## Captain Robert April

Paulbo said:


> That was the plastic's color before the restoration - i.e. the old best guess. The new color chart is based on all the research that was done peeling back 50 years of paint to get to the original layer, then color correcting it for oxidation. (Gary, please correct my poor interpretation of your work on this if I don't have the process right.)


And the color of the plastic is being changed _again_ to reflect the new information.

My point is that we're going to be presented with a model that's (supposedly) already the proper color, it doesn't take much to make it look a bit less plastic, so isn't getting all worked up over a new color guide just a bit on the hyperventilating side?


----------



## Newbie123

jimkirk said:


> Some of have lives and don't have the time to spend doing all that. We are not retired like you.
> It is enough to research all the other stuff to get the model close to correct.
> So get off your high horse there and quit being an asshole.


Man, you take the Prick of the Day Award.


----------



## Trek Ace

jimkirk said:


> Some of have lives and don't have the time to spend doing all that. We are not retired like you.
> It is enough to research all the other stuff to get the model close to correct.
> So get off your high horse there and quit being an asshole.


First off, I spent a grand total of fifteen minutes creating that color chart from the number codes. And, yes, I do have a life. I am still working up to sixteen-hour days in the industry, and am in good health and far from considering retirement.

As to being an a$$hole - well, everybody has one - and now, so do we.

Congratulations!


----------



## Gary K

Paulbo said:


> That was the plastic's color before the restoration - i.e. the old best guess. The new color chart is based on all the research that was done peeling back 50 years of paint to get to the original layer, then color correcting it for oxidation. (Gary, please correct my poor interpretation of your work on this if I don't have the process right.)


The plastic color was simply the factory's stock color that was closest to the chip. Don't read too much into it.

The problem with the old paint was less a problem of oxidation, and more a problem of some of the lacquer-based paint chemically darkening more than others with age. Basically, I had to put the colors back in order, according to our ref photos; i.e., Color A is darker than Color B, and Color B is darker than Color C. I also had to back some yellowed shellac out of a couple of the colors. Lastly, I simulated the colors of some tinted oversprays on the hull color (e.g., the tan engraved rings & the tan arc on the upper saucer).

Gary


----------



## Steve H

Proper2 said:


> The only people to observe the original color that everyone is so obsessed with are those in the studio during filming. And the restorers, of course—but even then, colors age and change over time, so the color that it was on the first day of filming was different than that on the last day of filming. And different again years later before the first restoration. So, the "real" color of the Enterprise is an elusive "holy grail." And for the fans who watched the show, this color varies as widely as everyone's televisions and their color settings. So, when you think about it, what does it matter what the "true" color is/was as long as it is a version of what you believe you saw on screen?


Well, that's been my mantra from the first. It's not a thing that, were one to be judged on it, could result in, like, death (make that DEATH!!!) if one were to get it 'wrong'. 

And it's not like one is forced to submit color chips and documentation to some authority in order to prove you have painted the kit 'correctly'. 

If one were to take a F-22 and paint it up in German WW II 1944 winter camouflage, That's not going to win any accuracy awards at any model show (but it MIGHT get a nod for interesting or unusual 'outside the box' crafting) but the Enterprise exists, mainly, in the mind and the memory. 'Everybody knows' the Enterprise is a kind of off-white or light gray. Specific, exact, precise 1966 paint color? What boots it? It matters not. Except maybe bragging rights but again, what does it gain other than that same bragging. 

To my mind the ONLY time it matters is if one takes the huge task of making an accurate replica of the filming model, and THAT, my friends, means you tear off all that left side detail and do the other things. If you're not doing that you can not be said to be building a replica of the actual filming miniature. 

Myself, I want to know the colors and the process and the detective work because I like to learn such things. This is why I wish there was going to be a book about "what we learned from the restoration job", there's some real history to be learned.


----------



## Gregatron

People need to stop whining about gridlines. Round 2's decision to include them in the first issue of the kit was quite well-reasoned, I think. The model depicts a fiction spaceship, not a filming miniature, and the penciled gridlines were intended to represent what would presumably be engraved detailing on the "real" ship. If you don't like it, fill it. But, hey, wait, Round 2 has bowed to all of the nastiness and whining, and has gone of out of their way to release a smooth saucer, too! 

People also need to stop whining about the paint codes. The revised color scheme is forthcoming. And it's not like the current kit instructions tell you to paint the ship neon pink with green highlights. We're talking about some relatively minor variances in color and detail, that only obsessive purists like us care about. 


As I write this, Thanksgiving is some 25 minutes away. Maybe we should all take a step back, be thankful for what we have, and have fun bulding and discussing hobby models. There's a lot of discord here in these United States, right now, and there are more important things to worry about than wasting time, energy, and hurt feelings over shades of paint and fillable gridlines.


IDIC!


----------



## Steve H

Gregatron said:


> People need to stop whining about gridlines. Round 2's decision to include them in the first issue of the kit was quite well-reasoned, I think. The model depicts a fiction spaceship, not a filming miniature, and the penciled gridlines were intended to represent what would presumably be engraved detailing on the "real" ship. If you don't like it, fill it. But, hey, wait, Round 2 has bowed to all of the nastiness and whining, and has gone of out of their way to release a smooth saucer, too!
> 
> People also need to stop whining about the paint codes. The revised color scheme is forthcoming. And it's not like the current kit instructions tell you to paint the ship neon pink with green highlights. We're talking about some relatively minor variances in color and detail, that only obsessive purists like us care about.
> 
> 
> As I write this, Thanksgiving is some 25 minutes away. Maybe we should all take a step back, be thankful for what we have, and have fun bulding and discussing hobby models. There's a lot of discord here in these United States, right now, and there are more important things to worry about than wasting time, energy, and hurt feelings over shades of paint and fillable gridlines.
> 
> 
> IDIC!


Of course IDIC means the opinions of those that disagree have value too... 

OK, I really don't disagree with anything you say, but I think it helps to go back to first principles and recall context for all the heat. 

And please, someone correct me if I mis-remember.

What I recall was, people, our little vox populi were in favor of engraved grid lines IF they were 'Hasegawa fine', that hair thin delicate kind of line. 

Test shots were not this. There were complaints. I strongly recall some statement along the lines of "Don't worry, the factory swears the final kit will indeed be those super delicate Hasegawa/Tamiya quality engraved lines".

And they were not.

Now, my thought would be if the factory failed to make the parts to spec, if for whatever reason they just could not figure out how to make super fine and subtle engraved lines when that was what was desired and called for, my impulse would have been to tell the factory they screwed up, don't bother with the darn lines just make it smooth.

This did not happen. 

(honestly, I think the problem was the plans. Not that they were wrong, but I can't think of a way to make those lines so thin at to be near invisible on a drawing, and I would bet the workers were tearing their hair out screaming "But it looks exactly like this picture!! See? Lines! We did it right, just like this drawing!". I get that there was likely callouts and explanations about how to do the lines but I can easily believe 'looking at the picture' took precedent over reading a block of text, even if translated to Chinese )

Anyway, people shrugged their shoulders, got out the putty and the sandpaper and did their thing and made beautiful models. Now there's an option that doesn't involve all that work and I'm glad to see it. Maybe one day I'll actually get up the guts to buy and build one of these beasts but I've got a couple of first issue 1/1000 Enterprises yelling at me to get off my arse and build one of them, so... 

(someday, someday)


----------



## CessnaDriver

Perhaps a paint company will realize that making a new color "starship grey" will sell well given the E has got to be the most popular model ever made.


----------



## StarshipClass

I like the fact that there have been two versions of the model kit now. I like them both for different reasons. The grid lines are preferable for any kitbashings, IMHO, and the smooth hulls are better for the original 1701.

If they would make a special edition without the lights but with all the optional clear parts and the parts for the pilot versions and with the smooth hulls (since the grid lines were not present on the pilot versions) we'd have a real winner. Variety is the spice of life, after all.

And to all those like Kerr and Gregatron and Shaw and Payne and others who have shared/are sharing their research and expertise, this reader is very appreciative. :thumbsup:


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Since I was the one who, I guess, triggered all this hoo-haw about the paint specs by asking, "What's the hold up getting the information?" I'll just say this: It's NOT that I can't blend something approximate to the color from the restoration based on the colors the Smithsonian released. In fact, I don't need a perfect match and don't think it's even necessary given differences in room lighting, etc.

No, what I assumed when Gary suggested, "stop painting your models because we have new information" is that there were things they learned -- like that a piece we all thought was X color is actually Y, or "here's where there's 'space mud' and here's where the part is actually just a shade darker" -- THAT kind of stuff is what would be revealed. In other words, a comprehensive guide to how the original was painted, what techniques were used or not used, and how it could be replicated on the model. It was suggested there were important details BEYOND simply knowing what brand of house paint the original builders used so it can be matched. Given everything we've learned about the original over the past few years, it sure seemed like the old girl had a few more secrets.

Truthfully, who knows if Round 2's guide is even going to be so comprehensive. If it's not, then why bother suggesting we wait until new information can be released? Why boast about this great new information in the anniversary kit release? It's either information of value or it's not -- and if it's not, that would make this "new color guide" a pretty empty marketing gimmick. If the information isn't anything more than matching the colors the Smithsonian already released, why the dramatics?


----------



## JGG1701

*Speeking of Saucers.................*

Most of you know that I have the upper & lower half's that I sanded the gridlines off. There is little warp.


http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/99-sc...-enterprise-1-350th-desperation-question.html




Over all the saucers are in Great shape.
You may ask why I am I selling these?
I ordered & expecting to receive the smooth version(s) soon 


I will be willing to trade almost anything Sci - Fi related.
Or I can trade for Tamiya "rattle cans" of Lacquer spay paints supplies etc..... 
Please email me with possibilities. My PM box is full of thing I am saving for later. So if you would just email me, that would be fine.
Thank you in advance.
-Jim G.G.


----------



## Gary K

Hunk A Junk said:


> Since I was the one who, I guess, triggered all this hoo-haw about the paint specs by asking, "What's the hold up getting the information?" I'll just say this: It's NOT that I can't blend something approximate to the color from the restoration based on the colors the Smithsonian released. In fact, I don't need a perfect match and don't think it's even necessary given differences in room lighting, etc.
> 
> No, what I assumed when Gary suggested, "stop painting your models because we have new information" is that there were things they learned -- like that a piece we all thought was X color is actually Y, or "here's where there's 'space mud' and here's where the part is actually just a shade darker" -- THAT kind of stuff is what would be revealed. In other words, a comprehensive guide to how the original was painted, what techniques were used or not used, and how it could be replicated on the model. It was suggested there were important details BEYOND simply knowing what brand of house paint the original builders used so it can be matched. Given everything we've learned about the original over the past few years, it sure seemed like the old girl had a few more secrets.
> 
> Truthfully, who knows if Round 2's guide is even going to be so comprehensive. If it's not, then why bother suggesting we wait until new information can be released? Why boast about this great new information in the anniversary kit release? It's either information of value or it's not -- and if it's not, that would make this "new color guide" a pretty empty marketing gimmick. If the information isn't anything more than matching the colors the Smithsonian already released, why the dramatics?


First of all , this is not Round 2's painting guide. Round 2 has not contributed a dime, and this is wholly my project. 

Second, I've spent a good chunk of change on this project, but this is not the only thing that I need to work on. Life is complicated, and I can't devote every minute of the day to this project.

Third, the only dramatics are on Hobby Talk.

Fourth, nobody is holding a gun to your head. Paint your model whatever color you want. I do not care.

Gary


----------



## Proper2

There are certainly more important things in life to deal with. But to be a little bit fair, the 'dramatics' are all about raising expectations on something that many people are very eager and excited about and then by some appearances not delivering.


----------



## Gary K

Proper2 said:


> There are certainly more important things in life to deal with. But to be a little bit fair, the 'dramatics' are all about raising expectations on something that many people are very eager and excited about and then by some appearances not delivering.


You want to do the research, then knock yourself out. I'll sit on the sidelines and criticize you.

Gary


----------



## Captain Robert April

Gary doesn't love us anymore.


----------



## mhvink

Captain Robert April said:


> Gary doesn't love us anymore.


Well, do you blame him? Gary does what he can, when he can and he gets nothing but grief. I have to give him kudos for all he has done for the project.
And all you guys have your porridge bowls out saying, "Please sir, can I have some more".


----------



## Steve H

mhvink said:


> Well, do you blame him? Gary does what he can, when he can and he gets nothing but grief. I have to give him kudos for all he has done for the project.
> And all you guys have your porridge bowls out saying, "Please sir, can I have some more".


It's the internet. Everyone wants something. Tone of voice doesn't translate to print well. What, in a conversation, may be a reasoned, calm statement of request can come across as whiny needy greedy in text.

I am just as guilty. I want a book that won't happen (or so it seems). 

Part of the problem is, I believe, the entire complex relationship we have here, the fact that Gary has worked for R2 in some efforts (and hopefully many more), then the fact of his working on the restoration team (as a private citizen and private contractor I assume), then the fact that the restoration team had specific goals they were contracted to achieve that were SOLELY for the purposes OF the restoration, and the various contracts and agreements therein, THEN the complications of there being a rights holder involved (Paramount/CBS/Viacom) and the need to protect their property rights and THEN there was the aspect of trying to keep some things secret until the unveiling during the promotional event...

It's pretty easy to see how some assumptions could be made that really aren't proper 'a-b-c' connections. 

R2 may WANT to have a new and improved color guide and Gary may be able to provide them that, IF his contract under the guidelines of the restoration team allows AND if he doesn't have a conflicting contract with another 'production' that would limit him. Then he's got whatever other work he has to do to keep body and soul together. Then there's this pesky holiday season getting in the way and all the stress THAT entails. 

And then see above, numerous comments along the lines of "Paint it the way that it looks good to you, nobody can say you're wrong". 

Since I'm not gonna get my "What we learned from the Enterprise: 50 years of obsessing over 11 feet of wood, metal and plastic" book and I have to deal with that truth, just everybody chill over the color guide business. If it is gonna happen, it'll happen. 

I regret we've tripped Gary's 'ticked off' button. I hope he'll see the humor of all this some day.


----------



## feek61

Thanks to Gary we have a massive amount of information on the Enterprise miniature that otherwise we would not have. It's pretty shitty to give him grief.


----------



## Newbie123

[QUOTE

I regret we've tripped Gary's 'ticked off' button. I hope he'll see the humor of all this some day. [/QUOTE]

And that's probably as close as Gary or anyone else who has been attacked on this thread will get. Personally, I don't think some of the people here will see the humor in their treatment someday. There is another thread on this forum "Why are things so dead around here lately?" I find it interesting that it is one of the most active threads here, with almost as many posts as the one about the new 2 foot Star Destroyer that just about any sf modeller has been waiting for for 40 freakin' years. 

Maybe it's so dead around here because over the last few years, HT has become often quite whiny, immature, let's-look-at-the train-wreck, and/or even toxic and has driven many of the very best modellers and people, including the just-mentioned Shaw, away. I've been here for a decade as Starseeker and during a long time-out from HT managed to miss my chance to re-register, so here I am as New. I check in every few weeks or month to see what a couple on-line friends are up to, or to see if Gary is posting anything unmissable. 

But, no, mostly the train wreck just continues. Or maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm just missing that tone of voice that makes it okay to rant, whine, infantalize, or call someone an "asshole". Lord, I miss the moderators of old. 

Good luck with your builds, Hunk- and others. Seems like your having a whole lot of fun with them. And I notice that you're stating to infest other forums like RPF, strangely getting much the same reception from their members. You might as yourself why.

Well, I guess that's the best of HT for another month. Sigh.


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Gary K said:


> First of all , this is not Round 2's painting guide. Round 2 has not contributed a dime, and this is wholly my project.
> 
> Second, I've spent a good chunk of change on this project, but this is not the only thing that I need to work on. Life is complicated, and I can't devote every minute of the day to this project.
> 
> Third, the only dramatics are on Hobby Talk.
> 
> Fourth, nobody is holding a gun to your head. Paint your model whatever color you want. I do not care.
> 
> Gary


Gary, I'm not trying to give you grief. I have no animosity toward you. Can we start from there? You've been great giving us info -- and everyone greatly appreciates it. Maybe here's where the confusion lies (at least for me). *I don't know what "project" you're working on or who's funding it. Is this something you've announced? If you have, forgive me for missing that post.*

The facts I've been going on are these: 

-The Smithsonian did a restoration.
-You were part of that restoration (As part of the staff? As a volunteer? An expert who got access?)
-You found out all sorts of new information that you were passing along to us (and, again, thank you for that!).
-You suggested we wait to paint our models (which I consider a very helpful friendly suggestion).
-The Smithsonian posted some info on the types of paints used, but it seemed suggested that there would be more information on the specifics of how the miniature was painted -- in essence, there were more secrets to share.
-The restored E went on display, everyone was thrilled with the results. I and everyone else threw well-earned praise to everyone involved, including you.

Okay, here's where the confusion comes.

-Round2 announces the Smooth saucer release and their anniversary edition promising a new paint guide based on the information gathered from the restoration. *If you are NOT involved in Round2's updated guide, I hope you can forgive any confusion I have in criticizing THEM for sitting on the information they have.* My criticism has ONLY been aimed at Round2 for having updated information and not sharing it with customers who already purchased the kit.

*To be clear, I'm not blaming YOU for suggesting we wait to paint our kits and then not delivering info to my impatient, greedy hands. My impatience is aimed squarely at Round2* (and my reason for that is that I've already paid hundreds of dollars to them toward this kit and I feel, without a sense of entitlement, that it would be good customer relations on their part to share what they know. If I hadn't paid out money I wouldn't expect a damn thing). 

If you are not a part of Round2's guide, I apologize for any confusion. 

*If you're doing your own thing on your own dime -- a book, a guide, a Broadway musical -- I have absolutely no animosity toward you in doing whatever you have to do at your own pace.*

I don't think I'm alone in this confusion since you obviously were an advisor on Round2's original kit and then you were part of the restoration team. There's, perhaps, a blurred line between where your work for Round2 ends and your own independent work begins.

To sum up: Thank you for everything. You owe us nothing. I'm not trying to give you grief. My criticism is aimed at Round2, not you. I would love to know what this "project" is you're working on.

Peace?


----------



## mach7

Steve H said:


> It's the internet. Everyone wants something. Tone of voice doesn't translate to print well. What, in a conversation, may be a reasoned, calm statement of request can come across as whiny needy greedy in text.
> 
> I am just as guilty. I want a book that won't happen (or so it seems).
> 
> Part of the problem is, I believe, the entire complex relationship we have here, the fact that Gary has worked for R2 in some efforts (and hopefully many more), then the fact of his working on the restoration team (as a private citizen and private contractor I assume), then the fact that the restoration team had specific goals they were contracted to achieve that were SOLELY for the purposes OF the restoration, and the various contracts and agreements therein, THEN the complications of there being a rights holder involved (Paramount/CBS/Viacom) and the need to protect their property rights and THEN there was the aspect of trying to keep some things secret until the unveiling during the promotional event...
> 
> It's pretty easy to see how some assumptions could be made that really aren't proper 'a-b-c' connections.
> 
> R2 may WANT to have a new and improved color guide and Gary may be able to provide them that, IF his contract under the guidelines of the restoration team allows AND if he doesn't have a conflicting contract with another 'production' that would limit him. Then he's got whatever other work he has to do to keep body and soul together. Then there's this pesky holiday season getting in the way and all the stress THAT entails.
> 
> And then see above, numerous comments along the lines of "Paint it the way that it looks good to you, nobody can say you're wrong".
> 
> Since I'm not gonna get my "What we learned from the Enterprise: 50 years of obsessing over 11 feet of wood, metal and plastic" book and I have to deal with that truth, just everybody chill over the color guide business. If it is gonna happen, it'll happen.
> 
> I regret we've tripped Gary's 'ticked off' button. I hope he'll see the humor of all this some day.



No, the problem is we have some self centered, entitled Varuca Salt's who can't stand that others won't give them what they want, 100%, when they want it.

My God people, Act your age. This corrosive, ME ME ME attitude is why Mobieus, R2, and others don't post here anymore. I've seen this happen before. Soon there will be 5 or 6 left here yelling
at each other about nothing!

Why can't some of you, And you know who you are, be satisfied that we know more about the Enterprise model than ever before.

My God, we live in a golden age for Science fiction fans. Between DST, R2, Moebius, Atlantis, Pegasus, and many others we have just about everything we EVER hoped and Dreamed of having.

But some folks need to focus on the negative. 

I Don't have my color guild!

I don't have my Galileo!

My Proteus was promised to me 2 years ago! 

Where is my Chariot/Pod kit!

And don't start posting about "Why can't R2 give me the Galileo, Moebius would do it!!!"

They haven't. Deal with it. 

Here are the facts.

The Enterprise was painted light grey! Who cares what shade!

R2, the Smithsonian, Gary Kerr, CBS/Paramount do not owe you anymore than that.

Sure, you might be a super fan, and know more than anyone else (in your mind), but the fact
remains YOU ARE NOT OWED ANYTHING.


----------



## Proper2

Gary K said:


> You want to do the research, then knock yourself out. I'll sit on the sidelines and criticize you.
> 
> Gary


I have no personal stake in this game, Gary; I have the Master Replicas model that I am quite happy with and I will never be undertaking any other Enterprise build. Still, being in love with the subject matter I find interest in these threads and sometimes I am compelled to comment as an observer. Therefore, I call them as I see them. If one were to take the time to read back at all the posts and threads related to all of the immeasurable useful information that you have contributed over the years, you would have to agree that folks have heaped nothing but gratitude and appreciation at you. Your time, hard work, and commitment to the subject has not gone unnoticed! It's unfortunate that you've taken offense in this case from your fans that basically adore you. I hope you were just having a bad day. Clearly we all love the Grey Lady, and any ill will here is just silly in the big picture.


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Newbie123 said:


> Good luck with your builds, Hunk- and others. Seems like your having a whole lot of fun with them. And I notice that you're stating to infest other forums like RPF, strangely getting much the same reception from their members. You might as yourself why.


Guys.

I only take responsibility for my own posts, not what "others" say. Someone used the "a-hole" word and it wasn't me. Please don't lump me in as responsible for every negative thing said here.

My posts, going back through them, are mostly questions. I won't accept blame for things that others infer or mischaracterize. Newbie, out of thousands of posts on RPF I recently had one where I defended what I felt was an unfair attack. Even in defending myself, I apologized. I just apologized to Gary even though I've never actually attacked him. I apologize to you now if I've made you upset. That's not some "I'm sorry/not sorry" apology. Really, I'm sincere. I apologize.

Here's what I assume. This is Hobby *TALK*. We talk about the hobby. I have way more benign "hey that's cool" "how did you do that" posts than I do anything else. I started a 3D printing thread here I think has been really helpful and informative. I've praised Round2 and other companies when they do good work (the Eagle being a recent example), and, yes, I've criticized when I think they've fallen short. I don't criticize just to "whine." I don't expect "free stuff." I don't expect anyone to jump through hoops just because I'm special. But I will talk about the state of the hobby because isn't that what forums are for? When I see Bandai or Fine Molds advancing the technology and artistry of kit-making, I want companies like Revell and Round2 to rise to the challenge. I want the kits to get better and I want (where it's warranted) for customer service to get better. They're businesses and I'm a consumer. Companies should expect that. I accept they're human. They should except that we're human.

I suggest -- respectfully, humbly -- that things like the color of the Enterprise do matter, especially in a hobby forum. Getting the details right is why many of us do this hobby. Some people count rivets, some don't care. Some love to sweat the details. Being a bit anal about stuff that to the rest of the world doesn't matter is why forums like this exist, is it not?

But again I offer my blanket apology to everyone for my contributions, whether inferred or actual, to making this thread too "negative." I am sorry.


----------



## Proper2

Hunk A Junk said:


> Guys.
> 
> I only take responsibility for my own posts, not what "others" say. Someone used the "a-hole" word and it wasn't me. Please don't lump me in as responsible for every negative thing said here.
> 
> My posts, going back through them, are mostly questions. I won't accept blame for things that others infer or mischaracterize. Newbie, out of thousands of posts on RPF I recently had one where I defended what I felt was an unfair attack. Even in defending myself, I apologized. I just apologized to Gary even though I've never actually attacked him. I apologize to you now if I've made you upset. That's not some "I'm sorry/not sorry" apology. Really, I'm sincere.
> 
> ...
> 
> I offer my blanket apology to everyone for my contributions, whether inferred or actual, to making this thread too "negative." I am sorry.


Seems to me that you have nothing for which to apologize. We had not heard anything for quite a while on info that was promised to be released--and from the only source from which it could originate, the experts who chose a color and painted the thing. You simply voiced that which we ALL were thinking: what's the hold up with the color info? No one's intent was malicious or abusive. Nobody was demanding or whining or criticizing? Well, maybe just a little whining! If the info is not yet available, a quick note would suffice and would be much appreciated. Others needn't get nasty. "Asshole award"? Really? Folks often ask questions in these threads. Like in the GEICO 'mercials: it's what people do. Sometimes they ask questions of the experts who are here to volunteer their time to be on discussion boards like these to help out and to help boost the hobby. Their expertise and their time is ALWAYS appreciated! And more often than not what these experts do is... answer questions. Sorry, it's what they do... 

But what's disturbing is that it often seems like some here are quick to be judged one way while others with a more elite status are judged another way.


----------



## actias

This isn't in any way aimed at Gary (Thanks for what you have given us). This is just a feeling, but, I could actually visualize R2 (based on behaviors of the past) making people involved keep quiet so that they can capitalize on the info. Like a re-release in a red box of the TOS E smooth disc with the correct color directions inside, turning info that was supposed to be public into private profiteering simply because they have the license on the Trek kits, while having nothing new to offer in terms of new tooling. Sort of like CBS telling fan film makers that they cant hire actors or other behind the scenes talent that worked on Trek in the past. Just seems like the corporate M.O. Again, no proof, no facts, just a gut feeling.


----------



## Steve H

I've been saying this for a couple of years now. There's something going on with people nowadays. It's a strange combo of our 'instant gratification isn't fast enough' culture combined with, I dunno, call it information overload, or even a vast increase in the 'noise' part of the signal-to-noise ratio of modern mass communications. 

People are developing thinner and thinner skins, combined with a seeming unwillingness to consider a broader context and history. Posts aren't read so much as skimmed. Keywords become 'trigger' words. Find a trigger word and NOTHING else matters, THAT is what is taken away from the message/post/comment. 

And how can it be otherwise? People are going to dozens, HUNDREDS of sites. then there's Twitter, and Facebook and Instagram and god knows what else, and our obsessive society DEMANDS that attention be paid to ALL of that. All of that generating stress. Everyone becomes prickly. And of course all the nonsense of real life. 

There isn't time to THINK anymore. To consider. It's all emotion. If you're not agreeing with me you must be against me. If you say something, a trigger that I find argumentative, you must be a troll. Only my viewpoints are right. I know more than everybody. Oh the heck with it, I quit because you suck. 

Sound familiar? Seeing that all over the place? It's the temper of the times. 

The only way to conquer this is to take that deep breath. Read, don't skim. Consider context. Always context. And remember that tone doesn't print. 

Just calm down. It's all going to be OK. We're reasoned people with intelligence. 

On to the subject. Gary is doing what he's doing. he's said he's been waiting on someone doing their job, and that hasn't happened yet. What I'm _hoping_ is that Gary is working on a special issue of SF & F Modeler (like that Eagle issue) about the Enterprise that may incorporate the previous articles about the development of the 1/350 kit and additional material about what he's allowed to discuss about the restoration of the 11 foot miniature. That would come in the ballpark of my need for a nice big book about the Enterprise. 

But here's an important thing to remember. The 50th anniversary of Star Trek is now past. There is ZERO impulse to push hard on anything now. Anything, ANY THING that appears now is more of a bonus than 'necessary'. So factor this when one discusses time frames for whatever.


----------



## woof359

*saucer bolt cover*

whats the correct way to deal with the gap between the bolt cover on the saucer and the impulse engine, leave the gap or fill it in ? good to be back after dealing with the new password nightmare......................:surprise:


----------



## Gary K

woof359 said:


> whats the correct way to deal with the gap between the bolt cover on the saucer and the impulse engine, leave the gap or fill it in ? good to be back after dealing with the new password nightmare......................:surprise:


The gap is on the 11-footer, and it's also shown on one of the studio plans. A hand-drawn revision shows a rear view of the impulse deck, and some type of filler (less wide than the bolt cover) fills the gap between the impulse & bolt cover. There are no other views of this feature, so your guess is as good as mine re. what Jefferies was thinking.

Gary


----------



## ClubTepes

electric indigo said:


> You might take into consideration that computer screens produce an amazing variety of color deviations. That might also have withhold some modelers here from relying on the countless reference photographs available since the restoration...


Thats why you copy the image and print it out.

Or research yourself. Easy.


----------



## Proper2

ClubTepes said:


> Thats why you copy the image and print it out.


Printing it out introduces even more variances because no printer is the same. Again, it is not possible to know what the true color is without a numerical formula or an actual physical color chip based on a numerical formula.




ClubTepes said:


> Or research yourself. Easy.


Huh? Research what yourself? The folks in possession of the filming model and all that expensive ultra optical spectrum analyzer—or whatever—equipment to determine the color are the only ones who know! They're the ones who have a simple color formula that they used to mix paint. But apparently it's top secret and held for ransom to be revealed to the world for a price.


----------



## Richard Baker

From what I can tell one of the problems is finding a product line equivalent to the proper colors - Model Master Light Ghost Gray for example. If the C/Y/M/K or R/G/B numbers are known then builders can seek out the matches themselves. Most modern paint stores can custom mix the colors using those numbers.


----------



## Proper2

Richard Baker said:


> From what I can tell one of the problems is finding a product line equivalent to the proper colors - Model Master Light Ghost Gray for example. If the C/Y/M/K or R/G/B numbers are known then builders can seek out the matches themselves. Most modern paint stores can custom mix the colors using those numbers.


This should not be a problem. As you said, any paint store can accurately match the color from the numbers or even a sample swatch.


----------



## robn1

Well the numbers have been provided several months ago. The NASM posted the LAB numbers in the painting article mentioned upthread. You can go here to convert the LAB to RGB. Take these to a paint store and have samples made, then use those to mix model paints to match. 

I've personally eyeballed the restored model and the colors are pretty much what I suspected them to be, I'd be inclined to just match colors by eye. I need to do some test swatches to be sure, but I'm guessing Tamiya AS-32 is a good color for the hull, with AS-11 for the top side of the saucer (the bridge and B/C decks are 32). The greener shade of the saucer top is seen even in vintage photos, just less green than it appears now.


----------



## Richard Baker

robn1 said:


> Well the numbers have been provided several months ago. The NASM posted the LAB numbers in the painting article mentioned upthread. You can go here to convert the LAB to RGB. Take these to a paint store and have samples made, then use those to mix model paints to match.
> 
> I've personally eyeballed the restored model and the colors are pretty much what I suspected them to be, I'd be inclined to just match colors by eye. I need to do some test swatches to be sure, but I'm guessing Tamiya AS-32 is a good color for the hull, with AS-11 for the top side of the saucer (the bridge and B/C decks are 32). The greener shade of the saucer top is seen even in vintage photos, just less green than it appears now.


There you go- paint issue resolved...

I wish I had room for one of these kits- they are beautiful


----------



## Proper2

robn1 said:


> Well the numbers have been provided several months ago. The NASM posted the LAB numbers in the painting article mentioned upthread.


Hmmm, assuming you are correct, there are over 1,500 posts in this thread. I don't remember seeing that but then again I wasn't exactly looking for it. :nerd:


----------



## Trek Ace

robn1 IS correct. The NASM LAB color information has been public since August 17th.


----------



## Proper2

Yup, you're right:


1) Production Hull Gray-Green; LAB: L 64.45 A -3.53 B 2.40, Approximate match: Benjamin Moore “Heather Gray” # 2139-40, Note: Actual match is less green and less yellow (chip currently available from Benjamin Moore).

2) Pilot Hull Blue-Gray; LAB: L 62.96 A -1.97 B -4.20, Approximate match: Sherwin Williams “Babbling Brooke” # HGSW 3364, Note: Actual match is slightly darker, and slightly less red.

3) Light Gray accent color; LAB: L 81.37 A -2.23 B -0.37, Approximate match: Pratt and Lambert “Nickel” #2232, Note: No adjustments needed (“Calibrated Colors IV” color deck).

4) Medium Gray accent color; LAB: L 66.89 A -0.55 B 3.99, Approximate match: Pratt and Lambert “ Half-tone” #2298, Note: No adjustments needed (“Calibrated Colors IV” color deck).

5) Dark Gray accent color; LAB: L 49.13 A -0.52 B 1.20, Approximate match: Pratt and Lambert
“Gettysburg” #2242, Note: No adjustments needed (“Calibrated Colors IV” color deck).

6) Yellow markings; LAB: L 79.72 A -10.24 B 56.78, Approximate match: FS 595B # 23785, Note: Actual match is slightly darker, slightly greener, and slightly less yellow.

7) Red markings; LAB: L 37.26 A 40.76 B 16.79, Approximate match: Valspar “Cut-ruby” #1009-4, Note: Actual match slightly less red and slightly less yellow.

8) Turbo Lift Green; LAB: L 46.63 A -5.39 B 5.09, Approximate match: FS 595B #34159, Note: Actual match slightly lighter, slightly less green and slightly more yellow.

9) Dorsal Aqua accent color; LAB: L 56.60 A -21.72 B -17.72, Approximate match: FS 595B #35275. Note: Requires thinning to a very transparent wash. - See more at: Star Trek Revealing the Colors of the Enterprise


----------



## Steve H

I realize color science is one of those things that breaking it down into words can seem inexact, but sometimes, it just strikes me as a kind of B.S. to see if anyone is paying attention.

This one in specific: "6) Yellow markings; LAB: L 79.72 A -10.24 B 56.78, Approximate match: FS 595B # 23785, Note: Actual match is slightly darker, slightly greener, and slightly less yellow."

The yellow that is slightly less yellow. More green, but it's not a green and vermilion is right out!

I know, I know, it all makes sense but it still comes across almost like a Monty Python sketch...


----------



## Y3a

It IS possible to calibrate your monitors and the printers. You just need the software and the screen sensor.

Display Color Calibration With Datacolor Spyder5 - Datacolor Imaging Solutions


----------



## Richard Baker

Another thing to consider is that the colors may need to be scaled for 1:350- perhaps less saturation. 
What it all boils down to is how the ship looks to your eye in your own home with the lighting available there.


----------



## Proper2

Y3a said:


> It IS possible to calibrate your monitors and the printers. You just need the software and the screen sensor.
> 
> Display Color Calibration With Datacolor Spyder5 - Datacolor Imaging Solutions


Woohoo, I'm getting out my credit card right now 'cause I have about a grand that's burning a hole in my pocket. :grin2:

And that would be assuming that the person that created the digital swatch that you'd be trying to match has a calibrated screen as well. You'd be chasing rabbits.


----------



## Richard Baker

Edit to null


----------



## spock62

Seems to me that if Round 2 would just post the updated paint guide (getting the info from Gary K), using Tamiya paints as they did originally, it would save a lot of guess work eyeballing paint chips of house paint. I think a lot of people would appreciate it.

At this point, I'll either use the original paint info that came with the 1st release of the kit or, like another member posted, just use Light Ghost Gray, since I've got plenty of that color on hand.


----------



## Hunk A Junk

spock62 said:


> Seems to me that if Round 2 would just post the updated paint guide (getting the info from Gary K), using Tamiya paints as they did originally, it would save a lot of guess work eyeballing paint chips of house paint. I think a lot of people would appreciate it.


Do we actually know where Round 2 is getting their information? Gary said, "First of all , *this is not Round 2's painting guide*. *Round 2 has not contributed a dime, and this is wholly my project*. Second, *I've spent a good chunk of change on this project*, but this is not the only thing that I need to work on."

That seems pretty definitive to me that Round 2's guide is something completely separate from Gary's personal research and project. He hasn't been paid by Round 2 and I don't think anyone in their right mind would just GIVE work they've spent "a good chunk" of their own money on to a company that would then profit from it. 

So I hope Round2's research is as good as Gary's. Do we know if Round2 sent anyone to the restoration site to take notes to make sure their guide is accurate?


----------



## whereisanykey

The only disappointment I have is I fully expected a great deal MORE behind the scenes pictures and videos of the work done. And, it almost seems that many of the high-res pictures are no longer on the site. Also I inferred that there Would be some of the never-before seen pictures available. I can though appreciate what we Have received.

Greg


----------



## spock62

Hunk A Junk said:


> Do we actually know where Round 2 is getting their information? Gary said, "First of all , *this is not Round 2's painting guide*. *Round 2 has not contributed a dime, and this is wholly my project*. Second, *I've spent a good chunk of change on this project*, but this is not the only thing that I need to work on."
> 
> That seems pretty definitive to me that Round 2's guide is something completely separate from Gary's personal research and project. He hasn't been paid by Round 2 and I don't think anyone in their right mind would just GIVE work they've spent "a good chunk" of their own money on to a company that would then profit from it.
> 
> So I hope Round2's research is as good as Gary's. Do we know if Round2 sent anyone to the restoration site to take notes to make sure their guide is accurate?


Not sure what's going on, but it does lead to one question: how _did_ Round 2 develop the original paint guide that is on the box side of the 1/350 kit? Based on my memory, at the time, it was a definitive paint guide of the Enterprise and I assumed Gary K provided this info since he was involved with the development of the kit. 

When Round 2 announced that they would reissue the kit for the 50th Anniversary, along with the smoothie hull, they said it would include an updated paint guide (based on the Smithsonian restoration I would assume). I always assumed Gary K would provide that info, now this seems in question.

Here's what Gary K wrote back on post #1472 (pg 98):
_Some observations & comments:

1. Creating a painting guide for R2 is not part of the Smithsonian's responsibilities. They can use Pantone and other color-matching systems in-house, but they're prohibited from giving Pantone colors publicly, because it's a proprietary color space. Fortunately, there are no rules that say that I can't use their in-house color matches.

2. Jamie Hood at Round 2 couldn't formulate a painting guide because he doesn't have access to full lines of various hobby paints - and he's swamped with work, as usual. I'm pretty much in the same boat. The nearest surviving hobby shops are nearly an hour's drive from me, and they're mere shadows of their former selves, with limited selections of paint.

3. Jamie was able to incorporate my corrected colors for the red & yellow markings on the decal sheet, but the instructions had to go to press before the color matches were made.

4. The article on the painting guide and annotated orthos are all done, and I'm just waiting for Jason Eaton to make the color matches. Jason has been delayed by work & a host of other factors, but says he'll bust his ass this weekend on color matching.

5. Don't bother trying to match colors by looking at charts or photos on computer monitors. 'Tain't possible.

Gary_

So, to me, that sounds like a)the Smithsonian is not involved in providing anyone a paint guide using model paints (which, I never thought they were), b)both Jamie and Gary don't have the paints/time to formulate a paint guide (funny that Round 2 doesn't have access to paints since model kits are a big part of their portfolio), c)Gary did provide updated colors for the markings and Round 2 updated the decal sheet to reflect these changes, d)Gary was still waiting on another guy to make the color matches and e)charts and photos on computer monitors are useless, unlike what some grouchy octogenarian says.

Seems like we'll have to wait for Gary K to update us on the paint situation. At this point, the Light Ghost Gray option is looking pretty good at my end.


----------



## whereisanykey

I used Model Masters Light Ghost Gray with two Flat White and added a tint of green. I found there is a distinct difference whether the source is incandescent or fluorescent. The incandescent would bring out more of the green tint. Given that I see little reason to be so overly concerned on the "exact" matching. 

Greg


----------



## Steve H

whereisanykey said:


> The only disappointment I have is I fully expected a great deal MORE behind the scenes pictures and videos of the work done. And, it almost seems that many of the high-res pictures are no longer on the site. Also I inferred that there Would be some of the never-before seen pictures available. I can though appreciate what we Have received.
> 
> Greg


Hence my reoccurring comments about my forlorn desire for a nice, thick, carefully researched coffee table book about the history of the 11 foot filming miniature of the Enterprise. 

So many questions, some of which would likely be solved by those 'forbidden to the general public' mystery photos (and whatever other material), some by detective work using existing data.

For example, just how long did the 11 foot model stand in front of the camera? I'm sure when the original DVDs, the pre-enhanced episodes, came out someone must have sat down and documented every single shot of the Enterprise, and figured out how many times each specific 'stock' shot (or portion thereof) there were, and what shots are episode specific, and all that. 

I think the 11 foot model ended up spending most of the three years of filming Star Trek disassembled and tucked in the corner somewhere. It's actual 'stage life' may have been a matter of weeks. 

So, I'd like to know about that. I'd like to know about why for the second pilot it appears it was decided to hang the Enterprise from wires instead of using the designed pipestand. My suspicion is it had something to do with the addition of lights in its first 'revamp', and then the extensive additional wiring and lights for the series made the pipestand a much better choice. But nobody seems to be writing that book. *sigh*


----------



## whereisanykey

I believe it was Doug Drexler who put out the video with all the scenes of the ship in all three seasons, along with each season's intro. The high res version was better than I had expected. It was only recently I learned there were nav lights on the nacelles. There is one scene where it can be identified as being there. Obviously they were never lit but I Did connect them to the nav board I built. Another thing that video showed is the flash rate of the nav's varied quite a bit. I hadn't considered it before but apparently there was quite a bit of control over all those effects. I had always thought they were fixed. 

I remember watching the series on board ship and noticed the end-caps. Some had the ball and others the holes. I kept trying to figure out whether it changed at warp or what. I could never figure it out. It wasn't until much later I found out it was changed during the seasons and had no other purpose. THAT'S been the fun of the series, trying to make sense of different things. And the only reason That is done is because the series itself was "believable".

Greg


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> Hence my reoccurring comments about my forlorn desire for a nice, thick, carefully researched coffee table book about the history of the 11 foot filming miniature of the Enterprise.
> 
> So many questions, some of which would likely be solved by those 'forbidden to the general public' mystery photos (and whatever other material), some by detective work using existing data.
> 
> For example, just how long did the 11 foot model stand in front of the camera? I'm sure when the original DVDs, the pre-enhanced episodes, came out someone must have sat down and documented every single shot of the Enterprise, and figured out how many times each specific 'stock' shot (or portion thereof) there were, and what shots are episode specific, and all that.
> 
> I think the 11 foot model ended up spending most of the three years of filming Star Trek disassembled and tucked in the corner somewhere. It's actual 'stage life' may have been a matter of weeks.
> 
> So, I'd like to know about that. I'd like to know about why for the second pilot it appears it was decided to hang the Enterprise from wires instead of using the designed pipestand. My suspicion is it had something to do with the addition of lights in its first 'revamp', and then the extensive additional wiring and lights for the series made the pipestand a much better choice. But nobody seems to be writing that book. *sigh*


1. I've finished a 3850+ word explanation of (I think) 17 different colors for both the Pilot & Production Enterprises, plus photos & illustrations. but circumstances beyond my control have caused a delay.

2. I've finished Pt 1 of a series of articles on the history of the 11-footer, and it will appear in the next issue of Sci-Fi & Fantasy Modeller. The 5000+ word article covers the Enterprise from conception through the Pilot versions, and I'll probably end up with a total of 5 parts.

3. Recreating an accurate color scheme from the 1960s is more complex than saying, "Oh, here is a patch of old paint with an RGB value of 1, 2, 3."

4. Re. the "forbidden photos": some individuals and organizations were kind enough to lend us their reference photos for the restoration. For various reasons, they did not want the photos made public, and we have to respect their wishes. This does not prevent me from describing what the photos show.

Gary


----------



## robn1

Steve H said:


> ...For example, just how long did the 11 foot model stand in front of the camera? I'm sure when the original DVDs, the pre-enhanced episodes, came out someone must have sat down and documented every single shot of the Enterprise, and figured out how many times each specific 'stock' shot (or portion thereof) there were, and what shots are episode specific, and all that...


www.trekplace.com

https://vimeo.com/153272017

It appears there was no new photography of the 11 footer in season three, it was made up entirely from stock shots (with some new composited backgrounds etc.).


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Gary K said:


> 1. I've finished a 3850+ word explanation of (I think) 17 different colors for both the Pilot & Production Enterprises, plus photos & illustrations. but circumstances beyond my control have caused a delay.
> 
> 2. I've finished Pt 1 of a series of articles on the history of the 11-footer, and it will appear in the next issue of Sci-Fi & Fantasy Modeller. The 5000+ word article covers the Enterprise from conception through the Pilot versions, and I'll probably end up with a total of 5 parts.
> 
> 3. Recreating an accurate color scheme from the 1960s is more complex than saying, "Oh, here is a patch of old paint with an RGB value of 1, 2, 3."
> 
> 4. Re. the "forbidden photos": some individuals and organizations were kind enough to lend us their reference photos for the restoration. For various reasons, they did not want the photos made public, and we have to respect their wishes. This does not prevent me from describing what the photos show.
> 
> Gary


This is excellent and clears up a lot of misperceptions (at least for me -- again, wasn't trying to give you grief) about what you've been working on. Looking forward to the articles. So if you didn't supply Round2 with their new color guide information, do you know who did or are they just matching the Smithsonian documentation as best they can?


----------



## Gary K

Hunk A Junk said:


> This is excellent and clears up a lot of misperceptions (at least for me -- again, wasn't trying to give you grief) about what you've been working on. Looking forward to the articles. So if you didn't supply Round2 with their new color guide information, do you know who did or are they just matching the Smithsonian documentation as best they can?


As stated earlier, I gave Jamie the correct colors for the red & yellow decals. The color renderings are by Petri Blomqvist, and I did send him a batch of color chips.

Gary


----------



## Steve H

robn1 said:


> www.trekplace.com
> 
> https://vimeo.com/153272017
> 
> It appears there was no new photography of the 11 footer in season three, it was made up entirely from stock shots (with some new composited backgrounds etc.).


That's what I figured, no new shots for the 3rd season, based on all the emphasis on restoring the Enterprise to as it appeared for its special filming for The Trouble with Tribbles. I think we are in agreement that new background composites with existing stock footage doesn't qualify as 'new shots'


----------



## wpthomas

Steve H said:


> For example, just how long did the 11 foot model stand in front of the camera? I'm sure when the original DVDs, the pre-enhanced episodes, came out someone must have sat down and documented every single shot of the Enterprise, and figured out how many times each specific 'stock' shot (or portion thereof) there were, and what shots are episode specific, and all that.


DAMN that sounds like a lot of work.  (EDIT: I see someone already linked to my catalog.)

BTW, there is a shot in season three that had never been seen before but I have always assumed that it had been filmed previously. (Just as there are shots from Where No Man Has Gone Before in later episodes that were not in WNMHGB.) I don't know if any of the research done here ever confirmed that theory.

I wonder if there will be any unused shots on the Roddenberry Vault.


----------



## Richard Baker

wpthomas said:


> BTW, there is a shot in season three that had never been seen before but I have always assumed that it had been filmed previously. (Just as there are shots from Where No Man Has Gone Before in later episodes that were not in WNMHGB.) I don't know if any of the research done here ever confirmed that theory.


Which shot?


----------



## Steve H

wpthomas said:


> DAMN that sounds like a lot of work.  (EDIT: I see someone already linked to my catalog.)
> 
> BTW, there is a shot in season three that had never been seen before but I have always assumed that it had been filmed previously. (Just as there are shots from Where No Man Has Gone Before in later episodes that were not in WNMHGB.) I don't know if any of the research done here ever confirmed that theory.
> 
> I wonder if there will be any unused shots on the Roddenberry Vault.


I did take a look and that was, indeed, an impressive job. I figured SOMEBODY had to have done that! 

I agree that the shot you mentioned was most likely not 'new shot' during the third season.

I would speculate, with no proof whatsoever (because I don't want to be accused of being a faux internet expert  ) that the shot in question may have originally meant to be a 'push in' on the nominal 'Phaser Cannon' pimple on the lower sensor dome, for a super dramatic 'at the last ditch moment, FIRE!!' kind of shot, but for whatever reason, maybe difficulty in compositing an optical, they never used it as that. 

At least that makes sense to me. 

(good site, BTW. Had a laugh stumbling over the name of a comrade from my Star Trek club days in one of your articles. man that was so long ago  )


----------



## robn1

wpthomas said:


> ...I wonder if there will be any unused shots on the Roddenberry Vault.


The clip here looks new.


----------



## Steve H

robn1 said:


> The clip here looks new.


It sure does to me. 

And again, speculating completely out of my butt with no proof or any outside documentation, that shot seems to have been designed to mimic the 'dome' shot from the first pilot, and I would assume one of the choices would have been to do an optical of the bridge interior, this time from the main monitor section (which would have been easier and a better alignment, just a truck in from the 'wild' front section), but it would have also 'burned in' the idea that the monitor was also a window...

Interestingly enough, and this is more on me and my not obsessively searching for pictures, but I think that's the first example I've seen of the 'second pilot' Enterprise mounted on the pylon. Other pics posted here have had the ship hung from wires. So huh. The more I learn, the more I know I don't know.


----------



## Y3a

I think they didn't use it because of the shadows.


----------



## Steve H

Y3a said:


> I think they didn't use it because of the shadows.


That and there's a shake at the end, like the camera or model got bumped. 

But it's a fascinating shot. It's interesting to see the grip on the floor cranking away to rotate the model. Clearly this wasn't a 'stop motion' shot because no way could he hold that rock steady thru the process. 

This is the sort of thing I love. This erases many misconceptions and confusion over process. LOVE IT.

I'd buy that stupid DVD set if I knew for sure there was LOTS of this sort of thing on it.


----------



## Captain Robert April

They only hung the model from wires for the first pilot. The fact that only one shot of the model was used might indicate a problem with that approach, hence the stand.


----------



## Gary K

Captain Robert April said:


> They only hung the model from wires for the first pilot. The fact that only one shot of the model was used might indicate a problem with that approach, hence the stand.


1. Blue screen was more time-consuming & expensive, but it also allowed for a wider variety of spfx shots. No more stars bleeding through the saucer, like in the opening shot of "The Cage". 

2. There's only one shot of the 11-footer in "The Cage" because the model wasn't finished in time.

3. When they added lights for the 2nd Pilot, the model had wires hanging from it, and it would have been more difficult to hide them if the model was hanging from wires.

Gary


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Gary K said:


> 2. There's only one shot of the 11-footer in "The Cage" because the model wasn't finished in time.


That would be the opening zoom in on the bridge shot, right?


----------



## KUROK

Gary K said:


> ...and I did send him a batch of color chips.
> 
> Gary


Color chips? I could use a bag of potato chips! I'm a mite hungry!


----------



## whereisanykey

Gary K said:


> 1. Blue screen was more time-consuming & expensive, but it also allowed for a wider variety of spfx shots. No more stars bleeding through the saucer, like in the opening shot of "The Cage".
> 
> 2. There's only one shot of the 11-footer in "The Cage" because the model wasn't finished in time.
> 
> 3. When they added lights for the 2nd Pilot, the model had wires hanging from it, and it would have been more difficult to hide them if the model was hanging from wires.
> 
> Gary


I had been taught that blue screen was better for film stock whereas green screen is best with digital. I can't recall the reasoning behind it.

Greg


----------



## Gary K

whereisanykey said:


> I had been taught that blue screen was better for film stock whereas green screen is best with digital. I can't recall the reasoning behind it.
> 
> Greg


Disney had their sodium yellow process, and TNG occasionally used orange screen, but I don't know the pros & cons of each color screen.

Gary


----------



## Daniel_B

whereisanykey said:


> I had been taught that blue screen was better for film stock whereas green screen is best with digital. I can't recall the reasoning behind it.
> 
> Greg


I do visual effects for a living. Blue Screen was used for film stock because it was better for the photochemical processes used in optical printing. Green is mostly used now because digital cameras shoot on Bayer sensors which sample green twice as much as red or blue. Green also generally has higher contrast which makes alpha channel extraction easier.


----------



## Captain Robert April

Aaannnnnnnd, for "The Cage", they tried shooting the model against a black background to save a step in the process of generating a matte, along with valuable time and money. Nowadays, the toys are sophisticated enough to pull that off, but in '64, not so much (hence the stars showing through "holes" in the ship).


----------



## Steve H

Daniel_B said:


> I do visual effects for a living. Blue Screen was used for film stock because it was better for the photochemical processes used in optical printing. Green is mostly used now because digital cameras shoot on Bayer sensors which sample green twice as much as red or blue. Green also generally has higher contrast which makes alpha channel extraction easier.


I was also under the impression that Green Screen was easier to spot when you're running your footage thru the movieola and thus easier to spot green bleed. Blue Screen can sometimes blend, 'bleed' onto the shot and not be spotted until after the films have run thru the optical printer and the composite shot is developed. We've seen that time and again. 

(of course, everything is digital now, even filmed shots rendered into digital for compositing. blah blah blah  )


----------



## ClubTepes

whereisanykey said:


> I had been taught that blue screen was better for film stock whereas green screen is best with digital. I can't recall the reasoning behind it.
> 
> Greg


I can only speak for film,
Ever put on a pair of those 'Blue Blocker' sunglasses?
Same idea.
You can cut out the blue spectrum pretty easily on film.


----------



## robn1

Simple, basic description of film bluescreen here.


Of course there are different techniques, and each effects house that worked on Star Trek probably had their own method.


----------



## Steve H

robn1 said:


> Simple, basic description of film bluescreen here.
> 
> 
> Of course there are different techniques, and each effects house that worked on Star Trek probably had their own method.


And of course different effect shots called for different methods, and effects technology evolved quickly and changed a good amount post-Star Wars. I doubt any shot in the Star Trek series ever ran more than three or four elements for one composite.


----------



## whereisanykey

It was interesting watching Star Wars back then on VHS. When the tape began to get old you could very clearly seen the matte squares around the ships flying. There were about half dozen frames before the matte moved.

Greg


----------



## whereisanykey

Somewhere there was talk about how to do the rings on the smooth saucer. I have a number of INCRA precision stainless rulers that have a guide on the end. They are attached with round knobs. Since they have incremental holes you could use the knob end flush against the edge of the saucer and just guide it around the saucer at the precise distance you require. 

I don't know if it's been mentioned on remembering Port and Starboard. What I had realized years ago is Port has the same letter count as Left. Of course this is taken as sitting in the drivers seat, as mechanics do. To remember the Nav colors we can say Red is fewer letters than Green and so is Port, so Red is Left. 

Greg


----------



## Steve H

whereisanykey said:


> It was interesting watching Star Wars back then on VHS. When the tape began to get old you could very clearly seen the matte squares around the ships flying. There were about half dozen frames before the matte moved.
> 
> Greg


Yeah, the 'garbage' mattes used to block out the 'gross' elements like stands and studio stage background and so on, then the tighter mattes to keep the stars and other elements from showing through. 

Could see those in even brand new videotapes. 

Heck, by the end of the year-long first run you could see them in the theater!

Ya know, as technically poor as that is (esp. compared to today!) it does add an odd charm to the effects. Adds to that whole 'hand made with spit and bailing wire' tone you get from the film.


----------



## Owen E Oulton

Daniel_B said:


> I do visual effects for a living. Blue Screen was used for film stock because it was better for the photochemical processes used in optical printing. Green is mostly used now because digital cameras shoot on Bayer sensors which sample green twice as much as red or blue. Green also generally has higher contrast which makes alpha channel extraction easier.


As I understand it, blue was originally used for Chromakey because human skin-tones, regardless of ethnic make-up, have very little blue in their spectrum and thus would be less affected by any dropout. Disney's sodium yellow was also used in the time of photochemical film. Greenscreen came into being while film was still in general use, so while these explanations may be current and scientifically accurate, they do not appear to be historically the cause of the switch.


----------



## Hunch

*Overall color?*

I'm on page 60 something...anyone determine the actual color of the 3 versions? I'm disabled and its hard to sit here and read thru all this (I will, and am in the process of doing so) but I'm getting ready to start to add paint to my 1st pilot version (could be a week...could take a year with my body falling apart :frown2: ) and would hate to be off a shade. Very picky when it comes to subjects I love.
Jim and Judy


----------



## John P

whereisanykey said:


> I don't know if it's been mentioned on remembering Port and Starboard. What I had realized years ago is Port has the same letter count as Left. Of course this is taken as sitting in the drivers seat, as mechanics do. To remember the Nav colors we can say Red is fewer letters than Green and so is Port, so Red is Left.


My Dad the fighter pilot taught me that years ago. All the short words are left: Left, port, red. All the longer words are right: Right, starboard, green.

I remember driving with him once, and the directions told us we had a left turn coming up. I told him to go left, and he had one of those left/right moments where he couldn't decide which was which. I yelled "TURN RED!!! RED!!!" and he made it just in time. :lol:


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Hunch said:


> I'm on page 60 something...anyone determine the actual color of the 3 versions? I'm disabled and its hard to sit here and read thru all this (I will, and am in the process of doing so) but I'm getting ready to start to add paint to my 1st pilot version (could be a week...could take a year with my body falling apart :frown2: ) and would hate to be off a shade. Very picky when it comes to subjects I love.
> Jim and Judy


Hi Jim. It's still TBD, at least when it comes to the production version. Research was conducted during the Smithsonian restoration, but model paint conversion equivalents have yet to be widely posted. Round 2 has done so and is including an updated guide in their new 50th anniversary edition of the 1/350 TOS E kit, but they won't release that info to people who don't buy the kit. So we either have to do mixing and matching ourselves or wait until someone buys a copy of the new kit later this month and scans Round2's guide for everyone to see (which makes Round2's refusal to just post the information pretty pointless). I'll re-post the Smithsonian's color chip recommendations in the event you have the ability and time to get the chips and match the colors yourself. If you have the original 1/350 kit, the colors they recommend are pretty close and, given the variations in lighting when you display your model, are likely close enough. But I understand your desire to be as accurate as possible. It's why we do this stuff. Frankly, you're a perfect example of why I've argued Round2 should just release the paint information they have. Not everyone has the time or ability to collect color chips from different companies and then formulate model paint conversions.

Here are the original paint formulas from the Smithsonian.

1) Production Hull Gray-Green; LAB: L 64.45 A -3.53 B 2.40, Approximate match: Benjamin Moore “Heather Gray” # 2139-40, Note: Actual match is less green and less yellow (chip currently available from Benjamin Moore).

2) Pilot Hull Blue-Gray; LAB: L 62.96 A -1.97 B -4.20, Approximate match: Sherwin Williams “Babbling Brooke” # HGSW 3364, Note: Actual match is slightly darker, and slightly less red.

3) Light Gray accent color; LAB: L 81.37 A -2.23 B -0.37, Approximate match: Pratt and Lambert “Nickel” #2232, Note: No adjustments needed (“Calibrated Colors IV” color deck).

4) Medium Gray accent color; LAB: L 66.89 A -0.55 B 3.99, Approximate match: Pratt and Lambert “ Half-tone” #2298, Note: No adjustments needed (“Calibrated Colors IV” color deck).

5) Dark Gray accent color; LAB: L 49.13 A -0.52 B 1.20, Approximate match: Pratt and Lambert
“Gettysburg” #2242, Note: No adjustments needed (“Calibrated Colors IV” color deck).

6) Yellow markings; LAB: L 79.72 A -10.24 B 56.78, Approximate match: FS 595B # 23785, Note: Actual match is slightly darker, slightly greener, and slightly less yellow.

7) Red markings; LAB: L 37.26 A 40.76 B 16.79, Approximate match: Valspar “Cut-ruby” #1009-4, Note: Actual match slightly less red and slightly less yellow.

8) Turbo Lift Green; LAB: L 46.63 A -5.39 B 5.09, Approximate match: FS 595B #34159, Note: Actual match slightly lighter, slightly less green and slightly more yellow.

9) Dorsal Aqua accent color; LAB: L 56.60 A -21.72 B -17.72, Approximate match: FS 595B #35275. Note: Requires thinning to a very transparent wash. - See more at: Star Trek Revealing the Colors of the Enterprise

These won't necessarily help you with your 1st pilot version, but they're the most up to date info we have.


----------



## JGG1701

Mr. Gary,

I just want to thank you for all of your help with information we all request.:smile2:
I plan to start building my TOS 1/350 when things HOPEFULLY get settled down on my end.
I am soooo anxious to get started on this but I cannot due to the CRAPPY 

situation that I am facing so late in my life right now :frown2:
-Jim G.G.


----------



## Captain Robert April

Steve H said:


> Yeah, the 'garbage' mattes used to block out the 'gross' elements like stands and studio stage background and so on, then the tighter mattes to keep the stars and other elements from showing through.
> 
> Could see those in even brand new videotapes.
> 
> Heck, by the end of the year-long first run you could see them in the theater!
> 
> Ya know, as technically poor as that is (esp. compared to today!) it does add an odd charm to the effects. Adds to that whole 'hand made with spit and bailing wire' tone you get from the film.


That probably has more to do with the relative amount of illumination involved with a tv set compared to a theatre screen, i.e., they went unseen in the theatre, but at home, they show up clearly. Kind of like how with another new print of old Star Trek episodes, between the increased age of the print being used and the higher resolution of modern tv sets, the garbage mattes are embarrassingly vivid.


----------



## spock62

Hunk A Junk said:


> Hi Jim. It's still TBD, at least when it comes to the production version. Research was conducted during the Smithsonian restoration, but model paint conversion equivalents have yet to be widely posted. Round 2 has done so and is including an updated guide in their new 50th anniversary edition of the 1/350 TOS E kit, but they won't release that info to people who don't buy the kit. So we either have to do mixing and matching ourselves or wait until someone buys a copy of the new kit later this month and scans Round2's guide for everyone to see (which makes Round2's refusal to just post the information pretty pointless).


I thought Gary K said that only the red & yellow on the decal sheet were updated based on his info. He said Round 2 wasn't able to update the instructions with the new painting info in time for the release of the reissue. Or I'm I misunderstanding what's been posted?


----------



## Proper2

JGG1701 said:


> I plan to start building my TOS 1/350 when things HOPEFULLY get settled down on my end.
> I am soooo anxious to get started on this but I cannot due to the CRAPPY
> situation that I am facing so late in my life right now :frown2:
> -Jim G.G.


I hope life gets better for you. There is no substitute for peace of mind and serenity in one's life. I hope your troubles are not health-related--everything else is very secondary..


----------



## Daniel_B

Having the exact colors for the paint would be nice, but we have SO much information already, it's a trivial matter to mix your own paint that is 90% correct anyway. That's good enough for me.


----------



## JGG1701

Proper2 said:


> I hope life gets better for you. There is no substitute for peace of mind and serenity in one's life. I hope your troubles are not health-related--everything else is very secondary..


Thank you sir, *DEEPLY* appreciated.
Not health related. But a new chapter in my life is going to be started here soon after being with the the same lady for the past 20+ years. :frown2:
-Jim G.G.


----------



## Hunk A Junk

spock62 said:


> I thought Gary K said that only the red & yellow on the decal sheet were updated based on his info. He said Round 2 wasn't able to update the instructions with the new painting info in time for the release of the reissue. Or I'm I misunderstanding what's been posted?


I don't even know anymore. At some point, we'll have information... or we won't... or we might... or we might not.


----------



## Hunch

Hunk A Junk said:


> Hi Jim. It's still TBD, at least when it comes to the production version.


Thank you so much for taking the time to post this info Hunk A Junk. I've saved it as a word file and will dig into it very soon.
I've matched the color of the first runs plastic (the FIRST 1701 produced) when it was released and will see how it fares with the Smith's info. Had to order the paint from China, and I hate to do that for ANY REASON, but I'm old school and only work in enamels (until it comes to weathering and such) but I did get the color to "disappear" on the inside of the dish after fiddling with the mix for a while. Not bad when you consider it took me two years to match the color (Ford Oyster gold metallic) for my scratch UFO SKY 1 in appx 1/32 scale. Finally had a guy send me an original "chip" that was painted on to get it right. My eyes were nearly bleeding from the pain of staring at that weird goldish color for nearly 2 years that changed from lighter to darker to more silvery and many more variations depending on what angle you looked at the model and what lighting you were using. I got it...but it was pure hell. Pure unadulterated HELL.
Anyway, thanks again, I really appreciate your response. Cant wait to hear what Polar has to say about the color!
Best,
Jim- Patriot


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Hunch said:


> Thank you so much for taking the time to post this info Hunk A Junk.


Happy to pass it along, but others have posted it first and did the research. Many people here will share what they know -- limited and frustrating as it sometimes may be. Just ask. :grin2:


----------



## Maurice

Captain Robert April said:


> That probably has more to do with the relative amount of illumination involved with a tv set compared to a theatre screen, i.e., they went unseen in the theatre, but at home, they show up clearly. Kind of like how with another new print of old Star Trek episodes, between the increased age of the print being used and the higher resolution of modern tv sets, the garbage mattes are embarrassingly vivid.


Re green v blue:

It also takes less light to get a chromakey green screen properly illuminated to pull a matte than it does blue.


----------



## Captain Robert April

In 1965, I suspect you'd be hard pressed to find anyone using green.


----------



## John P

It's not easy, you know.
Being green.


----------



## Y3a

Didn't Disney experiment with an orange screen?


----------



## Skyking918

All this talk of blue/green/orange screens is interesting, but irrelevant. Can we please keep this thread on-topic?? I care far more about the color of _Enterprise_.


----------



## Richard Baker

The discussion about SFX screens does pertain to the color of the Enterprise since how they filmed it had a direct impact on how the colors appeared on screen.
How you light it externally at home will affect how the model looks to you regardless of how perfect the pigments are. I am hoping to get some info here about the proper color temperature of bulbs to use when lighting the display.


----------



## JGG1701

Skyking918 said:


> All this talk of blue/green/orange screens is interesting, but irrelevant. Can we please keep this thread on-topic?? I care far more about the color of _Enterprise_.


"Geesh, what a grouch!":wink2:

-Jim G.G.


----------



## spock62

Skyking918 said:


> All this talk of blue/green/orange screens is interesting, but irrelevant. Can we please keep this thread on-topic?? I care far more about the color of _Enterprise_.


Skyking is right, this thread is getting into the weeds with how the Enterprise was lit on stage. Funny how this sort of endless speculation is encouraged here, but people who just want the updated colors, using model paints (like was originally done in the 1st release of the R2 kit), are frowned at and ridiculed! Whatever color you paint any model, the color will ALWAYS look different depending on the lighting source. If lightning is such a big issue with some of you, how about starting another thread about it?


----------



## Captain Robert April

I've long suspected that the reason the model was given a green tint was to separate it better from the blue screen.


----------



## Proper2

Captain Robert April said:


> I've long suspected that the reason the model was given a green tint was to separate it better from the blue screen.


I think that's doubtful. Green is not a complimentary hue to blue. If contrast to blue is what was sought, an orange tint would have Fit the bill. Besides, the green tint is much too subtle for any practical effect in that way.


----------



## Steve H

spock62 said:


> Skyking is right, this thread is getting into the weeds with how the Enterprise was lit on stage. Funny how this sort of endless speculation is encouraged here, but people who just want the updated colors, using model paints (like was originally done in the 1st release of the R2 kit), are frowned at and ridiculed! Whatever color you paint any model, the color will ALWAYS look different depending on the lighting source. If lightning is such a big issue with some of you, how about starting another thread about it?


And dipping further into the weeds in hopes of hitting bottom and bouncing back out...

OK, gonna quote from 'These are the Voyages' season two. I'll keep it short but those interested can check page 19, a memo from Robert Justman to Roddenberry regarding the effects shots filmed so far by Film Effects of Hollywood. Just going to excerpt the relevant bit: "...This shot will [only] be usable after it has been printed down a bit and some blue added so the ship does not flair. " It goes on to mention that there is hope that the printing down (degrading the image by copying) will also help eliminate the matte.

So take note of that. Images were 'stepped on' (again, image intentionally degraded) and color tweaked. So what is it one is trying to do? Match the color of an image that is tweaked, fiddled with, altered as much as an airbrushed Playboy Playmate of the Month? Match the original filming model which was never seen 'in the raw'? Match the image one saw not only all altered and played with but ALSO altered by 1960's NTSC broadcast standards and the variables of over the air broadcast to 1960s TV technology?

Friends, nothing Gary has learned is going to make that happen. It's all in YOUR eye. There's no other answer. 

The comment in that memo seems to confirm one idea I've had. I always wondered how much of a problem with 'flair' that massive saucer presented and it seems there was a concern. I believe that greenish tint on the top was part of the attempt to help reduce flair and bloom. Looking at it it also seems to be 'stage makeup' to help accent and define the curves and shapes on the top.


----------



## whereisanykey

The tint would help under the bright studio lights preventing the image washing out.

Greg


----------



## Hunch

I picked up a "new" grid-lineless saucer for the pl 1/350 and the color is greener and greyer and darker in shade (sp?) than the original releases. Could this represent the more accurate color or am I reading too much into this and its just a bad mix that day at the factory?
It seams too far off the mark to have NOT been intentional.
Jim


----------



## bigjimslade

John P said:


> My Dad the fighter pilot taught me that years ago. All the short words are left: Left, port, red. All the longer words are right: Right, starboard, green.


I learned in flight training that it makes sense that Red should be Right but this is the government so Left is Red.


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Hunch said:


> I picked up a "new" grid-lineless saucer for the pl 1/350 and the color is greener and greyer and darker in shade (sp?) than the original releases. Could this represent the more accurate color or am I reading too much into this and its just a bad mix that day at the factory?
> It seams too far off the mark to have NOT been intentional.
> Jim


It's intentional and it's supposedly the updated color based on the Smithsonian restoration research. I believe the upcoming anniversary edition (which, it seems, won't be out in time for the actual anniversary) will be entirely molded in that color.


----------



## gene1138

Someone has posted their unboxing of the 1/350 re-issue over here 1/350 TOS Smoothie unboxing video

The color guide is not quite what I think we were all expecting.


----------



## Proper2

gene1138 said:


> Someone has posted their unboxing of the 1/350 re-issue over here 1/350 TOS Smoothie unboxing video
> 
> The color guide is not quite what I think we were all expecting.


Well, there you have it: ENTERPRISE GREY :grin2:

I guess you can just match the color directly from the printed color sample, assuming that it's an accurate representation of ENTERPRISE GREY.


----------



## Captain Robert April

Mine is on its way. Might do a video of my own...


----------



## Proper2

Captain Robert April said:


> Mine is on its way. Might do a video of my own...


If you don't mind me asking, where did you purchase and how much was it?


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Proper2 said:


> Well, there you have it: ENTERPRISE GREY :grin2:
> 
> I guess you can just match the color directly from the printed color sample, assuming that it's an accurate representation of ENTERPRISE GREY.


So the "update" in the updated guide is that it's now printed on a cardstock insert inside the box instead of on the outside of the box. I guess that's an improvement since people won't have to juggle the box to see the guide, but...:|

But has the formula recommendation for "Enterprise grey" changed?


----------



## Captain Robert April

Proper2 said:


> If you don't mind me asking, where did you purchase and how much was it?


Emotional blackmail on the missus, via eBay. > If it's coming from Burbank Hobbies, which is likely, it's around $120, give or take five bucks or so.


----------



## whereisanykey

I've already received the smooth saucers. If the plastic color is indicative of the actual color it looks to me to be Tooo green. It is much more of a green (lighter) than any grey. I certainly didn't mix my colors with that much green.

Greg


----------



## spock62

Hunk A Junk said:


> So the "update" in the updated guide is that it's now printed on a cardstock insert inside the box instead of on the outside of the box....


I've attached a PDF of the original paint guide Round 2 included in the 1st release (revised version). _That's_ what many of us were expecting. Instead, we get labels like "Enterprise Gray", and no model paint equivalents, similar to what AMT did back in the '80's.

I do think the new paint guide is far superior to what they gave in the original release (more detailed and more colors listed), but unless you buy a new kit, your out of luck, since even if they do post it online, your monitor will most likely not reproduce the colors 100%, as has been discussed before.

Granted, any experienced modeler can mix paints by eyeballing a paint chip, but most companies don't require this since they include paint charts listing a manufacturer/s model paints as a guide. Round 2 eliminating the model paint equivalents for this reissue is a step backwards IMHO.


----------



## RossW

Hunch said:


> I picked up a "new" grid-lineless saucer for the pl 1/350 and the color is greener and greyer and darker in shade (sp?) than the original releases. Could this represent the more accurate color or am I reading too much into this and its just a bad mix that day at the factory?
> It seams too far off the mark to have NOT been intentional.
> Jim


Can you please post a clean scan of the whole instruction sheet?


----------



## Hunk A Junk

spock62 said:


> I've attached a PDF of the original paint guide Round 2 included in the 1st release (revised version). _That's_ what many of us were expecting. Instead, we get labels like "Enterprise Gray", and no model paint equivalents, similar to what AMT did back in the '80's.


So the new guide doesn't even suggest, for example, "Tamiya J.N. Grey XF-12 (lighten slightly)" for the hull color? It just says, "Enterprise Grey"?


----------



## spock62

Hunk A Junk said:


> So the new guide doesn't even suggest, for example, "Tamiya J.N. Grey XF-12 (lighten slightly)" for the hull color? It just says, "Enterprise Grey"?


Based on what the guy in the video said, just "Enterprise Grey". Narrows it down, doesn't it??


----------



## Steve H

I don't want to read too much in these revelations of the 'new' color chart (seriously, has anyone looked around, like on the box or the flip side of this card or the instructions, for something that just might be 'Enterprise Gray = (name)(name)(mix ratio)?) but if this is, indeed, all there is, well, doesn't that just fit in with the other half-a*ssed measures taken by R2 for the 50th anniversary?

I mean, I could EASILY believe that 'Enterprise Gray' was meant to be a placeholder for actual color mixes and somebody greenlit the printing without actually CHECKING to see if it was the correct final thing. But maybe that's me just trying really really hard to leave some tiny positive spin for R2.


----------



## spock62

Steve H said:


> I don't want to read too much in these revelations of the 'new' color chart (seriously, has anyone looked around, like on the box or the flip side of this card or the instructions, for something that just might be 'Enterprise Gray = (name)(name)(mix ratio)?) but if this is, indeed, all there is, well, doesn't that just fit in with the other half-a*ssed measures taken by R2 for the 50th anniversary?


The guy in the video didn't mention any other painting instructions, but that's not to say he might have missed something. But, I'd bet good money that the color fold out is the only painting instructions provided.



Steve H said:


> I mean, I could EASILY believe that 'Enterprise Gray' was meant to be a placeholder for actual color mixes and somebody greenlit the printing without actually CHECKING to see if it was the correct final thing. But maybe that's me just trying really really hard to leave some tiny positive spin for R2.


Hopefully, Round 2 will post a PDF of the color fold out _*with*_ updated model paint equivalents on their blog. But, I'm not holding my breath.

Hate to say it, but, like you mentioned, this seems like another "ball-dropped" regarding the 50th anniversary.


----------



## KUROK

You have to buy a kit to get the color guide in person.
I think they want us to buy a kit guys!


----------



## Hunk A Junk

KUROK said:


> I think they want us to buy a kit guys!


I bought a kit. An original one. And a lighting kit. Spent money money. They don't owe me a smooth saucer, but telling me if the paint color recommendations on the kit I own is outdated and maybe giving a quick update seems like no-brainer customer service.


----------



## Zombie_61

Steve H said:


> ...I mean, I could EASILY believe that 'Enterprise Gray' was meant to be a placeholder for actual color mixes and somebody greenlit the printing without actually CHECKING to see if it was the correct final thing. But maybe that's me just trying really really hard to leave some tiny positive spin for R2.


I'll take it a step further. Maybe Tamiya, or Testors, or whoever, is planning to release a new paint color called "Enterprise Gray" that's a spot-on match to the new information, and we just don't know it yet?


----------



## Proper2

Hunk A Junk said:


> I bought a kit. An original one. And a lighting kit. Spent money money. They don't owe me a smooth saucer, but telling me if the paint color recommendations on the kit I own is outdated and maybe giving a quick update seems like no-brainer customer service.


You're absolutely right. But here's why they won't provide any color update for FREE. Their big advertisement for this new release is: NOW FEATURING SMOOTH SAUCER PARTS & UPDATED PAINT GUIDE! So, assuming that there even is some kind of new color formula other than ENTERPRISE GREY (E.G.), it seems obvious that you need to buy the new kit to obtain it along with the other selling feature, the smoothie!

Of course there's nothing to stop someone who buys the kit from publicly posting any color info once he opens the box, again assuming there's more than just the E.G. And it appears that there may not be. In which case R2 would so full of it! In fact, I would demand my money back had I bought one with the advertised "updated paint guide" and all it offered as far as an "updated paint guide" for the ENTERPRISE was GREY!


----------



## Steve H

Zombie_61 said:


> I'll take it a step further. Maybe Tamiya, or Testors, or whoever, is planning to release a new paint color called "Enterprise Gray" that's a spot-on match to the new information, and we just don't know it yet?


Funny thing is, were this Japan (and R2 a Japanese kit company) Gunze-Sangyo (GSI Creos) would indeed have an Enterprise color set with at least the main colors. 

(according to this chart Color Reference Charts -Â* Gunze Sangyo Mr Color Map I think color #338 isn't too far off)


----------



## Richard Baker

Though shipping may be an issue, somebody could make real money using the ALB/RGB/CYMK color info and having a gallon mixed at a Sherwin-Williams then selling paint sets (enough for 1 model plus extra). 
Actually two sets- one in pure colors determined by the restoration and another adjusted for 1:350 scale


----------



## whereisanykey

Richard Baker said:


> and another adjusted for 1:350 scale


I thought about that last night. If the new saucer IS the correct color FOR the studio scale version then that would explain it being too green. One cannot use the "exact" color the Smithsonian used because That is for that scale. It will have to be modified for the model scale. On my half-studio scale 1 part Light Ghost Gray and 2 parts Flat White with an additional tint of green looks as good as I could possibly get. On the 350 it may be about right without any green. I would just have to see.

Greg


----------



## Captain Robert April

Right.

Gray primer it is, then.


----------



## Prologic9

Color doesn't scale. The idea of 'color scaled' paint is to represent the visibility of the atmosphere at long distances. 

None of this applies when your subject is either an 11-foot miniature to begin with, or a giant starship in space where there is no atmosphere.


----------



## RossW

Prologic9 said:


> Color doesn't scale. The idea of 'color scaled' paint is to represent the visibility of the atmosphere at long distances.
> 
> None of this applies when your subject is either an 11-foot miniature to begin with, or a giant starship in space where there is no atmosphere.


It's not just atmosphere, it's the resolution of our retina.


----------



## Gary K

RossW said:


> It's not just atmosphere, it's the resolution of our retina.


And unless you live in outer space, your brain will assume that you're looking at the model though an atmosphere.


----------



## Proper2

Prologic9 said:


> Color doesn't scale. The idea of 'color scaled' paint is to represent the visibility of the atmosphere at long distances.
> 
> None of this applies when your subject is either an 11-foot miniature to begin with, or a giant starship in space where there is no atmosphere.


Technically you're probably right. But the eye loses nuance and detail when there is a scaling down, even if the effect is partly psychological. When going from 11' down to 32" that's about a 75% reduction. Seems to me there should be some slight diminishing of saturation, color variation detail—as in the rust ring and weathering effects. Also, tonal values overall tend to darken with a reduction is size so a slight lightening of the tones might be in order for the 32" model. But all this is largely a personal matter. Not to mention that your model will never look exactly like either the studio model or the on-screen image of it because the lighting will always be different!


----------



## Gary K

Proper2 said:


> Technically you're probably right. But the eye loses nuance and detail when there is a scaling down, even if the effect is partly psychological. When going from 11' down to 32" that's about a 75% reduction. Seems to me there should be some slight diminishing of saturation, color variation detail—as in the rust ring and weathering effects. Also, tonal values overall tend to darken with a reduction is size so a slight lightening of the tones might be in order for the 32" model. But all this is largely a personal matter. Not to mention that your model will never look exactly like either the studio model or the on-screen image of it because the lighting will always be different!


1. In my article, I give my best estimate for the appearance of the colors in 1966, and I say that nobody is holding a gun to your head. You can lighten the colors, darken them, or paint the model any color you want.

2. If I could get hobby paint matches for the color chips, the article would have been out 2 months ago.

3. There are no good Pantone or Fed Std matches for the Production hull color. The least bad matches I've found are Sherwin-Williams "Oyster Bay" SW 6206 (when viewed under incandescent lighting), and "Unusual Gray" SW 7059 (when viewed in daylight). Maybe use a 50/50 mix of the two??


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> 1. In my article, I give my best estimate for the appearance of the colors in 1966, and I say that nobody is holding a gun to your head. You can lighten the colors, darken them, or paint the model any color you want.
> 
> 2. If I could get hobby paint matches for the color chips, the article would have been out 2 months ago.
> 
> 3. There are no good Pantone or Fed Std matches for the Production hull color. The least bad matches I've found are Sherwin-Williams "Oyster Bay" SW 6206 (when viewed under incandescent lighting), and "Unusual Gray" SW 7509 (when viewed in daylight). Maybe use a 50/50 mix of the two??


Gary, stupid useless technical question.

When they were doing the analysis, were they able, via historical archives, to figure out what the most likely existing paints circa 1966 were used, by brand and all? Are you/they SURE house paint and not automotive paint was used? 

Do we know it was a stock color or custom mixed? I would tend to think a stock color(s) just for simplicity of maintenance in the future but I could well be wrong.

Mind, house paint seems logical because (and here I guess) it was probably way cheaper than automotive paint, but given the 'car culture' of '60s L.A. (and environs) I would think automotive paint was just as much an option. 

and yeah, I feel for you. People are seeming to really have a problem with "paint the Enterprise the way it looks best to you" truth.


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> Gary, stupid useless technical question.
> 
> When they were doing the analysis, were they able, via historical archives, to figure out what the most likely existing paints circa 1966 were used, by brand and all? Are you/they SURE house paint and not automotive paint was used?
> 
> Do we know it was a stock color or custom mixed? I would tend to think a stock color(s) just for simplicity of maintenance in the future but I could well be wrong.
> 
> Mind, house paint seems logical because (and here I guess) it was probably way cheaper than automotive paint, but given the 'car culture' of '60s L.A. (and environs) I would think automotive paint was just as much an option.
> 
> and yeah, I feel for you. People are seeming to really have a problem with "paint the Enterprise the way it looks best to you" truth.


I used house paint *only* to make the paint chips, which are made from 4"x 4" pieces of mat board. The paint store could scan each sample of restoration paint I brought back from DC, and then I'd adjust them, as required, and paint the mat boards. The Smithsonian color info does not reflect the "factory fresh" colors. Some of the lacquers had darkened more than others and/or were slightly discolored by yellowed shellac. I'm also replicating additional colors, such as "space dirt", the tan lower saucer rings, Pilot dorsal blue, and others.

I can't make the matches with hobby paints because the nearest hobby shops are close to an hour away, and the paint pickings are usually pretty slim.

Until I get the hobby paint matches made, you can pick up color chips at Sherwin-Williams and make your own matches. 

Matt Jefferies gave Richard Datin some paint chips in late 1964, and Datin had automotive lacquers custom-mixed at the Fuller Paint dealer on Olympic Blvd. The son of one of the Production Models Shop employees says that Volmer Jensen told him that Jefferies' paint chips (for the Pilot colors) were automotive colors. I plan to explore early 60's automotive paint colors, but we don't know where the Production hull color came from.

Gary


----------



## Steve H

OK, so, would somebody please send Gary hobby paint so he can get on with his work? 

So, then, automotive colors. Interesting. 

I'm not so worried about Datin having custom mixes because who knows how long Jefferies had his paints hanging around, may have been discontinued colors. 

(altho, has anyone considered aircraft paint? Is that a different thing from Automotive paint? Given Jefferies interests, I could just as easily see him using aircraft paints...)

Anyway, thanks, Gary! That last paragraph really re-sparks my wish for a big coffee table book about the Enterprise... :devil:


----------



## whereisanykey

I would venture to say there would be much much more involved in replicating colors in a studio environment. With a visual interpretation there is diffusion and reflection in considering how something will look. No one will be able to replicate these variables with a 3 foot model in comparison to the 11 footer in a studio setting. What I can see from the Smithsonian is they replicated a perfect studio model. I seriously doubt the original during filming was so pristine. Therefore all this obsessiveness over exact colors is an effort in futility. 

As an example when I move my 6' model from one end of the garage to the other I can detect a slight color variation. 

Greg


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> I'm not so worried about Datin having custom mixes because who knows how long Jefferies had his paints hanging around, may have been discontinued colors.
> 
> (altho, has anyone considered aircraft paint? Is that a different thing from Automotive paint? Given Jefferies interests, I could just as easily see him using aircraft paints...)


Jefferies had color chips, not paint. Art directors usually had MANY swatches & color decks of all kinds. We know the Enterprise was painted with an automotive lacquer with a dulling agent, and we know where Datin bought it. Lab analysis in 2015 confirmed the lacquer.

Gary


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> Jefferies had color chips, not paint. Art directors usually had MANY swatches & color decks of all kinds. We know the Enterprise was painted with an automotive lacquer with a dulling agent, and we know where Datin bought it. Lab analysis in 2015 confirmed the lacquer.
> 
> Gary


*d'oh*. Of course he had a sheaf of chips, probably some binders and wheels as well. My bad.


----------



## Prologic9

Proper2 said:


> But the eye loses nuance and detail when there is a scaling down


I think you, Garyk, and RossW are conflating the ability to use color to represent scale as 'color scaling.' 

For instance if you couldn't accurately draw the Enterprise's dark grid lines thin enough at 1:350, you could use a lighter color on wider lines to match the overall contrast instead.


----------



## Captain Robert April

I'm waiting for some fool to paint the the thing hot pink and bedazzle the living hell out of it.

USS Raging Queen NCC-6969


----------



## Zombie_61

Captain Robert April said:


> I'm waiting for some fool to paint the the thing hot pink and bedazzle the living hell out of it.
> 
> USS Raging Queen NCC-6969












Fabulous!


----------



## Steve H

Ya know, you're just a few shades away from the 'Vulcan Shuttle' colors from ST:TMP...


----------



## John P




----------



## Captain Robert April

_Operation Petticoat: The Next Generation_


----------



## edge10

Gary K said:


> 1. In my article, I give my best estimate for the appearance of the colors in 1966, and I say that nobody is holding a gun to your head. You can lighten the colors, darken them, or paint the model any color you want.
> 
> 2. If I could get hobby paint matches for the color chips, the article would have been out 2 months ago.
> 
> 3. There are no good Pantone or Fed Std matches for the Production hull color. The least bad matches I've found are Sherwin-Williams "Oyster Bay" SW 6206 (when viewed under incandescent lighting), and "Unusual Gray" SW 7509 (when viewed in daylight). Maybe use a 50/50 mix of the two??


Hi Gary. A possible slight correction: SW Unusual Gray is actually 7059.

Thank you for posting this.


----------



## Gary K

edge10 said:


> Hi Gary. A possible slight correction: SW Unusual Gray is actually 7059.


Oops! Thanks for catching the mistake. I'll correct it posthaste.

Gary


----------



## Zombie_61

Steve H said:


> Ya know, you're just a few shades away from the 'Vulcan Shuttle' colors from ST:TMP...


Y'know, that same thought entered my mind after I changed the color. :lol:


----------



## Captain Robert April

Needs more sparklies.


----------



## Hunch

RossW said:


> Can you please post a clean scan of the whole instruction sheet?


Since I only purchased the "dish" there are no instructions. There is only a one sided sheet (folded) to show where the pencil lines go on top (pic is split diagonally at actual size) and bottom of the saucer. It also gives the location of the "USS ENTERPRISE NCC-1701" and the rust ring so you can better get a handle on where to center the number/words. AND since the plastic (as with most styrene) is somewhat translucent it will be b***h to match...but I WILL match it! It is Very much on the green side- and as I mentioned somewhere, a bit of darker grey? We shall see when I match it. I will also learn where this article that Gary has mentioned is once I read thru this entire thread (skipped to the end and went backwards to my last post). I dont even know if he mentions a good model paint mix (or is he referring to the old- not ancient- magazine I have from when the PL model was released? I'll have to go back and check that as well). I'll go with the Sherwin Williams combo AND the saucer color for now.
Once I have nailed it I will post what I've got for us old school enamel guys!
Jim


----------



## publiusr

Zombie_61 said:


> Fabulous!


Jem;s ship...or was it Bem's...


----------



## Captain Robert April

I'm not thinking regular gay. I'm thinking *LIBERACE GAY!*



Don't click if you can't handle this much _fierceness!_

:x


----------



## Steve H

Careful, careful, P.C. police...

but that's pretty darn fabulous. I don't understand what the deal is with the main sensor dish but I guess I don't really have to.


----------



## Gary K

****************************************

Stay on target... Stay on target...

****************************************


----------



## RossW

Hunch said:


> Since I only purchased the "dish" there are no instructions. There is only a one sided sheet (folded) to show where the pencil lines go on top (pic is split diagonally at actual size) and bottom of the saucer. It also gives the location of the "USS ENTERPRISE NCC-1701" and the rust ring so you can better get a handle on where to center the number/words. AND since the plastic (as with most styrene) is somewhat translucent it will be b***h to match...but I WILL match it! It is Very much on the green side- and as I mentioned somewhere, a bit of darker grey? We shall see when I match it. I will also learn where this article that Gary has mentioned is once I read thru this entire thread (skipped to the end and went backwards to my last post). I dont even know if he mentions a good model paint mix (or is he referring to the old- not ancient- magazine I have from when the PL model was released? I'll have to go back and check that as well). I'll go with the Sherwin Williams combo AND the saucer color for now.
> Once I have nailed it I will post what I've got for us old school enamel guys!
> Jim


That sheet is what I was referring to. Could you please post a scan of that?


----------



## Steve H

By the way Gary, was re-reading your series on the making of the 1/350 Enterprise kit and I want to belatedly complement you on your 1992-ish photographs of the 11 foot filming miniature, where you placed H.O. scale figures at various places on the miniature. Never before have I had such a visceral reaction, to have a true sense of scale of the Enterprise that words, measurements and drawings just can't capture. It's a pity the model at NA&SM can't have some figures or some of those pictures nearby. 

But then again the display is not about the Starship Enterprise, it's about the filming model from a TV show. Which is OK too.


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> By the way Gary, was re-reading your series on the making of the 1/350 Enterprise kit and I want to belatedly complement you on your 1992-ish photographs of the 11 foot filming miniature, where you placed H.O. scale figures at various places on the miniature. Never before have I had such a visceral reaction, to have a true sense of scale of the Enterprise that words, measurements and drawings just can't capture. It's a pity the model at NA&SM can't have some figures or some of those pictures nearby.
> 
> But then again the display is not about the Starship Enterprise, it's about the filming model from a TV show. Which is OK too.


But I did take the same HO-scale figures back to DC last spring, and I reshot most of the 1991 photos on the restored model. I posted some on Facebook, but will probably put them in a later installment of the Sci-Fi & Fantasy Modeller article.

Speaking of SF&FM, Part 1 will be published in January, and will be available here: Coming Soon: Sci-Fi & Fantasy Modeller vol. 44 | CultTVman Fantastic Modeling

This issue covers the Enterprise from conception, to the studio blueprints, and through the Pilot versions. Some late-breaking info & photos had to be saved for Pt 2.

Gary


----------



## John P

You're a sci fi modeling god, my friend!


----------



## whereisanykey

I would be more interested in a book version, somewhat like the Star Wars one that came out. 

Greg


----------



## Gary K

John P said:


> You're a sci fi modeling god, my friend!


Thanks, but I'm just a demi-god, at most.  Primarily, all the mysteries surrounding the Enterprise have bugged me for more years than I care to admit, so I tried my best to solve them.

Gary


----------



## Captain Robert April

Well, between this, the smooth hull reissue, and "The Roddenberry Vault", this is starting to be a decent 50th anniversary after all.


----------



## MartyS

Just watched all the special features on *The Roddenberry Vault* 3 disc set, the test footage with alternate versions of the bussard effects were amazing to see.

It's an odd set of discs, I don't know why there are regular episodes on the discs with the documentary stuff, I guess it cost so much to produce they had to charge a lot and didn't think people would spend $40 for one disc with that stuff on it?


----------



## feek61

The footage in the "Vault" blurays of the miniature is amazing. It is fantastic to see these motion shots taken against the blue screen background and see stage hands turning the miniatures as the camera passes by. Best $40 bucks I have spent in a very long time. Regarding the nacelles; there is footage of them testing several different effects on the nacelles. There is one that looks like crystals, one that is just flashing lights and one with the lights as we have come to know them but without the fan blades; super interesting! The most surprising footage was the shot of the shuttlecraft with different markings on it. Here are a couple screen grabs with the nacelles.





This cap shows the spinning crystal effect:


This appears to be the lighting from the final versions sans the fan blades:



Keep in mind these caps are ALL from film footage. It's amazing to see these shots in motion: stunning!


----------



## Newbie123

On the subject of looking at colors on your computers, I've long been aware that photos from the internet appear differently for a huge number of reasons. The first is the original photo itself, the position of the sun or the lights, the temperature of the lighting on the subject, the type of film that was used, how the photo was developed, how many times the photo has been stepped on after it was originally developed, etc. Then there is where the photo came from to get onto the net. If it was a studio 8x10 glossy or in a magazine, how was the page printed, how the colors were saturated, how many colors there were there in the printing process. Was the source photographed again or was it scanned. How did the scanning/scanner effect the image. 

But say by some miracle, the image was perfectly transferred into cyberspace. And the site that it was transferred to didn't degrade the image any further with whatever software they use to host the image. Then you have your monitor. All monitors have different resolutions and color balance and brightness and ways of creating what you're looking at. Suppose even then your monitor lets you see the image exactly as if it were the original. 

Something that I didn't know before: what you use to look at the image also makes a difference.
Viewers Compared_zpsmw3gedez.jpg Photo by jkirkphotos | Photobucket

The screen grab above is of some artwork I'm doing for some decals. I just finished correcting the colors in Photoshop to my satisfaction. Saved the file to desktop and came back to it this am and just clicked on the image in to give it a look. ACDSee, my default image viewer, opened it up and... Say, what? I said. Those aren't the colors I remember. So I opened Photoshop and there were the colors I drew. Opened the same file side by side in the two programs and, well, you can see the difference for yourselves in that screen grab. 

I never knew that. 

So, no, you can't color match on your computers. At all. Even if you have actual paint chips uploaded to look at. You can't color match from magazines either, because who knows what happened at the print shop or how many copies the presses churned out before or after you got yours. If you're looking for "accuracy", you have to go with what the person tells you the color is and go match it yourself at the paint shop. And then you still have to trust that the person isn't some self-avowed "expert" from a place where the sky color isn't really what most of us see, let alone the miniature. Or even if they're sane you have to trust that they have the same color perception that you do (I'm slightly color blind to shades of red, just enough to keep me from getting a pilot's license) and that they're viewing it under the same color lights and lighting conditions that you'll be viewing your model under. Since I trust people like David Merriman and Gary Kerr on all things modelling, I'll find the color chips they specify at the store and I'll do my best to match those color chips with the paints I use. 

Bottom line: You can count rivets and ridges and perforations. It's fun. I do it all the time. You can't count color. Paint your models to how you think they'll look best to your eye.


----------



## Hunk A Junk

It would be cool if some Internet FX person took those clean vault shots and re-composited them with moving backgrounds -- essentially recreate the shots as if they'd been done today. If there were pristine original camera negatives for the Enterprise shots, one could re-comp all that stuff and make re-mastered Trek episodes that didn't require a CG Enterprise. I'm perfectly happy with the CG remastered episodes, but the purest in me would like to see something that looks like the original footage without the blobs of grain and artifacts from 1960s optical compositing.


----------



## Steve H

feek61 said:


> Keep in mind these caps are ALL from film footage. It's amazing to see these shots in motion: stunning!


(trimmed for bandwidth, but wow)

So OK, I'm probably going to have to pick that up just for that footage. I'm going to assume CBS is going to be very diligent about IP rights and yank all 'tube postings of it. 

What surprises me, given what I've read in the 'These are the Voyages' books, that they were able to actually DO tests like these. It could be that some of these were meant to be usable effects shots that were rejected (thus not 'tests' per se but "Oh that looks like crap do it over!!" deals, dig?).

I don't know what to make of the shot with the missing fan blades. huh.

Additional question: Are the episodes 'original' or are they the CGI enhanced nonsense?


----------



## feek61

The episodes themselves have both the original effects and the CGI enhanced nonsense; so you can take your pick.


----------



## MartyS

feek61 said:


> This appears to be the lighting from the final versions sans the fan blades:


I've watched that clip a few times now, seems like there are more colored blinking lights than the final version. There are certainly more colors. And it almost looks like some are much closer to the dome. As if they packed an entire strand of Christmas tree lights into the dome for the test.


----------



## Steve H

feek61 said:


> The episodes themselves have both the original effects and the CGI enhanced nonsense; so you can take your pick.


Well, I assume that's on the Blu-Ray, the only way to do that on DVD is with 'branching' and nobody ever figured out a good way to make that work seamlessly, so... 

I ask because I would be buying the DVD version. I do not have a BD player.


----------



## Captain Robert April

I don't think there is a DVD version.


----------



## Steve H

Captain Robert April said:


> I don't think there is a DVD version.


Hurm. You may well be correct. Amazon shows a DVD link but clicking it takes you to a Star Trek the complete series set. I HATE it when that happens, makes a complete joke out of proper metatagging. 

But I don't give up hope. Captain America: Civil War was listed as BD only for all of it's pre-release but after the street date it appeared on DVD (and I got mine at Walmart), so some more investigation is warranted.


----------



## Proper2

Captain Robert April said:


> I don't think there is a DVD version.



Correct. This fancy looking bit of business was released only in Bluray: http://www.startrek.com/article/roddenberry-vault-blu-ray-out-in-december

At some point it may be available free on Netflix (like "For the Love of Spock") or Amazon Prime. Additionally, a Bluray player is only about $50 these days, especially this time of year.


----------



## asalaw

My Vault has finally shipped, I'll get it Thursday. Can't wait! Just got a Blu-ray drive for my Mac and I'm gonna be a screen-cappin' fool. 

Also got my smooth saucer from CTVman, my Anovos velour tunic, my Wand communicator, and no more money.


----------



## feek61

asalaw said:


> My Vault has finally shipped, I'll get it Thursday. Can't wait! Just got a Blu-ray drive for my Mac and I'm gonna be a screen-cappin' fool.
> 
> Also got my smooth saucer from CTVman, my Anovos velour tunic, my Wand communicator, and no more money.


Wow!! That sounds like an amazing Christmas and so what if you have no more money; what on earth would you need it for after this???


----------



## asalaw

feek61 said:


> Wow!! That sounds like an amazing Christmas and so what if you have no more money; what on earth would you need it for after this???


So true. 

And yet I just got in a couple yards of first-season collar fabric...
#moneywhatsmoney


----------



## asalaw

feek61 said:


> Keep in mind these caps are ALL from film footage. It's amazing to see these shots in motion: stunning!


Yeah, that guy says they were shooting with ASA 50 stock, which explains the sharpness. Low-speed film has much finer grain structure than high-speed. So you can imagine how many times each element got reprinted to make the final comps, given how grainy and contrasty the results were. (And very impressive how the stand just disappears into the blue screen.)

The Space Seed shots look stunning. I'm definitely grabbing frames for when I paint my 1/1000 E + BB set. Those are the best images of that model I've ever seen.

And they also reveal just how well the conservation team matched the paints on the E. If the detractors were even half right, we'd be seeing it on these disks. Nope. Just the opposite. The more we see, the better they look.


----------



## Gary K

asalaw said:


> Those are the best images of that model I've ever seen.
> 
> And they also reveal just how well the conservation team matched the paints on the E. If the detractors were even half right, we'd be seeing it on these disks. Nope. Just the opposite. The more we see, the better they look.


Well, a little bird sent us some Top Secret screen caps and MP4 files of the Vault footage when the ILMers & I were working on the 11-footer at Udvar-Hazy this past April... 

Gary


----------



## Trek Ace

asalaw said:


> Yeah, that guy says they were shooting with ASA 50 stock, which explains the sharpness. Low-speed film has much finer grain structure than high-speed.


Correct on all counts!

Eastman 5251 is the film stock of which you speak.


----------



## Gary K

Trek Ace said:


> Correct on all counts!
> 
> Eastman 5251 is the film stock of which you speak.


True! Richard Edlund told us that the film stock was 5251, and that the number would be taped onto the film magazine. I checked our behind the scenes photos, and sure enough, he was right!

Gary


----------



## Captain Robert April

Well, he was there, so he'd know...


----------



## Gary K

Captain Robert April said:


> Well, he was there, so he'd know...


Not necessarily. That was a half-century ago, and memories are a tricky thing. Sometimes certain details stick with a person, while most others fade away. I've found that when the participants in the construction of the models & the filming of the series are interviewed, they may remember certain stories, but are often hazy re. the details. As Matt Jefferies said in an interview, too many years have gone by. Shoot, I sometimes have to look at my pill container to check what day it is!

Gary


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> Not necessarily. That was a half-century ago, and memories are a tricky thing. Sometimes certain details stick with a person, while most others fade away. I've found that when the participants in the construction of the models & the filming of the series are interviewed, they may remember certain stories, but are often hazy re. the details. As Matt Jefferies said in an interview, too many years have gone by. Shoot, I sometimes have to look at my pill container to check what day it is!
> 
> Gary


And let us not forget, in addition to time making memories fuzzy, and the danger of people being used to telling a particular story over and over and over until they came to believe it even in the face of documented truth (Roddenberry being the poster boy for that), above all else remember:

Back then, it was a job. That's all it was. A job. Do a thing within a specific time and get paid. Go on to the next thing. 

Various jobs I've had, I usually have a few strong memories (good and bad) that stick out but on the main every place I've worked it was just get in, do the work, go home. 

You may have fond memories of, say, the Kay Bee Toys chain and how you found that special magical toy, or more likely how annoyed you were that their prices were higher than most anyone else (it was true) but for me my main memories were how our district manager constantly screwed us over by forcing us to order CASES of stuff that WOULD NOT SELL in order to get one case of something we knew for sure was wanted and people would buy, even at the 15% higher price compared to most other stores. And then came the problem of trying to find room for those cases of crap that would never sell...

See? That's day to day. And I'm sure it's the same thing in TV production. Just get it done because next week you gotta do it again.


----------



## asalaw

Gary K said:


> Well, a little bird sent us some Top Secret screen caps and MP4 files of the Vault footage when the ILMers & I were working on the 11-footer at Udvar-Hazy this past April...
> 
> Gary


A Little Bird of the Galaxy? 

I had a feeling it would be something like that. The Okudas have been involved in that project almost 10 years, they're on the team, I'd assume RR was all for it... kismet.

What's amazing is how good that footage looked. Like it was a negative transfer, not the faded workprints on the rest of the disks. You just gotta file that under Buried Treasure. :smile2:


----------



## Gregatron

asalaw said:


> A Little Bird of the Galaxy?
> 
> I had a feeling it would be something like that. The Okudas have been involved in that project almost 10 years, they're on the team, I'd assume RR was all for it... kismet.
> 
> What's amazing is how good that footage looked. Like it was a negative transfer, not the faded workprints on the rest of the disks. You just gotta file that under Buried Treasure. :smile2:


Well, it _would_ be a negative transfer, wouldn't it? After all, why would they bother making workprint dupes of raw bluescreen shots? Surely it would be "Scene Missing" in the workprints until the final composites came in, right?


----------



## asalaw

Gregatron said:


> Well, it _would_ be a negative transfer, wouldn't it? After all, why would they bother making workprint dupes of raw bluescreen shots? Surely it would be "Scene Missing" in the workprints until the final composites came in, right?


True enough, which means those fx shots wouldn't have been salvaged trims like the other stuff -- and leaving me curious as to where they came from. Dunn? Anderson? Burning with curiosity here.

And another thing -- the HD transfers of the episodes were made from conformed negative. So, did the studio archive any unused camera negative beyond what we've seen?


----------



## Steve H

asalaw said:


> True enough, which means those fx shots wouldn't have been salvaged trims like the other stuff -- and leaving me curious as to where they came from. Dunn? Anderson? Burning with curiosity here.
> 
> And another thing -- the HD transfers of the episodes were made from conformed negative. So, did the studio archive any unused camera negative beyond what we've seen?


I think you're missing a step. If I understand the underlying premise, these clips came from Roddenberry, as in private property, not Desilu/Paramount/CBS. 

And that makes sense because there's only so many slides one could make with discarded film trims, BUT if you...um...procured... camera negs that were deemed excess to need or unusable after the final edit was locked down and ran dupes of THOSE to make your film clips, well, you'd never run out, right? And that stuff was all going to be tossed out ANYWAY, so what's the harm in it, right? (the harm, of course, is that legally Desilu/Paramount owned that film and if they wanted to destroy it that was their right as stupid as that would be)

Of course I'm just speculating but I always wondered just how Lincoln Enterprises could keep selling film 'slides' for years. You'd think the stock would evaporate pretty quick if it was just the trims tossed out at editing.


----------



## Proper2

feek61 said:


> The footage in the "Vault" blurays of the miniature is amazing. It is fantastic to see these motion shots taken against the blue screen background and see stage hands turning the miniatures as the camera passes by. Best $40 bucks I have spent in a very long time!


Well, the price on this from Amazon has been going from over $50 to $40 and then back up, and now has just gone back to $40, so I was going to get it until I read this: https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-...iewpnt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B01LFUORW0#R1WDXVO1KMUR8I

And apparently there will be more released piecemeal. More shenanigans from Paramount to milk more money for what I think should have been one release.

Merry Christmas to all!


----------



## asalaw

That's not true. The interviews and the extra footage are all in HD. This guy doesn't know what he's talking about.


----------



## Trek Ace

asalaw said:


> That's not true. The interviews and the extra footage are all in HD. This guy doesn't know what he's talking about.


He IS correct, in that the outtake footage included within the documentaries is all in standard definition. I was dismayed to discover this myself when I first received the set. The outtake footage definitely exhibits interlace and scaling artifacts, moire patterns and noise clearly representing standard definition transfers. It was quite jarring, considering that the surrounding talking head interviews are all in HD. I can't fathom why this would be, except perhaps as a cost-cutting measure due to the volume of material. There are a few exceptions, with the bluescreen shots (such as the cube test shot with the_ Enterprise_), that are in HD.

The outtakes included in the "Snippets from the Cutting Room Floor" portion, on the other hand, are all in HD, save for the shot of the of the 11-footer from the first pilot, which has horrible interlacing errors.

I'm glad much of this material is finally being made available. It is a shame that it was not utilized years ago for the remastered series, but that is another story and another argument that I don't wish to relive. I just hope that more of it is released (especially the effects elements), as what we were shown on this set is a mere drop in the bucket of what was produced.


----------



## Captain Robert April

According to Denise Okuda, this was it. Believe it or not, out of those thousand film cans, this was the good stuff; the rest is work prints of stuff we've already seen or clips so short they're not worth the effort.


----------



## Proper2

So, if the 12 episodes account for 10 hours in the 3 discs, how much time is devoted to the new stuff?


----------



## MartyS

Proper2 said:


> So, if the 12 episodes account for 10 hours in the 3 discs, how much time is devoted to the new stuff?


There are roughly 2 hours of extras on each disc.

The big vault documentary split into 3 parts.

And each disc has a stand alone documentary:

Revisiting a Classic
Visualizing the Fantastic
Swept Up, snippets from the cutting room floor


----------



## asalaw

Guys, this is page 2 of the OT stuff. Let's get back to the E and take this other stuff to another thread. Call it "Bash the Okudas" or whatever.


----------



## Richard Baker

Or start a new thread on the Vault. I am interested in some of things included but have no desire to buy the TOS shows...


----------



## Captain Robert April

The bluescreen footage of the Enterprise is well worth the price.

Especially if you snag it for $40.


----------



## Proper2

feek61 said:


> The footage in the "Vault" blurays of the miniature is amazing. It is fantastic to see these motion shots taken against the blue screen background and see stage hands turning the miniatures as the camera passes by.


This most interesting angle was never aired, which I think is unfortunate. I never understood why. A quick scene of a few seconds of this would have added dimension to the BB. As it was used, the BB model could have just been a 2-D cardboard cutout.


----------



## feek61

Here are a couple of more caps from that sequence








There are also some really interesting shots of the BB by itself (sorry to go off topic)


----------



## Steve H

Proper2 said:


> This most interesting angle was never aired, which I think is unfortunate. I never understood why. A quick scene of a few seconds of this would have added dimension to the BB. As it was used, the BB model could have just been a 2-D cardboard cutout.


I think the problem may have been the shadow of the Botany Bay thrown on the underside of the saucer. It may or may not have created a problem for compositing. I'm guessing it would have been too much work to put an inky on the floor shining up to wipe out the shadow because then they'd have to adjust all the other lighting to get an even coverage. 

I agree, that would have been a great shot to keep. Really gives scale and proportion and motion.


----------



## asalaw

Captain Robert April said:


> The bluescreen footage of the Enterprise is well worth the price.
> 
> Especially if you snag it for $40.


I would've gladly paid the full $80 retail freight for it. It's extraordinary footage. After decades of frustration over the fuzzy, faded shots of the Space Seed shoot, seeing the incredible quality of the actual footage was a revelation. It just blows my mind to see how close the restored E and the footage are to each other. It makes going to see the model feel that much more like stepping back in time.


----------



## Captain Robert April

feek61 said:


> Here are a couple of more caps from that sequence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are also some really interesting shots of the BB by itself (sorry to go off topic)


One thing this establishes is that the BB was not _*brown!*_ Heavily weathered, yes, but just as gray as the Enterprise (probably the same batch of paint).


----------



## Proper2

Captain Robert April said:


> One thing this establishes is that the BB was not _*brown!*_ Heavily weathered, yes, but just as gray as the Enterprise (probably the same batch of paint).


It was painted with an undercoat of grey (possibly just primer?) and then a lot of brown and tan. The result shows a *greyish-brownish-tan Botany Bay w/ dark patches of very dark brown, reddish brown and possibly white-ish accents*!


----------



## feek61

Captain Robert April said:


> One thing this establishes is that the BB was not _*brown!*_ Heavily weathered, yes, but just as gray as the Enterprise (probably the same batch of paint).


Funny, I thought the exact opposite. I thought the gold / bronze / brown really stood out in the footage particularly compared to the gray E. Even the weathering on the BB was clearly the same as in later photos.


----------



## Proper2

feek61 said:


> Funny, I thought the exact opposite. I thought the gold / bronze / brown really stood out in the footage particularly compared to the gray E. Even the weathering on the BB was clearly the same as in later photos.


Yes, this is largely correct. The BB definitely had a lot of brown and tan coloring, to the point where it pretty much looked brownish. The screen caps from the vault clearly show that.


----------



## asalaw

Does that model still exist?


----------



## Gary K

asalaw said:


> Guys, this is page 2 of the OT stuff. Let's get back to the E and take this other stuff to another thread. Call it "Bash the Okudas" or whatever.


I agree. This thread is starting to meander all over the place, so let's stick to the topic. It's not hard to start new threads for "What color is the Botany Bay?" and other topics.

Gary


----------



## Steve H

Given that the topic title is "New information on the original nacelle domes of the 11-ft Enterprise", I'd suggest we've gone a good bit afield of that, yes? 

I think the discussion of the Botany Bay, in context of filming the 11 foot Enterprise, is within the topic. We see again what a complex thing color is under studio conditions.


----------



## Captain Robert April

feek61 said:


>


The pics in this series weren't properly white balanced.


----------



## Proper2

Captain Robert April said:


> The pics in this series weren't properly white balanced.


Yes, you're right, this particular set of pics are not accurate representations. But as I said, the vault screen caps show the color fairly accurately, and these show the BB quite brown compared to the Enterprise. And I've been trying to upload some pics of the original model taken in someone's garage but for some reason I'm unable to.... :frown2:


----------



## John P

Yeah, nobody can upload any more. There's something wrong with the system, and no moderator to contact to fix it. You'll have to upload the pix to a hosting site, then link them.


----------



## asalaw

So, Gary, do I need to drive up to Baltimore and give Jason a swift kick?


----------



## Gary K

asalaw said:


> So, Gary, do I need to drive up to Baltimore and give Jason a swift kick?


Nope. Jason has resumed working on jobs that put food on his family's table, and I've got two other modelers matching the paint chips. Before too long, you should have more paint info than you ever wanted.

Gary


----------



## asalaw

Gary K said:


> Nope. Jason has resumed working on jobs that put food on his family's table, and I've got two other modelers matching the paint chips. Before too long, you should have more paint info than you ever wanted.
> 
> Gary


Glad you said that. I'm not fond of long drives, and I really don't like going to Baltimore (unless somebody buys the crabs).


----------



## Proper2

asalaw said:


> Glad you said that. I'm not fond of long drives, and I really don't like going to Baltimore (unless somebody buys the crabs).


Who has crabs?


----------



## Steve H

Proper2 said:


> Who has crabs?


Hey, we're all friends here and stuff but I think some things should be kept private...


----------



## Hunch

RossW said:


> That sheet is what I was referring to. Could you please post a scan of that?


Sorry it took so long to get back to you RossW, I dont get online much anymore
and so I dont take over the thread with personal stuff just email me for a pic (with a camera, it wont fit on my scanner) with a ruler next to it.
Jim

[email protected]

and just put "Enterprise Instructions" in the header so I dont skip over it and I'll foward you the pic. Or let me know in the email if you want more than one pic or what have you.
Good? :smile2:

And now back to our regularly scheduled program...


----------



## MGagen

Gary,

The model paint specs your team is working on: A question. The spectrographic info released by the Smithsonian was raw direct samples off of layers of original paint on the model. It didn't take into account any effects of aging or shifting pigment over the years. Is your hobby paint match aiming at a best guess at virgin paint when it was applied to the model, or a close match of the samples taken in it aged state as discovered on the model?

It is my understanding that the restoration team used the spectro info as a mere starting point and that the restoration colors are an educated guess at the paint as it appeared during the final production.

Mark


----------



## RossW

Hunch said:


> Sorry it took so long to get back to you RossW, I dont get online much anymore
> and so I dont take over the thread with personal stuff just email me for a pic (with a camera, it wont fit on my scanner) with a ruler next to it.
> Jim
> 
> [email protected]
> 
> and just put "Enterprise Instructions" in the header so I dont skip over it and I'll foward you the pic. Or let me know in the email if you want more than one pic or what have you.
> Good? :smile2:
> 
> And now back to our regularly scheduled program...


Thanks Hunch/Jim! Email sent.


----------



## Gary K

MGagen said:


> Gary,
> 
> The model paint specs your team is working on: A question. The spectrographic info released by the Smithsonian was raw direct samples off of layers of original paint on the model. It didn't take into account any effects of aging or shifting pigment over the years. Is your hobby paint match aiming at a best guess at virgin paint when it was applied to the model, or a close match of the samples taken in it aged state as discovered on the model?
> 
> It is my understanding that the restoration team used the spectro info as a mere starting point and that the restoration colors are an educated guess at the paint as it appeared during the final production.
> 
> Mark


The original greenish-gray hull paint had darkened a bit, but the Smithsonian repainted the hull with the slightly darker color so it wouldn't clash with the upper saucer, and so it would replicate what the ship would have looked like if it had been sitting undisturbed at the museum since the late 60's. The ILM team had to adjust a few of the trim colors to be in balance with the slightly darker hull. Kim Smith was THE expert in painting, and she performed numerous tests to determine what shade & how many coats of each paint to apply. I'll have more detailed info in PT 4 or 5 of the Sci-Fi & Fantasy Modeller article.

My guide is an educated guess re. the original appearance of the colors, plus additional colors for weathering, the tan lower saucer rings, the Pilot version hull, etc. I lightened the greenish-gray hull color slightly, and then most of the other colors required minimal adjustment. I also adjusted a bit for colors that had yellowed shellac on them. Both Kim and I relied on internal notes on the paint matches that were made by the museum's paint expert, plus discussions with him. 

The moral of my story is that painting & restoration at a professional level is a very complex and demanding field.

Gary


----------



## Captain Robert April

Proper2 said:


> Yes, you're right, this particular set of pics are not accurate representations. But as I said, the vault screen caps show the color fairly accurately, and these show the BB quite brown compared to the Enterprise. And I've been trying to upload some pics of the original model taken in someone's garage but for some reason I'm unable to.... :frown2:


It's "quite brown" compared to the Enterprise because they weathered the bejeesus out of the thing, but there are enough cleaner patches of hull that are, apparently, the same shade of gray as the Enterprise.


----------



## Proper2

Captain Robert April said:


> It's "quite brown" compared to the Enterprise because they weathered the bejeesus out of the thing, but there are enough cleaner patches of hull that are, apparently, the same shade of gray as the Enterprise.


Well, again, what difference does it make what the "base color" was if it's largely covered up with a different color? After all, weathering is paint! If something is painted with a checkered primer or paint and then mostly covered with brown paint, do you say that the item is basically painted a checkered pattern? And the assertion that the grey coat is "apparently the same shade as that of the Enterprise" is rather baseless since no picture is in no way clear enough to determine that. It's just as likely or more so that it's a grey auto primer with browns applied over it. In addition, that apparent grey can easily be a tan-grey. Hard to know with that brown covering most of it and blending into it. :wink2:


----------



## asalaw

Gary K said:


> I'll have more detailed info in PT 4 or 5 of the Sci-Fi & Fantasy Modeller article.


I got the app some time ago, gonna grab me a subscription when my next paycheck drops in the next couple days. $5.99/issue's pretty good. Reading the digital sampler right now, plus I bought the old issue with Jim Small's R2 18" conversion. Giving me some very good ideas for the couple of those that I have parts for laying around in my pile. But I think now that I've got my smooth saucers, Ima start on my 1/350. I'm taking your suggestion of mixing those two SW colors, and maybe going a hair lighter.

As one of my favorite mentors always said, "Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good." Applied here, it means I prefer a completed model that's ever-so-slightly off-color to a pile of plastic and the promise of future (near-) perfection. :smile2:


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> The original greenish-gray hull paint had darkened a bit, but the Smithsonian repainted the hull with the slightly darker color so it wouldn't clash with the upper saucer, and so it would replicate what the ship would have looked like if it had been sitting undisturbed at the museum since the late 60's. The ILM team had to adjust a few of the trim colors to be in balance with the slightly darker hull. Kim Smith was THE expert in painting, and she performed numerous tests to determine what shade & how many coats of each paint to apply. I'll have more detailed info in PT 4 or 5 of the Sci-Fi & Fantasy Modeller article.
> 
> My guide is an educated guess re. the original appearance of the colors, plus additional colors for weathering, the tan lower saucer rings, the Pilot version hull, etc. I lightened the greenish-gray hull color slightly, and then most of the other colors required minimal adjustment. I also adjusted a bit for colors that had yellowed shellac on them. Both Kim and I relied on internal notes on the paint matches that were made by the museum's paint expert, plus discussions with him.
> 
> The moral of my story is that painting & restoration at a professional level is a very complex and demanding field.
> 
> Gary


Gary, you mention the greenish-gray color darkening over time, and you mention the yellowing of the shellac.

What I wonder is, as the paint aged, is it possible that in addition to darkening, is it possible that something bleached out bringing more green to the gray? The way red always dies a horrible pale death when left in the sun for a long time, or how some white plastics turn greenish (an oddity of some specific toys made by Bandai in the mid '80s. It's a REALLY odd thing, that is).

Maybe there's no way to tell. I just wonder.


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> Gary, you mention the greenish-gray color darkening over time, and you mention the yellowing of the shellac.
> 
> What I wonder is, as the paint aged, is it possible that in addition to darkening, is it possible that something bleached out bringing more green to the gray? The way red always dies a horrible pale death when left in the sun for a long time, or how some white plastics turn greenish (an oddity of some specific toys made by Bandai in the mid '80s. It's a REALLY odd thing, that is).
> 
> Maybe there's no way to tell. I just wonder.


There's no way to know the original colors w/o a time machine, but we can make a good guess. The hull gray (Pilot & Production) had darkened a little, but enough to throw off some of the others. It was no big deal, and I explain it better in my guide. The expert that the museum hired to take core samples of the paint said that sometimes old lacquers will chemically darken slightly, and sometimes they don't. She also determined that the green on the upper saucer was definitely due to green-tinted shellac. The deep red trim had been be covered by paint & was never exposed to sunlight, and it seemed fine. The 3 gray trim colors also looked exactly as I had expected. The shellac was on the far side of the blue dorsal, and when the guy at the paint store scanned my sample & took out some yellow, it looked just like it did in good quality screen caps. I've got actual scanner readings for the upper saucer. The short answer is that all the colors look "right" when they're combined on the model.

Gary


----------



## CessnaDriver

Just a side note, 
I just got the Roddenberry Vault Blurays,
There are a few test shots of alternate attempts at lighted dome FX. Rather interesting, some
might say fascinating.


----------



## Hunch

Gary K said:


> Nope. Jason has resumed working on jobs that put food on his family's table, and I've got two other modelers matching the paint chips. Before too long, you should have more paint info than you ever wanted.
> 
> Gary


Wow Gary! THAT is the BEST news I've heard in a long, long time! Also, as I believe you to be the best one to ask, do you think the "neck" of the 1st pilot to really be Pontiac engine blue metallic (or whatever it states on the instructions) or has that changed since the final (?) restoration? And IS there really a small round porthole at the very rear of the ship just before the last two rectangular windows, that then changes to the OTHER side of the two windows for the second pilot (that can clearly be seen) and then BACK to being in FRONT of the rear two rectangular windows for the series as per the instructions? Just seems counter productive to fuss over such a minuscule thing taking everything into consideration. AND (while I'm annoying you) it sure seems that there are NO navigation lights, or clear bits to represent said lights on the top OR the bottom of the saucer when we get our very first glimpse (if the original pilot ever aired FIRST) of the Enterprise in all her majesty. It also lacks good, solid color and THAT makes it even harder to "see" things when it appears black and white? Maybe there are shots inserted into LATER episodes that clearly show these things from the first pilot, but I cant find 'em!

And most of all, If in fact you read this and I have your ear, I would like to thank you personally for all your hard work and diligence in bringing the 'ol girl back from her sad, lackluster state to her original glory. And if you could pass the "thank you", truly from the bottom of my heart, onto the others involved in this most needed restoration of a TRUE American Icon, it would be gratefully appreciated. Not to go out of your way as no one knows me from Adam (I'm the guy who makes/made the Monster Scenes add-on resin kits- for die hard fans and Gerry Anderson full and multi scaled accurate miniatures- hobby) but if you happen to run into them or talk via the internet please pass the "thank you" along, as I do believe I speak for the majority of the folks reading this thread and not just myself, so that should hold some weight.
Thanks again,Best, and have a wonderful new year,
Jim :smile2:and the always beautiful Judy:x


----------



## Gary K

Hunch said:


> Wow Gary! THAT is the BEST news I've heard in a long, long time! Also, as I believe you to be the best one to ask, do you think the "neck" of the 1st pilot to really be Pontiac engine blue metallic (or whatever it states on the instructions) or has that changed since the final (?) restoration? And IS there really a small round porthole at the very rear of the ship just before the last two rectangular windows, that then changes to the OTHER side of the two windows for the second pilot (that can clearly be seen) and then BACK to being in FRONT of the rear two rectangular windows for the series as per the instructions? Just seems counter productive to fuss over such a minuscule thing taking everything into consideration. AND (while I'm annoying you) it sure seems that there are NO navigation lights, or clear bits to represent said lights on the top OR the bottom of the saucer when we get our very first glimpse (if the original pilot ever aired FIRST) of the Enterprise in all her majesty. It also lacks good, solid color and THAT makes it even harder to "see" things when it appears black and white? Maybe there are shots inserted into LATER episodes that clearly show these things from the first pilot, but I cant find 'em!
> 
> And most of all, If in fact you read this and I have your ear, I would like to thank you personally for all your hard work and diligence in bringing the 'ol girl back from her sad, lackluster state to her original glory. And if you could pass the "thank you", truly from the bottom of my heart, onto the others involved in this most needed restoration of a TRUE American Icon, it would be gratefully appreciated. Not to go out of your way as no one knows me from Adam (I'm the guy who makes/made the Monster Scenes add-on resin kits- for die hard fans and Gerry Anderson full and multi scaled accurate miniatures- hobby) but if you happen to run into them or talk via the internet please pass the "thank you" along, as I do believe I speak for the majority of the folks reading this thread and not just myself, so that should hold some weight.
> Thanks again,Best, and have a wonderful new year,
> Jim :smile2:and the always beautiful Judy:x


Thanks for the 'thanks'! I just wanted the model to be restored correctly, and I happened to be in the right place at the right time. I'll pass along your thanks to the ILM & museum people.

The neck of the 1st Pilot versions seems to have been nothing more than glossy, blue-tinted shellac sprayed over the cool gray Pilot hull color. For the 2nd Pilot, Datin sprayed it with a dullcoat. Don't use thinned blue paint. You need to use a clear carrier plus some blue pigment. Some people even add a few drops of food coloring to Future polish (or whatever its new name is). The value of the neck's color should be about the same as the hull's (that is, the lightness/darkness).

The porthole by the hangar bay did move. The first one was just painted on, but the 2nd one was actually drilled into the hull.

The rollout saucer was almost completely undecorated, except for a few basic markings, but Datin added more detail before it was filmed. As far as I can tell, he glued a 1/2" plastic hemisphere near the outer port & starboard edges, and added some additional markings to the upper saucer. You can kinda see the bow makings when the ship is going through reddish energy barrier in 'Where No Man Has Gone Before'.

Btw, Datin cut the 3 holes in the front of the 2nd Pilot saucer, plus the two groups of 3 on the lower saucer. He installed a light bulb in the center opening, but they filmed the model with the other holes wide open. The 2nd Pilot model was definitely a work in progress.

Gary


----------



## Hunch

Gary K said:


> Thanks for the 'thanks'! I just wanted the model to be restored correctly, and I happened to be in the right place at the right time. I'll pass along your thanks to the ILM & museum people.
> 
> 
> 
> The rollout saucer was almost completely undecorated, except for a few basic markings, but Datin added more detail before it was filmed. As far as I can tell, he glued a 1/2" plastic hemisphere near the outer port & starboard edges, and added some additional markings to the upper saucer. You can kinda see the bow makings when the ship is going through reddish energy barrier in 'Where No Man Has Gone Before'.
> 
> Btw, Datin cut the 3 holes in the front of the 2nd Pilot saucer, plus the two groups of 3 on the lower saucer.
> Gary


Gary,
Thanks for the great info! I'm still uncertain as to where I can see the 1st pilot "E" with clear nav hemi's ? "Where no man has gone before" is clearly the 2nd pilot "E" (when it enters the reddish "cloud") and when we FIRST (chronologically) see the "E" it zooms into the bridge where live action takes over and on this very clear close up shot I can see no indication of any nav lights? Is there another episode that uses footage from the 1st pilot (that was not shown IN the pilot) that shows clear hemi's? Or am I just stupid and dont see it on the 1st zoom in? Also I'm guessing the pair of three holes on the saucer underside, port and starboard were NOT painted onto the 1st piot? Can you guess that I'm doing the 1st pilot yet, lol? I'm doing all 3, just starting with the unlit one first.
Thanks again for all your help,
Jim and Judy


----------



## mrvictor

I have a question for Gary. Now that the big E is finished, how long will she last before needing another restoration? 20 years, 50 years, indefinitely?


----------



## asalaw

Got my Sci-Fi Fantasy Modeller 44 today on the app! Very thorough article, Gary! Congratulations!


----------



## Gary K

asalaw said:


> Got my Sci-Fi Fantasy Modeller 44 today on the app! Very thorough article, Gary! Congratulations!


Thanks - but now I've had to add a number of clarifications & additional photos to the beginning of Pt 2. Like I always say, every time you think you've uncovered all the available info on the Enterprise, something new pops up!

Gary


----------



## Gary K

Hunch said:


> Gary,
> Thanks for the great info! I'm still uncertain as to where I can see the 1st pilot "E" with clear nav hemi's ? "Where no man has gone before" is clearly the 2nd pilot "E" (when it enters the reddish "cloud") and when we FIRST (chronologically) see the "E" it zooms into the bridge where live action takes over and on this very clear close up shot I can see no indication of any nav lights? Is there another episode that uses footage from the 1st pilot (that was not shown IN the pilot) that shows clear hemi's? Or am I just stupid and dont see it on the 1st zoom in? Also I'm guessing the pair of three holes on the saucer underside, port and starboard were NOT painted onto the 1st piot? Can you guess that I'm doing the 1st pilot yet, lol? I'm doing all 3, just starting with the unlit one first.
> Thanks again for all your help,
> Jim and Judy


It seems like the 11-footer was a work-in-progress, and the appearance of the model changed practically day-by-day - especially till they arrived at the initial Production version. Richard Datin added detailing to the model between the original delivery date and the filming of the zoom-into-the-bridge shot in "The Cage". After "The Cage", and before the 2nd Pilot conversion, they filmed some additional test footage, and I based the unlit nav lights on the photos below, and a couple similar ones that were taken around the same time.

I'm thinking now that Datin cut three groups of 3 holes into the model - two on the underside of the saucer & one at the bow. The holes were definitely present in the 2nd Pilot model.

Gary


----------



## Gregatron

Finally cracked open the RODDENBERRY VAULT Blu-Ray. Stunning stuff--particularly all of those HD shots of the model being filmed. I almost fell out of my seat, especially when they recomposited a few of the shots against a starfield. THIS is how the ship was always supposed to look, y'know?

Anyway, something which surprised me in one of the second pilot shots is that that blinker domes on the upper saucer were unlit, yes (which we knew), but the smaller red/green lights next to the big faux lights blinked in unison with the lights on the bow saucer rim and above the hangar. They apparently went back to being unlit for Production, while the faux lights were made into the familiar red/green blinkers. Huh!


----------



## Gary K

Gregatron said:


> Finally cracked open the RODDENBERRY VAULT Blu-Ray. Stunning stuff--particularly all of those HD shots of the model being filmed. I almost fell out of my seat, especially when they recouped a few of the shots against a starfield. THIS is how the ship was always supposed to look, y'know?
> 
> Anyway, something which surprised me in one of the second pilot shots is that that blinker domes on the upper saucer were unlit, yes (which we knew), but the smaller red/green lights next to the big faux lights blinked in unison with the lights on the bow saucer rim and above the hangar. They apparently went back to being unlit for Production, while the faux lights were made into the familiar red/green blinkers. Huh!


Those smaller nav lights were REALLY small - only a half-inch long. We know their exact size because their Pilot-gray footprints were still on the upper saucer. A thin Plex rod was attached to each nav light, and extended inside the saucer & conducted light to the nav lights. I'll have close-up pics in a later installment of the SF&FM article.

Gary


----------



## asalaw

Gary K said:


> Thanks - but now I've had to add a number of clarifications & additional photos to the beginning of Pt 2. Like I always say, every time you think you've uncovered all the available info on the Enterprise, something new pops up!
> 
> Gary


I've since given it a closer read -- fascinating stuff! The .5 HO-scale issue is intriguing, as you point out, given Datin's railroad interests. Still gotta go back and re-read the 91%-scale bits, which kinda lost me because math (hence lawyer, not engineer). 

Guys, you should totally pick up this issue. The digital version is great -- 20 bucks for a year's subscription (which I sprang for), or $6.99/issue. Plus no waiting for shipping! :grin2:


----------



## Gary K

asalaw said:


> I've since given it a closer read -- fascinating stuff! The .5 HO-scale issue is intriguing, as you point out, given Datin's railroad interests. Still gotta go back and re-read the 91%-scale bits, which kinda lost me because math (hence lawyer, not engineer).
> 
> Guys, you should totally pick up this issue. The digital version is great -- 20 bucks for a year's subscription (which I sprang for), or $6.99/issue. Plus no waiting for shipping! :grin2:


Basically, Jefferies drew plans of a very small Enterprise at half of HO-scale. Then somebody realized that a 4X model (esp the saucer) would be too large to build. The available sheet plastic probably wasn't wide enough and/or the vacuformers weren't large enough. A 34" model would fit the bill, so Jefferies threw scale out the window, shrank the original Enterprise drawing down to 34", and drew additional details onto the shrunken plans. The Enterprise in the later, more refined drawing, was also 34" long and wasn't drawn to any standard scale. We don't know how Jefferies came up with a 947" LOA, except that 947' is almost 1.75 times the original 543' length.

How small was the original Enterprise? Hold an old 18" AMT Enterprise next to R2's 1:350 model. THAT is how small the original Enterprise would have been!

Gary


----------



## asalaw

Gary K said:


> Basically, Jefferies drew plans of a very small Enterprise at half of HO-scale. Then somebody realized that a 4X model (esp the saucer) would be too large to build. The available sheet plastic probably wasn't wide enough and/or the vacuformers weren't large enough. A 34" model would fit the bill, so Jefferies threw scale out the window, shrank the original Enterprise drawing down to 34", and drew additional details onto the shrunken plans. The Enterprise in the later, more refined drawing, was also 34" long and wasn't drawn to any standard scale. We don't know how Jefferies came up with a 947" LOA, except that 947' is almost 1.75 times the original 543' length.
> 
> How small was the original Enterprise? Hold an old 18" AMT Enterprise next to R2's 1:350 model. THAT is how small the original Enterprise would have been!
> 
> Gary


Thanks -- now I finally get it! :nerd:

My only complaint now is that SF&FM is a frakking QUARTERLY.

Come ooooon April!! 

I have started my PL 1:350, BTW -- got both the BM and SW color chips on the way home from a miraculous hobby store in Chantilly called Piper Hobby. Going back to NASM this weekend to look at the blue/turquoise on the dorsal again, plus nail the accent grays into my brain (picked up a nice grayscale chart at Blick Art Supply), then I'm coming back home to play with paints till I'm happy. That may involve fingerpainting.


----------



## Gary K

asalaw said:


> My only complaint now is that SF&FM is a frakking QUARTERLY.
> 
> Come ooooon April!!


A quarterly is just fine because I have to research and write (and re-write) this stuff! 

Gary


----------



## Captain Robert April

Gary K said:


> How small was the original Enterprise? Hold an old 18" AMT Enterprise next to R2's 1:350 model. THAT is how small the original Enterprise would have been!
> 
> Gary


EEP! I just did that with my unboxing video...







Skip to 9:39...


----------



## Gregatron

Man, I am so glad my 1/350 build has been on hiatus. Those friggin' motors have been a blessing in disguise, since they've stalled my progress long enough to keep soaking up all of this great new info.

Heck, looking at the RODDENBERRY VAULT footage, those green upper and lower saucer domes are really obvious, but none of us knew about them until recently. Of course, the AMT kit had it right, way back when. Who knew, eh?


This is just an amazing time to be a fan of the ship and the models, y'know? Between Gary's kindness in hanging around here to discuss the finer points, and David Shaw's carefull documentation of the early blueprints/designs and the AMT kit, it's been an exciting year.


Looking forward to receiving my copy of SFFM. Too bad that it's quarterly, but better to not have these articles rushed, right?


----------



## Steve H

Plus the quarterly sked allows for some last minute corrections and additions, as Gary has said. While I'll be a pill and state I still want that big coffee table book that has all the stuff Gary is writing and more, I'd rather see it in the magazine then not at all. 

FWTW of course.


----------



## Hunch

Gary K said:


> It seems like the 11-footer was a work-in-progress, and the appearance of the model changed practically day-by-day - especially till they arrived at the initial Production version.
> 
> Gary


Gary,
thanks yet again for saving the day for me. I will go with "No nav lights" for my 1st pilot as it was a work in progress and there are NO shots of HER with nav lights in the episode proper. When I get to building the 2nd pilot (I'm building her 3rd) I will take into consideration all the "in between" changes that were made and pic and choose which ones I want to represent. Thanks a million, I hate to be the guy who finishes a model only to have people say "you know there was no this and that on that particular model and all your work was for not"!
I will probably leave off the pair of 3 holes (lights?) on the aft underside left and right on the saucer (after I went to the trouble to re-drill the holes for proper placement). At least Round 2 put out a smooth saucer before I bothered to fill in the "pencil" lines on the 3rd saucer! That was really becoming cumbersome.
Best,
Jim and Judy


----------



## Gary K

Hunch said:


> Gary,
> thanks yet again for saving the day for me. I will go with "No nav lights" for my 1st pilot as it was a work in progress and there are NO shots of HER with nav lights in the episode proper. When I get to building the 2nd pilot (I'm building her 3rd) I will take into consideration all the "in between" changes that were made and pic and choose which ones I want to represent. Thanks a million, I hate to be the guy who finishes a model only to have people say "you know there was no this and that on that particular model and all your work was for not"!
> I will probably leave off the pair of 3 holes (lights?) on the aft underside left and right on the saucer (after I went to the trouble to re-drill the holes for proper placement). At least Round 2 put out a smooth saucer before I bothered to fill in the "pencil" lines on the 3rd saucer! That was really becoming cumbersome.
> Best,
> Jim and Judy


Well... I wouldn't go so far as to say that the nav lights weren't on the Cage version model, since we're trying to see a half-inch clear dome in severely degraded imagery. Even the much larger red & yellow rectangles are hard to see. If you look at the zoom-in shot in the Vault footage, the location of the stbd light is cropped off just when we'd be able to see if the light was there, but on the port side there's a very faint, very fuzzy *something* that's in the right spot, relative to the yellow marking *see photo). Nothing definitive, of course, but since the domes were on the model a week or two after 'The Cage' was filmed, I'd lean toward putting the lights on the model.

In the hi-res version of the Rollout imagery, I think I'm seeing 3 holes in the bow. Considering the fact that there were two groups of 3 lights were on the post-Cage imagery, combined with the fact that it would be physically awkward to cut holes in the finished model, I'd bet that the holes were on the underside of the saucer.

One thing we know for sure, thanks to the Vault footage: Datin performed the 2nd Pilot alterations in his garage workshop, but he didn't add all the round black "exhaust vents" to the impulse deck & back ends of the nacelles. They were added by an unknown person at the studio after they'd filmed a ventless 2nd Pilot model.


----------



## Gregatron

Another thing in the VAULT footage which surprised me is that the three holes in the bow really appear to be HOLES in the second pilot, with no window inserts. You can actually get a glimpse inside the model, in some of those shots!

As for the faux lights on the upper "Cage" saucer, I seem to recall glimpsing them when studying that zoom-in shot. Need to take another look.


----------



## StarshipClass

Any information available on what appears to be on the end of the starboard nacelle end cap of the 1701 as delivered? Is it even really there or is that just something in the background? Are there other photos of it sitting on the asphalt that may confirm or deny?

Looks from the photo as if there may have been some detailing similar to what was on the three foot model but all the pictures from about the same period I've seen of the 11 footer show the nacelle end caps were free of aft detailing:



Just saw came across this picture in a recent post on Facebook (Mark Myers' group): https://www.facebook.com/groups/1580283998951292 in thread by Gustavo Leao.


----------



## Gary K

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Any information available on what appears to be on the end of the starboard nacelle end cap of the 1701 as delivered? Is it even really there or is that just something in the background? Are there other photos of it sitting on the asphalt that may confirm or deny?
> 
> Looks from the photo as if there may have been some detailing similar to what was on the three foot model but all the pictures from about the same period I've seen of the 11 footer show the nacelle end caps were free of aft detailing:
> 
> 
> 
> Just saw came across this picture on recent post on Facebook (Mark Myers' group): https://www.facebook.com/groups/1580283998951292 in thread by Gustavo Leao.


Yes, the detailing is what is commonly referred to as a license plate on a Ford automobile. 

Gary


----------



## StarshipClass

Gary K said:


> Yes, the detailing is what is commonly referred to as a license plate on a Ford automobile.
> 
> Gary


Whew! :grin2: The placement of whatever that is near the license tag was throwing me off--wasn't centered at all so didn't seem like the tag. Thanks for the add'l photo! :thumbsup:


----------



## Gary K

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Whew! :grin2: The placement of whatever that is near the license tag was throwing me off--wasn't centered at all so didn't seem like the tag. Thanks for the add'l photo! :thumbsup:


The full, cleaned-up version of that photo is on the first page of the SF&FM article.

Gary


----------



## Captain Robert April

That b&w pic really shows the difference in the neck paint.


----------



## Steve H

We use so many different names for the same things, and slang and shorthand for other things, it's sometimes hard to figure out if a dead horse is being beaten or if there's a new dead horse. 

Personally, I find the discussion gripping, because new things are being discovered even now. The Effects footage from the Roddenberry Vault Blu-Ray seems to be causing more assumptions to be questioned. All to the good. (my dead horse: BIG COFFEE TABLE BOOK ABOUT THIS STUFF  )

So, in the interest of making sure that context is being paid attention to, allow me a little space to see if I understand where we are, thanks to Gary and the restoration project:

Regarding the 11 foot filming miniature:

1st Pilot-

-turned in late, hardly used in the pilot film. Understanding is only used for the truck-in to the bridge dome shot. Majority of Enterprise in flight shots done with 33" miniature. 

-Solid (more or less) construction. Intentionally NOT designed to be lit. Designed to be shot on a pipestand. 

-detail, paint and deco focused on the right hand side of the miniature (as seen from specific angles). It is assumed it's a combo of lack of time and/or money that kept the left side mostly plain, except for the pennants on the nacelle and engineering hull. (my assumption is they painted those on 'just in case')

Second pilot:

-Details, paint added. Still focused mainly on what can be seen from the right side. Appears no attempt is made to continue detailing/paint to 'finish' the miniature so it can be shot from both sides. Paint deco significantly changed on top of saucer, possibly due to alterations for lighting? Bridge dome altered to add lighted 'window' to the front. Personal observation: I think many people considered it a sensor or some such, but the recently revealed effects footage strongly implies, to me at least, that there was a desire to mirror the 'truck-in to the Bridge' shot from the first pilot, this time pushing in to the action from the point of view of the (wild) Main Viewer wall section.

-There have been several photos of the 11 foot miniature hanging from wires. I believe Datin has said the model wasn't designed (or stressed) for that. I wondered if ALL the shots were done with the model hanging from wires but the Roddenberry Vault footage clearly shows some shots done on pipestand. 

-the electrical wiring appears to be all internal. I don't recall seeing exposed wires from the interconnecting dorsal trailing out as we see later on in the production version. I do not know if the model was lit when hanging from wires, altho it could be done. I make the assumption that the wires at this time would be snaked down next to the pipestand. Holes and paths had to be cut into the model for lights and wires and transformers. 

Production:

-more detail and paint deco changes. Most visible may be the reduction of the height of the Bridge dome which gets rid of the 'front window'.

-Most significant change, the addition of light effects in the nacelles, I *think* there's additional lighting in the Engineering Hull.

Due to limitations of the original construction of the model (and maybe also time and money factors), wiring leads to the unfinished left side which now renders it un-usable for filming. I'm guessing some of the wiring changes were done to make it easier and faster to replace burnt-out incandescent bulbs. 

-The Enterprise is now a fairly complex miniature in terms of operation. It overheats quickly, limiting the amount of time it can be shot. Regardless of difficulties during production, this is the beautiful lady we see and love.

This is what I understand thanks to Gary K and the long discussions about the restoration. 

Questions I have. 1. Are there pictures of the miniature lit while hanging from wires, or was it only lit when mounted on the pipestand?

2. it's not something I can do, but has anyone considered contacting Marc Cushman (of These are the Voyages) to see if he knew of memos in the archives he's had access to specifically regarding the effects work and the model? Reason: It's mentioned how it seems the 11 foot miniature was a constant 'work in progress'. As much as a silver tongued devil Roddenberry was, I can't believe he was able to sweet talk Datin to doing things 'off the books'. There must be memos and prices for everything, not just what has survived in Datin's book. I'm pretty sure much of the delay in getting the 11 foot miniature built was Roddenberry changing his mind. Lots of stuff is likely unrecorded and documented obviously but at some point it has to be reduced to paper for pricing, agreement and payment. I can't help but think there's more answers to questions we don't even know waiting to be discovered. 

How's that?


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## Captain Robert April

The wire shots seem to have been only for the first pilot, maybe for a short time afterward. Once lights started being introduced for the second pilot, it was on the stand for the duration, and the port side was doomed to obscurity..


----------



## Steve H

Captain Robert April said:


> The wire shots seem to have been only for the first pilot, maybe for a short time afterward. Once lights started being introduced for the second pilot, it was on the stand for the duration, and the port side was doomed to obscurity..


Can't be first pilot. (watch me get schooled by Gary on this  ).

It's my understanding that the 11 foot model was so late in delivery they ONLY used it for the truck-in to the top of the bridge dome. I don't think you could get that shot by hanging the model and when you look at the un-used shot of the Enterprise from the 2ed pilot, you can see just about exactly how that first pilot shot was done. Ship on pipestand, tilted, it's rotated as the camera trucks in and there's the shot. 

So seems to me.


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> Can't be first pilot. (watch me get schooled by Gary on this  ).
> 
> It's my understanding that the 11 foot model was so late in delivery they ONLY used it for the truck-in to the top of the bridge dome. I don't think you could get that shot by hanging the model and when you look at the un-used shot of the Enterprise from the 2ed pilot, you can see just about exactly how that first pilot shot was done. Ship on pipestand, tilted, it's rotated as the camera trucks in and there's the shot.
> 
> So seems to me.


The model was hung from wires for the one shot in 'The Cage', plus some additional test footage. Richard Datin added the pipe stand when he installed lights on the 2nd Pilot version. The Galileo, Klingon D7, and Romulan BOP were hung from wires in front of the blue screen, but they didn't have a handful of wires hanging from them.

Gary


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> The model was hung from wires for the one shot in 'The Cage', plus some additional test footage. Richard Datin added the pipe stand when he installed lights on the 2nd Pilot version. The Galileo, Klingon D7, and Romulan BOP were hung from wires in front of the blue screen, but they didn't have a handful of wires hanging from them.
> 
> Gary


I don't mean to be pedantic here, I just want to know. I have a difficult time 'seeing' how that shot is done with wires, given the angle of tilt. Consider the mechanics.

I'm not sure the camera rig they were using was able to truck in, raise up and tilt down. Given the size and weight of the Enterprise I'm not sure how stable it would have been hung at an angle. I strongly doubt it was manipulated on the wires to tilt Gerry Anderson style. 

I honestly believe that unused footage from the second pilot shows us how the 'truck to the bridge' shot from the pilot was done. Mounted at an angle on the pipe, rotated as the camera trucks in.

Datin said in his book (written after his death, true, and I can see from what's written that at times he seemed to blend history as happens when decades have past) he had the 11 foot miniature built to mount on a pipe stand. 

Pretty sure we do know that the 33" miniature was hung from wires for its shots. 

And I realize I'm in danger of being classed with the "but I have proved the dorsal was painted metallic blue" guy here. I hope not. I'm using logic and available evidence to make my case. But if you've seen BTS pictures, part of the 'not general access' material that proves my assumptions wrong, then I apologize and stand corrected. I honestly, truly have a hard time envisioning that shot done with the ship hanging from wire.


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> I don't mean to be pedantic here, I just want to know. I have a difficult time 'seeing' how that shot is done with wires, given the angle of tilt. Consider the mechanics.
> 
> I'm not sure the camera rig they were using was able to truck in, raise up and tilt down. Given the size and weight of the Enterprise I'm not sure how stable it would have been hung at an angle. I strongly doubt it was manipulated on the wires to tilt Gerry Anderson style.


Watch the Cage shot on the Roddenberry Vault in slow motion. You can see the wire that comes out of the hole in the impulse deck.

Gary


----------



## asalaw

Steve H said:


> I'm not sure the camera rig they were using was able to truck in, raise up and tilt down.


I am. 

Camera dollies of the type we see in those Lynwood Dunn photos invariably have boom arms, either hydraulic or pneumatic. I've seen and worked with them many times, even very old ones. Depending on the skill of the dolly grip, they can boom up and down quite smoothly. 

The panning and tilting is done at the camera head, which is a geared head (like the one holding up the model) and very easy and smooth to operate even with the heaviest of cameras (which is what they're designed for). You just shift gears on the head depending on whether you want a fast or slow move. 

These are standard studio dollies, and they can even be taken out on location. That's why God made the grip department. :smile2:


----------



## Steve H

asalaw said:


> I am.
> 
> Camera dollies of the type we see in those Lynwood Dunn photos invariably have boom arms, either hydraulic or pneumatic. I've seen and worked with them many times, even very old ones. Depending on the skill of the dolly grip, they can boom up and down quite smoothly.
> 
> The panning and tilting is done at the camera head, which is a geared head (like the one holding up the model) and very easy and smooth to operate even with the heaviest of cameras (which is what they're designed for). You just shift gears on the head depending on whether you want a fast or slow move.
> 
> These are standard studio dollies, and they can even be taken out on location. That's why God made the grip department. :smile2:


Fair enough. Didn't know if it was a regular dolly or something else. So I learn something.


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> Watch the Cage shot on the Roddenberry Vault in slow motion. You can see the wire that comes out of the hole in the impulse deck.
> 
> Gary


Don't have the discs as I don't have a BD player. If you see it, then that's what's going on. Fair enough. 

You'll forgive my confusion over Datin's statements in re. 'Not designed to hang'. It may well be he was actually blending his thoughts/opinion about the early presentation of the Enterprise at NA&SM with his memories of production.


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> Don't have the discs as I don't have a BD player. If you see it, then that's what's going on. Fair enough.


Check yesterday's HT posting #1724.


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> Check yesterday's HT posting #1724.


OK. I'm not seeing it.

It could be my eyes, it could be my monitor resolution, it could be my crap ATT DSL, but I just can't see it.

Let me make sure we're speaking the same language. 

You say 'impulse deck'. Is that the detail area that leads to the 'impulse engines' block on the back of the saucer? The detail that covers the bolts that hold the saucer to the dorsal?

Are you saying it's a vertical wire strung along the C/G of the model which should be (in a line) somewhere about where the vertical line of 'windows' are on the dorsal. 

I'm not trying to be crazy about this. It's strange that I can't see it. I would think that the wire would occult the inside left nacelle a little for part of the shot but then again, maybe not. proper fill light, some anti-flair on the wire, step on the image a bit...

I'm guessing if I had the BD disc and a decent HD TV it would probably leap out. Carefully step framing on my monitor of a Youtube clip, I don't see it. 

So, I'll take it on faith. I'll apologize for being stubborn.


----------



## asalaw

Steve H said:


> Fair enough. Didn't know if it was a regular dolly or something else. So I learn something.


The only nonstandard gear I've been able to make out in the photos is what appears to be a motor drive on the back of the dolly, which would make a lot of sense if you're undercranking. Shooting over 24 fps is very forgiving of dolly bumps or uneven dolly pushing and smooths everything out. But below 24 fps is just the opposite. It would magnify every imperfection in a hand-pushed move. So you put a motor drive on the dolly and get a nice, even move.


----------



## escape068

Steve H said:


> OK. I'm not seeing it.
> 
> It could be my eyes, it could be my monitor resolution, it could be my crap ATT DSL, but I just can't see it.
> 
> Let me make sure we're speaking the same language.
> 
> You say 'impulse deck'. Is that the detail area that leads to the 'impulse engines' block on the back of the saucer? The detail that covers the bolts that hold the saucer to the dorsal?
> 
> Are you saying it's a vertical wire strung along the C/G of the model which should be (in a line) somewhere about where the vertical line of 'windows' are on the dorsal.
> 
> I'm not trying to be crazy about this. It's strange that I can't see it. I would think that the wire would occult the inside left nacelle a little for part of the shot but then again, maybe not. proper fill light, some anti-flair on the wire, step on the image a bit...
> 
> I'm guessing if I had the BD disc and a decent HD TV it would probably leap out. Carefully step framing on my monitor of a Youtube clip, I don't see it.
> 
> So, I'll take it on faith. I'll apologize for being stubborn.


If you look closely around 58 sec you can see a faint vertical line that distorts the pylon and nacelle. Watch in full screen and pause the video at 57sec and use your mouse to click ahead a little at a time and you will see the line appear at 58sec

Post 1724 with the video

Not sure if that's it but Gary can confirm


----------



## Steve H

escape068 said:


> If you look closely around 58 sec you can see a faint vertical line that distorts the pylon and nacelle. Watch in full screen and pause the video at 57sec and use your mouse to click ahead a little at a time and you will see the line appear at 58sec
> 
> Post 1724 with the video
> 
> Not sure if that's it but Gary can confirm


Tried exactly that, and I'm just not seeing that. I've looked and looked and looked. 

To quote someone or other, just because I can't see it doesn't mean it's not there. I freely concede the point.


----------



## Trek Ace

The model was hung by wire for the first pilot shot.

Here is a frame grab from the Roddenberry disc that (clearly?) shows the cable. The model itself didn't move during the shot, as it would have compromised the very specific lighting and projection used for the top saucer closeup. 










It's too bad that this shot is not presented in HD on the disc, as it displays horrendous NTSC interlace artifacts from the poor-quality uprez. But, at least the rest of the ship shots are in actual HD. I have some better-quality scanned film elements that show the cable much clearer than this frame grab. But, I would have to un-archive it and that would not be timely for this discussion.


----------



## Steve H

Trek Ace said:


> The model was hung by wire for the first pilot shot.
> 
> Here is a frame grab from the Roddenberry disc that (clearly?) shows the cable. The model itself didn't move during the shot, as it would have compromised the very specific lighting and projection used for the top saucer closeup.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's too bad that this shot is not presented in HD on the disc, as it displays horrendous NTSC interlace artifacts from the poor-quality uprez. But, at least the rest of the ship shots are in actual HD. I have some better-quality scanned film elements that show the cable much clearer than this frame grab. But, I would have to un-archive it and that would not be timely for this discussion.


I don't...wait wait wait...just in front of the 'intercooler' on the port nacelle? OK, I see it now. 

I got thrown off by Gary's comment about impulse deck and my own mental picture of the center of gravity of the model. That's a bit further back than I expected, more where I assumed the C/G shifted with the additions of the transformers and nacelle effects. 

aside: Gary, again my apologies. I've never called that part the impulse deck. I've always thought of it just as impulse engines or more recently impulse exhaust. 

What I'm assuming is the wire leads to the dorsal, thru it and down into the engineering hull. Do I recall one of the restoration X-rays showing a big eyebolt around there? Before I had any knowledge of the 11 foot model being hung for production I had assumed that was placed by the original NA&SM team for its display in the '70s and '80s.

I never assumed the model moved on the wire. I would have assumed movement if the shot had been as seen for that unused second pilot effect.

Thank you Trek Ace. Outstanding frame grab.


----------



## escape068

That's the shot that shows it.

I could not attach any pictures or I would have posted a similar one. 

The same line can be seen from the video in post 1724


----------



## Gary K

In this photo you can see that the wire goes into the small hole in the middle of the impulse deck.

Gary


----------



## Steve H

escape068 said:


> That's the shot that shows it.
> 
> I could not attach any pictures or I would have posted a similar one.
> 
> The same line can be seen from the video in post 1724


I feel like I'm reviewing the Zapruder film at this point. 

NOW, looking again, going back and forth, back and forth, I can barely see the wire. But I honestly can't say... or let me phrase it. I'm ASSUMING I'm seeing it because of the other framegrab. Like I may be convincing myself that now I see it. I just don't know. 

Bah.


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> In this photo you can see that the wire goes into the small hole in the middle of the impulse deck.
> 
> Gary


I appreciate your attention to my fumbling for truth here. 

I want to be absolutely sure I'm not misunderstanding one point here. 

Are you suggesting that the wire was ANCHORED to the impulse deck, or merely passing through it? Because in all the apologizing I've been doing for mis-assumptions on my part, I really have a difficult time believing that specific part was strong enough and specifically stressed to support the 200 or so pounds of wood, metal and plastic.

Wait wait wait wait. That pic is from the second pilot.


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> I appreciate your attention to my fumbling for truth here.
> 
> I want to be absolutely sure I'm not misunderstanding one point here.
> 
> Are you suggesting that the wire was ANCHORED to the impulse deck, or merely passing through it? Because in all the apologizing I've been doing for mis-assumptions on my part, I really have a difficult time believing that specific part was strong enough and specifically stressed to support the 200 or so pounds of wood, metal and plastic.
> 
> Wait wait wait wait. That pic is from the second pilot.


No, this was an in-between version. They did some repainting on the saucer, but there are no lights yet. The uncropped picture will be in SF&FM.

The model was supported by at least 3 wires (2 at the ends of the nacelles). The impulse deck wire was anchored inside the saucer.


----------



## alensatemybuick

Why crop it at all...


----------



## Hunk A Junk

The more I read this thread the more it seems like building a model that accurately reflects the original miniature is like trying to hit a moving target. The model changed so often, and in so many minute ways, that there could be two dozen different variations, all of them "accurate."

"Which version of the model is this?"

"Why, it's the Second Pilot, post-Datin, Mid-August '65, 2pm version."

"Nice. But did you hear they just found some footage proving that at 1:55pm some stagehand added a 2mm dickfore on the left nacelle?"

"Damn it."

:laugh:


----------



## feek61

alensatemybuick said:


> Why crop it at all...


It looks like to me the wires on the back of the nacelles are connected to a little ball at the back, top part of the nacelle; much like those seen on the D-7. Is that correct?


----------



## John F

I find it interesting that the pylons were sturdy enough that the nacelles stayed straight when suspended by wires


----------



## escape068

Hunk A Junk said:


> The more I read this thread the more it seems like building a model that accurately reflects the original miniature is like trying to hit a moving target. The model changed so often, and in so many minute ways, that there could be two dozen different variations, all of them "accurate."
> 
> "Which version of the model is this?"
> 
> "Why, it's the Second Pilot, post-Datin, Mid-August '65, 2pm version."


I agree. 

When I did my 1/350 Refit, I custom mixed all the colors to as close to the reference pictures that I can get or to what looked best to me. No matter how close you think you have mixed colors it will always look different based on your lighting how many coats of paint you applied and probably some other factors also. The other issue is that it takes a good amount of paint to cover the 1/350 kit and you need to have enough for touchups and seams as you put the different section together especially if you are lighting the model. 

From what I understand no company makes the TOS basecoat green/gray so it would have to be custom mixed anyway. Instead of buying 25 - 30 bottles of Tamiya white and all the small bottles of paint colors.........I bought larger quantities of Polytranspar 4/8/16/32oz bottles of several colors and mixed my own. Most likely cheaper and I have plenty left over for other projects.

For the TOS basecoat I would get 16oz of the Polytranspar (lacquer) super hide white and mix with their gray and green to match the color on the paint guide that comes with the kit or the plastic model itself. That would then be mixed with at least 8oz of thinner. I would have over 24oz of basecoat for the ship to be sprayed with an HVLP sprayer to initially paint the ship then an air brush to blend areas where their are seams and any fixes that need to be done. I mixed that much for the 1/350 Refit and it was more that enough. For the secondary colors 1 or 2oz bottles mixed for those colors. On my Refit all colors were custom mixed with Polytranspar paint. Keep good notes on how it was mixed so you can make a new batch if needed. The only other paint I used on my Refit was a custom mixes of Tamiya to paint the phaser boxes on the upper/lower saucer and on the fantail and one of the rings around the deflector dish. 

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/99-sc...g/522929-my-1-350-tmp-enterprise-refit-3.html

My1/350 has been finished but I cannot seem to post pictures anymore and my work has blocked all picture hosting sites so I cannot do it that way from work


----------



## Steve H

John F said:


> I find it interesting that the pylons were sturdy enough that the nacelles stayed straight when suspended by wires


My head is spinning with all this, but my thought is that the wires attached at the back of the nacelles may be more about holding it steady and not so much actually carrying the weight.

My thought is the loadbearing wire is the one at the back of the saucer.

This is how we learn. Gary now shows another picture that shows how obviously I am mistaken. I understand how this works now.


----------



## Captain Robert April

It looks like the main loadbearing wire is in the same spot where the Smithsonian initially put the wire they hung the model from back in ancient times.


----------



## Hunk A Junk

"Loadbearing wire" has got to be an oxymoron. Or it should be. :laugh:


----------



## Steve H

Captain Robert April said:


> It looks like the main loadbearing wire is in the same spot where the Smithsonian initially put the wire they hung the model from back in ancient times.


See, this is where I get confused. I'm pretty sure that hanging went to that eyebolt anchored in the Engineering Hull, and the wire was going thru the dorsal. 

Gary is saying (at least this is what I understand yeesh) that wire (post 1st pilot pre 2ed pilot it's true we almost need timecodes for the variations at this point  ) is anchored to the saucer after passing thru the impulse detail. 

Now, again, my mind, I want to think that wire is connected somewhere the lag bolts holding the saucer to the dorsal are, because that's close to the center of gravity. The 1st NA&SM 'hanging' with the eyebolt to me reflects the shift in C/G caused by the nacelle effects.

And I'm probably wrong again.


----------



## Proper2

My brain hurts!


----------



## John P

IIRC, from one diagram I saw, the wire enters halfway down the back of the _neck_, and is anchored deep inside the secondary hull.


----------



## Steve H

Proper2 said:


> My brain hurts!


Hey, mine too! 

I'll say it again. Giant coffee table book about the Enterprise. Get all this solidified, verified and locked down for all time! 

Seriously, most of the pieces are here. Well, not here but found in the restoration, the confidential material the team had access to, memos in the various archives. There is a grand, complicated story to tell.


----------



## Hunk A Junk

John P said:


> Why not? They also stayed straight when supported on the pipestand. The attachment and stresses on the nacelles were identical both ways.


Not exactly. The stress would be put on the opposite side of the nacelle strut joint depending on whether the nacelle is carrying the load (the secondary hull) or IS the load. If the nacelle is carrying the load, the stress point would be on the forward part of the strut and the opposite side if the secondary hull is holding up the nacelle. (This is assuming the nacelle support wires are connected back by the rear intercoolers, as in those photos)

We're getting waaaay into the weeds here. :nerd:

But, it is amazing that a 50 year old model can even still hold itself together at all! I'm a 50 year old model and I'm falling apart! :laugh:


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Steve H said:


> I'll say it again. Giant coffee table book about the Enterprise. Get all this solidified, verified and locked down for all time!


I'd put money down on such a book right now.

The only problem, however, is that no matter what we learn there's always another layer to this onion (if past is prologue). Five minutes after the coffee table book would ship to stores someone would find a new archive photo or test another micro of paint and suddenly the book is outdated.

I'd still buy it.


----------



## Steve H

John P said:


> IIRC, from one diagram I saw, the wire enters halfway down the back of the _neck_, and is anchored deep inside the secondary hull.


Yes, what I said. maybe I shouldn't use 'dorsal' even tho we all have for decades. It's a position, not a thing.  (dorsal, ventral, blah blah)


----------



## Irishman

Steve H said:


> Well, I assume that's on the Blu-Ray, the only way to do that on DVD is with 'branching' and nobody ever figured out a good way to make that work seamlessly, so...
> 
> I ask because I would be buying the DVD version. I do not have a BD player.




We need to get this man a Blu-ray player!! 

Unlike "Hamilton", it will change your life!

They're so cheap these days.


----------



## Captain Robert April

I've even seen Blu-ray players at the local thrift store.


----------



## Steve H

Yes, BD players are cheap. I had my eyes on a specific model that could be easily modded to play all regions, but of course before I could pull that trigger it's suddenly out of production. Story of my life. 

But I just can't afford to spend money on such luxuries. I stand to lose my house soon, I have no idea what I'm going to go or what I'm going to do. So, it's a crisis. And I shouldn't have mentioned it. it doesn't matter to the subject at hand. I only mention it in passing to show I'm not ignorant of the need to 'get with it' regarding Blu Ray. The spirit is willing but the wallet is weak. For now. Hope, always hope springing eternal.


----------



## John P

Steve H said:


> Yes, what I said. maybe I shouldn't use 'dorsal' even tho we all have for decades. It's a position, not a thing.  (dorsal, ventral, blah blah)


And if the saucer is the "primary" hull and everything else is attached to _it_, then the neck is _ventral _to it! >


----------



## Steve H

John P said:


> And if the saucer is the "primary" hull and everything else is attached to _it_, then the neck is _ventral _to it! >


Very true! Of course it's rather difficult to think in those terms as the Enterprise (TOS) is so easily thought of as a single unit compared to the Enterprise-D, but THERE the connecting is much more blended and not a distinct pylon.

Blah blah. :devil:


----------



## whereisanykey

I watched a video of someone painting the Enterprise and noticed he, and many others, are not painting the dorsal color far enough back. The color intersects half or so of one of the upper windows and most all, except for a corner, of a middle window. Many of these painters have that dorsal color in front of the windows instead of overlapping. Just an observation. 

Greg


----------



## KUROK

Steve H said:


> , I have no idea what I'm going to go or what I'm going to do. So, it's a crisis.


Geez.... sorry to hear that, man... Hang in there...


----------



## Steve H

KUROK said:


> Geez.... sorry to hear that, man... Hang in there...


I appreciate that. I keep trying. 

And I feel guilty, I really shouldn't have dumped that out like I did, it's not really important in the greater scheme of things, I guess the stress breaks me from time to time. I'll try to do better.


----------



## asalaw

Very sorry to hear that, Steve. I've been in similar straits, and it's no fun at all. Hang in there.


----------



## Steve H

asalaw said:


> Very sorry to hear that, Steve. I've been in similar straits, and it's no fun at all. Hang in there.


Again, thank you, the kind thoughts are appreciated.


----------



## asalaw

On a more cheerful (or at least inquisitive) note, Gary, I spent some time today at NASM peering at the dorsal front, since I can't find any real-world sources for FS 35275. It looks to me as though the hull color might make it seem greener than it is, since it's a thin wash and some hull may be coming through. 

So if I go a hair bluer than the online depictions of that color (yes, I know the hazards), and lay it on very thin, could I come reasonably close?

Though I'm deeply loving the process of this build, and really going all-out, I'm not spending fifty bucks for a single color chip (let alone $900 for an FS fan book).


----------



## asalaw

YIKES!!!!!

On a whim I did an eBay search for "FS 35275." It came up as Vallejo 70.808, blue green!! It's right on the bottle as sold in the U.K., along with RAL #5018. The US bottle I ordered doesn't say that on the label, so does anyone know if the same Vallejo paint number might be different shades here vs. Europe?


----------



## Gary K

asalaw said:


> YIKES!!!!!
> 
> On a whim I did an eBay search for "FS 35275." It came up as Vallejo 70.808, blue green!! It's right on the bottle as sold in the U.K., along with RAL #5018. The US bottle I ordered doesn't say that on the label, so does anyone know if the same Vallejo paint number might be different shades here vs. Europe?


FS 35275 is NOT the actual color of the dorsal. This is the museum's match for a color that was used to tint shellac, which was then sprayed on the gray dorsal. I was going to write a long explanation of how the restoration colors were determined, but I've got tons of work to do, and I've already written a lengthy explanation for the oft-delayed painting guide. Paul Newitt and Mike Anderson are actively working on the paint matches, and if everybody could find something else to do for a short while, they'll have more info than they ever hoped for.

Gary


----------



## Steve H

No! NO! I have nothing of value to do so I want, I DEMAND you drop EVERYTHING Gary and spend all your time here telling us stuff that in the end really has to be "paint it the way it looks good to you" and nobody listens and wants more and more and more of your time and knowledge! 

OK, that's weak comedy but it's been a rough weekend. Good to see Paul Newitt is still in the game. His SFAM series was informative as all get out at the time and I still have mine. I'm sure just like me and my time in fanzine publishing he looks back and shakes his head and mumbles "If I knew then what I know now..." 

(seriously. I would have KILLED for a Mac, a word processing program and a laser printer in 1982. Would have saved me tons on going to a typesetter. The Apple II GS was good but personal printers just not good enough blah blah blah)


----------



## asalaw

Gary K said:


> FS 35275 is NOT the actual color of the dorsal. This is the museum's match for a color that was used to tint shellac, which was then sprayed on the gray dorsal. I was going to write a long explanation of how the restoration colors were determined, but I've got tons of work to do, and I've already written a lengthy explanation for the oft-delayed painting guide. Paul Newitt and Mike Anderson are actively working on the paint matches, and if everybody could find something else to do for a short while, they'll have more info than they ever hoped for.
> 
> Gary


I get that -- it's stated plainly in the Smithsonian article that these are not exact matches. Living in DC, though, I have the luxury of painting up swatches and going to NASM to try and compare (hard as hell, since the display cabinet is rather dark). Hell, I don't even know if the Vallejo paint is an exact match to the FS color! But it's a place to start...

It's also immensely fun to hunt this stuff down, even knowing better matches are forthcoming -- vastly more fun than sitting on my (admittedly capacious) Cuban duff waiting for others to show their results. I get to go out, find chips, look at the model, play with paints... it's hard work maintaining the standards of a 52-year-old toddler, but I do a good job. *#workethic* 

Besides, in the end, close enough is close enough. I'm not going to haul my model to NASM and hold it up for comparison to the original. I'm not doing this so I'll have a "perfect" copy of the original -- a chimera if ever there was one. I'm doing this because I love the process of building the model. 

One of my favorite mentors always said, "Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good." The closer I've come to internalizing that message, the happier I've been. :smile2:


----------



## Trek Ace

asalaw said:


> "I'm not going to haul my model to NASM and hold it up for comparison to the original."


Oh, of course you will.


----------



## Steve H

Trek Ace said:


> Oh, of course you will.


Ya know...

It would be impossible of course, the logistics are impossible but wouldn't it be interesting if builders near the D.C. area got together and brought their Enterprise builds to the NA&SM and took pictures of the kits placed all around the 11 foot model? Like some massive Enterprise photobomb or selfie. 

Completely impossible. NA&SM wouldn't allow it, carting the kits around would be near impossible, the risk of builds getting damaged would be incredible...

But boy that would be something to see.


----------



## asalaw

Trek Ace said:


> Oh, of course you will.


:laugh:
GET OUT OF MY HEAD!!! 



Steve H said:


> Ya know...
> 
> It would be impossible of course, the logistics are impossible but wouldn't it be interesting if builders near the D.C. area got together and brought their Enterprise builds to the NA&SM and took pictures of the kits placed all around the 11 foot model? Like some massive Enterprise photobomb or selfie.
> 
> Completely impossible. NA&SM wouldn't allow it, carting the kits around would be near impossible, the risk of builds getting damaged would be incredible...
> 
> But boy that would be something to see.


I can't imagine an objection from the museum, but I certainly can foresee a danger to the model from going through the X-Ray scanner. Those big dangly rubber things on either side of the chamber could easily mar the finish and knock parts off. So I'll wait for others to take that risk before I sign on... 

Meanwhile, I probably won't get to painting the color pass for a while yet, so there's still time to see what Paul Newitt and Mike Anderson come up with. (Or not -- we'll have to see.)


----------



## Y3a

Years ago we brought our giant scale RC airplanes to the place in Maryland that the Smithsonian stored and fixed up the Air & Space airplanes. Shouldn't be an issue. We wouldn't want to block anyones view of the REAL Enterprise though.


----------



## robn1

asalaw said:


> ...I can't imagine an objection from the museum, but I certainly can foresee a danger to the model from going through the X-Ray scanner. Those big dangly rubber things on either side of the chamber could easily mar the finish and knock parts off...


If something like this were arranged with NASM approval I'm sure they'll come up with a less invasive method to screen the models.


----------



## asalaw

Well, the 50th anniversary of The Trouble with Tribbles is in August... start building, peeps!


----------



## Zombie_61

Steve H said:


> ...It would be impossible of course, the logistics are impossible but wouldn't it be interesting if builders near the D.C. area got together and brought their Enterprise builds to the NA&SM and took pictures of the kits placed all around the 11 foot model? Like some massive Enterprise photobomb or selfie.
> 
> Completely impossible. NA&SM wouldn't allow it, carting the kits around would be near impossible, the risk of builds getting damaged would be incredible...


Not to mention they'd all look almost exactly alike, so the modelers would all be standing around after the fact saying, "Wait, which one is mine?" :lol:

Yeah, I know that wouldn't happen, but that's how it plays out in my head.


----------



## asalaw

That's why I'd put my initials on mine with a Sharpie.


----------



## Hunk A Junk

After Gary nipped me for being impatient about R2's revised color guide, I took his advice and decided to just eyeball all the colors. My E has been on the bench for well over two years now, and my goal of finishing it on the 50th anniversary is out the window, so I've just started painting. I'm trying to stay close to the studio miniature colors, but I'm doing a modified Remastered-style faux Azteking to lay underneath the main hull color (to honor Gary's kick in the pants I call them "Kerr panels">) From a distance, it will look like one solid color, but on closer inspection you'll see subtle variations -- I hope. :smile2:


----------



## Skyking918

*Aztecing the TOS Enterprise*



Hunk A Junk said:


> I'm doing a modified Remastered-style faux Azteking to lay underneath the main hull color (to honor Gary's kick in the pants I call them "Kerr panels">) From a distance, it will look like one solid color, but on closer inspection you'll see subtle variations -- I hope. :smile2:


How are you doing your "faux Azteking"? Where did you find the pattern? I've thought of doing the same thing, and some pointers would be appreciated.


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Skyking918 said:


> How are you doing your "faux Azteking"? Where did you find the pattern? I've thought of doing the same thing, and some pointers would be appreciated.


I taking inspiration from the Remastered Enterprise by making the panels very random rather than the more geometric patterns on the refit and other post-TMP starships. I actually started by using adhesive metal foil (the type for duct work) and cutting hull panels that break up the smooth hull. You can see some of these raised panels on the remastered episodes when the light rakes across the E's surface. I used foil rather than thin plastic because I wanted them practically invisible unless you angled them to the light juuuuust right. They're very thin. I then sealed them in with several coats of primer and so far they're completely stable. No peeling. Then I sprayed down some lightened Tamiya JN Grey over the entire thing (in sub assemblies, of course) before starting the tape paneling. I just started adding squares and rectangles everywhere, using a compass and a piece of glass to cut curves on the primary hull. No pattern, just eyeballing everything. I had already filled the grid lines, so I penciled on the new lines and used them as a guide to make alternating panels. I tried to minimize the checkerboarding and got plenty of random shapes in there. Then I sprayed a darker green over everything and removed the tape. Right now, the ship looks ridiculous -- like some weird sci-fi camouflage -- but the plan is to overspray the entire thing with a custom mix JN Grey (I'm adding a bit of light blue grey to offset the darker green tones). If it works, from across the room the ship should look greenish grey as God intended, but when you get closer you'll see subtle panels and textures all over the place. My initial plan was to try to replicate the Smithsonian restoration, but I was inspired to do something different. It's going to make some purists peeee-yuke, but so far I'm happy. I'll try to get some pictures posted on another thread.


----------



## Irishman

Gary,

I'm sure someone's already asked you this, but it just occurred to me to ask, and as it relates to the new Smithsonian display, here it goes:

The sideview orthographic illustration that acts kind of like a legend to call out details of the model _*"The outer edge of the deflector dish was trimmed down in the production version"*_ and so on, who made that drawing, and is that orthograph considered more accurate than prior fan takes on the Enterprise?

Thanks so much in advance,

Brian R


----------



## Gary K

Irishman said:


> Gary,
> 
> I'm sure someone's already asked you this, but it just occurred to me to ask, and as it relates to the new Smithsonian display, here it goes:
> 
> The sideview orthographic illustration that acts kind of like a legend to call out details of the model _*"The outer edge of the deflector dish was trimmed down in the production version"*_ and so on, who made that drawing, and is that orthograph considered more accurate than prior fan takes on the Enterprise?
> 
> Thanks so much in advance,
> 
> Brian R


I'd say it's fairly likely that it would be one of my drawings, but I'm not sure. Do you have a photo of the illustration that you can post?

Gary


----------



## Irishman

Gary K said:


> I'd say it's fairly likely that it would be one of my drawings, but I'm not sure. Do you have a photo of the illustration that you can post?
> 
> Gary


I can try.


ETA: Try this Deviant Art upload I made.

http://sta.sh/01lzkemswwpd


----------



## Proper2

Irishman said:


> I can try.
> 
> http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Irishman/media/kerr_prelim_diagram_1_1.jpg.html?filters[user]=253507&filters[recent]=1&sort=1&o=0


That link is broken.


----------



## Irishman

I just edited my last post to change to my DA stash.

Hope that works for you. It did for me.


----------



## Gary K

Irishman said:


> I can try.
> 
> 
> ETA: Try this Deviant Art upload I made.
> 
> Kerr Prelim Diagram 1 - Irishman20's Sta.sh


That's mine, all right. I made 4 drawings of each of the 4 versions of the 11-footer about two years ago, and ALL the drawings need to be revised, following the many discoveries over the past couple years.

Gary


----------



## Skyking918

Gary K said:


> That's mine, all right. I made 4 drawings of each of the 4 versions of the 11-footer about two years ago, and ALL the drawings need to be revised, following the many discoveries over the past couple years.
> 
> Gary


That's some very nice work. Will those drawings be available to the public (i.e., we fans of TOS E) at some point?


----------



## Gary K

Skyking918 said:


> That's some very nice work. Will those drawings be available to the public (i.e., we fans of TOS E) at some point?


I really don't know, and I have nothing against it, but I need to find the time to revise all the drawings. I also have a morbid fear that once I finish revising everything, another batch of archival photos will turn up. 

Gary


----------



## Proper2

Gary K said:


> I really don't know, and I have nothing against it, but I need to find the time to revise all the drawings. I also have a morbid fear that once I finish revising everything, another batch of archival photos will turn up.
> 
> Gary


They're digital drawings, no?


----------



## Gary K

Proper2 said:


> They're digital drawings, no?


Correct.


----------



## Steve H

Book book book BOOK BOOK BOOOOOOOOOK!!!!! 

(sorry, just wanting to make sure that the voice of those desiring a giant coffee table book about the Enterprise is clearly heard. I don't care if it's impossible or unreasonable.  )

(I mean, imagine a book about 14 inches tall and 12 wide with Gary's newly revised drawings as fold-out posters [14x24], or even included 'loose' in a pocket in the back cover. Imagine it.)


----------



## Proper2

Gary K said:


> Correct.


Piece of cake. >


----------



## goose814

Going back to hanging the model, if I understand correctly, the nacelles and the pylons were all removable and that they were so well constructed that during the series they were pretty much just pressed into place. When it was donated to NASM they installed screws into them so that they could hang it from the ceiling. So then, how were the nacelles and pylons secured so that they could hang the model during filming of the first pilot? Thanks for any clarification.


----------



## Steve H

goose814 said:


> Going back to hanging the model, if I understand correctly, the nacelles and the pylons were all removable and that they were so well constructed that during the series they were pretty much just pressed into place. When it was donated to NASM they installed screws into them so that they could hang it from the ceiling. So then, how were the nacelles and pylons secured so that they could hang the model during filming of the first pilot? Thanks for any clarification.


Excellent point. I hope Gary has thoughts on this. 

Myself, I assume (knowing the danger of same) that there was the central wire that supported the entire mass, and the wires attached to the nacelle ends were simply non-load bearing stabilizing wires. Naturally there would end up being some tension but not the same as if they were actively supporting the mass. 

But, that's just assumption on my part.


----------



## asalaw

I'm sure Gary will speak to this -- most of the weight of the model would seem to be toward the center, meaning the dorsal area, just based on where most of the wood mass is. I think that would back up the idea that the middle wire was doing most of the work. That would also play nicely with the location of the stand. Makes me wonder if anyone who hung the model at NASM back in the day is/was still around for the restoration.


----------



## Steve H

asalaw said:


> I'm sure Gary will speak to this -- most of the weight of the model would seem to be toward the center, meaning the dorsal area, just based on where most of the wood mass is. I think that would back up the idea that the middle wire was doing most of the work. That would also play nicely with the location of the stand. Makes me wonder if anyone who hung the model at NASM back in the day is/was still around for the restoration.


It's reasonable to assume that everything would hang (haw!) on the center of gravity of the miniature. It appears that this is (in the pre- nacelle lights version) somewhere around just behind the 'sensor circles' part. again a line drawn thru the interconnecting dorsal pylon. The c/g shifted aft a bit with the addition of the motors for the lights (and the power converter/transformer dealie in the hull) in the nacelles which I would guess ended up just about at the original pipe stand mount point. 

I know there are X-Rays of that area showing all manner of things around there.


----------



## Gregatron

Received the latest SCI-FI AND FANTASY MODELER. Greatly looking forward to sitting down and reading it!


----------



## mach7

I got my copy a few days ago, it's a great read! Looking forward to the rest of the articles.


----------



## asalaw

Gregatron said:


> Received the latest SCI-FI AND FANTASY MODELER. Greatly looking forward to sitting down and reading it!


You're gonna love it. :smile2:



mach7 said:


> I got my copy a few days ago, it's a great read! Looking forward to the rest of the articles.


This issue has sucked me into the rest of the SF&FM universe. I got the app originally because I figured it would be cheaper on a per-issue basis (and it is), but now I'm downloading back issues at an alarming rate, and I'm a subscriber. The digital subscription is about $20/year. I highly recommend it.
#paperwhatsthat


----------



## Gary K

goose814 said:


> Going back to hanging the model, if I understand correctly, the nacelles and the pylons were all removable and that they were so well constructed that during the series they were pretty much just pressed into place. When it was donated to NASM they installed screws into them so that they could hang it from the ceiling. So then, how were the nacelles and pylons secured so that they could hang the model during filming of the first pilot? Thanks for any clarification.


I don't have any special knowledge, but I suspect that wires were attached to the ends of the nacelles more to stabilize the model and prevent it from spinning, than to support it. The rear wires could also tilt the model, as demonstrated by the zoom-in shot at the beginning of 'The Cage'. I think the rear wires could bear *some* weight, even though the nacelle pylons merely slipped snugly into the sec hull. You have to pull the nacelles straight out out the holes in the sec hull when you remove them. With the wires attached to the rear ends of the nacelles, they'd pull at an angle, which would tend to wedge the pylons into the openings in the sec hull. 

Gary


----------



## Richard Baker

asalaw said:


> You're gonna love it. :smile2:
> 
> This issue has sucked me into the rest of the SF&FM universe. I got the app originally because I figured it would be cheaper on a per-issue basis (and it is), but now I'm downloading back issues at an alarming rate, and I'm a subscriber. The digital subscription is about $20/year. I highly recommend it.
> #paperwhatsthat


I have a lot of the back issues (when I moved I had to lose my entire reference magazine collection, just kept SF&FM and CineFx), but where I am now I have no room. I get the electronic versions on my tablet, which does have a perk of being available no matter where I am.

It is a great part one to the Enterprise article series. I usually just buy individual magazines that have interest to me, but with these multi-part article I decided to subscribe since I know I will be getting the following issues for sure.


----------



## John P

Got the mag. Great article, Gary - hungry for more!
Broke the binding trying to read while eating lunch, pages fell out - $36 including shipping. :freak:


----------



## Milton Fox Racing

Try your local library and see if they offer book repair services or can refer you to someone. :cheers2:


----------



## Proper2

Milton Fox Racing said:


> Try your local library and see if they offer book repair services or can refer you to someone. :cheers2:


Yes, they will charge $36 including tax. :grin2:


----------



## John P

Gary, just one comment - far as I know, "Chroma key" is strictly a video phrase. For film process it would have been called "blue screen".


----------



## ClubTepes

John P said:


> Gary, just one comment - far as I know, "Chroma key" is strictly a video phrase. For film process it would have been called "blue screen".


Chroma Blue.

Chroma Green.

Digi-Green.

IIRC, Blue for film (which wrecked havoc with Superman's blue suit and R2-D2's blue panels) because its a filter that blocks the blue spectrum like those 'blue blocker' glasses.

Green for video as the chip samples green better.


----------



## asalaw

The reason blue is used as a key color for film is that the matte pass is shot with bipacked high-contrast B&W film. In B&W, blue creates clear areas on the print. Not necessary anymore due to digital compositing, though I do see modern films using both blue and green even if they're shot on film.


----------



## John P

I know why it's used, I was just asking about the proper terminology. I'd never heard "chroma _key_" applied to film process, only to video. For film, I'd always heard the term "blue (or green) screen process".


----------



## Richard Baker

I always liked Douglas Trumbells technique of using a clear UV spray to make the model glow and pull the mattes off of that. The Enterprise Refit's iridescent aztecing would have been a nightmare with traditional blue screen.


----------



## Steve H

Richard Baker said:


> I always liked Douglas Trumbells technique of using a clear UV spray to make the model glow and pull the mattes off of that. The Enterprise Refit's iridescent aztecing would have been a nightmare with traditional blue screen.


Ur?

Never heard that. What I recall was a slightly more complicated system was used, multiple passes (possible because of precision computer controlled camera) for different 'layers', one pass of the model lit, another of the model 'dark', another of just the lights (running lights, outline lighting etc) being on and so on, and then marrying all that in the optical printer. 

I've never even heard of a clear UV (I assume meaning 'fluoresces under UV light' ) paint. I CAN see using UV to help make the color flop paint on the Enterprise really pop.


----------



## Trek Ace

The UV system was used on Firefox. Trumbull used the front light/back light technique to create mattes for the refit _Enterprise_. The clear UV kept turning the Firefox model brown. Pat McClung told me he had to repaint the model during the production because of that. That would have been disastrous if used on the _Enterprise._


----------



## Steve H

Trek Ace said:


> The UV system was used on Firefox. Trumbull used the front light/back light technique to create mattes for the refit _Enterprise_. The clear UV kept turning the Firefox model brown. Pat McClung told me he had to repaint the model during the production because of that. That would have been disastrous if used on the _Enterprise._


Front light/Back Light. That's the term. yeesh.

So, just a slight sidetrack, just what was the color of the Firefox miniature?

Given all our discussions here on color value and shifts due to lighting and all that I have to hesitate to assume a matte black (because stealth), I could see it being some kind of gray or even deep blue-heck, I would just about believe it was really a bizarre red that color shifted in optical printer processing. 

And why would a clear spray change the color? Did it change under intense UV exposure?


----------



## asalaw

Trumbull also bipacked his matte passes on TMP.


----------



## Hunch

Gary K said:


> Well... I wouldn't go so far as to say that the nav lights weren't on the Cage version model


 ...
Sorry it took so long to get back,
yes, I did see the red & yellow rectangles and even noticed that same "blur" that _could_ be a light but am unsure as I think it would be more visible on the starboard side (albeit further away) . Hmmm....what to do.
Can anyone show me a pic of the first 11 footer (1st pilot) WITH top nav lights? I was going with the blur that Gary pointed out but now am not so sure. Looking at the same few seconds of footage a million times is probably not helping. Think I'll give it a rest and look with fresh eyes after I paint the windows.Yeah, I did not fill them in and paint them on as per the original and am going to use the supplied ones just painted as I could not see the parts go to waste. There are so many of them! I do agree the set of three holes bottom back of saucer were probably there and have decided to keep them (there's some work saved). 
Thanks for the help Gary (I'll probably give in and go with the top lights), much appreciated
Jim


----------



## Gary K

Hunch said:


> ...
> Sorry it took so long to get back,
> yes, I did see the red & yellow rectangles and even noticed that same "blur" that _could_ be a light but am unsure as I think it would be more visible on the starboard side (albeit further away) . Hmmm....what to do.
> Can anyone show me a pic of the first 11 footer (1st pilot) WITH top nav lights? I was going with the blur that Gary pointed out but now am not so sure. Looking at the same few seconds of footage a million times is probably not helping. Think I'll give it a rest and look with fresh eyes after I paint the windows.Yeah, I did not fill them in and paint them on as per the original and am going to use the supplied ones just painted as I could not see the parts go to waste. There are so many of them! I do agree the set of three holes bottom back of saucer were probably there and have decided to keep them (there's some work saved).
> Thanks for the help Gary (I'll probably give in and go with the top lights), much appreciated
> Jim


How's this? These test pics were taken shortly after the zoom shot in 'The Cage' and before the 2nd Pilot conversion. As far as I can tell, nobody had done any mods on the model yet.

Gary


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## Gregatron

Oh, hey! You linked to my blog! It could use some updating, but it seems a bit superfluous, now that all of this new info is coming out.

Another bit to note--in the RODDENBERRY VAULT footage from the second pilot, the faux nav lights are blinking red and green, whereas the bigger, clear dome lights are unlit. For the production version, this seems to have been reversed, with the domes (now red and green) turned into blinkers, and the smaller lights left unlit.


----------



## Steve H

Well, there's a question I can't ignore. I can make guesses but it still nags at me some.

Who paid for that 'Pilot 1.5' work? Was it somehow "we didn't get this done in time but it's still covered by the original billing so we kept working" stuff? Was it cash out of Roddenberry's pocket he figured on recouping, a minimal amount he felt comfortable spending? Was it Roddenberry's silver tongue at work convincing all involved to 'do it because it's the right thing to do' or some such? 

Let me wind back a little. We know the 11 foot miniature was late in delivery in terms of the needs of the production, correct? But it was delivered, so that closed out Datin's participation at that point. They shot the truck-in to the bridge dome so that closed out that part of the effects house contract, correct? So at that point, all work contracted for and paid was concluded. 

Sooo...

See, thing is for me, I CAN see that somehow under the original contract the effects house could have shot more footage of the 11 foot miniature after they locked down the shot required because of anticipated future need (the model is there, the stage is lit, the film has already been paid for and budgeted because the lateness of the arrival of the model they missed doing the shots) but then there's that nagging issue of the deco changes. Somebody had to pay for that. 

Man this gets complicated


----------



## asalaw

I have no idea what the answer is, but I can't imagine GR paying for anything out of pocket except Majel's apartment by the studio.


----------



## Steve H

asalaw said:


> I have no idea what the answer is, but I can't imagine GR paying for anything out of pocket except Majel's apartment by the studio.


And I strongly suspect he found a way to work that into the production expenses. I wish I was joking but that's just the way he thought. 

I mean, sure he had to pay for that BEFORE Star Trek but once the money started flowing...

*sigh* I have to keep a very firm wall in my mind between Roddenberry the 'creative persona' and Roddenberry the man. It's difficult at times.


----------



## Hunch

Thanks Gary, I DO have those pics somewhere...just forgot about them (old brain). Seems the endcaps of the nacelles were filed off flat or the first pilot endcaps were built in a way that it was easy to remove the detail. I know there is a pic (screen grab) somewhere showing the first pilot endcaps from behind...anyone have pics of that that may show nav hemi's (or lack thereof) ?
Thanks again,
Jim


----------



## Captain Robert April

I wouldn't be surprised if the eleven footer never had those first pilot endcaps, just the three footer.


----------



## asalaw

Captain Robert April said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if the eleven footer never had those first pilot endcaps, just the three footer.


Now there's a thought...


----------



## Steve H

Captain Robert April said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if the eleven footer never had those first pilot endcaps, just the three footer.


Given all the shortcuts and tiny little omissions done under the rubric of "if we're not gonna see it don't do it", I would not be at all surprised if you weren't right. 

This is the cue for Gary to tell us one of the 'secret stash' of photos they had during the restoration clearly showed this-or-that-or the other thing.


----------



## Hunch

I may just go with what was seen on screen (not much) and leave off the nav lights, Maybe put the "old" bridge inside with the black handrails. I could swear there was a shot from behind in the episode that showed the endcaps but that could just be the "old brain" playing tricks again. If I watch it again I may go loco.
Jim


----------



## Captain Robert April

The _*ONLY*_ shot of the eleven footer in the episode is that banking zoom-in. Everything else is the three footer.


----------



## Hunch

Yeah I agree. Even though we DONT see the 11 footer endcaps I'm gonna put the kit supplied ones on just to give it a little something, you know?
I'm going to try and match the grey greenish color of the kit plastic as that is all I have to go on... and in HD it does appear to be on the green side of grey so...
Unless better info comes along for mixing enamels (I wont hold my breath as everyone seems to have moved towards the water based paints and I'm still Testors old school) this will be my route. IF better info comes my way, as it takes me forever to get anything done these days so I wont be painting it as soon as I think I will, I may buy the water color paints, mix 'em and then try and duplicate the correct color at that point.:smile2:
Best,
Jim


----------



## ssgt-cheese

Did the guys who modified the Enterprise for the 2nd pilot drilled the holes on the end caps or painted it?


----------



## Captain Robert April

I'd almost bet real money they were painted on.


----------



## Steve H

Captain Robert April said:


> I'd almost bet real money they were painted on.


That's what I recall. I try to think in terms of time/effort/money, and I can't help but think painting was faster than dismounting the endcaps, laying out the plan for where and how many holes, drilling them (even if only a quarter inch deep), touching up the paint and then re-attaching them. 

I also look at that honestly impressive job of painting the faux trench on the inside right nacelle. 

Plus, when it was decided to put the spheres on the endcaps, they would have had to fill some of the holes. Again, time, money, paint. 

Also, I suspect that if the endcaps had been drilled, that would have shown in the X-rays, right? 

That's my thinking.


----------



## Owen E Oulton

Wow, we're actually back on topic, even though we've now moved to the other end of the nacelles. From everything I've heard, the "holes" were just painted on (or maybe decals). Perhaps Gary K. has the info in his files.


----------



## feek61

They were painted on according to Datin.


----------



## Hunk A Junk

feek61 said:


> They were painted on according to Datin.


Which brings us to the age old question: do modelers make a model of the model or a model of what the model is supposed to represent, a starship? Would the real ship have painted on holes? Were they even holes? What are those holes supposed to represent?


----------



## Steve H

Hunk A Junk said:


> Which brings us to the age old question: do modelers make a model of the model or a model of what the model is supposed to represent, a starship? Would the real ship have painted on holes? Were they even holes? What are those holes supposed to represent?


Well, see, I keep saying that. We have people who get their shorts in a bunch over the fact the Enterprise isn't a real vehicle so the ONLY representation that is 'true' is to somehow follow the 11 foot miniature exactly yet I've never seen anyone strip the left side of detail (and the other shortcuts taken). 

We've got people tearing their hair out because Gary hasn't released actual, exact, precise color guides using the many and varied paints on the market, yet I don't think anyone has ever volunteered to send him a complete set of all those paints so he can work out the mixes. 

Yet if they DID match all the colors exactly it wouldn't look right because of scale difference and the unanswerable question of how much the pollution of the time and the casual storage (no climate control!) , plus time under steaming hot studio lights may have altered those colors, the clear and tinted lacquers. Even as exact as the science used to investigate these questions, there's still some 'best guess based on' going on. 

Build it the way you want. Paint it the way that looks best to you. It's the only rational answer. 

As to the holes in the nacelle endcaps? Why, we know what they're for. NBC showed us in their promotional ad flats! It's for the flames of the exhaust! 

*hehe* Otherwise I would guess that the intent would be some kind of bypass or some other kind of vent. If we work on the assumption that there is a Bussard 'ramscoop' magnetic funnel scooping up interstellar Hydrogen for use in the reactor the holes in the endcap may well be how the unused material, stray atoms of this and that caught in the scoop is removed.

Or it looked boss. It's the future version of having 'cherry bomb' exhausts.


----------



## Zombie_61

Steve H said:


> ...As to the holes in the nacelle endcaps? Why, we know what they're for. NBC showed us in their promotional ad flats! It's for the flames of the exhaust!...


"The thing's got to have a tailpipe."
Cmdr. Nyoto Uhura, _Star Trek VI_


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Steve H said:


> We've got people tearing their hair out because Gary hasn't released actual, exact, precise color guides using the many and varied paints on the market, yet I don't think anyone has ever volunteered to send him a complete set of all those paints so he can work out the mixes.


I was one who hoped R2 (not Gary) would come up with new hobby paint equivalents on their 'new improved extra special please buy our kit again' anniversary edition paint guide, but that never happened. I ended up mixing my own paints, but when possible I try to get accurate or updated info -- and R2 was promising new info based on the restoration. I couldn't pull my hair out, though, because I have kids and that **** is long gone! :laugh:


----------



## Steve H

Hunk A Junk said:


> I was one who hoped R2 (not Gary) would come up with new hobby paint equivalents on their 'new improved extra special please buy our kit again' anniversary edition paint guide, but that never happened. I ended up mixing my own paints, but when possible I try to get accurate or updated info -- and R2 was promising new info based on the restoration. I couldn't pull my hair out, though, because I have kids and that **** is long gone! :laugh:


But you're not the kind of person I was talking about, it was the other guys. 

But I think you may have been waiting under a misconception. If R2 was going to supply a color mix chart, that was (most likely) going to be supplied by Gary K. I don't think they have anyone 'on staff' to do such things.


----------



## swhite228

Just a side not here for those who haven't gotten the SCI FI and Fantasy Modeler issues talked about might want to get them fast as they just announced they will stop publishing the magazine. The email from the publisher says the next issue will be their last.
No word if back issues would still be available after that.


----------



## Richard Baker

That is a shame if they stop publishing- that magazine is wonderful
I wonder if it is the hard copy editions or those and the electronic which will cease?- I just bought a subscription of the eMag version so I could follow the Enterprise story.


----------



## Steve H

swhite228 said:


> Just a side not here for those who haven't gotten the SCI FI and Fantasy Modeler issues talked about might want to get them fast as they just announced they will stop publishing the magazine. The email from the publisher says the next issue will be their last.
> No word if back issues would still be available after that.


Oh of course. *sigh*

Now, when these things happen, generally speaking the publisher (when it's a boutique niche market thing) will try a 'plan B', such as possibly going to electronic publication only (thus only killing the physical media), or shifting to a 'special issue' sales model (like the 'building the Eagle' special) and then giving up the ghost for good. 

But it shouldn't be a surprise. England isn't exactly undergoing a boom economy at the moment, the cost of a plastic model kit is just as high there as here, I have zero idea how robust the English retail landscape is and what the Hobby Shop world is even like there but I feel safe in assuming it's nothing like it was in the 'old days' and not a patch on the seemingly booming Japanese domestic hobby market. 

So, in a world of ever tightening money, how can a specialty magazine survive? £14.95 is just as expensive as $24.95 in terms of 'personal pocket money'. 

Dammit.


----------



## Proper2

swhite228 said:


> Just a side not here for those who haven't gotten the SCI FI and Fantasy Modeler issues talked about might want to get them fast as they just announced they will stop publishing the magazine. The email from the publisher says the next issue will be their last.
> No word if back issues would still be available after that.


Bwahahahahahaaa! Of course! Where does that leave the Star Trek story, half told? :|


----------



## mach7

Well that sucks!

Maybe we can talk Gary into an Enterprise book!

And Speaking of Gary, I noticed this on a recent trip to the Smith.










The goldish grill color extends behind the grill! I never would have expected that. 

Any idea why? I know I'm asking a "why" question on a 50+ year old filming miniature, 
But I'm curious.

Anyway, it's a cool effect.

Also they hung black cloth around the front and back of the display.










I can't imagine why.


----------



## kekker

Well, if this is true, and we only get half of the articles, there could be another option.

There are plenty of online publishers that can put out a small, numbers as needed publication. Lulu.com, for instance.

My dad wrote up the story of my late Mom's life, and I scanned pictures from the various family albums. I then edited them together, converted it to .pdf and had a number printed up for family and friends. For a 70 page book, full color, glossy pages, high-res pictures with binding in color, each one cost around $15-16. So Gary could set the price a fair amount above that and it would still come out to less than the cost of the extra two issues.

Since so many of us would want the complete set, it could either be the whole set of articles in one volume, or at least the unpublished two. I'm not sure how the copyright would work for articles already published in a now defunct magazine, but it could be a way to get the second half out to the public.

Not wanting to put the whole burden on Gary, but anyone with even a little editorial experience could put his text together with the images he was going to use and make one of these up. The process is fairly simple, and I'm sure there would be a volunteer or two to do this at no charge. (Ahem.)

Thoughts?


----------



## Gary K

Proper2 said:


> Bwahahahahahaaa! Of course! Where does that leave the Star Trek story, half told? :|


Mike Reccia alerted me to the magazine's demise, and he allocated additional space in Vol 45 so I could properly wrap up the Enterprise story (8,000 words and a couple dozen photos). In Pt 2, I add additional details re. the Pilot version, tell the full story of the Production version, and talk about the 1972 Space Week exhibition, plus the restorations of 1974, 1982, and 1992. I left off the 2016 restoration, since it's received a good deal of publicity. I still intend to write the whole story in detail, and it'll probably see print in one form or another.

Gary


----------



## Gary K

mach7 said:


> Well that sucks!
> 
> Maybe we can talk Gary into an Enterprise book!
> 
> And Speaking of Gary, I noticed this on a recent trip to the Smith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The goldish grill color extends behind the grill! I never would have expected that.
> 
> Any idea why? I know I'm asking a "why" question on a 50+ year old filming miniature,
> But I'm curious.
> 
> Anyway, it's a cool effect.
> 
> Also they hung black cloth around the front and back of the display.
> 
> I can't imagine why.


The "goldish" color is actually warm brown "space dirt" weathering. The original model had the same weathering, probably to cut down on glare & reflections from the shiny steel grilles.

The black cloth *might* have been installed to protect the model from sunlight. The plan is to have screens that automatically lower during the wintertime, whenever the low sun angle would cause harmful sunlight hit the model.

Gary


----------



## asalaw

Gary K said:


> Mike Reccia alerted me to the magazine's demise, and he allocated additional space in Vol 45 so I could properly wrap up the Enterprise story (8,000 words and a couple dozen photos). In Pt 2, I add additional details re. the Pilot version, tell the full story of the Production version, and talk about the 1972 Space Week exhibition, plus the restorations of 1974, 1982, and 1992. I left off the 2016 restoration, since it's received a good deal of publicity. I still intend to write the whole story in detail, and it'll probably see print in one form or another.
> 
> Gary


Thanks for the post, Gary -- looking forward to it. The cover shown in the heartbreaking email has a photo of Malcolm with the restored model over at U-H. I just pre-ordered my issue. Shame #44 is sold out, now I want a matched set for future autographs. 

Any word on the hobby paint palette? No pressure, just curious.


----------



## Gary K

asalaw said:


> Thanks for the post, Gary -- looking forward to it. The cover shown in the heartbreaking email has a photo of Malcolm with the restored model over at U-H. I just pre-ordered my issue. Shame #44 is sold out, now I want a matched set for future autographs.
> 
> Any word on the hobby paint palette? No pressure, just curious.


It's basically done (I have Model Master matches, but no Tamiya matches yet), but I'm swamped with other cool Trek stuff. I need minions - and not the yellow kind!

Gary


----------



## KUROK

Wow! I hate to see SFSM go away... 
I have mostly hard copies over the years but for this latest series I have gotten the electronic version for my iPad.


----------



## Skyking918

Where can one pre-order issue #45 of SFM?


----------



## asalaw

Skyking918 said:


> Where can one pre-order issue #45 of SFM?


Go to

http://www.scififantasymodeller.co.uk/English/shop.php


----------



## asalaw

Gary K said:


> It's basically done (I have Model Master matches, but no Tamiya matches yet), but I'm swamped with other cool Trek stuff. I need minions - and not the yellow kind!
> 
> Gary


If that's a call for volunteers, I have loads of Tamiya paints on hand, and my LHS is well stocked. I'm sure I could set aside my own Enterprise build for a weekend for something like this (as long as there's chocolate to fill the void).


----------



## asalaw

Gary K said:


> The "goldish" color is actually warm brown "space dirt" weathering. The original model had the same weathering, probably to cut down on glare & reflections from the shiny steel grilles.
> 
> The black cloth *might* have been installed to protect the model from sunlight. The plan is to have screens that automatically lower during the wintertime, whenever the low sun angle would cause harmful sunlight hit the model.
> 
> Gary


Whew!! Glad to hear that. Those are indeed the sides that winter light hits it from, facing the South entrance. Glad to hear there will eventually be a different solution -- I was about to go into mourning.


----------



## feek61

Sad to see the magazine ending but glad Gary was alerted and was able to include so much material in the up-coming issue; thank you Gary!

I always look forward to updates on this thread; today's was a little depressing.


----------



## Captain Robert April

Gary K said:


> It's basically done (I have Model Master matches, but no Tamiya matches yet), but I'm swamped with other cool Trek stuff. I need minions - and not the yellow kind!
> 
> Gary


----------



## asalaw

I look forward to dressing up as Phil for this.


----------



## Proper2

Looks more like Mrs. Doubtfire, to me.


----------



## KUROK

So, if the magazine is folding will I be able to get the electronic copy of #45 and how long will it stay up there?
I know you guys don't know the answer...


----------



## Steve H

KUROK said:


> So, if the magazine is folding will I be able to get the electronic copy of #45 and how long will it stay up there?
> I know you guys don't know the answer...


I know that this is one of the reasons I like physical media...


----------



## MGagen

I purchased the E-version of the last issue and used the save as PDF function to get Gary's article Pt. 1 into a permanent format. I will buy the electronic version of the final issue and do the same with it if it is available that way.

One word about PDF images: No halftone dots!


----------



## asalaw

Once you download the issue to your device, it stays there -- I doubt they'll delete the stuff off your device, unless Mike Reccia really wants to hack off his readers (which I also doubt).

But as MGagen says, you can save it as a PDF, and I can also attest to the image quality -- excellent!


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Is the e-version of issue 44 still available?


----------



## jheilman

It shows as available to me.


----------



## Steve H

asalaw said:


> Once you download the issue to your device, it stays there -- I doubt they'll delete the stuff off your device, unless Mike Reccia really wants to hack off his readers (which I also doubt).
> 
> But as MGagen says, you can save it as a PDF, and I can also attest to the image quality -- excellent!


Reccia might not have a say in the matter. Much depends on how he sold the e-reader version, what the terms of service were and whatever clauses there might be. It's possible (not likely but possible) that once he shuts down, once he stops paying whoever handles the e-edition, it could be that the outside company will send out a 'delete' command and when next you connect the device, zoop. 

Now, if you saved it as a .PDF and moved it to your computer or whatever, you're probably safe.

I know, what a paranoid dude, right? But this is what comes from electronic publishing. There is ALWAYS a way for it to be deleted except for very specific licenses and conditions. Baen Books e-editions can't be wiped by an external command, for example. 

I'm not saying this is something the publisher would WANT to happen, he may not even know it could happen. It depends on the agreement between him and whatever service handles the e-pub side. 

Do you ever read the entire 'terms of service' when you update iTunes or, well, anything? Neither do I. For all I know Apple gets to come to my house and take all my blood when I open iTunes for the 1000th time. Or when my library crosses 48 hours of material... uh oh...  (fyi: iTunes currently over 17 DAYS worth of songs. I'm a dead man. )


----------



## robn1

jheilman said:


> It shows as available to me.


I don't see any option for the e-versions now, only print.


----------



## asalaw

Steve H said:


> Do you ever read the entire 'terms of service' when you update iTunes or, well, anything? Neither do I. For all I know Apple gets to come to my house and take all my blood when I open iTunes for the 1000th time. Or when my library crosses 48 hours of material... uh oh...  (fyi: iTunes currently over 17 DAYS worth of songs. I'm a dead man. )


You forget you're talking to an attorney...


----------



## Steve H

asalaw said:


> You forget you're talking to an attorney...


I suspect even attorneys may skip over term of service agreements when it comes to updating software. It's not like you can decline to agree and still get that update... 

(mind, I'd be interested in the legality of turning a TOS agreement into a negotiable document. "I agree to this and this and this, I do not agree to anything else" "Oh, OK, here's the update." I suspect that could NEVER happen.  )


----------



## asalaw

Steve H said:


> I suspect even attorneys may skip over term of service agreements when it comes to updating software. It's not like you can decline to agree and still get that update...
> 
> (mind, I'd be interested in the legality of turning a TOS agreement into a negotiable document. "I agree to this and this and this, I do not agree to anything else" "Oh, OK, here's the update." I suspect that could NEVER happen.  )


Adhesion agreements, as they're called, are pretty standard stuff, and when you've read one, you've read them all. Doesn't mean I don't know what's in it. Just that I recognize, as you do, that since it's a take-it-or-leave-it deal, there's little point in reading every one of them. But there are a couple of sections here and there that I'll skim over to look for bear traps. They're always there, and I always sign anyway. :wink2:

But enough about that -- we can do Contract Law 101 in another thread.


----------



## Hunch

Gary K said:


> It's basically done (I have Model Master matches, but no Tamiya matches yet), but I'm swamped with other cool Trek stuff. I need minions - and not the yellow kind!
> 
> Gary


So, Gary...How do I get a list of Model master matches? Is it included in this magazine or something? In other words, how do I get my hands on the MM colors for the main ship? I don't mind buying a mag to get them, just want to be sure they are in there, ya know?:laugh:
Best,
Jim (and the always lovely Judy)


----------



## Jhjorlando

Hunk A Junk said:


> Which brings us to the age old question: do modelers make a model of the model or a model of what the model is supposed to represent, a starship? Would the real ship have painted on holes? Were they even holes? What are those holes supposed to represent?


Yes, that is the question who's answer can paralyze us modelers into inaction. I still haven't built mine, based on the indecision to go with motorized bussards (accurate to the model), or the silent, LED only, Tena Controls version-I, of course, have both on my hobby desk. I think the motor-less effect is striking and how a real starship might look (and of course silent in space), but not exactly the same as the beloved effect I grew up with (their new 50th anniversary version only complicates things). I was also slowed down by a year, or so, with announcement of the smooth hull (which of course I bought after having filled and sanded the original version way back when -smooth hull rocks, by the way!). Reading Gary's (generous and invaluable) posts have at least made me more comfortable with painting mine as close to how it appeared on TV, and not necessarily archival accurate. My choice is to make a model of a starship, not a model of a model. Now to decide solder, or use the kit's snap connectors...this may take a while...


----------



## Skyking918

Hunch said:


> So, Gary...How do I get a list of Model master matches? Is it included in this magazine or something? In other words, how do I get my hands on the MM colors for the main ship? I don't mind buying a mag to get them, just want to be sure they are in there, ya know?:laugh:
> Best,
> Jim (and the always lovely Judy)


Doesn't the re-released "smooth hull" kit have a revised color guide? Can't one of you with the new kit scan this color guide for the benefit of the poor and deprived among us??


----------



## Captain Robert April




----------



## Hunch

I cant read it brother. What color does it give for the hull? And does it mention the first pilot hull color?
Best,
Jim


----------



## asalaw

That painting guide insert is quite the prize!! Almost makes me want to go out and buy it, but maybe I should finish the one I'm building first...


----------



## Gary K

Don't bother with the painting directions in the revised TOS E kit. It consists of general color descriptions that were made before any matches were made to the new colors. I'm still working on the mechanics of getting the guide out, but here's an advance preview of a couple Model Master paint matches made by Mike "ClubTepes" Anderson.

Gary

Production hull gray
65% #1730 Flat Gull Gray
35% #2115 Japanese Army Lt Gray

Pilot hull gray 
70% #2077 Lichtgrau RLM 63 
20% #1741 Dk Ghost Gray
10% #1745 Insignia White


----------



## John P

What _brand _hobby paint? Those are somebody's product numbers.


----------



## Skyking918

John P said:


> What _brand _hobby paint? Those are somebody's product numbers.


I believe those are Testors Model Master numbers.


----------



## asalaw

Gary said in an earlier post that he had the Testors MM matches done, so them must be they. 

Off to my LHS to grab those colors and see if I can match that mix with Tamiya. Who wants to beat me to it?


----------



## Captain Robert April

Hunch said:


> I cant read it brother. What color does it give for the hull? And does it mention the first pilot hull color?
> Best,
> Jim


"Enterprise Gray".

I kid you not, that's what it says.

Like Gary said, it's a general color guide.


----------



## Gary K

Skyking918 said:


> I believe those are Testors Model Master numbers.


Correct. I was tired when I first posted the colors, but it's fixed now. 

Gary


----------



## Proper2

Captain Robert April said:


> "Enterprise Gray".
> 
> I kid you not, that's what it says.


Well, that's covering your bases. Bwahahahahahaha!!!


----------



## asalaw

*HOLY CHIPS, BATMAN!!!*

Big surprise from the production hull color:

In the photo, the top color is the Pilot Hull color as described above, with Model Master flat enamels.
Below that:


*RIGHT* - My original mix of the production hull for my build, based on Gary's description of the hull color as being roughly between two Sherwin-Williams color chips, SW 7059 (Unusual Gray) and SW 6206 (Oyster Bay). I cheated toward Oyster Bay, which is lighter and greener than Unusual Gray -- but it turns out Unusual Gray is actually _much_ closer, comically underscored by my having written "CLOSEST" on that chip when I compared it to the model.

*CENTER* - My first mix of the Production Hull colo--wait, wut? *WTF?!?!?*

*LEFT* - My _second_ mix of the Production Hull color (from the MM formula above), because I figured the first one _had_ to be wrong!!​
Personally, and of course YMMV, I find the actual production hull color too dark for a build this size. That color is meant (in theory) to be seen on a large model with thousands of watts of tungsten light smacking the snot out of it, so it would read much lighter on film. This is why I cheated my original mix toward Oyster bay in the first place. But as Gary has so often said, painting your own build is highly subjective. So I'm sticking with my choice. Because I'm happy with it, and hell no, I'm not sanding everything and repainting. Ooscray that. 

Haven't got the Tamiya matches yet, but I think I have the right range of paints picked out for the experiment. I'll work it into my build this weekend, plus I have to tweak my own hull color, which I think is a hair too dark to match what I already have on my build.










*NEW AND IMPROVED!!*

Same as above but restaged in sunlight. More betterer!!


----------



## Steve H

I still can't help but laugh at 'unusual gray' as a color name. It's like 'mostly white' or 'pretty much red' to me. 

And I'll say it again, 'Enterprise Gray' could be an actual valid color if this were Japan and Gunze-Sangyo had done a special Mr. Color set for the 1/350 Enterprise. But of course this isn't Japan, and Testors isn't in the habit of generating special color sets to tie with specific model kits.


----------



## Proper2

Doesn't all this color hyper-analyzing largely depend on the source of lighting used to display your model? I mean, this simple but overriding consideration will affect the "color" much more than any paint mixing nuances. So, unless you can recreate the filming studio lighting in your home or office, no two models will ever look the same or look anything like the original.


----------



## robn1

asalaw's center mix looks a lot like Tamiya AS-11.


----------



## Proper2

Doesn't Tamiya have a color: FOR USS ENTERPRISE (PRODUCTION VERSION)?


----------



## Steve H

Proper2 said:


> Doesn't all this color hyper-analyzing largely depend on the source of lighting used to display your model? I mean, this simple but overriding consideration will affect the "color" much more than any paint mixing nuances. So, unless you can recreate the filming studio lighting in your home or office, no two models will ever look the same or look anything like the original.


Well, yes. I think you and I are united in the "Paint it the way it looks good to YOU because in the end that's the only true measure" category. 

I do wonder if anyone who has gone to visit the Enterprise has stood there and thought "Huh. Not what I thought it would look like" with a vague dissatisfied feeling deep inside, but would never ever dare say that. 

Myself, I still can't help but think the green tint may be a partial artifact of lacquer aging but then again it may be Jefferies knowledge of color temp and how it altered under studio light and the 'bounce' from blue screen 'melted out' the green. I don't know. I'm not smart enough. I would paint my Enterprise a bit lighter and somewhat less green. That's how it looks to me.


----------



## robn1

Proper2 said:


> Doesn't Tamiya have a color: FOR USS ENTERPRISE (PRODUCTION VERSION)?


Yes, AS11.


----------



## Gary K

Today's word: Metamerism - a phenomenon that occurs when colors change when viewed in different light sources.


----------



## jheilman

A term I'm quite familiar with working at a professional printing company. :thumbsup:


----------



## asalaw

Steve H said:


> I do wonder if anyone who has gone to visit the Enterprise has stood there and thought "Huh. Not what I thought it would look like" with a vague dissatisfied feeling deep inside, but would never ever dare say that.


Actually they do, I've heard them. People have all sorts of different reactions, because different people are... different.

Malcolm Collum told me on opening night that he was in dread that everyone would think it was too green. I said hell no, it was as green as it was. Or something like that. I also said fans would love it, and from what I overhear whenever I go, I'd say they do. Most people don't seem to have the first clue that the model is there till they run across it, and then they just look at it in awe, which is pretty cool to watch. Some of them seem puzzled by various unexpected things about it, but most are very appreciative.

I, on the other hand, am always fighting back the urge to break the glass and take a few scrapings. But that's just me.


----------



## Steve H

asalaw said:


> Actually they do, I've heard them. People have all sorts of different reactions, because different people are... different.
> 
> Malcolm Collum told me on opening night that he was in dread that everyone would think it was too green. I said hell no, it was as green as it was. Or something like that. I also said fans would love it, and from what I overhear whenever I go, I'd say they do. Most people don't seem to have the first clue that the model is there till they run across it, and then they just look at it in awe, which is pretty cool to watch. Some of them seem puzzled by various unexpected things about it, but most are very appreciative.
> 
> I, on the other hand, am always fighting back the urge to break the glass and take a few scrapings. But that's just me.


*pffft* scrapings. You'd grab the whole thing and make a run for it. Strapped to the roof of your car, slow speed chase out of D.C. hoping to make it... 

But see, what you're saying, the reactions (and what the what, they don't have something saying "FINALLY THE ENTERPRISE!" posted at the door or anything?!) are exactly what I predicted way back when this project was announced. It's why I suggested they needed a 'tombstone' (that's what it's called in retail, there may be another name for a 'free floating' vertical display) with large pictures that showcase and explain how lighting and film stock and duplication change how something can look. (see Above  ) . I felt that putting that kind of context would be of benefit to the viewing public. But of course I'm not in charge, don't have that important ear, blah blah blah. Big pictures. Simple words. It's what you do in museums. 

But hey. The 50th anniversary of Star Trek is over. We should be happy they haven't packed the miniature back up and tossed it in a corner. Change the space over to a robot FroYo service. Make that square footage TURN baby, generate some income.


----------



## asalaw

There are signs and photos all around the display, including an interactive video kiosk at the rear. Trouble is, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it think.


----------



## asalaw

robn1 said:


> asalaw's center mix looks a lot like Tamiya AS-11.


Just to clarify, the middle and the left are identical. I just did it twice to be sure I hadn't made a mistake.


----------



## asalaw

You know, the more I stare at this, the more I think Gary's description of the production hull color as being between Unusual Gray and Oyster Bay is a pretty damn good guide. It's darker and bluer than Oyster Bay, yet lighter and greener than Unusual Gray. I'm very impressed.


----------



## Proper2

asalaw said:


> You know, the more I stare at this, the more I think Gary's description of the production hull color as being between Unusual Gray and Oyster Bay is a pretty damn good guide. It's darker and bluer than Oyster Bay, yet lighter and greener than Unusual Gray. I'm very impressed.


Would that be, "Unusual Bay" or "Oyster Gray"? I... I'm so confused....


----------



## Steve H

Proper2 said:


> Would that be, "Unusual Bay" or "Oyster Gray"? I... I'm so confused....


Unusual Oyster. Bivalves are SO yesterday. 

Bay Gray. It's a bay that's gray. duh.

Unusual Oyster Bay Gray. It's either a food or a kind of horse.

and I'm dropping the mike here. right here. Mike drop. sorry about that Mike.


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Gary K said:


> Don't bother with the painting directions in the revised TOS E kit. It consists of general color descriptions that were made before any matches were made to the new colors.


So why was Round 2 telling people this...

"And while we are at it, we will be updating the color reference to reflect new-found information gleaned by the team of experts that are restoring the Enterprise filming miniature. Our go-to Star Trek guy, Gary Kerr, has played a key role in the restoration and is dutifully documenting the untouched/unseen areas of the miniature to determine the exact paint colors that were used." Star Trek Models: 1:350 scale developments | Collector Model

So was it that Round 2 wanted to have an updated paint guide and just decided not to bother or was it just something they said to push sales for the kit? Dealers like Cult are right now advertising this kit with descriptions saying, "This new version will also include painting information based on the restoration of the studio model." But this is clearly not the case.


----------



## Steve H

Hunk A Junk said:


> So why was Round 2 telling people this...
> 
> "And while we are at it, we will be updating the color reference to reflect new-found information gleaned by the team of experts that are restoring the Enterprise filming miniature. Our go-to Star Trek guy, Gary Kerr, has played a key role in the restoration and is dutifully documenting the untouched/unseen areas of the miniature to determine the exact paint colors that were used." Star Trek Models: 1:350 scale developments | Collector Model
> 
> So was it that Round 2 wanted to have an updated paint guide and just decided not to bother or was it just something they said to push sales for the kit? Dealers like Cult are right now advertising this kit with descriptions saying, "This new version will also include painting information based on the restoration of the studio model." But this is clearly not the case.



Might I be a horrible person and and respectfully suggest this may be another example of how R2 just completely whiffed on the execution and follow-through of their Star Trek 50th anniversary plans?

I think they may have made assumptions that were never followed thru with important things like contracts and money for work performed or services rendered. 

They keep shooting but can't hit that bulls eye.


----------



## Gary K

Hunk A Junk said:


> So why was Round 2 telling people this...
> 
> "And while we are at it, we will be updating the color reference to reflect new-found information gleaned by the team of experts that are restoring the Enterprise filming miniature. Our go-to Star Trek guy, Gary Kerr, has played a key role in the restoration and is dutifully documenting the untouched/unseen areas of the miniature to determine the exact paint colors that were used." Star Trek Models: 1:350 scale developments | Collector Model
> 
> So was it that Round 2 wanted to have an updated paint guide and just decided not to bother or was it just something they said to push sales for the kit? Dealers like Cult are right now advertising this kit with descriptions saying, "This new version will also include painting information based on the restoration of the studio model." But this is clearly not the case.


It was mostly a case of unfortunate timing. I was getting the color info, just as the decals & instructions were going to press at the factory in China. I was able to give Jamie Hood a few easy Pantone & Fed Std colors, such as the red & yellow markings, and he was able to incorporate that info into the decal files. There was neither time nor the personnel & supplies to derive hobby paint matches before the instructions were printed. The decal colors can be reworked & corrected for the next printing. The color guide is currently up to almost 5700 words, plus illustrations, and I need to check into the mechanics of getting the guide online.

Gary


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> It was mostly a case of unfortunate timing. I was getting the color info, just as the decals & instructions were going to press at the factory in China. I was able to give Jamie Hood a few easy Pantone & Fed Std colors, such as the red & yellow markings, and he was able to incorporate that info into the decal files. There was neither time nor the personnel & supplies to derive hobby paint matches before the instructions were printed. The decal colors can be reworked & corrected for the next printing. The color guide is currently up to almost 5700 words, plus illustrations, and I need to check into the mechanics of getting the guide online.
> 
> Gary


See, this is the exact sort of thing that makes me crazy. There's such a simple solution to this, several actually, which I have no idea if any of them had been considered but they seem supremely common sense to me. 

I will put aside the shameful action that R2 didn't help you in some way by either paying you or offering to find a way to send you paint for the task. 

So, solutions.

1. Most profitable for R2: create an all new full color pamphlet of your work regardless of the length, offer to download a PDF for a small fee, or ship a physical pamphlet for a slightly greater fee. There may be a promotional period where supplying proof-of-purchase of either the complete reissue kit or the smooth saucer nets you the physical pamphlet for the cost of postage. 

2. least profitable for R2: they place the guide online for free, a few bucks gets a 'print on demand' publication. There are services that do that, it's like a printing version of cafe press, MagCloud does a really good job. 

3. goodwill and no income for R2: Put the completed PDF online with no restrictions or paywall. 

Gary, if you aren't under contractual obligation to give/sell this work to R2 (there could be a non-compete clause, they may have right of first refusal that can tie up your work, who knows), I strongly recommend taking a look at MagCloud. Self publishing is something I've done a bit in the past and I think your rep is solid enough that people here who want the 'full experience' of your research would have no problem at all with paying you a reasonable price for it.


----------



## asalaw

I would certainly pay a reasonable fee for such a guide, even if it were on the high side. I can't say whether there's enough of a market for it, but it seems as though the brunt of the work is already a sunk cost. Then of course there's the non-compete issue you mention, which only Gary can speak to (if he's willing or able).

Guys, we're already paying just over $100 for the kit, plus ~$150 for the lighting kit, plus PaulBo's wonderful PE sets, plus paints, plus...

Another $30 - $50 or so for a dead-nuts printed paint guide would not move the needle for me. But as I so often say, YMMV.*

*_I have no idea what YMMV means._


----------



## John P

I would gladly pay you Tuesday, for a color guide today!


----------



## Steve H

asalaw said:


> I would certainly pay a reasonable fee for such a guide, even if it were on the high side. I can't say whether there's enough of a market for it, but it seems as though the brunt of the work is already a sunk cost. Then of course there's the non-compete issue you mention, which only Gary can speak to (if he's willing or able).
> 
> Guys, we're already paying just over $100 for the kit, plus ~$150 for the lighting kit, plus PaulBo's wonderful PE sets, plus paints, plus...
> 
> Another $30 - $50 or so for a dead-nuts printed paint guide would not move the needle for me. But as I so often say, YMMV.*
> 
> *_I have no idea what YMMV means._


My feeling is $20 would be the the highest price people would pay for such a pamphlet (given the quality of Gary's work and the likely obsessive amount of detail, I figure at least a 20 page publication. My crazy mind then goes to absurd ideas like a publication akin to the old 'Star Trek Poster Magazine' where it's page and page and unfold and page and page and then POSTER but I don't think there's any shop left in the USA that can publish such a thing  ) , this thinking is based on the 'pocket money' concept.

I speculate that Gary may be hesitant about self publishing mostly due to time, or because there's a pretty big learning curve to layout for pre-press, then finding a printer (and PAYING the printer!), then dealing with fulfillment. It's a lot of work. This is why I suggested MagCloud. If I were to ever decide to go back to 'zine publishing that's the route I would take. Altho I DO have this friend in Canada who works at a commercial printer...

Anyway, who knows.


----------



## asalaw

Steve H said:


> My feeling is $20 would be the the highest price people would pay for such a pamphlet (given the quality of Gary's work and the likely obsessive amount of detail, I figure at least a 20 page publication. My crazy mind then goes to absurd ideas like a publication akin to the old 'Star Trek Poster Magazine' where it's page and page and unfold and page and page and then POSTER but I don't think there's any shop left in the USA that can publish such a thing  ) , this thinking is based on the 'pocket money' concept.
> 
> I speculate that Gary may be hesitant about self publishing mostly due to time, or because there's a pretty big learning curve to layout for pre-press, then finding a printer (and PAYING the printer!), then dealing with fulfillment. It's a lot of work. This is why I suggested MagCloud. If I were to ever decide to go back to 'zine publishing that's the route I would take. Altho I DO have this friend in Canada who works at a commercial printer...
> 
> Anyway, who knows.


I couldn't speculate as to what others will pay or what the market will bear -- just stating what I'd be willing to part with for Gary Kerr's Guide to Painting the Enterprise. I could still be talked up. (I'm a sucky negotiator.) 

I pulled up MagCloud but haven't really looked at it yet. Very intrigued though.


----------



## asalaw

Hey, anybody got the EXACT length of the 1/350 kit? I know it's between 32 and 33 inches, but I haven't found an exact number anywhere.

Strike that -- Gary's article in SF&FM 44 says it's 32 1/2. Yay!


----------



## Gary K

asalaw said:


> Hey, anybody got the EXACT length of the 1/350 kit? I know it's between 32 and 33 inches, but I haven't found an exact number anywhere.
> 
> Strike that -- Gary's article in SF&FM 44 says it's 32 1/2. Yay!


If the factory followed my plans exactly, the model should be 32.4686" long. 

Gary


----------



## Proper2

Gary K said:


> If the factory followed my plans exactly, the model should be 32.4686" long.
> 
> Gary


And depending on how thick the paint is applied it might even end up at 32.5". :surprise:


----------



## Gary K

Proper2 said:


> And depending on how thick the paint is applied it might even end up at 32.5". :surprise:


Don't forget thermal expansion & contraction.

Gary


----------



## John F

I just measured mine, it's 32.4685" long. NOW I'm going to have to redo the whole thing !!


----------



## Milton Fox Racing

...or you could just put another coat of paint over the nose...


----------



## asalaw

Gary K said:


> If the factory followed my plans exactly, the model should be 32.4686" long.
> 
> Gary


Thanks! 32 1/2 is plenty close enough, but I truly appreciate the exact measurement! 

One fine day when I get around to doing my CG version in Blender, I'll just take my measurements off my 1/350 build. But I can't get my calipers around the whole model... 

If I were going to do a 1:1 scale replica, 134" with 60" for the saucer would be just fine, especially when you consider that duplicating all those weird flaws in the saucer vacuform (like on the front of the lower saucer by the rings) would be next to impossible, or at least not worth the headache.

Speaking of replicas, I wish you the best of luck and success with the build for James Cawley. It's a very exciting project!


----------



## alensatemybuick

.....


----------



## MGagen

You just need to use extreme care super-detailing the "lift" heels on the boots that your scale William Shatner is wearing as he sits in your 1:350 bridge under the dome. Get it wrong and he could be 1/8 scale inches off of his official series height...

...and how would you sleep at night, knowing that you had got it _wrong_.

Of course, _I've_ never been known to obsess about issue of _scale_...

M.


----------



## Captain Robert April

alensatemybuick said:


> And of course scaling up by 350 fold, that would mean the Enterprise would only be 11,363.98 inches (or 946.9979 feet) long, which we all know is wrong. Either that, or the correct scale of the model is actually 1/350.0008.


Actually, I like that. It's been bugging me that the length was 947' _exactly_, and it being a tad off actually makes me feel a little better.


----------



## asalaw

The game's a foot...


----------



## John P

Captain Robert April said:


> Actually, I like that. It's been bugging me that the length was 947' _exactly_, and it being a tad off actually makes me feel a little better.


Thermal expansion/contraction. In reality it would probably vary a few inches in either direction. Smaller in the cold of deep space, larger when she's visiting a planet near a sun. Hm - you know what your car sounds like after you turn it off? In space, no one can hear your thermal expansion popping.


----------



## Milton Fox Racing

I moved bholcomb64s posts on his 1/350 build into the sticky build thread

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/99-sc...0-tos-enterprise-building-tips-tricks-68.html

Do we need anymore post transfers?


----------



## Hunch

Gary K said:


> Don't bother with the painting directions in the revised TOS E kit. It consists of general color descriptions that were made before any matches were made to the new colors. I'm still working on the mechanics of getting the guide out, but here's an advance preview of a couple Model Master paint matches made by Mike "ClubTepes" Anderson.
> 
> Gary
> 
> Production hull gray
> 65% #1730 Flat Gull Gray
> 35% #2115 Japanese Army Lt Gray
> 
> Pilot hull gray
> 70% #2077 Lichtgrau RLM 63
> 20% #1741 Dk Ghost Gray
> 10% #1745 Insignia White


Thanks so much for the oil numbers Gary. You have helped all of us sooo much on our builds I dont even know how to thank you. If you ever get to NJ Chiller Con I'll buy you some brewskies or whatever you want! You are the man!:thumbsup:
Best Jim Webb


----------



## John P

^Somebody let me know if they find rattlecan colors close to those mixes. My desire for accuracy comes in second to my dislike of trying to mix paints. :lol:


----------



## asalaw

John P said:


> ^Somebody let me know if they find rattlecan colors close to those mixes. My desire for accuracy comes in second to my dislike of trying to mix paints. :lol:


I think robn1 has called out Tamiya AS 11 for the production hull, and I can tell you Testors SAC Bomber Green is close to the turboshaft color, though it's a bit too dark. You can mist a little white over it to help.


----------



## KUROK

Gary K said:


> If the factory followed my plans exactly, the model should be 32.4686" long.
> 
> Gary


Remember the factory is in CHY-nah! :wink2:


----------



## jheilman

The final issue of Sci-fi & Fantasy Modeller magazine is out. It contains Gary's second (and final?) article on the history of the Enterprise miniature. Just started reading and love it. I'm so glad all this info is being made public. Would love even more photos, but that's just me. I don't know if the print version is also available? I just have the digital edition.


----------



## Steve H

KUROK said:


> Remember the factory is in CHY-nah! :wink2:


And one of their early renders submitted for approval had the after intercoolers on the underside of the nacelle...


----------



## asalaw

jheilman said:


> The final issue of Sci-fi & Fantasy Modeller magazine is out. It contains Gary's second (and final?) article on the history of the Enterprise miniature. Just started reading and love it. I'm so glad all this info is being made public. Would love even more photos, but that's just me. I don't know if the print version is also available? I just have the digital edition.


The print version was pre-order only, and the cutoff was 3/16. No word on whether they will sell more issues on the web site.


----------



## The_Engineer

I ordered the second last issue #44 at my comic store and according to the US distributor they shipped it on February 22nd. I last went in on March 30th and the comic store still did not get it. When I heard that the next issue #45 is their last, I did the pre-order from the publisher - I got the confirmation email but nothing since then. I thought they are suppose to mail them out April 22nd????


----------



## John P

I pre-ordered it from the publisher. I guess there'll be a wait while the carrier pigeons flit over from Blighty, but I should get it eventually.


----------



## James Henderson

I was going to buy the digital version, and I got an email notification from PocketMags this morning that it was available, but when I click the link I get "Page not found!"

That really stinks.


----------



## KUROK

Hmmm....

I got the digital edition yesterday and strangely it did not ask me to pay.
Unless I bought a subscription and forgot. That is happening more and more ...


----------



## Richard Baker

James Henderson said:


> I was going to buy the digital version, and I got an email notification from PocketMags this morning that it was available, but when I click the link I get "Page not found!"
> 
> That really stinks.


Ran into the same problem- this is what you do:
Look towards the bottom of your email and you see a red "Read Now" button. Click on that one. It will give you a sign in screen and load the windows viewable version. Go to your PocketMag app (mine is on the Droid Tablet) and you should see Issue #45 in your list. Click on the gray circle in the lower corner to download it into the App for viewing.

I went through all of this this morning and enjoyed reading the article during lunch.

I think the first link which gives 'Page Not Found' error is because the page for that entire Magazine has been deleted from the options since it is no longer being produced. I had purchased an entire subscription and they converted it into back issues for me.


----------



## KUROK

I know the internet is changing everything but I am still bummed that publications like this are going away....


----------



## RossW

The_Engineer said:


> I ordered the second last issue #44 at my comic store and according to the US distributor they shipped it on February 22nd. I last went in on March 30th and the comic store still did not get it. When I heard that the next issue #45 is their last, I did the pre-order from the publisher - I got the confirmation email but nothing since then. I thought they are suppose to mail them out April 22nd????


It ain't April 22nd yet.


----------



## The_Engineer

I mentioned the April 22nd date because 2 people who posted above stated that they already have the issue.


----------



## James Henderson

Richard Baker said:


> Ran into the same problem- this is what you do:
> Look towards the bottom of your email and you see a red "Read Now" button. Click on that one. It will give you a sign in screen and load the windows viewable version. Go to your PocketMag app (mine is on the Droid Tablet) and you should see Issue #45 in your list. Click on the gray circle in the lower corner to download it into the App for viewing.
> 
> I went through all of this this morning and enjoyed reading the article during lunch.
> 
> I think the first link which gives 'Page Not Found' error is because the page for that entire Magazine has been deleted from the options since it is no longer being produced. I had purchased an entire subscription and they converted it into back issues for me.


I think that only works if you have a subscription. Since I haven't purchased it yet, I don't have a "Read Now" button.


----------



## Steve H

The_Engineer said:


> I mentioned the April 22nd date because 2 people who posted above stated that they already have the issue.


I think it's likely both posters have the electronic version, not the physical magazine. Context, always context.


----------



## asalaw

Steve H said:


> I think it's likely both posters have the electronic version, not the physical magazine. Context, always context.


Yup. I'm a digital subscriber (or I was), so mine just automagically appeared in my app ready for download. I also paid for the pre-order paper issue, so I'll get it whenever those go out.

Gary, fabulous job on the article, and I _love_ the new pictures. Fantastic stuff! :smile2:


----------



## al loew2

Gary, I also thought the article was fantastic! Thanks for all of your insights and research into this iconic model. We are all very fortunate that you were on the team to restore her.


----------



## kekker

Aw, crud....

Didn't see the deadline and so missed it!

Once again, what are the odds of a reprint or edit using the information that didn't make it into the magazine?


----------



## asalaw

kekker said:


> Aw, crud....
> 
> Didn't see the deadline and so missed it!
> 
> Once again, what are the odds of a reprint or edit using the information that didn't make it into the magazine?


Gary states at the end of the article that he's writing down everything he's got, but no telling when it will be published or in what form.


----------



## jheilman

asalaw said:


> Gary states at the end of the article that he's writing down everything he's got, but no telling when it will be published or in what form.


How about an exhaustive website with hi-res photo galleries and a forum? I can dream. :grin2:


----------



## asalaw

jheilman said:


> How about an exhaustive website with hi-res photo galleries and a forum? I can dream. :grin2:


You got my vote!!


----------



## Steve H

I still favor the 'print on demand' publication format I had suggested earlier. Physical copy that won't vanish if he forgets to renew a domain or gets taken down for copyright infringement (even tho it isn't) because of internet stupidity, plus once it's published on the internet the ability to monetize the work (and work deserves to be rewarded with money) is lost forever.

While it's not the big deluxe hardcover coffee table book I would prefer (The History and the Making of the 11 foot Enterprise, the most famous Starship in the World) it would be much better than nothing.


----------



## John P

That's it! A coffee table book! What are the chances, Gary?


----------



## Steve H

John P said:


> That's it! A coffee table book! What are the chances, Gary?


Maybe Gary has more positive thoughts on this idea, but NOW, April 2017, it has a number of roadblocks, the major one being the 50th anniversary of Star Trek is over and done. There is no 'heat', no 'coattail' to ride on, nothing special to tag, no pressure (that one, at least, is a positive to my mind).

So he has to find a publisher, convince them of the value and marketability, deal with an editor who may have zero actual interest in the subject, deal with a packager who may have misguided ideas on how to present the information (anyone else aggravated as all get out on that 2001 book that was formatted like the Monolith thus making EVERY SINGLE PICTURE either way tiny or otherwise annoying to see? yeah.) then there's promotion and soliciting to the trade...and if not enough of the few bookstores remaining want to order a $50-100 USD book on a big model, they won't publish. 

Oh, and of course there's CBS/Paramount to deal with. Trying to convince some of the 'shadow people' who had those never-seen pictures to allow publication of same (it would be needful for the historical aspects of the story).

And if everything went JUST RIGHT, if the stars aligned and the book I've wanted since I heard of the restoration project came to be, it would probably ship sometime in 2019. 

Thing is, if he publishes as a fanzine on Magcloud he can avoid the whole CBS/Paramount stuff because of decades of history regarding fanzines. Magcloud does quality printing-on-demand and the biggest bonus, everyone who buys his 'zine is paying him. 

Much less hassle, much less stress, faster turnaround, the ability to make corrections and updates, even publish supplements if necessary. 

I have many wishes and wants that will never come to be, so I research the heck out of ways that might actually happen. This seems viable to me.


----------



## The_Engineer

Well, I was greeted with a surprise this morning, a nice big yellow envelope! I opened it and out came Sci-Fi & Fantasy Modeller Vol 45. I only had a couple minutes to flip through. I can't wait to read Part 2 of the TOS restoration article. I didn't know that AMT is re-releasing the Reliant 1:537 scale model, I have the 1:1000 one and would love to get the larger one. It's really sad that this is the final issue. Now if I could get a miracle and get issue 44, that would be great! 0


----------



## Steve H

The_Engineer said:


> Well, I was greeted with a surprise this morning, a nice big yellow envelope! I opened it and out came Sci-Fi & Fantasy Modeller Vol 45. I only had a couple minutes to flip through. I can't wait to read Part 2 of the TOS restoration article. I didn't know that AMT is re-releasing the Reliant 1:537 scale model, I have the 1:1000 one and would love to get the larger one. It's really sad that this is the final issue. Now if I could get a miracle and get issue 44, that would be great! 0


Currently on backorder at HLJ, they wouldn't list it as such if they had been told by the distributor it was unavailable, so what could it hurt to put an order in and see what happens?

https://hlj.com/product/HMPSF-044

Not a miracle but a reasonable shot!


----------



## [email protected]

I got an email from Pocketmags that the issue was ready to be viewed, but when I clicked on the link I get an error. When I searched their site, they didn't have Sci-Fi and Fantasy Modeller. Anyone else have that problem? Any solutions?


----------



## jheilman

Look 2 pages back on this thread. Post 1934.


----------



## kekker

asalaw said:


> Gary states at the end of the article that he's writing down everything he's got, but no telling when it will be published or in what form.


 Phew! Not having been able to get the issue, did not know that.

And yes, a print on demand would be the best way to go, IMHO. As I noted earlier, the book about my Mom turned out really well, and the pics inside were pretty detailed. The way Lulu.com works, he could set the price, upload the book and let the world know where it is. Then when we want one, we pay the website, they print it up and ship, and pay him the profit. That would be a lot simpler answer than having to keep a stock and doing the mailing himself. I'm sure there are several sites that can do the same, that's just the one I used.


----------



## feek61

Got my issue in the mail today . . . looking forward to reading it!!

Thanks Gary for this treat!


----------



## RossW

Got mine too! Can't wait to dive in!


----------



## asalaw

Me too!


----------



## asalaw

Hey guys, I went back to the museum to do some color referencing. I took these shots and deliberately overexposed them. No flash though, just upped the exposure on my iPhone. And lookie what happened -- where's all that saucer weathering? And the gridlines disappeared! Fascinating object lesson on what lighting values can do to paint. When I overexposed, I lost all contrast in my highlights, and voilà...


----------



## Steve H

But observe how that weathering and shading still helps to define shapes even when it's not seen. Note how the curves don't vanish when they should be 'blown out'. 

Your pictures somewhat duplicate the effect of degrading the image by running thru the optical printer a couple of times.  (that is, taking the image 'down' by a couple of generations)


----------



## MGagen

I am bummed. I got the notification that the new issue was available for purchase on the online magazine site while I was out of town. I tried tonight to download it and it is gone.

Now before someone refers me back to post #1934 -- that doesn't work unless you have subscribed to the whole magazine. I was buying it an issue at a time as they became available. My email has a "View Issue" button, but it leads nowhere. I guess they pulled it; though I can't think why. 

I can still access the previous issue I bought but the new one is nowhere to be found on the site.

It is understandable that they would want advance orders for the final issue's physical print run (so they don't get stuck with a lot of back issues). But WHY wouldn't they want to continue to sell online copies?

I feel sucker punched. I planned ahead and didn't order the print version because I wanted the digital one. If I had known they would pull the rug out from under me I would have opted for the hard copy...

M.


----------



## Steve H

There must be a bug or something. It makes zero sense for the e-version to be discontinued or otherwise unavailable.

Unless there's something in British business law that mandates when a company is done it is DONE, no ifs, ands or buts.


----------



## asalaw

Steve H said:


> But observe how that weathering and shading still helps to define shapes even when it's not seen. Note how the curves don't vanish when they should be 'blown out'.
> 
> Your pictures somewhat duplicate the effect of degrading the image by running thru the optical printer a couple of times.  (that is, taking the image 'down' by a couple of generations)


Yeah, kinda. I see your point. It really is like makeup. The optical printing process actually adds contrast, but I see your point. My overexposure sort of acts like film grain, washing out the details.


----------



## James Henderson

MGagen said:


> I am bummed. I got the notification that the new issue was available for purchase on the online magazine site while I was out of town. I tried tonight to download it and it is gone.
> 
> Now before someone refers me back to post #1934 -- that doesn't work unless you have subscribed to the whole magazine. I was buying it an issue at a time as they became available. My email has a "View Issue" button, but it leads nowhere. I guess they pulled it; though I can't think why.
> 
> I can still access the previous issue I bought but the new one is nowhere to be found on the site.
> 
> It is understandable that they would want advance orders for the final issue's physical print run (so they don't get stuck with a lot of back issues). But WHY wouldn't they want to continue to sell online copies?
> 
> I feel sucker punched. I planned ahead and didn't order the print version because I wanted the digital one. If I had known they would pull the rug out from under me I would have opted for the hard copy...
> 
> M.


Exactly my situation.


----------



## Newbie123

Starship Modeler Store has the print version of #45 in stock.


----------



## jerrlaro

Me too! (post 1962) :frown2:

Sent 2 emails to enquire. No response. Apparently no one alive there.


----------



## John P

Preordered mine from England. It arrived before anyone over here had it for sale, and cheaper to boot!


----------



## [email protected]

I had a similar problem, so I emailed them through their site and got a reply within a day. I couldn't remember if I'd subscribed or not, but they gave me access. Did you try contacting them through the site?


----------



## jerrlaro

I contacted them from their site through my account. No response the first time. I just tried again. Cross your fingers.


----------



## jerrlaro

Finally got through and got it! Third time's the charm. :grin2:


----------



## feek61

Question for Gary

I read your fantastic article in the latest issue of SciFi Modeller; thank you! Regarding the sometimes green-tinted upper and lower saucer dome; is it possible that there was a clear green disc at the top and bottom domes similar to the dome above the hangar bay? Not sure how hard it would be to tint and then un-tint the saucer domes but it seems difficult when they could have easily just did what they did on the back dome.


----------



## Gary K

feek61 said:


> Question for Gary
> 
> I read your fantastic article in the latest issue of SciFi Modeller; thank you! Regarding the sometimes green-tinted upper and lower saucer dome; is it possible that there was a clear green disc at the top and bottom domes similar to the dome above the hangar bay? Not sure how hard it would be to tint and then un-tint the saucer domes but it seems difficult when they could have easily just did what they did on the back dome.


The green color was readily apparent when the internal lights were off, so I think that the green *whatever* was probably lining the inside of the dome. I have no idea how they accomplished it - maybe a vacuformed green gel or piece of Plexiglas inside the dome??

Gary


----------



## whereisanykey

There was a tinted green disk that was placed under the dome above the hanger deck.


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> The green color was readily apparent when the internal lights were off, so I think that the green *whatever* was probably lining the inside of the dome. I have no idea how they accomplished it - maybe a vacuformed green gel or piece of Plexiglas inside the dome??
> 
> Gary


So once again the old AMT kit was mostly right in casting the top and bottom domes in clear green? 

Is a shot of green tinted lacquer inside the dome completely ruled out for that? Was it obvious it was something physical, something layered inside?

Where's that time machine. I ordered it weeks ago...


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> So once again the old AMT kit was mostly right in casting the top and bottom domes in clear green?
> 
> Is a shot of green tinted lacquer inside the dome completely ruled out for that? Was it obvious it was something physical, something layered inside?
> 
> Where's that time machine. I ordered it weeks ago...


Nothing is ruled in or out, although green lacquer/shellac would have been a bitch to remove from the sandblasted plastic. In views from the side & rear, the warm-colored, incandescent bulb inside the dome, which was mounted forward of the center of the dome, can be clearly discerned, and the green coloration appears to extend to the outer edges of the dome. Whatever they did, it would have been a fast, cheap procedure.

I get dibs on your time machine!

Btw, whereisanykey, I've handled the green disc inside the hangar bubble. It's translucent, not transparent, and is a slightly bluish, teal green color - probably Plexiglas color Green 2030. When the interior light for the hangar bubble is off, the bubble looks mostly uncolored. That's why I'm thinking that the saucer bubble had something more form-fitting inside it.

Gary


----------



## whereisanykey

I don't believe I've ever seen that picture before. I was unaware that bottom dome had a green tint to it. 

For my 66" I used a cap and poured a green tinted resin piece. For some reason it looked more blue than green so I added yellow to get it more green.


----------



## Gary K

whereisanykey said:


> I don't believe I've ever seen that picture before. I was unaware that bottom dome had a green tint to it.
> 
> For my 66" I used a cap and poured a green tinted resin piece. For some reason it looked more blue than green so I added yellow to get it more green.


Fir whatever reason, the green tinting went away, probably during the pre-Tribbles mini-revision. Both domes appear to be uncolored in later fx shots, and our two witnesses to the 1972 Space Week exhibition don't recall seeing anything as unexpected as green saucer domes.

Gary


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> Nothing is ruled in or out, although green lacquer/shellac would have been a bitch to remove from the sandblasted plastic. In views from the side & rear, the warm-colored, incandescent bulb inside the dome, which was mounted forward of the center of the dome, can be clearly discerned, and the green coloration appears to extend to the outer edges of the dome. Whatever they did, it would have been a fast, cheap procedure.
> 
> I get dibs on your time machine!
> 
> Btw, whereisanykey, I've handled the green disc inside the hangar bubble. It's translucent, not transparent, and is a slightly bluish, teal green color - probably Plexiglas color Green 2030. When the interior light for the hangar bubble is off, the bubble looks mostly uncolored. That's why I'm thinking that the saucer bubble had something more form-fitting inside it.
> 
> Gary


Oh, don't worry, that time machine finally shows up, I'm dragging you along to my trips to all the prime spots-Enterprise, Seaview, Jupiter II... I just have to find some early '60s SLR to modify and hide a modern HD digital camera 

OK, I need a refresher. Check me. Upper dome replaced some time before shooting (or FOR the shooting because gone missing) the 'Tribbles' shots. Was there a similar replacement of the lower dome? 

Given the images I recall of how the 11 foot miniature seemed to be taken apart and just shoved in a corner, the domes going missing is a rational thought. 

Conversely, is it possible that after some footage was shot, Roddenberry wanted the green tint removed for whatever reason so the domes had to be replaced? It may have looked different in 'raw' footage compared to the several gen degrading (or better call it processing?) of the image for final effects compositing.


----------



## asalaw

Gary K said:


> Fir whatever reason, the green tinting went away, probably during the pre-Tribbles mini-revision. Both domes appear to be uncolored in later fx shots, and our two witnesses to the 1972 Space Week exhibition don't recall seeing anything as unexpected as green saucer domes.
> 
> Gary


Thanks for that photo!! That clarifies a number of things for me, including the more-bluishness-than-greenishness of the dorsal stripe. I've been "seeing" it as greener in tone, despite all evidence to the contrary, including NASM's color references. The light is just so low in the glass case, it's really hard to tell.

And how many times can I say it -- the camera _loves_ that model.

Also -- what about green gel laid in there, cut into pie wedges and just scotch-taped in? If the gaffer told me the DP wanted that green, that's the first thing I'd reach for. It's definitely easy and cheap. Easy and cheap are my middle names, though sadly I never met any girls who were like that.


----------



## Steve H

asalaw said:


> (snip)
> Also -- what about green gel laid in there, cut into pie wedges and just scotch-taped in? If the gaffer told me the DP wanted that green, that's the first thing I'd reach for. It's definitely easy and cheap. Easy and cheap are my middle names, though sadly I never met any girls who were like that.


I was wondering just exactly that. It's quick, it's easy, it's cheap, it's replaceable, and I wonder if that could also account for the lines sometimes seen in the dome.

But. If the gel had been changed from green to milky white (for diffusion) I'd think there would be evidence of that, or at the very least cellophane tape residue inside the dome. 

I don't recall when Scotch invented 'invisible' tape that all but replaced cellophane tape (but I do have memories of commercials promoting same so it likely was sometime in the '60s), but even if 'magic' tape were available I would guess everyone had just a ton of old-fashioned cello tape in their stockroom (because back in those days 'just in time' or 'at need' replenishment wasn't a thing.) and would use what was at hand. 

Plus I think cello tape held well under heat. Of course too much heat and it would melt and/or burst into flames but hey, so what, EVERYTHING was dangerous at some point in the '60s.


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> I was wondering just exactly that. It's quick, it's easy, it's cheap, it's replaceable, and I wonder if that could also account for the lines sometimes seen in the dome.
> 
> But. If the gel had been changed from green to milky white (for diffusion) I'd think there would be evidence of that, or at the very least cellophane tape residue inside the dome.
> 
> I don't recall when Scotch invented 'invisible' tape that all but replaced cellophane tape (but I do have memories of commercials promoting same so it likely was sometime in the '60s), but even if 'magic' tape were available I would guess everyone had just a ton of old-fashioned cello tape in their stockroom (because back in those days 'just in time' or 'at need' replenishment wasn't a thing.) and would use what was at hand.
> 
> Plus I think cello tape held well under heat. Of course too much heat and it would melt and/or burst into flames but hey, so what, EVERYTHING was dangerous at some point in the '60s.


The lower saucer dome started out clear, with lines engraved into it. To help diffuse the light, Datin had the dome sandblasted when he installed lights into the 2nd Pilot, and this dome carried over into the Production version. No gels or tape were involved.

Gary


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> The lower saucer dome started out clear, with lines engraved into it. To help diffuse the light, Datin had the dome sandblasted when he installed lights into the 2nd Pilot, and this dome carried over into the Production version. No gels or tape were involved.
> 
> Gary


Fair enough. Stupid technical question, was the sandblasting on the inside or outside of the dome? Were the lines engraved on the inside or outside of the dome? (I would guess the engraving would be on the outside for ease but heck, I'm swinging and missing like crazy so of course they're on the inside, right?  )

And yet, that picture, it's green. 

If there had been cellophane tape residue on the inside of the dome from holding slices of green gel in place, would it have been noted and identified or might it just have been wiped clean and dismissed as 'storage/age crud'?


----------



## Gary K

Steve H said:


> Fair enough. Stupid technical question, was the sandblasting on the inside or outside of the dome? Were the lines engraved on the inside or outside of the dome? (I would guess the engraving would be on the outside for ease but heck, I'm swinging and missing like crazy so of course they're on the inside, right?  )
> 
> And yet, that picture, it's green.
> 
> If there had been cellophane tape residue on the inside of the dome from holding slices of green gel in place, would it have been noted and identified or might it just have been wiped clean and dismissed as 'storage/age crud'?


The engraved lines were on the outside of the dome. The sandblasting was on the outside, too, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was on the inside, too, for better light diffusion. The green tinting was almost certainly removed in 1967, during the 'Tribbles' renovation, and I seriously doubt that it was composed of slices of green gel.

Gary


----------



## Steve H

Gary K said:


> The engraved lines were on the outside of the dome. The sandblasting was on the outside, too, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was on the inside, too, for better light diffusion. The green tinting was almost certainly removed in 1967, during the 'Tribbles' renovation, and I seriously doubt that it was composed of slices of green gel.
> 
> Gary


OK, so we have most of the 'mechanics' in place to try for logical deduction. 

Is there ANY record from the restoration if it was noted that the dome was sandblasted on the inside? I'm sure that as a statement of physical condition that would have to have been noted.

I put out the theory that maybe the dome was hit with the same tinted clear lacquer that was sprayed on the saucer and you mentioned how difficult it would have been to clean that off the sandblasted surface. 

Makes sense to me but then I started to question my assumption. I was thinking in terms of...what to call it, concern for side effects? I don't know, but trying to think as a 'rough and ready' craftsman working under intense time and money limitations ("Faster! Cheaper!" "need it yesterday!" ) it strikes me as not unrealistic to think that if the dome had been colored by clear tinted lacquer and was then told to lose the green, he'd just as likely chuck the dome into a bath of lacquer thinner to remove it. Rinse it off, dry it, mount it back on the miniature. 

Now, you or I, we'd NEVER do that. We'd worry about crazing the plastic, maybe even melting it. But to them, having that intrinsic intimate knowledge of their tools and materials, they wouldn't think twice about it. 

So. For some period the dome was green. Its a solid, steady green when the lights are off so that seems to eliminate a tinted bulb or a tinted plexi disc. That seems to me to leave only two logical options. Paint, or gel. 

As Asalaw said, the gel works if it's a test because it's quick and cheap. Clear Tinted Lacquer works if it was meant to be always that way and Roddenberry then changed his mind. I'm really hard pressed to imagine a third option here.

It's interesting to think back on the AMT kit because I think it's logical to believe they were following along with the plans for the Enterprise with the green clear plastic domes, to be lit by the grain-o-wheat bulbs. Clearly (sorry) not an arbitrary manufacturing decision. 

(as far as that goes I'd love to learn why AMT decided to design the model kit with lights. That wasn't exactly a common feature on plastic models back then.)

Darn it. What color were the (unlit) domes on the 33" miniature? Always white (gray, hull color, whatever)? Of course there's less information on the 33" miniature and the complete lack of existence (as far as known) of same to examine. Heck, I don't even know if the 33" miniature was even weathered! I'd think that would have really stood out in all those 'holding the model' publicity pictures. Sure wish that darn thing would suddenly surface from whatever secret place it vanished to.


----------



## asalaw

Gary K said:


> The engraved lines were on the outside of the dome. The sandblasting was on the outside, too, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was on the inside, too, for better light diffusion. The green tinting was almost certainly removed in 1967, during the 'Tribbles' renovation, and I seriously doubt that it was composed of slices of green gel.
> 
> Gary


This is getting more puzzly by the minute. Which I like.


----------



## feek61

I don't think there is any doubt the saucer domes were clear, then sand blasted; there is plenty of evidence to prove that. I still am not convinced the domes on the saucer were ever tinted green and then the tint removed. That scenario would maybe seem more plausible if the back dome didn't have the green translucent plastic dome. I can't believe they wouldn't just use the same method on the to saucer domes to get the green color. Gary, how was the green disc secured under the dome on the hangar bay and was there any evidence the same arrangement may had been used in the saucer?

Also, I would like to add how great is it that you (Gary) interact here; very much appreciated!


----------



## Steve H

feek61 said:


> I don't think there is any doubt the saucer domes were clear, then sand blasted; there is plenty of evidence to prove that. I still am not convinced the domes on the saucer were ever tinted green and then the tint removed. That scenario would maybe seem more plausible if the back dome didn't have the green translucent plastic dome. I can't believe they wouldn't just use the same method on the to saucer domes to get the green color. Gary, how was the green disc secured under the dome on the hangar bay and was there any evidence the same arrangement may had been used in the saucer?
> 
> Also, I would like to add how great is it that you (Gary) interact here; very much appreciated!


Well, he explained it pretty well a few posts above: It's a disc that sat between the light source and the back dome. When the light was off the dome was clear. So the color was 'transferred' to the dome by light shining thru the disc.

That lower saucer dome, you get a good look at that picture, that puppy is green. Very much green. The lights appear to be off (altho I think I see something going on at the nacelle dome) so the color is part of the lower dome. That's a different deal. 

And that's about all that we know, based on objective photographic proof. It's green there, it wasn't green other places, something was going on and all we can do is speculate. 

I still believe it's useful to keep in mind that AMT must have thought that at least the lower dome being green was a real thing, it was a desired and planned visual style, in order for them to have chosen to make the parts clear green instead of solid white plastic (which may have glowed slightly when lit).


----------



## robn1

Steve H said:


> That lower saucer dome, you get a good look at that picture, that puppy is green. Very much green. The lights appear to be off (altho I think I see something going on at the nacelle dome) so the color is part of the lower dome. That's a different deal.


From that angle it could easily be a green disc showing through a clear dome.


----------



## feek61

Steve H said:


> Well, he explained it pretty well a few posts above: It's a disc that sat between the light source and the back dome. When the light was off the dome was clear. So the color was 'transferred' to the dome by light shining thru the disc.
> 
> That lower saucer dome, you get a good look at that picture, that puppy is green. Very much green. The lights appear to be off (altho I think I see something going on at the nacelle dome) so the color is part of the lower dome. That's a different deal.
> 
> And that's about all that we know, based on objective photographic proof. It's green there, it wasn't green other places, something was going on and all we can do is speculate.
> 
> I still believe it's useful to keep in mind that AMT must have thought that at least the lower dome being green was a real thing, it was a desired and planned visual style, in order for them to have chosen to make the parts clear green instead of solid white plastic (which may have glowed slightly when lit).


Read what I wrote, I understand the arrangement; my question is how was the green disc was physically attached on the hanger bay. For example was there a bracket and if so, did anyone look for screw holes that may have been an attachment point for a bracket in the saucer. Did it sit on a ledge and is there the same ledge in the saucer; THAT is what I am asking.

Regarding the picture that you said "that puppy is green"; I agree it looks green but I find it interesting that the nipple at the bottom does not appear green. That tells me that we are seeing through the dome to something green beyond it and not a tinted dome.


----------



## Steve H

feek61 said:


> Read what I wrote, I understand the arrangement; my question is how was the green disc was physically attached on the hanger bay. For example was there a bracket and if so, did anyone look for screw holes that may have been an attachment point for a bracket in the saucer. Did it sit on a ledge and is there the same ledge in the saucer; THAT is what I am asking.
> 
> Regarding the picture that you said "that puppy is green"; I agree it looks green but I find it interesting that the nipple at the bottom does not appear green. That tells me that we are seeing through the dome to something green beyond it and not a tinted dome.


That nipple is the supposed Phaser cannon (there's a barrel sticking out of it, usually) and its color would not be affected if the inside of the dome was painted or lined with a lighting gel. 

but I have the same question as you, if there was a colored disc inside. Was there a ledge or lip it rested on? I would assume the lip would have been on the surrounding frame of the dome. Did it have a slot or hole in it for the wire that went into the Phaser Cannon for the small light at the end of it? OK that we couldn't know as the disc is obviously gone.

Myself, I just don't see that as a colored disc, I see a tinted dome. Maybe it is just the angle and if the camera was a bit higher it would be obvious that there was a disc in there (because the dome would be clear, or as clear as sandblasted plastic can be)


----------



## feek61

Trust me, I intimately know the E and I am very much aware of the "phaser cannon" (or whatever it was intended to be). The (maybe) tinted dome is just one of those things that we may never have the definitive answer to. My only thought was why would they do the back one different from those on the saucer. Also, knowing the budget limitations; why would they tint and then spend the time, money and effort to un-tint it. It just doesn't really make sense. I CAN see them replacing the upper dome and internal light and someone forgetting to put the green disc back in; to me that seems a more plausible explanation but I as I said, we will probably never know.


----------



## Steve H

feek61 said:


> Trust me, I intimately know the E and I am very much aware of the "phaser cannon" (or whatever it was intended to be). The (maybe) tinted dome is just one of those things that we may never have the definitive answer to. My only thought was why would they do the back one different from those on the saucer. Also, knowing the budget limitations; why would they tint and then spend the time, money and effort to un-tint it. It just doesn't really make sense. I CAN see them replacing the upper dome and internal light and someone forgetting to put the green disc back in; to me that seems a more plausible explanation but I as I said, we will probably never know.


Why would the back dome be done differently from the underside saucer dome? Because they sought different, distinct looks because the areas served different functions. Supposed functions that is.

Why tint the dome and then un-tint it? Because Roddenberry told them to? 

I mean, as much work as Gary K has put into this project as you say there are things we will never know. There's an entire period of...experimentation? that went on with the 11 foot miniature between the second pilot and series production. We seem to have photographic proof of different nacelle dome effects. We seem to have subtle changes in paint application. There's stuff happening to the miniature, Gary called it a 'continuing process' if I recall right, all the time between first pilot and production, up to and including the additions made for the 'Tribbles' shots. 

I'd like to know how that got funded, the work that was done at that time between second pilot and pick-up for series. It's not like there was leftover money just laying around.


----------



## MGagen

Steve H said:


> Darn it. What color were the (unlit) domes on the 33" miniature? Always white (gray, hull color, whatever)?


They sure look like a metallic antique gold to me in both the publicity shots and in Requiem for Methuselah.

M.


----------



## Steve H

MGagen said:


> They sure look like a metallic antique gold to me in both the publicity shots and in Requiem for Methuselah.
> 
> M.


The domes top and bottom on the saucer? Gold? Huh. 

Are you sure you're not describing the domes on the nacelles?

Dome and dome, what is dome?


----------



## robn1

Steve H said:


> ...Why tint the dome and then un-tint it? Because Roddenberry told them to?...


There's a big difference between logical deduction and wild supposition. As for the "phaser cannon" it's there in the pic, or did you not deduce the red tip?


----------



## Steve H

robn1 said:


> There's a big difference between logical deduction and wild supposition. As for the "phaser cannon" it's there in the pic, or did you not deduce the red tip?


Wait, what? Of course I saw it there. I referenced it several times. I was responding to a statement that the 'Phaser Cannon' was not green so somehow that proved that the dome wasn't tinted in some way but it had to be a colored disc of plexi between lightbulb and dome just like the aft 'hanger' dome, so that was making with the green.


----------



## robn1

Steve H said:


> Wait, what? Of course I saw it there. I referenced it several times...


Well when you said this...


Steve H said:


> That nipple is the supposed Phaser cannon (there's a barrel sticking out of it, usually)...


...it sounded like you were saying it wasn't present in the photo.


----------



## asalaw

Can we stop talking about saucer nipples? I'd rather discuss the ample nacelles...


----------



## MGagen

Steve H said:


> The domes top and bottom on the saucer? Gold? Huh.
> 
> Are you sure you're not describing the domes on the nacelles?
> 
> Dome and dome, what is dome?


Yes, I was talking about the nacelle domes.

The primary hull "sensor domes" do look rather like pale green plastic in several of the promotional shots of the 3-footer.


----------



## Steve H

Now see what happens when I'm not around to keep the party going? Thread goes and lays down for a nap! Next time I'll try just not posting instead of an extended stay in a health facility. 

SURELY Gary has discovered something else new he has to share as he digs thru backlogged data!


----------



## RetiredMSgt1701

*Surely*



Steve H said:


> SURELY Gary has discovered something else new he has to share as he digs thru backlogged data!











:laugh:

Sorry. Couldn't resist!

Steve


----------



## Steve H

And nor should you have! I wrote what I wrote with the intentional opening. Surprised it took so long for someone to throw that line!


----------



## PsyBear

I only recently discovered this thread and am amazed at the amount of detailed information it contains. It seemed that on every page I was learning something new or was seeing new detail I had never seen before. It’s also been amazingly gracious and generous for Gary Kerr to take the time to share with everyone what he learned and observed during the restoration process.

I’m working on a 2nd pilot version using the 1/350 kit and am in a research phase. Currently I’m focusing on the lights that were added for the 2nd pilot. 

Gary, if you have a moment, I wonder if you might look over my list/inventory below and comment on anything I might have incorrect or have missed based on your notes from examining any unreleased high-res images or footage. I would greatly appreciate any input.

Bridge:
•	Bridge dome illuminated frosted clear/white.
•	I read the following description from startrekhistory.com regarding changes to the model from the 1st to 2nd pilot: “Bridge: Painted details removed and replaced with light panels in front and on sides.” The front light panel is fairly obvious with 3 horizontal lines running through it visible when the light is off. 
•	So far, I have only seen one image where I thought I saw the illuminated side panel – a screen cap from the episode Mirror Mirror - and it appeared yellow. Is this actually illuminated or is it a decal/painted panel? Is it possible the side panels startrekhistory refers to are the lights on the B/C deck?

B/C Deck:
•	4 illuminated rectangular portholes on the starboard side below the bridge. 2 or 4 illuminated rectangular portholes on the port side.

Saucer Top:
•	2 illuminated rectangular panels – starboard fore and aft. 2 simulated lighting panels port fore and aft.
•	2 clear unlit navigation lights inside black/dark gray bands p/s.
•	2 flashing navigation lights red port, green starboard between black bands and saucer rim.

Saucer Rim:
•	2 illuminated rectangular portholes and 3 illuminated round portholes starboard aft – arranged round round rectangle rectangle round.
•	4 illuminated rectangular portholes starboard fore.
•	1 flashing navigation light midline fore with 2 round black portholes one on either side.
•	2 black rectangular portholes port fore.
•	black portholes port aft to mirror starboard aft or just blank?

Saucer Bottom:
•	1 flashing navigation light with 2 round black portholes one on either side p/s aft
•	5 illuminated rectangular portholes above sensor dome starboard.
•	5 illuminated rectangular portholes above sensor dome fore (different configuration than starboard).
•	??? above sensor dome port side?
•	Sensor dome illuminated frosted clear/white.

Neck (starboard):
•	8 illuminated rectangular portholes (2 with screen in front of or behind windows).
•	2 illuminated round portholes.
•	Top row aft rectangular porthole and diagonally adjacent round porthole blink on and off in unison but not in sync with navigation lights.

Secondary Hull (starboard):
•	6 illuminated rectangular portholes and 2 illuminated round portholes midships.
• 2 illuminated rectangular and 1 illuminated round portholes aft. Blink on and off in unison but not in sync with navigation lights. (Was the aft-most rectangular window green in this version?)
•	Illuminated blinking dome above shuttle bay (clear without inner rods?) (Did this blink alternating with the 3 side aft blinking windows; in unison with the navigation lights; or independently?)
•	No dorsal lights forward of the blinking dome.
•	Red yellow green shuttle landing lights present but unlit?

Nacelles:
Lots of speculation about whether the faux lights on top just behind the domes are present in the pilot versions. Personally, I have viewed images taken from above the model looking down where I don’t see the faux lights when it seems I should if they are really there. But it could be a matter of lighting and resolution. In GregK’s 10/20/2010 “Loose Ends, Part Deux” update of the “The Enterprise Project” he discusses choosing to add the faux lights as a result of the detail being on the 3’ filming model and Matt Jeffries’ aviation history. Gary, during your time on the 11’ model’s restoration process, did you come across any material to confirm one way or another the faux lights existence on the 12’ model prior to the production changes?

Flashing Lights Overall:
1.	All saucer navigation lights flash in unison
2.	2 neck lights flash in unison
3.	3 aft engineering hull lights flash in unison
4.	Shuttle bay dome light flashes
Do these 4 clusters of light all flash independently of each other or are some of them related? (I’m pretty sure 1 and 4 flash together.) Also does anyone have any thought of the timings?


----------



## Steve H

I just want to complement PsyBear on the excellent summation of the second pilot version and the good questions seeking to clarify issues.

Second Pilot seems to be kind of the 'lost child' in history of the 11 foot miniature. So many little tweaks from the first pilot onward. Some of the second pilot details I kind of wish they had kept for the production version.


----------



## PsyBear

Thank you, Steve! You are most kind!


----------



## MGagen

I'd just like to point out that this thread has now reached page 134. That's one page for each full inch of the studio model...

We now return you to your regular programming.


----------



## whereisanykey

My pages are 'half-scale' to the studio.


----------



## Gary K

PsyBear said:


> I’m working on a 2nd pilot version using the 1/350 kit and am in a research phase. Currently I’m focusing on the lights that were added for the 2nd pilot.
> 
> Gary, if you have a moment, I wonder if you might look over my list/inventory below and comment on anything I might have incorrect or have missed based on your notes from examining any unreleased high-res images or footage. I would greatly appreciate any input.
> 
> Bridge:
> •	Bridge dome illuminated frosted clear/white.
> •	I read the following description from startrekhistory.com regarding changes to the model from the 1st to 2nd pilot: “Bridge: Painted details removed and replaced with light panels in front and on sides.” The front light panel is fairly obvious with 3 horizontal lines running through it visible when the light is off.
> •	So far, I have only seen one image where I thought I saw the illuminated side panel – a screen cap from the episode Mirror Mirror - and it appeared yellow. Is this actually illuminated or is it a decal/painted panel? Is it possible the side panels startrekhistory refers to are the lights on the B/C deck?
> 
> B/C Deck:
> •	4 illuminated rectangular portholes on the starboard side below the bridge. 2 or 4 illuminated rectangular portholes on the port side.
> 
> Saucer Top:
> •	2 illuminated rectangular panels – starboard fore and aft. 2 simulated lighting panels port fore and aft.
> •	2 clear unlit navigation lights inside black/dark gray bands p/s.
> •	2 flashing navigation lights red port, green starboard between black bands and saucer rim.


You've got a lot of questions, so let me deal with a few at a time. 

First, are you making a model of the 2nd Pilot spaceship or the 2nd Pilot studio model? The "2nd Pilot version" is something of an artificial construct. Roddenberry & co. were simply performing a series of experiments on the 11-footer until they arrived at a final look that they liked. The "Pilot" versions weren't even finished models. Both the 1st & 2nd versions had open holes in the model, with structural lumber visible inside. Here are a few answers:

Bridge:
• Bridge dome illuminated frosted clear/white - CORRECT.
• An opening was cut in the front of the bridge to create a lighted "windshield". Datin cut rectangular openings on the side of the bridge, too, but they were then filled in sometime afterwards. I haven't seen any photos in which the yellow side panels were definitively illuminated, but I've seen photos in which they definitely WEREN'T illuminated. I'd go with two yellow-painted side panels & one lighted windshield. I don't know what "3 horizontal lines running through it visible when the light is off" means. 

B/C Deck:
• There were 4 illuminated rectangular windows & 2 painted windows on the starboard side. On the port side, the first two windows were illuminated, and the remaining 4 were painted.

Saucer Top:
• 2 illuminated rectangular panels – starboard fore and aft. 2 simulated lighting panels port fore and aft. CORRECT
• 2 clear unlit navigation lights inside black/dark gray bands p/s. - CORRECT - and the two arcs, plus the fat "T" shape at the bow, were a very dark gray, not black.
• 2 flashing navigation lights - red port, green starboard between black bands and saucer rim. CORRECT - In the photos I've seen, only the red light is illuminated, but presumably, the green light was supposed to be lighted, too.

That's all I have time for this evening. Stay tuned for more.

Gary


----------



## PsyBear

Hello Gary!

Thank you so much for taking the time to look over my post and comment. Your feedback is awesome and contains history I've read no where else! 

My plan is to create a model of the spaceship Enterprise in its configuration during it's mission to the galactic edge as depicted by the the 12' filming model. I'd like to capture as much detail as possible that was visible on the filming model at that time, but then extrapolate the port side details based on the starboard side - kind of what most modelers do anyway. For example on my model I'll illuminate all 4 rectangular panels on the top of the saucer, and fill-in the holes on the saucer rim and on the bottom of the saucer which were open on the studio model and just have them represent darkened portholes.

The forward bridge window - I'm hesitant to post photos because I've accumulated so many I don't recall from where they all came and I don't want to inadvertently steal someone else's work, but at the bottom of this post is a portion of the image that gave me the impression that I'm seeing 3 horizontal lines in the bridge window when the light is not on.

To me it looks like 3 lines embedded in the window material or behind it or something etched from the back. Perhaps its a reflection or a trick of the studio lights. Or maybe it's the windscreen defroster grid!  Unfortunately, Polar Lights didn't cut out the window on it's Pilot Parts Pack.

Windows on B/C deck - I see the 4 illuminated windows on the starboard side, but can't seem to see the 2 painted ones anywhere even in the screen shot from Mirror Mirror where I would think they would be visible. Looking at the zoom-in from The Cage I see 6 painted windows - 4 directly on the side which were presumably later drilled-out to be illuminated, and 2 more a little further aft. It's these 2 aft ones I assume you mean by the painted ones. All 6 windows are molded into the Pilot Part Pack. I can just block out the light going to the 2 aft ones.

Thank you very much again for your assistance Gary! I will look forward to more of your insights!
Jim


----------



## Steve H

Psybear: Gary is the expert but from a physical production Point of View, regarding the 'window' on the bridge:

I don't think there are lines on the plastic. I am of the belief that Roddenberry wanted that lit panel to re-create the truck-in to the model as like the first pilot- Truck in on the miniature towards the bridge, superimpose footage of the bridge set over the window and continue the push-in to the actual shot inside the bridge. There is footage that seems to confirm this idea contained in the 'Roddenberry Vault' Blue Ray disc.

Lines in the plastic could interfere with getting a clean alignment or optical.

That's just my attempt at logical assumption. Gary may have better proof via photos he had access to.


----------



## robn1

Just what we need, _another _grid to argue about :grin2:

Thanks again Gary for all of your insights.


----------



## PsyBear

Hi Steve,

Right now, I'm just excited to be part of the discussion and I will definitely defer to others when it comes to detail like the bridge window since my own resources are very limited. That's just the only photo Ive seen of a close in shot of the window when it wasn't lit and I thought I saw something in/on it. Even if something were there I think it would be washed out once the light is turned on anyway. Minutia like this is reminiscent of the lightsaber forums where every shadow and optical artifact in every frame gets debated. It's fun :grin2:

BTW I agree with your earlier post about wishing that certain design elements from his stage had been carried over into the production version. I've always liked the dark arcs painted around the navigation lights on the top of the saucer. I thought it was great that those we're included on the NX-01.


----------



## Steve H

I think the dark areas around the P/S lights was wonderful, and helped distinguish the top of the saucer from the bottom even further. It was a visually interesting element that helped make the lights stand out more. I suspect they became a pain when it came to effects shots, bleed-thru and compositing. I tended to think of them as 'walkways', always mindful of Jefferies' knowledge and interest in aircraft. My view is to keep the context of the times, and cold war era aircraft markings. I think that's how Jefferies was thinking.


----------



## Skyking918

PsyBear said:


> The forward bridge window - I'm hesitant to post photos because I've accumulated so many I don't recall from where they all came and I don't want to inadvertently steal someone else's work, but at the bottom of this post is a portion of the image that gave me the impression that I'm seeing 3 horizontal lines in the bridge window when the light is not on.
> 
> To me it looks like 3 lines embedded in the window material or behind it or something etched from the back. Perhaps its a reflection or a trick of the studio lights. Or maybe it's the windscreen defroster grid!  Unfortunately, Polar Lights didn't cut out the window on it's Pilot Parts Pack.


Looks like wood grain to me!


----------



## RonH

This is a cropped zoom for clarity.


----------



## Skyking918

RonH said:


> This is a cropped zoom for clarity.


Looks even more like wood grain!


----------



## robn1

It couldn't be wood because it was back lit. It could be machine marks in the acrylic window. Or maybe tape holding a diffusion material in place.


----------



## MartyS

robn1 said:


> It couldn't be wood because it was back lit. It could be machine marks in the acrylic window. Or maybe tape holding a diffusion material in place.


Probably machining marks.

Does anyone know how they frosted the acrylic windows? Sand paper or sand blasting or some other method? Could be marks from that.

Or they are jpeg compression or other image processing artifacts.


----------



## PsyBear

I realized this morning that the lines reminded me of the radio antennas that used to be embedded in car windshields. My father always used to buy big ass Oldsmobiles and I remember on one of them that there were 2 parallel lines running up the center of the windshield that then curved out at the top all the way to the side edges.

I was thinking *IF* the lines were really there *AND* they were deliberate it could have been a result of the craftsman having that feature on his own car. Sadly, I googled it and the first car that had that feature was the 1969 Pontiac Grand Prix. Much too late to be a design influence.

However, the first cars to have embedded rear defroster grids were the 1953 Lincolns...

"Mr. Kelso, I can't see out. Activate the defrosters!"
"Defrosters activated captain!"
(And Lt. Uhura thought SHE had it bad...)>


----------



## StarCruiser

Those lines in the windshield were the dipole radio antennae used in LOTS of cars in the late '70s and into the '80s (died due to the cost to replace the windshield - worked great otherwise).


----------



## Richard Baker

I remember some years ago Ford came up with a windshield defroster which was a thin coating which could be heated. It was discontinued shortly there after when car owners discovered it also blocked their radar detectors 100%...

I find the Bridge sensor window/windshield a bit odd- while it could be a 1960's version of what the NuTrek ships have, the size and proportions do not come close to what the interior set has.


----------



## Steve H

The Bridge 'window/windshield' only existed for the purpose of getting that truck-in shot Roddenberry wanted, same as the shot from the first pilot where the camera moved in to the 'clear' upper bridge dome to follow the action on the bridge. It was the only reason for its existence. 

But at the same time it was also clearly stated that the main view screen was NOT a window. He wanted it both ways because he was in love with the idea of pushing into the model until you were 'inside' with the set, and pushing in where the 'viewscreen' was on the bridge set was a more easily achieved shot, with that area being 'wild' and all. They just couldn't match the angle from above quite right as clearly seen in 'The Cage'.

Naturally this is conjecture based on the film evidence seen in the 'Roddenberry Vault' Blu-Ray discs. When you see that shot, and you recall the similar shot from 'The Cage' (the only use of the 11 foot miniature in the pilot as I understand it), it makes perfect sense.


----------



## PsyBear

Richard, you stumbled right on it! The lines represented the Enterprise's radar detector!


----------



## Scotty K

Richard Baker said:


> I remember some years ago Ford came up with a windshield defroster which was a thin coating which could be heated. It was discontinued shortly there after when car owners discovered it also blocked their radar detectors 100%...


Not only that, but I recall hearing that several of those windshields actually shattered; I think it had something to do with too quick temperature changes on the surface of the windshield if it was particularly cold outside.

I had a work-supplied Taurus station wagon that had one of those; never had a problem with it, though...


----------



## asalaw

The windows appear to be translucent white acrylic, what is often referred to as milk-white plexi. The three round lights on the bottom of the saucer are clear, IIRC from when one of them was sticking out before the restoration.


----------



## Gary K

PsyBear said:


> I only recently discovered this thread and am amazed at the amount of detailed information it contains. It seemed that on every page I was learning something new or was seeing new detail I had never seen before. It’s also been amazingly gracious and generous for Gary Kerr to take the time to share with everyone what he learned and observed during the restoration process.
> 
> I’m working on a 2nd pilot version using the 1/350 kit and am in a research phase. Currently I’m focusing on the lights that were added for the 2nd pilot.
> 
> Gary, if you have a moment, I wonder if you might look over my list/inventory below and comment on anything I might have incorrect or have missed based on your notes from examining any unreleased high-res images or footage. I would greatly appreciate any input.


Here are some additional answers to your burning questions:

Saucer Rim:
• 2 illuminated rectangular portholes and 3 illuminated round portholes starboard aft – arranged round round rectangle rectangle round.

Correct

• 4 illuminated rectangular portholes starboard fore.

Correct

• 1 flashing navigation light midline fore with 2 round black portholes one on either side.

Actually, there are 3 holes, with a light bulb sticking out of the center hole.

• 2 black rectangular portholes port fore.

Correct

• black portholes port aft to mirror starboard aft or just blank?

Dark gray windows mirrored those on the stbd side, and were partially obscured by a thin spray of hull paint during the conversion into the Production version.

Saucer Bottom:
• 1 flashing navigation light with 2 round black portholes one on either side p/s aft

Actually, there are 3 holes on each side, and there's a light bulb sticking out of each center hole.

• 5 illuminated rectangular portholes above sensor dome starboard.
• 5 illuminated rectangular portholes above sensor dome fore (different configuration than starboard).

Correct - 5 illuminated windows in each grouping, plus one painted window in front.

• ??? above sensor dome port side?

Good question. The dimensions & locations of the fwd and stbd groupings of windows are annotated in pencil onto the studio plans - but nothing is shown on the port side. Possibly because the stbd window were to be mirrored on the port side, so Jefferies didn't bother drawing them?? I haven't found any reliably clear photos of the port side of the Pilot version 11-footer, but the 3-footer in 'The Cage' had a row of 5 painted windows and a row of two windows, mirroring the windows on the stbd side. I'd go with that arrangement.

• Sensor dome illuminated frosted clear/white.

Correct - and probably divided like a pie with the engraved lines carried over from the 1st Pilot version.

Neck (starboard):
• 8 illuminated rectangular portholes (2 with screen in front of or behind windows).

Correct - the screens were behind the windows.

• 2 illuminated round portholes.
• Top row aft rectangular porthole and diagonally adjacent round porthole blink on and off in unison but not in sync with navigation lights.

Both correct.

To be continued....

Gary


----------



## PsyBear

Hello Gary!

I hope you had a good holiday. Thank you very much for your further feedback! I remember reading about the holes on the saucer rim and the underside that were left open in your article in Sci-Fi and Fantasy Modeling. Both parts of your article were excellent by the way and it's unfortunate that you weren't able to publish your full series of articles as planned. Also unfortunate that we've lost such a quality magazine.

Regarding the flashing lights on the neck and on the starboard aft side of the secondary hull for the 2nd pilot - I've seen clips where the lights go from on to off, but never back on. Most notably the slow left to right pass the ship makes during the opening credits of Where No Man Has Gone Before. Maybe the lights were timed so slowly that to see them flick off then back on would have required an unusually lengthy shot. Can anyone think of an episode that had a shot of the 2nd pilot configuration showing these lights flicking off then on again? Or even starting turned off then flicking on?

Thank you again!
Jim


----------



## Steve H

Hey! It moved! 

(what Galileo ACTUALLY said at his trial  )


----------



## asalaw

PsyBear said:


> Hello Gary!
> 
> I hope you had a good holiday. Thank you very much for your further feedback! I remember reading about the holes on the saucer rim and the underside that were left open in your article in Sci-Fi and Fantasy Modeling. Both parts of your article were excellent by the way and it's unfortunate that you weren't able to publish your full series of articles as planned. Also unfortunate that we've lost such a quality magazine.
> 
> Regarding the flashing lights on the neck and on the starboard aft side of the secondary hull for the 2nd pilot - I've seen clips where the lights go from on to off, but never back on. Most notably the slow left to right pass the ship makes during the opening credits of Where No Man Has Gone Before. Maybe the lights were timed so slowly that to see them flick off then back on would have required an unusually lengthy shot. Can anyone think of an episode that had a shot of the 2nd pilot configuration showing these lights flicking off then on again? Or even starting turned off then flicking on?
> 
> Thank you again!
> Jim


I've always assumed that was just a light bulb failing during the shot.


----------



## PsyBear

My initial impression was of someone saying 'Good night John Boy' and switching off a light or indeed a light failing. However, based on the photos I've seen of the port side of the neck, and seeing where the holes are drilled and where the wires emerge, I have the impression that each illuminated port hole is lit by it's own source light (or at least most are) so at some point those two lights were wired together into a separate circuit from the others. I would guess though, that the three 'port holes' on the aft starboard side of the secondary hull were lit by a single bulb just going by how the acrylic/Lucite rods are positioned inside the filming model.

As you watch the flyby/camera pan in the opening credits, the neck lights go out first then those three on the secondary hull. It's even possible that these two clusters of lights weren't controlled by flashing circuits, but could have been controlled manually from the control board to make a more dynamic shot as the camera panned.


----------



## feek61

My speculation is that the few lights you are talking about were controlled manually and just turned off during the camera pass to bring life into the ship.


----------



## Richard Baker

Have those lights been seen on in shots after that?


----------



## PsyBear

After the model was updated again for production those lights remained and additional illuminated port holes were added. I believe from that point forward they were always seen 'on'. Also a new flashing navigation light was added to the starboard aft of the secondary hull surrounded by a bezel.


----------



## Proper2

I believe this item was referenced somewhere in this thread but *Star Trek: The Original Series - The Roddenberry Vault [Blu-ray]* is now just $27.52 on Amazon.


----------



## Scotty K

Proper2 said:


> I believe this item was referenced somewhere in this thread but *Star Trek: The Original Series - The Roddenberry Vault [Blu-ray]* is now just $27.52 on Amazon.


Whoa; thanks for the tip....ordered!!


----------



## whereisanykey

I wish they would put out that Roddenberry Vault on DVD.


----------



## Steve H

whereisanykey said:


> I wish they would put out that Roddenberry Vault on DVD.


Sadly, we're heading towards a BD only world. It's pressure from the studios more than anything else because Blu Ray is harder, more time consuming to master and frankly, if you use a dual layer DVD you've got more than enough space to not need to over-compress the data. 

Lots of reasons, not gonna bore people about it. It's not like the difference between VHS and DVD, keeping DVD going is a perfectly viable option, but it's not the road that will be taken. :/


----------



## whereisanykey

Since I haven't much interest in most entertainment these days I have no reason to buy equipment. It's been years since I bought any new release type discs. What I have purchased over those years is Old programming, particularly old TV programs. I'm completely bored with all the "explosive" content in films these days. There's just too much action for action sake. I prefer a more "engaging" type show.


----------



## Captain Robert April

BD players are pretty damn cheap these days. It's even possible to find 'em in thrift shops.


----------



## whereisanykey

It has nothing to do with cost. I have a home theater setup and to tear it apart for what little I'd use it makes it not worthwhile.


----------



## Proper2

whereisanykey said:


> It has nothing to do with cost. I have a home theater setup and to tear it apart for what little I'd use it makes it not worthwhile.


I think all you'd need is the Blu-ray device and an HDMI cable connecting it to your receiver. At least that's how my "theater" is set up: TV, DVR box, PS3 all connected to 5/1 receiver w/ HDMI cables. You'd just need to make sure your receiver has enough HDMI inputs.


----------



## jheilman

My devices input to the TV and then the TV audio goes to the receiver. But, just wait a bit. Physical media probably won't be around much longer. The only 4K video I watch at home is Netflix.


----------



## robn1

Proper2 said:


> I think all you'd need is the Blu-ray device and an HDMI cable connecting it to your receiver. At least that's how my "theater" is set up: TV, DVR box, PS3 all connected to 5/1 receiver w/ HDMI cables. You'd just need to make sure your receiver has enough HDMI inputs.


I agree that a dislike of newer entertainment is a silly reason to avoid Bluray (a dislike I share), especially when lots of older stuff is available on BD.

But adding BD to an already existing system requires that all devices in the chain are HDCP compliant, for a lot of people this means replacing fully capable TVs and receivers. I went through this to put a BD drive in my computer, I needed a new monitor and video card to make it work.


----------



## jheilman

I guess if you don't have an HDTV, sure. No reason to upgrade if your TV can't display it. But, I have an ancient surround sound receiver that still works for my audio sources. True, it doesn't have any HDMI inputs, so no video switching, but all my HD sources feed directly to my TV, so it acts as the video switcher. Laserdisc and CD player (yes, I still own those) still feed through the receiver.

But this is OT, so back to the Enterprise.


----------



## Steve H

jheilman said:


> My devices input to the TV and then the TV audio goes to the receiver. But, just wait a bit. Physical media probably won't be around much longer. The only 4K video I watch at home is Netflix.


It's very true. The Studios frantically want to kill off physical media, even in the face of the billions of Dollars they've made on it all these years-to the point that in any number of cases movies that failed (or just under performed) at the box office ended up making a profit (oops, no movie ever makes a profit, remember?  ) thanks to physical home video media.

They've always resented home video, since day one. Now they can get back to their preferred business model-complete control. No more watching a movie when you want and not paying. No more watching a movie even tho they wish to 'retire' it for a time (the Disney Vault model). 

*sigh*

Anyway, yeah, back to the beautiful gray lady.


----------



## feek61

Personally for me, it's a bargain to see the special effects element (moving) footage in excellent quality for under $100 dollars for the player, disc and cables. I am really into that sort of thing but I understand that not everyone shares that passion (well, actually the obsession, lol)


----------



## Captain Robert April

Besides, you'll still be able to play your DVDs on a BluRay player.


----------



## whereisanykey

https://imgur.com/gallery/xaa6V

These are the pictures I was expecting earlier and was disappointed in so few released at the time of the unveiling. They aren't quite as large as some of the previous pictures. 

There are some interesting details I hadn't noticed before. There seems to be a small white pin-stripe outlining the saucer landing gear to paint an outer area. The "vent systems door" looks as if it really is a door. It appears to be recessed. The question then is; could this have been originally considered to be a window. 

The window above the #1837 has a green block inside the hull giving the window a green tint.


----------



## Indy5000

For the record - did anyone ever give the exact number of coloured lights used in the TOS nacelles (not the always-on lights, which were 5, but the coloured Christmas tree lights that flashed)? I presume the restoration used the number they derived, but none of the pics make clear how many that was.


----------



## Gary K

whereisanykey said:


> https://imgur.com/gallery/xaa6V
> 
> These are the pictures I was expecting earlier and was disappointed in so few released at the time of the unveiling. They aren't quite as large as some of the previous pictures.
> 
> There are some interesting details I hadn't noticed before. There seems to be a small white pin-stripe outlining the saucer landing gear to paint an outer area. The "vent systems door" looks as if it really is a door. It appears to be recessed. The question then is; could this have been originally considered to be a window.


The pin-striping around the landing gear covers is dark gray (same color as the impulse deck) on the Production model, and medium gray (same as the gray markings under the fronts of the nacelles) on the Pilot versions. You were looking at light-colored masking tape in Bill's & my photos.

The "vent systems door" is actually the bare Royalite plastic that comprises the saucer. It's recessed only by the thickness of the layers of paint that have been applied over the years.

Gary


----------



## Gary K

Indy5000 said:


> For the record - did anyone ever give the exact number of coloured lights used in the TOS nacelles (not the always-on lights, which were 5, but the coloured Christmas tree lights that flashed)? I presume the restoration used the number they derived, but none of the pics make clear how many that was.


The guy at Golden West College who replaced the burned-out bulbs in 1972 estimated 16-24 bulbs per nacelle. There's a way to exactly count the number of bulbs, and I'm still pursuing that lead.

Gary


----------



## Indy5000

Thank you Mr. K. You are a scholar and a gentleman.


----------



## StarCruiser

I thought he was a gentleman and a schoolbus?!?


----------



## Gary K

Indy5000 said:


> Thank you Mr. K. You are a scholar and a gentleman.


Hey, I resemble that remark!


----------



## whereisanykey

What does it say of us being so obsessed with such minute details. But, the series came out just before entering the military and I watched the later episodes aboard ship. Since it was the Most realistic type sci-fi show I was hooked. It was many years later before I saw 2001 so it was only Star Trek that was memorable for quite some time. Also, I never had the chance to see 2001 on the big screen. I believe that experience would have been awesome.


----------



## jheilman

It says that the original Star Trek connected with us very strongly. And we love the details.


----------



## Captain Robert April

whereisanykey said:


> What does it say of us being so obsessed with such minute details. But, the series came out just before entering the military and I watched the later episodes aboard ship. Since it was the Most realistic type sci-fi show I was hooked. It was many years later before I saw 2001 so it was only Star Trek that was memorable for quite some time. Also, I never had the chance to see 2001 on the big screen. I believe that experience would have been awesome.


Yeah, 2001 in a theatre is a much more immersive experience. Doesn't make a heck of a lot more sense, but it is more immersive.


----------



## TomD66

Hi All,

I know it's been a long while since anyone has posted here but, I want to know if Gary has had the chance to complete a model paint conversion of the Smithsonian colors yet? I understand he was in the early stages of doing so the last time he posted here, and I was curious of any progress. 

Thanks,

Tom


----------



## bholcomb007

I am with you, I have been waiting patiently for a color chart so I can get back to my model after this cold weather passes!


----------



## Shado1980

feek61 said:


> Personally for me, it's a bargain to see the special effects element (moving) footage in excellent quality for under $100 dollars for the player, disc and cables. I am really into that sort of thing but I understand that not everyone shares that passion (well, actually the obsession, lol)


Old post I know, but WOW! :surprise:I love these HD effects shots! I wish that with this footage available, CBS/Paramount will revisit TOS and maybe give it a newer HD transfer and a new Bluray version. Of course, it looks pretty darn good now, but I keep wishing it could be a bit better.


----------



## Skyking918

TomD66 said:


> Hi All,
> 
> I know it's been a long while since anyone has posted here but, I want to know if Gary has had the chance to complete a model paint conversion of the Smithsonian colors yet? I understand he was in the early stages of doing so the last time he posted here, and I was curious of any progress.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Tom


Gary and I are Facebook friends. I'll ask him.


----------



## Skyking918

Gary informs me that "something is coming." More than that we cannot say.


----------



## Neo-uk

Just wondering if there was ever any video shot of the inside workings of the new lighting set up ?


----------



## feek61

I didn't see this posted so sorry if this is a repeat but here is the information and details on the paint from Gary:


http://culttvman.com/main/a-modelers-guide-to-painting-the-starship-enterprise-by-gary-kerr/


----------



## Joeysaddress1

Would really like to see a coffee table book with photos and all the research and materials that were used in the restoration.


----------



## hmudd69

Hey all! Is there anyone still in here? I just spent 2 weeks reading the posts and replies from beginning to end. What a great time, and so much information! I still have questions. 
- J.R. Aiello


----------



## RossW

Ask away!


----------



## Milton Fox Racing

Welcome to hobbytalk @hmudd69! It took me just about as long to read the full thread and it was fantastic. Probably the best thread on the whole site! 🤙


----------



## Joel

I think it's just that all the information has been given, so there's nothing new to bring up. This has now become sort of a resource thread. 

But, as stated above, have questions? Just ask.


----------



## hmudd69

Hey guys. Sorry, I guess I didn't expect anyone to really be here! Thanks for the responses. Believe it or not I've been on this site for 10 years, I just never checked in on it. And I was here before that but had to sign up again in 2009 when I finally found it again. Slacker, I know... anyway...

Did Steve ever get his coffee table book? haha
I read that there was a photo during restoration (along with witnesses) about the nacelle domes being removed and a color photo of the end WITH the lights still in it. I know that it was a private one and wouldn't be public after the restoration, but Gary said he got a good look at it. Was there ever a drawing/diagram of this? I would be interested because there's something like 20 lights (with the minis) in there, IIRC.

Gary did finally put out the painting guide, right? That's the one that showed up on CultTVMan? Was that the final say/version?

Good to be here! I will make sure to check in regularly.
J.R.


----------



## eagledocf15

I would love to know if the coffee table book is still in the works! If it is, then an estimate on publication date and where to purchase. Thank you


----------



## Steve H

eagledocf15 said:


> I would love to know if the coffee table book is still in the works! If it is, then an estimate on publication date and where to purchase. Thank you


AS far as I know there is no plans for any such book, more's the pity. I had lobbied for one because I felt all the work that was done, all the research, all the knowledge that was gained deserved to be memorialized in a more permanent medium, a fitting tribute to the Enterprise.

It seems that not only is there no interest in that happening, but my suggesting it was a subject of mockery and ridicule. 

And I'm sure there are all manner of roadblocks that make for an easy excuse to not even try. CBS/Viacom/Paramount has to be dealt with, The Smithsonian has its own specifications and regulations, there's the matter of all the privately held and thus 'top secret' material that was used but cannot be exposed to we common people* and so on. 
So no book. But you know, things change. Who knows.

*That sounds bitter I know. I fully understand someone who might have special or exclusive information such as photographs, slides, home movies, private correspondence and such like feeling possessive, or concerned that publicly revealing same might open them to legal action, and the ever-popular concern that it will be put on the internet and suddenly EVERYBODY 'owns' it and they would not get just and proper compensation. My argument is that knowledge is meant to be shared otherwise it vanishes.That's why we HAVE museums. And books.


----------



## eagledocf15

A very sad commentary on publishing and preservation of history. Museums are to preserve history, make it known and we all benefit. Not repeatedly making mistakes and learning are all key attributes of a "learned " society. 
I for one would live that book!
Persevere and if you need a volunteer to help, my hand is raised!


----------



## Steve H

eagledocf15 said:


> A very sad commentary on publishing and preservation of history. Museums are to preserve history, make it known and we all benefit. Not repeatedly making mistakes and learning are all key attributes of a "learned " society.
> I for one would live that book!
> Persevere and if you need a volunteer to help, my hand is raised!


Ahhhh...ummmm. hm.

Thank you for the kind words and support, but it would not be me doing this book. It would be others, those more involved in the restoration. Myself, I would suggest and support Gary K. if he were so inclined. He's a solid researcher and a decent writer and of course he was there during the process, so he would KNOW how even minor, perhaps forgettable details matter, His articles on the making of the 1/350 Enterprise model kit were very well done (and I can't recall if I got the 4th and last segment...this is another thing that deserved its own book).

So thank you again. I suspect the pleas for a book should go to CBS/Paramount/Viacom's publishing or publicity department, and the Smithsonian Air and Space museum, I can't do a thing about it.


----------



## jlwshere

Probably asked and answered in the 2000+ posts here but does anyone know if the Bussard fans were stand alone sheet metal pieces or indeed part of a "dome", as pulled off of the 1991 restoration, and if an "inner dome" was that part frosted/sand blasted as well, as it appears to have been for the 91 restoration? 

As the original domes have been gone for years, I was curious, as this would also affect light diffusion


----------



## jlwshere

jlwshere said:


> Probably asked and answered in the 2000+ posts here but does anyone know if the Bussard fans were stand alone sheet metal pieces or indeed part of a "dome", as pulled off of the 1991 restoration, and if an "inner dome" was that part frosted/sand blasted as well, as it appears to have been for the 91 restoration?
> 
> As the original domes have been gone for years, I was curious, as this would also affect light diffusion


never mind … found it on page 32. o
Only took about 2 hours as I randomly searched the pages. While I enjoy reading it all, talk about going off topic...


----------



## jlwshere

jlwshere said:


> Probably asked and answered in the 2000+ posts here but does anyone know if the Bussard fans were stand alone sheet metal pieces or indeed part of a "dome", as pulled off of the 1991 restoration, and if an "inner dome" was that part frosted/sand blasted as well, as it appears to have been for the 91 restoration?
> 
> As the original domes have been gone for years, I was curious, as this would also affect light diffusion





jlwshere said:


> never mind … found it on page 32. o
> Only took about 2 hours as I randomly searched the pages. While I enjoy reading it all, talk about going off topic...



Make that page 23… and on this thread I believe there were actually 3 posts related to nacelles... no, wait.. there were 7...😂


----------



## JGG1701

Can someone here please tell me what light pattern they used on their P. L. Light Kit?
I want to be sure that I put the colored bulbs in the correct order.
Thank you,
-Jim G.G.


----------



## Captain Robert April

There really wasn't a set pattern on the actual model. Just like the panels on the bridge, they were lit with Christmas lights, and when one burned out, they'd just grab another and replace it, no real concern over what color the previous bulb was.


----------



## Trekkriffic

i concur with the Captain‘s statement above. Having said that someone sometime ago did a frame by frame video analysis of the colors and positions of the starboard nacelle lights and posted this:


Enterprise Bussard Lighting Layout by Steve J, on Flickr


----------



## JGG1701

Thank you Gents.
- Jim G.G.


----------



## tinfoilhelmet

as is the nature of my namesake, i've noticed an edit on this page in the last few days...concerning white outer non orange domes. no biggie. good to strive for accuracy....


----------



## StarshipClass

tinfoilhelmet said:


> as is the nature of my namesake, i've noticed an edit on this page in the last few days...concerning white outer non orange domes. no biggie. good to strive for accuracy....


I think there's been more knowledge becoming widespread and part of the general conversation since the "Wheel of Fortune" posting.


----------



## JGG1701

Now somebody tell me, are the domes supposed to be clear or tinted orange?:




-Jim G.G.


----------



## StarshipClass

JGG1701 said:


> Now somebody tell me, are the domes supposed to be clear or tinted orange?:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Jim G.G.


----------



## JGG1701

Looks frosted on the outside and orange on the inside........


----------



## StarshipClass

JGG1701 said:


> Looks frosted on the outside and orange on the inside........


The outer domes look to be tinted and frosted to me. The Smithsonian restoration team seems to have come to the same conclusion:


----------



## JGG1701

Thanks Perfesser.
-Jim G.G.


----------



## StarshipClass

And my impressions from the original photos is that the tint was just a wee bit more reddish than the orange on the refurbished model.


----------



## tinfoilhelmet

the info is on the very first page very first post lol.


----------



## Milton Fox Racing

tinfoilhelmet said:


> as is the nature of my namesake, i've noticed an edit on this page in the last few days...concerning white outer non orange domes. no biggie. good to strive for accuracy....


Which post # does this refer to?




tinfoilhelmet said:


> the info is on the very first page very first post lol.


Yes it is. But a few posts down on the first page of this thread are some (deleted) edited posts with one being quoted still - that references the wooden nacelles from the pilot episode. In this post the same orange ink color is noted to have been used to paint those wooden nacelles.


----------



## tinfoilhelmet

from what i've seen on the cultvman painting guide and related articles(written by gary), the original pilot domes were a red ink color.

as far as what post on the previous page was edited, it's best we or i just let it go...

the info on the frosted orange domes is the ultimate subject of this thread first post


----------



## Milton Fox Racing

I see...


----------



## alensatemybuick

Milton Fox Racing said:


> But a few posts down on the first page of this thread are some (deleted) edited posts with one being quoted still - that references the wooden nacelles from the pilot episode. In this post *the same orange ink color* is noted to have been used to paint those wooden nacelles.


Not actually. The same BRAND.


----------



## Milton Fox Racing

I sit before my key board corrected, but it is still possible the same orange ink color was used. Is there a reference or listing of which color Pelikan ink(s) were used?


----------



## tinfoilhelmet

A Modeler’s Guide to Painting the Starship Enterprise by Gary Kerr


Version 2.0 Revised 8-30-2018 Diagram by Petri Blomqvist INTRODUCTION The color scheme of the original, 11-foot model of the Starship Enterprise has be




culttvman.com


----------



## Milton Fox Racing

So seeing the photo and reading the reference about the pilot nacelles, I can see why there is so much conversation about the 'red' color of them. It is not the shade of red I would envision if just told they were red. I could go for a brick red but they are brown overall. More specifically 8 shades of brown, 2 of red and one orange to my eyes. And a darker gray/black. Perhaps the modern day references of Harvest Brown and Fireweed depending on your model year configuration desired are more accurate terms to use.


----------



## StarshipClass

Milton Fox Racing said:


> So seeing the photo and reading the reference about the pilot nacelles, I can see why there is so much conversation about the 'red' color of them. It is not the shade of red I would envision if just told they were red. I could go for a brick red but they are brown overall. More specifically 8 shades of brown, 2 of red and one orange to my eyes. And a darker gray/black. Perhaps the modern day references of Harvest Brown and Fireweed depending on your model year configuration desired are more accurate terms to use.


Yeah, I think they were going for something of a "swirly" effect with the paint to try to convey energy processes going on inside but, without a lighting effect, it didn't really come off when viewed on television.

It's interesting to look at some the early test lighting effects that were rejected which seem to be going for a swirling effect, IIRC, behind the dome.


----------



## alensatemybuick

The swirly White domes version was the basis of the B&W photos used in TMOST by Stephen Whitfield as well as the ship as depicted on the official TOS stationery just as a couple examples.


----------



## StarshipClass

Yep  and that's before they switched the orientation of the hull numbers on the bottom of the saucer section.



alensatemybuick said:


> The swirly White domes version was the basis of the B&W photos used in TMOST by Stephen Whitfield as well as the ship as depicted on the official TOS stationery just as a couple examples.
> 
> View attachment 311095
> 
> View attachment 311096


----------



## garyseven

Gary K said:


> We've got much better than simple fragments - FAR better reference materials than previous restorers had.
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that the orange-tinted AMT nacelles were anything than a coincidence, because somebody at the company thought they looked orangey in pictures or on TV. A former AMT employee told that back in the bad old days, when AMT cranked inaccurate kits like the Galileo & Romulan BoP, the company's attitude was "Who gives a sh*t if the models aren't accurate? It's just stupid kids buying them".
> 
> Little did they realize that those "stupid" kids would still be buying Star Trek kits after they grew up & started getting gray hair!
> 
> Gary


Remember the horrible "Azteking" molded in the original AMT STTMP models.


----------



## Owen E Oulton

garyseven said:


> Remember the horrible "Azteking" molded in the original AMT STTMP models.


I suspect you're speaking of the first edition of the AMT/Matchbox 1/537 refit Enterprise. Actually, the first release was the so-called "smoothie". It was not until the AMT/Ertl The Wrath of Khan version to the model that the moulds were irrevocably altered to look like squares of masking tape texture were added in a failed attempt to recreate the Aztec paint scheme.


----------



## Zombie_61

Owen E Oulton said:


> I suspect you're speaking of the first edition of the AMT/Matchbox 1/537 refit Enterprise...It was not until the AMT/Ertl The Wrath of Khan version to the model that the moulds were irrevocably altered to look like squares of masking tape texture were added in a failed attempt to recreate the Aztec paint scheme.


----------



## garyseven

Owen E Oulton said:


> I suspect you're speaking of the first edition of the AMT/Matchbox 1/537 refit Enterprise. Actually, the first release was the so-called "smoothie". It was not until the AMT/Ertl The Wrath of Khan version to the model that the moulds were irrevocably altered to look like squares of masking tape texture were added in a failed attempt to recreate the Aztec paint scheme.


You'r right. I'd forgot that.


----------



## Mark McGovern

tinfoilhelmet said:


> A Modeler’s Guide to Painting the Starship Enterprise by Gary Kerr
> 
> 
> Version 2.0 Revised 8-30-2018 Diagram by Petri Blomqvist INTRODUCTION The color scheme of the original, 11-foot model of the Starship Enterprise has be
> 
> 
> 
> 
> culttvman.com


 It don't git no more useful than that! Thanks for sharing.


----------



## VorpalNonsense

This thread has been a great resource as I gather information to try my hand at creating my own CG model of the original TOS Enterprise. Gary has dished out a lot of golden nuggets over the years, I had a lot of posts to sort through.

I read recently that Gary cooperated with Tomy on the creation of their new model: https://startrek-order.tomy.com/cam...k-enterprise-prestige-select-replica#Campaign
Hoping they consult him s'more on those nacelle caps! But they've already shown in an update video that those are progressing.

Gary said:_ “This model represents the culmination of my 30+ years of research and data related to the studio model,” said Kerr. “The saucer separation capability, designed with input from well-known starship designers, sets this model apart from all previous efforts. The level of detail, saucer separation, working lights, and overall die-cast metal construction demonstrate extraordinary attention to detail.” _


----------



## Milton Fox Racing

Do you have a link to just that one video of the nacell caps? The other link that was posted fot it had some extra bonus videos we couldnt allow....


----------



## VorpalNonsense

Milton Fox Racing said:


> Do you have a link to just that one video of the nacell caps? The other link that was posted fot it had some extra bonus videos we couldnt allow....


For sure, here it is: 



They've still got some room for improvement but that's already better than the initial proto pictures that just showed them as a nondescript purple glows. Hope they can continue to refine and nail it down because the nacelle lighting is literally my favorite aspect of the original Enterprise, and it's difficult to reproduce.


----------



## RossW

Not to be immodest, but I think mine are better (custom stepper motors and lighting circuits)


----------



## VorpalNonsense

RossW said:


> Not to be immodest, but I think mine are better (custom stepper motors and lighting circuits)


Those certainly are beauties! I think companies often don't really know what they're in for when they decide to replicate the nacelle lighting. It's all about the subtleties.


----------



## Owen E Oulton

Adam Savage's Tested! on YouTube just posted a video where he goes to the Smith and gets to geek out with the model itself!


----------



## StarshipClass

Owen E Oulton said:


> Adam Savage's Tested! on YouTube just posted a video where he goes to the Smith and gets to geek out with the model itself!


I saw this! Excellent episode. Not sure all the "trivia" is correct but good stuff nonetheless.


----------



## Rahn

If you have Tested VR on you're Quest VR headset, there is a vr version of the video.
Pretty cool to have it be like your right there looking at it.


----------

