# Grid lines on the TOS Enterprise filming miniature



## GSaum (May 26, 2005)

At the risk of being tarred and feathered, I'm reopening this discussion because of a realization I had upon viewing some screen caps from Star Trek TOS. If you look at the two photographs below, you will noticed that there are faint and nearly invisible grid lines on the top and bottom of the saucer. To my knowledge, it was assumed that the grid lines were added to the model during the Smithsonian restoration, but according to these two pictures, they've been there all along, but it wasn't until we had HD screen caps that we have been able to see them properly. Perhaps the local Trek historians can provide some speculation or background knowledge.

The two pictures in question:










You can clearly see the indication of grid lines on the left half of the saucer. There is a grid line that runs just to the left of the N in the registry. There are also several to the left/aft of that which follows a pattern.


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

I was stacking standard-def DVD grabs a while back (2004).

from Doomsday Machine (attached)...

Pretty concrete evidence.

If I could port blu-ray into my Mac I'd be goin' to town!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

The grid lines were never in question and were present during the production of the show. They were drawn on with a pencil and the overexposed lighting needed to film the miniature washed them out to the point of making them almost to disappear. They are also present on the outer rim of the Primary Hull. The restorations at the Smithsonian never included the top of the Primary Hull. To this day it still looks like it did in 1966, drawn on gridlines and all.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

GSaum said:


> At the risk of being tarred and feathered, I'm reopening this discussion because of a realization I had upon viewing some screen caps from Star Trek TOS. If you look at the two photographs below, you will noticed that there are faint and nearly invisible grid lines on the top and bottom of the saucer. To my knowledge, it was assumed that the grid lines were added to the model during the Smithsonian restoration, but according to these two pictures, they've been there all along, but it wasn't until we had HD screen caps that we have been able to see them properly. Perhaps the local Trek historians can provide some speculation or background knowledge.
> 
> The two pictures in question:
> 
> ...


The only info I know about that was new information at the time of the restoration was that the restorers were told they could NOT touch the top of the saucer.

But info about the top and bottom of the saucers having the lines isn't really new.

When I was a kid during the '70's they sold 24" x 36" posters of your second shot all over the place, not just through magazines but at one mall hobbyshop as well.

The new lines that were added, if I'm right, were to the secondary hull and the nacelles. The ones on the saucer were always there.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Darn!
Beat me to the post button again, RSN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

N.B. The very heavy weathering is the main thing that was never there on the original that shocked so many people. This was especially evident on the underside of the saucer and the secondary hull.


----------



## feek61 (Aug 26, 2006)

There is not (I don't think) any debate as to if the grid was there. The debate is that they were so faint (a pencil line on the 11 ft model) that they would not show up on the smaller scale models; much less be engraved. The pencil lines were added by the studio after the modifications made to get it ready for the series (the production version). Here are a couple of photos from December 1967; in the close-up notice the grid lines.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I don't own the kit yet, but I've seen how they were done in a lot of high res pics, as well as heard from a lot of the people who have the kit.

I will grant you that the engraved lines may not be as narrow as that seen on the 11 footer's pencil lines, at least straight from the box totally unpainted.

But anyone who can use a spray can of Mr. Surfacer 500 and follows through with even a mediocre quality paint job can get those lines down to where they are just as faint.

Yes, they technically they would be engraved rather then drawn on with a pencil, but I think it's safe to say the idea was to portray very faint seamlines.

I don't think the original model makers wanted the viewer to think that Starfleet keeps a gigantic 50 foot pencil in their shipyards that they use to draw all over the ship with #2 lead after all the construction is over. :tongue:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

And before anybody asks, let me admit that I no I have no proof it was #2 lead. 
I don't even know if it was wood or mechanical, nor the mm used.


Starfleet keeps info on their giant Starship lead pencil content classified.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

feek61 said:


> There is (I don't think) any debate as to if the grid was there. The debate is that they were so faint (a pencil line on the 11 ft model) that they would not show up on the smaller scale models; much less be engraved.


Let me also say, that even though I think a competent modeler can make the gridlines on the 1/350th TOS E as faint as need be . . .

There are examples out there of models that might indeed be a challenge to get their gridlines looking right . . .



Captain April said:


>


*Ouch!!!!!!!!!*

Looks like Revell of Germany used lead pipe cutters to get the "gridlines" engraved on the nacelles!


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Bottomline for me is the grids must be filled, and redrawn with pencil.
Master Replicas had the right idea, but their artists were more often then
not heavy handed.
In my mind based on all the pictures I have seen, they should be drawn very lightly on the bottom, and a little darker on the top.
From a distance, you really shouldn't notice them at all.


To get the lines as thin and faint on this kit physically for it to work, I think it would have taken a laser or some kind of process like that after
they pulled it from the molds.


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> N.B. The very heavy weathering is the main thing that was never there on the original that shocked so many people. This was especially evident on the underside of the saucer and the secondary hull.


When I first saw the restoration, I thought it was way over-done. I've really stepped back from that though.

I think we can extrapolate that the degree ("heaviness") of the weathering treatment on the original production miniature was consistent overall. So what we see on the saucer top (barring any image processing like contrast enhancement) would be typical.

Where I think the restoration causes problems is in the technique. If you look at the cap in my previous post (post #2, Doomsday Machine shot) check out the weathering on the nacelle and especially the pylon. It's rough, it's nasty. Same with the weathering on the saucer top. The restoration team seems to have used airbrushing, perhaps exclusively, which by nature gives a smooth, slick result with feathered transitions for the most part. The shading on the saucer bottom doesn't imply hard-edged panel transitions where it needs to. So, things start to add up. As for the circumferential rings on the engineering hull, I don't know. I like to think they didn't just make it up, and based their interpretation on their examination and research prior to commencing work.

Knowing how much contrast and saturation was lost during all of the optical processes for ship FX shots, I took a good crisp photo of the restored model and killed the contrast, raised the black level and added a bunch of grain, When I was done, it sure looked a lot like it did in the original FX sequences. Thusly washed-out, the weathering really blended back in.

Again, it's going to come down to making a model of what ended up on screen (so kill all that deep black in your markings!!!) or making a "model of the model" of a spacecraft.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

CessnaDriver said:


> Bottomline for me is the grids must be filled, and redrawn with pencil.
> Master Replicas had the right idea, but their artists were more often then
> not heavy handed.
> In my mind based on all the pictures I have seen, they should be drawn very lightly on the bottom, and a little darker on the top.
> From a distance, you really shouldn't notice them at all.


I don't believe you'll notice them at all from a distance once the models painted.

But if you want to have an actual line there consider hitting the hull with Mr. Surfacer 500, then after it is completely dry fill in the grooves with charcoal dust and wipe away the excess. Then I would seal it with clearcoat.

If you do it properly you will not be able to tell the lines were not drawn on.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I don't believe you'll notice them at all from a distance once the models painted.
> 
> But if you want to have an actual line there consider hitting the hull with Mr. Surfacer 500, then after it is completely dry fill in the grooves with charcoal dust and wipe away the excess. Then I would seal it with clearcoat.
> 
> If you do it properly you will not be able to tell the lines were not drawn on.



I will be watching with great interest as finished builds start popping up on what others did and their results. Drawing the lines holds little appeal, not much room for error.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

TrekFX said:


> When I first saw the restoration, I thought it was way over-done. I've really stepped back from that though.
> 
> I think we can extrapolate that the degree ("heaviness") of the weathering treatment on the original production miniature was consistent overall. So what we see on the saucer top (barring any image processing like contrast enhancement) would be typical.
> 
> ...


I agree that the airbrushing of the gridlines may have been what caused most of the problems, and in the old 24" x 36" poster I still have there are hints here and there that there may have been some gridlines on the secondary hull.

I'm gratefull that the restoration team stabilized the model and got it into tip top shape. Someone can always go back and fix the airbrushing issues later.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

So then R2 goofed when they removed the grid lines from the old AMT kit and left it a smoothy.:wave:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

CessnaDriver said:


> I will be watching with great interest as finished builds start popping up on what others did and their results. Drawing the lines holds little appeal, not much room for error.


Zero room really. 

Imagine if you totally filled in the grid lines and then went back to redraw them. Somewhere within those concentric circles and rays you are going to be a hair off here or there. 

The surface that is hard plastic versus the surface that is filled will be a different consistency no matter what you fill it with. That will likely cause a really botched job unless you hit every line perfectly.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Also, it's been mentioned that an engraved line would never be thin enough to simulate say(at the largest) a 7mm pencil line on a 11 foot model(roughly 1/86th scale).

How are you going to find a pencil thin enough to simulate a .7mm pencil line on a 1/350th scale model?

I'd like to see that pencil . . .


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Also, it's been mentioned that an engraved line would never be thin enough to simulate say(at the largest) a 7mm pencil line on a 11 foot model(roughly 1/86th scale).
> 
> How are you going to find a pencil thin enough to simulate a 7mm pencil line on a 1/350th scale model?
> 
> I'd like to see that pencil . . .



Here is my MR, and whatever they used seemed to work good enough to my eye...


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Also, it's been mentioned that an engraved line would never be thin enough to simulate say(at the largest) a 7mm pencil line on a 11 foot model(roughly 1/86th scale).
> 
> How are you going to find a pencil thin enough to simulate a 7mm pencil line on a 1/350th scale model?
> 
> I'd like to see that pencil . . .


Eh... it wouldn't be that hard to do. You can get a pretty fine point on a hard lead pencil.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Trekkriffic said:


> Eh... it wouldn't be that hard to do. You can get a pretty fine point on a hard lead pencil.


That would be the proper thickness for maybe about a couple of inches?
If you are lucky.


Wooden pencils just aren't going to be usable to get an accurate line mainly due to the issue that the second you put pressure and start drawing the line will get wider.

Not only that, what is the likelihood you are going to put the pressure consistently enough to get a line that is devoid of bulges with a wooden pencil, as you apply greater and lesser pressure across the curved surface.

Don't forget that the angle of the pencil striking the surface will also change due to the contours.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Anyone know exactly the length of the 11 footer, at least the closest length Gary was able to come up with correcting for nacelle alignment?

There is a purpose behind the question.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Trekkriffic said:


> Eh... it wouldn't be that hard to do. You can get a pretty fine point on a hard lead pencil.


Quite right. As a draftsman, I can guarantee that a good hard drafting lead will keep a fine point long enough to do several radial lines before you would need to re-file the point.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

How about drawing teqnique?
For the circles yeah I suppose a compass but maybe putting
it on a turntable would be better?


----------



## Hunch (Apr 6, 2003)

At 1/350 scale the pencil lines would be hardly noticeable if at all. I'm considering NOT putting them on at ALL or just "ghosting" a few lines here and there useing a masking technique along with fine graphite dust. This and the rust ring should give a pretty convincing representation of the one we saw on TV albiet more accurate to what the producers ended up with (thanks to Polar). This is just my opinion, of course, so please no jumping down my throat.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

CessnaDriver said:


> How about drawing teqnique?
> For the circles yeah I suppose a compass but maybe putting
> it on a turntable would be better?


With practice, you could use a good, strong, compass and set the width to the desired diameter and then use the edge of the saucer as a guide and run the compass around the perimeter. I would run some tape around that edge as well to protect the paint.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

RSN said:


> Quite right. As a draftsman, I can guarantee that a good hard drafting lead will keep a fine point long enough to do several radial lines before you would need to re-file the point.


All the draftsmen I've known deal in standard line widths. It's one of the keystones of the industry.


the chances you can file the lead down to a minium of .1721mm, even be able to accurately measure that level of thinness, and keep it consistent for every inch of the drawing is pretty close to nil.
And that's if they used a .7mm lead.

On top of that, they more then likely used a standard .5mm lead for the lines, which would mean a line thickness of about .122mm at 1/350th scale.

While it is virtually impossible to get a clean, consistently dark, consistently wide line that small over a surface as big as the saucer,

there is no reason one can't fill in the engraved lines so that the gap is that thin via proper primer and painting.

The question then becomes whether or not you care more about using a pencil then getting accurate lines.

There is no reason the engraved lines on the R2 model can't be filed enough so that the thickness is to scale.

As far as drawing pencil lines .122mm to .172mm wide and keeping them clean, the right color and consistent. . .

good luck with that. :thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I know there are a lot of fellow geeks out there who have a supply of .3mm lead pencil refills as well as an as yet unassembled 1/350th kit.

Anyone willing to drop a .3mm lead in one of the radial engravings of the saucer top and take a sharp macro picture of the result? 

I'm willing to bet the engraved lines are thin enough so they could be nearly completely filed - at least smaller then say .2mm and then filled with colored powder or charcoal to create very slim lines in line with what we saw on the 11 footer.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> All the draftsmen I've known deal in standard line widths. It's one of the keystones of the industry.
> 
> 
> the chances you can file the lead down to a minium of .1721mm, even be able to accurately measure that level of thinness, and keep it consistent for every inch of the drawing is pretty close to nil.
> ...


Chuck,

How about priming to reduce the depth of the engraved lines, applying your basecoat, drawing them on with an HB pencil (nothing too hard), then going back over the lines with a Magic Rub plastic eraser so all you have left is the graphite in the grooves? How fine could the lines get if you did them that way? And what about if you then covered them over with another lighter coat of the basecoat?


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> All the draftsmen I've known deal in standard line widths. It's one of the keystones of the industry.
> 
> 
> the chances you can file the lead down to a minium of .1721mm, even be able to accurately measure that level of thinness, and keep it consistent for every inch of the drawing is pretty close to nil.
> ...


I happen to be a draftsman, and know of what I speak. Perhaps you can not do it, but that does not to mean it can not be done. Seriously, can anyone be right but you? Your constant "corrections" are becoming an annoyance in something that is supposed to be fun! Reminds me of someone who got banned for that very reason.

I offer ideas with a positive attitude, not negativity! :thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Trekkriffic said:


> Chuck,
> 
> How about priming to reduce the depth of the engraved lines, applying your basecoat, drawing them on with an HB pencil (nothing too hard), then going back over the lines with a Magic Rub plastic eraser so all you have left is the graphite in the grooves? How fine could the lines get if you did them that way? And what about if you then covered them over with another lighter coat of the basecoat?



I think that might work. 

At first I think I even suggested that at one point in another thread before coming up with the powder idea.

My only concern using a pencil in the engraved, partially filled grooves would be that at some point you are liable to angle the pencil(if you could get it that thin) so that the plastic edges of the engraved lines are messed up.

Smooth-On corporation sells some perfectly consistent colored powder they sell for the purpose of mixing with resin to come up with a powder-coating and faux-metal finishes to statues.

I think the easiest way to get perfectly straight thin lines that are also colored would be to use a combination of Mr. Surfacer 500 and/or 1000 to get the seams near the right thinness, then do your next to final paint job, add the powder, wipe away the excess and then seal.

If you took your time and applied the spray surfacer and paint evenly you should be able to get the engraved lines to whatever thinness you want.

Once you then fill the lines with powder and thorough seal everything with clearcoat you should be able to not only get the lines thin enough, but it would be hard to tell they were engraved, if that's the effect you want to end up with.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Crazy thought, could somone actually laser etch them in after filling???
Seems these days that might be an option.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

RSN said:


> I happen to be a draftsman, and know of what I speak. Perhaps you can not do it, but that does not to mean it can not be done. Seriously, can anyone be right but you? Your constant "corrections" are becoming an annoyance in something that is supposed to be fun! Reminds me of someone who got banned for that very reason.
> 
> I offer ideas with a positive attitude, not negativity! :thumbsup:


And I do?

I never said it couldn't be done. Nothing I said was negative.

It's my opinion that the degree of difficulty in even trying what you suggest is just plain silly.

You suggest filling in lines that are already there to the point they disappear. Paint the final coat of paint before sealing the model.

Then take a .3mm or similar pencils and correctly file it down to the point where it is somewhere between .12mm and .17mm wide.

Then take that filled down piece of lead and redraw all those lines exactly in the center of the lines you have completely filled and painted over.

Go right ahead, I'm not trying to dissaude you or anyone else from doing it if they want to.

As I said earlier, good luck with that.

My points are aimed at those who might want a simpler solution. 

Not you in particular.
You are 100% sure you can execute that without a problem.
I'm glad you are confident about that and when you drop what to some people is not a small amount of money, no one can tell you what to do with your kit.

I certainly would never and have never said you couldn't.


My ideas are offered with an eye towards a process that isn't immediately irreversable, 

what I'm suggesting any of you can try to execute via a few layers of finishing, 

and if anyone decides at some point to go ahead and totally seal and fill all the grooves entirely they can still decide to do that.


I'm trying to point out all the legitimate factors involved, 
people can make their own decisions about the way they 
want to build.

It has nothing to do with being right. I'm sorry if you read it that way.
My whole thing is about discussing all the possibilities and coming up
with options that people can try or not try.

It has nothing to do with you personally or with being negative or positive.

None of my suggestions preclude anyone from deciding at the last second to go ahead and totally fill in all the grid lines and do what you suggest if they are not happy with the result.

To me it's about options.

Sorry if you felt it was in any way personal. 
It was not meant to come across that way.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

CessnaDriver said:


> Crazy thought, could somone actually laser etch them in after filling???
> Seems these days that might be an option.


Nothing is impossible these days. But if you try the gradual fill idea and you are still not happy with the result you can always fill the remaining engraving in and try drawing lines later.

If you are not satisfied with the partial fill/powder result,
maybe you will get a better result with pencil drawn lines, after all.

Only you can say what looks right to you.

Modeling is something that can be experimented with and played with, what matters is if you are happy with the result.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

I was just up gazing at my AMT Enterprise and contemplating how I will handle the grid lines. I will be starting her as soon as I finish "Daleks in Manhattan". I think I am just going to use a fresh x-acto blade and trace the raised lines on the kit and then sand them off. This should leave a nice guide for the decals when I am done painting it. Should build up to be a nice replica. I forgot how much more accurate the lines were on the old kit!

Truth to tell, unless you are building an 11 foot model, it will be very hard to duplicate the line exactly. Everything will be a close attempt, and none of them will be wrong if it turns out the way you want your model to look.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

RSN said:


> I was just up gazing at my AMT Enterprise and contemplating how I will handle the grid lines. I will be starting her as soon as I finish "Daleks in Manhattan". I think I am just going to use a fresh x-acto blade and trace the raised lines on the kit and then sand them off. This should leave a nice guide for the decals when I am done painting it. Should build up to be a nice replica. I forgot how much more accurate the lines were on the old kit!
> 
> Truth to tell, unless you are building an 11 foot model, it will be very hard to duplicate the line exactly. Everything will be a close attempt, and none of them will be wrong if it turns out the way you want your model to look.


I agree 100%.

I've never owned a perfect Enterprise model. Even the MR Enterprise I worked weeks of overtime to pay for is not perfect. But I love her just the same. :thumbsup:


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I agree 100%.
> 
> I've never owned a perfect Enterprise model. Even the MR Enterprise I worked weeks of overtime to pay for is not perfect. But I love her just the same. :thumbsup:


At the end of the day wouldn't it be safe to say that any gridlines drawn on the 1/350 model would be no more inaccurate in terms of uniformity and spacing as those drawn on the 11 footer? I mean, were the lines drawn on the studio model perfect? I doubt it. How ironic it would be for some extraordinarily adept draftsman to produce a model with perfectly penciled gridlines and yet be criticized for it not being accurate to the studio model because of its perfection.


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

I'm leaving my grids as is, but I do have a question. Wouldn't a pencil with a tip fine enought to produce a somewhat accurate line actually cut into the paint like a knife?


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

robiwon said:


> I'm leaving my grids as is, but I do have a question. Wouldn't a pencil with a tip fine enought to produce a somewhat accurate line actually cut into the paint like a knife?


Depends on your hand pressure. It does not dig into paper if you apply the proper force to get a hair thin line. With practice, that shouldn't be a problem on the paint. If you're not sure, don't try it on the finished piece.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Depends on the hardness of the lead as well...


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

A lot would depend on what the paint is covering. If you're drawing over paint-covered plastic, you're gonna have better luck than paint-covered putty, which will have a lot more give, and thus a lot more likely to result in some ugly, ragged little trenches.

Frankly, I'm in the camp that sees filling in the lines, only to go back and draw them back on with what can only be less precision than the lines you worked so hard to get rid of, as rather silly.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

feek61 said:


> There is not (I don't think) any debate as to if the grid was there. The debate is that they were so faint (a pencil line on the 11 ft model) that they would not show up on the smaller scale models; much less be engraved. The pencil lines were added by the studio after the modifications made to get it ready for the series (the production version). Here are a couple of photos from December 1967; in the close-up notice the grid lines.




There they are in black and white. Even if they wouldn't show up on a smaller scale model in theory..........they're still supposed to be there. So R2 imo have done a good compromise. Not forgetting film didn't pick things up then as well as digital technology today.


One reason why I don't think it's always a good idea to do an exact replica of filming miniatures, and it's better to aim for what it's supposed to represent on screen. Again a healthy compromise.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Captain April said:


> If you're drawing over paint-covered plastic, you're gonna have better luck than paint-covered putty, which will have a lot more give ...


Is there some sort of coating that could be applied over putty to make it harder? 

This might have applications outside of the gridline situation.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

You could always try a hard putty like Bondo. Perhaps there's a retarder to extend its working time so it can be squeegeed off reducing the amount of sanding.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Captain April said:


> A lot would depend on what the paint is covering. If you're drawing over paint-covered plastic, you're gonna have better luck than paint-covered putty, which will have a lot more give, and thus a lot more likely to result in some ugly, ragged little trenches.





SUNGOD said:


> There they are in black and white. Even if they wouldn't show up on a smaller scale model in theory..........they're still supposed to be there. So R2 imo have done a good compromise. Not forgetting film didn't pick things up then as well as digital technology today.
> 
> 
> One reason why I don't think it's always a good idea to do an exact replica of filming miniatures, and it's better to aim for what it's supposed to represent on screen. Again a healthy compromise.


Agreed. I believe the intent was to suggest hull plating. 

I personally think it would be easier to simply thin the engraved lines - if one feels it's necessary - 

via some sort of spray on primer,

and then fill them in with coloring via whatever method you want to use, 

then seal.

If your spray on primer of choice is consistent there is no reason you shouldn't be able to make the engraved lines you want as consistently narrow as you choose to make them.

That way I doubt you would even need putty.

Heck, even if you used no primer whatsoever, simply painting the model is going to make the gridlines thinner.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

robiwon said:


> I'm leaving my grids as is, but I do have a question. Wouldn't a pencil with a tip fine enought to produce a somewhat accurate line actually cut into the paint like a knife?



I think pencil lines scaled down to 1/350th level would likely be in the .122mm to .172mm range of thickness.

Buy a bottle of .3mm pencil lead replacements the next time you are out somewhere that sells them.

Empty them on the table and imagine doing lines about half that thickness.

The more I think of this, the more I'm convinced that the most likely way to get consistently laid out and centered gridlines that thin would be via some sort of primer.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Trekkriffic said:


> At the end of the day wouldn't it be safe to say that any gridlines drawn on the 1/350 model would be no more inaccurate in terms of uniformity and spacing as those drawn on the 11 footer? I mean, were the lines drawn on the studio model perfect? I doubt it. How ironic it would be for some extraordinarily adept draftsman to produce a model with perfectly penciled gridlines and yet be criticized for it not being accurate to the studio model because of its perfection.



That would be ironic.

And not at all beyond the realm of possibility.


----------



## FyreTigger (May 31, 2005)

I'll be honest, with the exception of one posted picture, I have NEVER seen clear grid lines. What I have seen is a weathering pattern suggestive of an internal structure one would expect from a saucer shape -- vague circular patterns, vague perpendicular lines...


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

It seems like the saucer-top grid lines aren't drawn in a regular, precise fashion. There come and go, fade in and out.

If you squint, they disappear!


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

TrekFX said:


> It seems like the saucer-top grid lines aren't drawn in a regular, precise fashion. There come and go, fade in and out.
> 
> If you squint, they disappear!


It could also just be that the studio lights are washing them out. In that picture the lines appear darker to the upper left and wash out to the lower right where the light seems brightest.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Trekkriffic said:


> It could also just be that the studio lights are washing them out. In that picture the lines appear darker to the upper left and wash out to the lower right where the light seems brightest.


Hmm ... 
I don't think so. If we imagine film's Photoshop-like characteristic curve, where the ship's (subject's) brightness is on the x-axis, with the image brightness on the Y, a straight line gives perfect fidelity between subject and image. However, with film, the curve is often flatter at the left and right end of the graph, creating an s-curve. In other words, detail is lost in the darks and brights (where brights wash out) because there is little change in the depiction of the changes in brightness at those ranges. 

Since this shot is mostly grey, in the middle (straight-line portion) of the curve, the only way details could disappear (in this shot) would be if they weren't there in the first place. They're just not bright enough to be in the flatter (less-detailed) part of the curve.

(TV is another story. I'm just talking about this shot. )


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

TrekFX said:


> It seems like the saucer-top grid lines aren't drawn in a regular, precise fashion. There come and go, fade in and out.
> 
> If you squint, they disappear!


If that is a shot of the filming miniature, the grid lines are indeed not all that precisely drawn.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

TrekFX said:


> It seems like the saucer-top grid lines aren't drawn in a regular, precise fashion. There come and go, fade in and out.
> 
> If you squint, they disappear!


Museum quality wasn't necessary since this was simply a prop for a sci-fi TV series that would be viewed on low-res television sets and that nobody would remember in 5 years - or so they thought! 

Remember that the graphite in the lines is reflective. The lines look much better in person, and they often don't photograph well in flash-lit snapshots.

Gary


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Gary K said:


> Remember that the graphite in the lines is reflective.


Oaky, I'll buy that.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Gary K said:


> Remember that the graphite in the lines is reflective. Gary


Not to veer too far OT but the statement about graphite being reflective just helped me decide what I'd like to use on the bussard fan blades. Something dark but which will reflect light from outside the dome would look just right I think.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

I have seen the 11 footer at the Smith many times.

It's hard, but you can see the untouched top of the saucer and it has always looked to me that the lines are not uniform.

Of course that could be 65+ years of entropy, handling, and exposer to bright lights.

Also, I can't remember where I read it (maybe Inside Star Trek?) but I believe Gene Roddenberry stated that he did not want the Enterprise to have any panel lines. His vision was that manufacturing had advanced beyond needing them.
The gridlines have always been identified as the as the deflector array grid to me. 
That is how I see things, but thats just me.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

mach7 said:


> Also, I can't remember where I read it (maybe Inside Star Trek?) but I believe Gene Roddenberry stated that he did not want the Enterprise to have any panel lines. His vision was that manufacturing had advanced beyond needing them.
> The gridlines have always been identified as the as the deflector array grid to me.
> That is how I see things, but thats just me.


Mike Okuda told me that Matt Jefferies told him that he (Jefferies) wanted a smooth hull on the ship, but Bob Justman & Gene Roddenberry convinced him that panel lines were necessary to help make the ship appear more real and less toylike. Maybe in the 24th century starships *will* be completely smooth, but TV audiences in the 20th century expected to see panel lines on a large ship like the Enterprise.

Gary


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Another thing to take into consideration is the weathering on the saucer. On the photo feek provided you can clearly see it but on the tv you can hardly see it at all.

In fact until I've seen these photo's the Enterprise always looked fairly clean to me. So the film/tv back then didn't exactly show the Enterprise miniature that clearly.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

RSN said:


> With practice, you could use a good, strong, compass and set the width to the desired diameter and then use the edge of the saucer as a guide and run the compass around the perimeter. I would run some tape around that edge as well to protect the paint.



Y'all are trying to make it complicated!
The kit comes with three different colored bridge domes. Pick one you're NOT going to use and snap it on. Jam the point of a beam compass in the center and draw your circles.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

TrekFX said:


> It seems like the saucer-top grid lines aren't drawn in a regular, precise fashion. There come and go, fade in and out.
> 
> If you squint, they disappear!


It looks to me like you got that from Modelers Magic, and speaking of grid lines the article on MM shows the 11 footer undergoing a renovation and a couple of pics of the secondary hull shows engraved grid lines.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

John P said:


> Y'all are trying to make it complicated!
> The kit comes with three different colored bridge domes. Pick one you're NOT going to use and snap it on. Jam the point of a beam compass in the center and draw your circles.


Oh, stop being so clever!


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

TrekFX said:


> It seems like the saucer-top grid lines aren't drawn in a regular, precise fashion. There come and go, fade in and out.
> 
> If you squint, they disappear!



Maybe R2 should have made theirs fade in and out.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I'm beginning to feel like someone who is watching the French Philosophs debate.

I even find myself slipping into speaking a bit of French myself - so I can't say I haven't participated in it myself.



I don't think the R2 panel lines are as large as some seem to think and that simple painting will do the trick. If you want to color in the seams do that just before your final clearcoat.


I know there are a lot of fellow geeks out there who have a supply of .3mm lead pencil refills as well as an as yet unassembled 1/350th kit.

Anyone willing to drop a .3mm lead in one of the radial engravings of the saucer top and take a sharp macro picture of the result? 

I'm willing to bet the engraved lines are thin enough so they could be nearly completely filed - at least smaller then say .2mm and then filled with colored powder or charcoal to create very slim lines in line with what we saw on the 11 footer.

I believe the lines could be thinned down to .122mm to .172mm wide(the width of a .5 or .7mm pencil scaled to fit 1/350th) simply through spray priming and painting

That way we can put all the speculation about how wide these gridlines really are aside.

An unpainted saucer top with a .3mm lead refill dropped in and the guessing will be over.

Anybody have those two things and a camera?



Let's open this horse's mouth and count the teeth!!!


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

John P said:


> Y'all are trying to make it complicated!
> The kit comes with three different colored bridge domes. Pick one you're NOT going to use and snap it on. Jam the point of a beam compass in the center and draw your circles.


Nice! But that is much too simple and elegant a solution.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

And here's another thing to take into consideration. Pencil lines are never going to be all uniform from one bit to the next so as well as being an imprecise thing...........if those pencil lines were all the same width etc they'd probably look a lot clearer. Like the more prominent lines in the photo TrekFX provided. The rest have either been faded because of smudging etc or they weren't drawn on that well in the first place.

You can hardly see the lines at the bottom of the photo whilst the ones at the top are much more visible.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I'm beginning to feel like someone who is watching the French Philosophs debate.
> 
> I even find myself slipping into speaking a bit of French myself - so I can't say I haven't participated in it myself.
> 
> ...




Exactly. If you look at the photo TrekFX provided the R2 lines aren't that much bigger than the more prominent lines in Trek's pic.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Trekkriffic said:


> Nice! But that is much too simple and elegant a solution.


Solutions are so final though . . .

How are we going to keep talking about this if we come up with real numbers and solutions?!? :tongue:


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Solutions are so final though . . .
> 
> How are we going to keep talking about this if we come up with real numbers and solutions?!? :tongue:


Precisely!


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Gary K said:


> Mike Okuda told me that Matt Jefferies told him that he (Jefferies) wanted a smooth hull on the ship, but Bob Justman & Gene Roddenberry convinced him that panel lines were necessary to help make the ship appear more real and less toylike. Maybe in the 24th century starships *will* be completely smooth, but TV audiences in the 20th century expected to see panel lines on a large ship like the Enterprise.
> 
> Gary


Thanks Gary,

That sounds good to me. I guess I mixed up Gene and Matt.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

And here I thought that once the model was actually out the gridlines debate would be over and done...


----------



## robn1 (Nov 17, 2012)

irishtrek said:


> It looks to me like you got that from Modelers Magic, and speaking of grid lines the article on MM shows the 11 footer undergoing a renovation and a couple of pics of the secondary hull shows engraved grid lines.


Those lines in the secondary are cracks in the paint, from the wood planks.


----------



## robcomet (May 25, 2004)

If you ask me, the grid lines on the PL kit aren't realistic. They should be deep trench like grooves like the Revell Enterprise!!! :devil: :jest: :roll: :beatdeadhorse:

Rob (Ducking and running!)


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Can we start a wood crack debate?


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

stever said:


> can we start a wood crack debate?


no!!!


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

irishtrek said:


> no!!!


Just say "no" to crack!


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Crack is whack!


----------

