# Starship Exeter Trailer



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Today Starship Exeter released their trailer for their next fan film.
www.starshipexeter.com , Enjoy! :thumbsup:


----------



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

Is there a way to download the movies rather then looking at them online only?
A friend of mine said he couldn't download them for me, they were only viewable to him online, and I have a slooooooooooooooow connection at home.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Chuck,

Right-click on where it says CLICK HERE and select "save link as" (or "save target as", "save file as" - whatever language your browser uses) and tell it where you want the file saved. Even with a slow connection, it shouldn't take more than 20 minutes or so to download it.

It's very good. I noticed the release date has been moved back from December to March. I'm sure it will be well worth it.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

They moved it to March, because they wanted more time to make a better film. I do not know if any, or how much of Thomas's work will be in the film.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

It already looks like his work is well-represented in the film.


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

Thanks, Trek Ace!

Every bridge shot has my work in it. All of the computer display graphics are mine with the exception of the large overhead screens.

I and the work of two other guys here in town will be delivering some of the visual effect elements, special sets, and charactor puppets.

There are still several pick up shots that need to be recorded, editing and tightenting of existing footage, then the CG FX and our vfx elements will be comped in and the original musical score will be mixed.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Thomas, I am glad to know what you have done and what you are doing. Since I now know, I can say the work you have done looks very very good. 

Any more pictures of your work? How about the other guys work?


----------



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

Trek Ace said:


> Chuck,
> 
> Right-click on where it says CLICK HERE and select "save link as" (or "save target as", "save file as" - whatever language your browser uses) and tell it where you want the file saved. Even with a slow connection, it shouldn't take more than 20 minutes or so to download it.
> 
> It's very good. I noticed the release date has been moved back from December to March. I'm sure it will be well worth it.


Thanks as always, Trek Ace!

I am currently in the process of downloading the trailer.
However, I can't download anything else to save on my hard drive for later viewing.

Also, Thomas, as a seperate issue, is there any chance you guys might consider posting a high-res MPEG version, or even an SVCD or XVCD format in the future as well? (I am assuming I will eventually solve the download issue at some point in the future).

By the way, great work!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

MPEG and/or AVI would be nice. My PC at work is telling me there's something non-specific wrong with that Quicktime file and it can't play it. And I do have the latest version.


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

I have nothing to do with that, what so ever. I will pass along your concerns. I am sure many others have similar problems. I did when I first tried to download and had to get an update at quicktime.com.

Like the first film they made, you can purchase a "Making of" DVD and they will throw in a free copy of their film on another DVD.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

QuickTime has always been quirky. Some of the software I use is QuickTime based, and I often have to reinstall, update or patch the program to fix various problems. It is much more tempermental than similar Windows-based applications. I guess those are the pitfalls of working in a dual-platform environment. 

Hopefully, they will release a version of the trailer in the .wmv format.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I never have problem with Quicktime. Window Media files are like hemorrhoids.


----------



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

Trek Ace said:


> QuickTime has always been quirky. Some of the software I use is QuickTime based, and I often have to reinstall, update or patch the program to fix various problems. It is much more tempermental than similar Windows-based applications. I guess those are the pitfalls of working in a dual-platform environment.
> 
> Hopefully, they will release a version of the trailer in the .wmv format.


I'd love to see high-res MPEG. Great quality, much much smaller file size then the rest.

Either that or SVCD or XVCD. With those two formats you could create a CD-Rom that would directly play in most of today's DVD players...

But I'll look for the DVD purchase option and hope my current player will work with it. If not I'm sure I can pick up a cheap secondary DVD player that could for $50 or less...


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

John P said:


> MPEG and/or AVI would be nice. My PC at work is telling me there's something non-specific wrong with that Quicktime file and it can't play it. And I do have the latest version.


I had a similar problem, but as it turns out, I had version 5. something 
and the are now up to 6.5.2.

Works like a charm now.

Edge


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

I watched that thing a dozen times and I still can't see the trailer. Are you guys sure the Exeter has one?


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Nova Designs said:


> I watched that thing a dozen times and I still can't see the trailer. Are you guys sure the Exeter has one?


That is what the fuss is about, the Tholians stole it. There goes the plot.:lol:


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I knew there'd be a hitch.


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

http://www.thomasmodels.com/exeter/nextvoyage.mov


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

For you Windows users:
http://www.thomasmodels.com/exeter/nextvoyage.WMV


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Well, there yuggo!


----------



## BATBOB (Jul 14, 2003)

I saw the trailer and loved it. It sure beats the new Enterprise series for the "fun factor". Looking forward to March....


----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

ThomasModels said:


> For you Windows users:
> http://www.thomasmodels.com/exeter/nextvoyage.WMV


Maybe you can suggest to them that they should put it in this format for those of us who don't have the Paid Quicktime. That way I don't have to squint so much! :wave:


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Tholian said:


> Maybe you can suggest to them that they should put it in this format for those of us who don't have the Paid Quicktime. That way I don't have to squint so much! :wave:


You are just upset because they did not show your best side in the trailer. :jest:


----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

Lloyd Collins said:


> You are just upset because they did not show your best side in the trailer. :jest:



Yea, but you can see who is kicking whos butt in the trailer :roll:


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

Crashed saucer prototype pulled from a classic saucer mold. A large air bubble was converted to damage:









The saucer is primed, then airbrushed with a light grey:









Since this saucer will be heavily distressed as it will be shown shown crashed, hull plating was lightly airbrushed on. The contrast of this image was adjusted to show the plating:









More to follow....


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I know what's gonna be asked next...


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

Where did you get that saucer?

Where can I get one of those saucers?

How did you mold that?

What kind of paint do you use?

What colors of paints are those? Remember I need precise FS numbers, brand name with product number, and paint color name.

How did you do that aztecing?

What stencils?

How did you make those?

What did you use for a pattern?

How long did it take?

What type of airbrush do you use?

Are you sure are enamels better than acrylic for that use?

Why?

Is this for that Exeter film?

I've tried to download that, but I can't get it to work. They must have defective files. Can you have them fix it?


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

What's that stuff in the background?

What are those black marks on the saucer?

Why are there circles where the bridge should be?

Why aren't the Linear Accelerator and Impulse Deck painted a darker color?

Where is the name and the number decals?

Is this the Enterprise?


----------



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

ThomasModels said:


> For you Windows users:
> http://www.thomasmodels.com/exeter/nextvoyage.WMV


Thanks! I needed that!

Great trailer! Pretty impressive!


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

Thom,
What's that round, gray thing in the photo?

;-)


----------



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

ThomasModels said:


> What's that stuff in the background?
> 
> What are those black marks on the saucer?
> 
> ...


Or...

Isn't there an Exeter Primary you should be off working on right now?


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

There are additional pick up shots the still need to be photographed. Lots of editing to do, then the original soundtack has to be mixed.

Sorry Chuck, I'm not supplying them with the ship elements. All that is going to be a cartoon. I just don't have time to do a complete filming miniature that involved right now.

There's lots of other model work, miniature sets, props, bridge display graphics and possibly special ship deisgns in that film I have and am working on that will appear on screen.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Cartoon? When did CGI become cartoons.:devil:


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

ThomasModels said:


> For you Windows users:
> http://www.thomasmodels.com/exeter/nextvoyage.WMV


Thanks Thomas !!!
Great previews . :thumbsup:


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

Gridlines are lightly drawn on:









Medium grey areas are painted. Cross-hatched panel lines are also drawn on.


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

Dark grey and black streak are airbrushed on. The saucer top is then given a clear gloss coat.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Trek Ace said:


> I know what's gonna be asked next...


 "Is it 1/350th???...Well...is it???...Is it???" C'mon!!!


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

Decals are applied, then the model is dullcoted.


----------



## tripdeer (Mar 7, 2004)

Wow, Thomas, that's absolutely gorgeous! :thumbsup:


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

Thanks, Tripdeer!




Trek Ace said:


> "Is it 1/350th???...Well...is it???...Is it???" C'mon!!!


 Pfft. 1/350. How small. I only do full scale.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Excellent work, Thomas.

I can't wait to see the finished film.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

There is something wrong with that picture, but I can not figure it out.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I know, I know! They are down on a planet and the redshirt is still alive.

And the horizon to the right of the saucer seems way to low compared to the left side. While absolutely possible (like perhaps near a cliff or hill) not seeing it prior to the "landing" it just looks odd. But I'm sure this was just a quickly put together test shot (or perhaps just for the fun of it).

Nice paint job.


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

The saucer is lit differently from the plate.

It is crashed into a hilly/rocky area. I threw it together quickly as part of a storyboard. It wasn't meant to be analyzed!

Maybe I can talk Warped into doing a better comp image....


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

That image tweeks one of my issues about starship crashes - I don't believe anything that massive would still be together while it's poking out of the ground like that. If it _hit _at that angle it'd disintegrate. If it skidded to a stop and upended, it'd collapse under its own weight.

But, y'know, why bring reality into it?


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

I agree, John. My original concept for this had the saucer beat to hell. Crumpled, twisted, mangled, panels ripped off, superstructure protruding....

Since it is most likely this shot will be "ordered chaos" (cgi), that type of damage may appear in the final cut.










The 7" diameter model in this shot looks like a 12 foot model, 15 feet away from them. Idealy, I'd like to build an 18" diameter saucer on a table top landscape model with LOTS of stuff in and around it to better establish scale.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Nice work Thomas !!!!!!!!!!!!!! :thumbsup:


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

That shot looks better, except for her hair.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Yes, better angle .


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

What the shot could really use to impart scale is atmospheric haze. That's why miniatures are often shot in a smoke-filled environment - to produce an atmospheric density that is in scale with the model.

The leading edge of the saucer in the photo looks to be some distance away - perhaps 1500' or more, depending on the focal length of the lens (if this camera uses a 2/3" CCD block, and the distance to the saucer section was about 1500', the field of view would be approximately 500' with a 25mm lens, which would allow the full saucer to be within the frame with some space on either side). The back edge of the saucer, where the impulse deck is, would be another 400-plus feet further away. 

At these distances, the amount of atmospheric haze would be apparent, yet subtle. But without it, it just looks like a small model pasted into the shot.

For a saucer of about 1/700 scale (about 7"), the atmosphere would have to have a particulate matter content that is 700 times denser to approximate full scale!


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

Yeah, but again it was done as a storyboard rough only.

I've added a little haze to the ship.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Oh, yeah. I understood the storyboard part. I wasn't being critical, just making mention of what the difference would be to create a more convincing final composite. 

BTW, the added haze looks great. It already looks much larger in scale.


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

Thom,
Did you finish Exeter secondary, the lighted PL buildup?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Trek Ace said:


> What the shot could really use to impart scale is atmospheric haze. That's why miniatures are often shot in a smoke-filled environment - to produce an atmospheric density that is in scale with the model.
> 
> The leading edge of the saucer in the photo looks to be some distance away - perhaps 1500' or more, depending on the focal length of the lens (if this camera uses a 2/3" CCD block, and the distance to the saucer section was about 1500', the field of view would be approximately 500' with a 25mm lens, which would allow the full saucer to be within the frame with some space on either side). The back edge of the saucer, where the impulse deck is, would be another 400-plus feet further away.
> 
> ...


 Could you be a little more precise, please, I hate vague instructions. :freak:


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

Thomas, I really find your work inspirational. But, I am gonna go fanboy here, How did you get the crumpled effect on the saucer? Sorry to be a pest!


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Don't get me started! :lol:


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

The shot is a real starship crashed! Can't you guy tell the difference between FX and real life. Been building models too long I see! :jest:


----------



## Prof. Moriarty (Feb 17, 2005)

Thomas, your miniature engineering set is truly a work of art. That red alert animation actually sent a shiver of delight down my spine! 

But I have to ask... *this* is pure genius. Is this one of your models, or some of Dennis Bailey's CGI sleight of hand?


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

Thanks!

That image is something I put togther to show that we could pull the shot off with the use of a model. The cg guy that was going to do the shot made a test image that I wasn't happy with. I made that model in a couple of hours, shot it, then comped it in to a forground plate. The final shot will be spectacular! It sorta looks like that, but there will be alot more going on, including cg elements to provide animation and scale.

So to answer your question, I made that shot placeholder with a 7" diameter saucer model and CorelPaint. Here is the original photo:
http://www.thomasmodels.com/exeter/crash2a.jpg

The final saucer model will be intensely detailed with much more damage.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

I love the composite image, really great stuff there!

However, I would disagree that such a ship would be smashed to bits after such a landing, as has been suggested by others. The reasons are primarily these:

First of all, we are talking about a ship with a highly cantilevered design which is still able to withstand nearby nuclear blasts and all types of other stresses (as demostrated thoughout the original show). This indicates a structure of enormous strength, probably emparted by its unobtainium-based structural material.

Secondly, even ships built of "inferior steel" such as the "Titanic" can still withstand a two-mile fall and only suffer minor damage (relatively). The Enterprise should come through a controlled crash landing in fairly good shape. Un-controlled ones we leave to the Gods to sort out based on velocity, angle, etc.

The crew on the other hand may be smashed to jelly inside said hull at time of impact but the ship itself should fair well, at least structurally IMO. Interior equipment and fittings would be smashed too, to varying degrees, depending on their design limits.

Just a few thoughts.


----------



## Ziz (Feb 22, 1999)

X15-A2 said:


> Secondly, even ships built of "inferior steel" such as the "Titanic" can still withstand a two-mile fall and only suffer minor damage (relatively). The Enterprise should come through a controlled crash landing in fairly good shape. Un-controlled ones we leave to the Gods to sort out based on velocity, angle, etc.


Unfair comparison. Titanic was "cushioned" by the water for the entire length of it's "fall", and wasn't subject to the extreme heat, velocity and pressure of atmospheric re-entry.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Damnit! I a model builder not an engineer!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Fantastic stuff, Thomas!


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

From the crash in Generations and general trek tech, it looks like as long as the crashing hull has power for shields, structural integrity fields, and inertial dampeners, it's not much harder then a roler coaster ride, for those insdie. No power and you get a debris field.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

ZIZ,

Drop a ball bearing into a pool and see how cushioned it is. The Titanic may not be an exact comparison and eventhough it may not hit as hard, it is made of a much much weaker material which offsets its slower impact velocity. We are discussing a controlled crash here too, not an uncontrolled one. The ships have been shown time and again as able to withstand huge stresses so why wouldn't one be able to "belly in"? I'm not saying that it would be undamaged, just that when seen from outside it might appear so.

Consider too that if a starship were to suffer really catastrophic damage at impact, it would most likely be vaporized by the release of the potential energy it contains in the form of fuel and other elements onboard. There probably is not much of "middle of the road" between "mostly intact hull" and "tiny bits scattered over a wide area".

Considering the types of thermal attacks these ships are supposed to be able to withstand, I would think that they would be able to cope with almost any re-entry event in their stride. 

Woozle,

I agree, the results of a given crash would depend upon a range of variables both natural and technological. I guess it would be up to the writers to address these as appropriate.


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

Besides, From Jeffries original work and later works, it's pretty obvious that the primary hull is intended to make planetfall in an emergancy. Helps when it's designed for that exact crash landing.


----------



## Thom S. (Sep 28, 2004)

Guys, since the discussion has moved towards the saucer's ability to withstand planetfall, I've moved those posts to this thread that got the conversion going.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Fair enough.


----------



## starmanmm (Mar 19, 2000)

Looking forward to see what else you have been working on for this film!


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

I'll second that. I can't wait to see how your Shuttlecraft comes out!


----------



## grantf (Feb 2, 2004)

If the forward shield bypass coupelers can sustain an inverted pulse modulation relay baypass flux retention subspace relay quantum revertion than the forward bulkhead tension bypolar dampeners could withstand a triflux mega interdimentional quantum collision.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Translation: [Scotty]_Aye, she'll hold. But don't give her too many bumps!_ [/Scotty]

 

- - - - - - 

Jeffrey Griffin
Griffworks Shipyards
 
* * * * * *

Star Trek Scale Modeling WebRing


----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

Griffworks said:


> Translation: [Scotty]_Aye, she'll hold. But don't give her too many bumps!_ [/Scotty]


[Kirk]*"No promises,,,, on your way"*[/Kirk]


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

*Picky, picky, picky*



Thom S. said:


> Guys, since the discussion has moved towards the saucer's ability to withstand planetfall, I've moved those posts to this thread that got the conversion going.


If the word "planetfall" is analagous to "landfall" at the end of a sea or air journey (as in "Shannon Airport in Ireland was the first European landfall for airplanes flying from North America"), it should mean simply arriving at a planet, not crash landing on one.


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

*All Hands, Brace For Impact!*

Yeah, whatever!  

http://www.thomasmodels.com/exeter/ksaucer07.jpg
http://www.thomasmodels.com/exeter/ksaucer08.jpg


----------



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

^^^ You know you won't be able to drive that thing again until you replace those running lights and get a new brake tag!!!


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

:thumbsup:


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

There goes your insurance rates!


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Thank God for Progressive™!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Hurry Thomas! 19 days and it's show time!


----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

Thomas, I am looking and compared to the other objects in the picture, I would say that is from the 18" model?
Not saying you used the 18" as the model, but maybe as the startup before you corrected it. Is that the same size of that, or did you make all of it by scratch?

And great job by the way. :wave:


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

Tholian, no that isn't the kit you sent! That one (yet to be built)will be much more impressive, I think.

So I drop out of warp to see what the hell we hit. We're just about to beam out to inspect the damage when *wham!* We get side swiped by a couple of punk teen Tressaurians. Look what they did to our ride!!


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

I see that little groove you carved for the turbolift car, Thom...

:thumbsup:


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Lookin' good, Thomas.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Fabboo!


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

God bless you! :_hands JohnP a tissue_:


----------



## johnselvia (Feb 22, 2005)

Oh, man, I wanna be part of that (effects, 3D, models, sound effects, music, etc.). Who do I need to talk to to do freelance with these guys? 

I'm such a geek...
John


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

BREAKING NEWS!

Starship Exeter has decided to release the film in pieces over a 5 week period. The reason being that not everything will be ready by the 17th of March.


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

Yes, there are rotoscoping shots, editing, pacing, timing, sound effects, music recording and cgi redos that cannot all be completed by the 17.

I am working diligently creating elements for three background fx plates for the opening teaser alone while the editing is being finalized and music is being recorded!

After I complete the plates, they will be sent in for CGI animation enhancement, then incorporated into the teaser, or possibly delivering the completed shots....

Hi, Wes ol' buddy! :wave:


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Thomas, how do you do it? You got so much going on. Ever though of cloning yourself?


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

I'm not doing all that stuff! There are about seven others doing that.

This is all I have been doing for the past hour:

















Taking pictures of small sections of Plastruc tube and rod.

The one on the right is bent....


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I'm very impressed. Well, I was until that last picture. But then if tubes and rods are your thing; Who am I to judge? So I say, carry on!

As for that saucer. Man-O-Man that looks nice! I await the video-rific release...


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

I much prefer donuts.

Not that there's anything _wrong_ with that!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

^^Chuck,now you! All this talk of food is ....mmmmmm!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I sure wish I had a nice glazed donut in front of me right now!


----------



## Dennis Bailey (Jun 16, 2004)

grantf said:


> If the forward shield bypass coupelers can sustain an inverted pulse modulation relay baypass flux retention subspace relay quantum revertion than the forward bulkhead tension bypolar dampeners could withstand a triflux mega interdimentional quantum collision.



Say what?

We don't know all them big words in the 23rd century. The closest we get is talkin' 'bout "gravitational distortions" and "replacing relays in the warp pod".


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

So we take our beater to Earl Scheib and he gives us a new coat of pearly grey!
http://www.thomasmodels.com/exeter/ksaucer14.jpg


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

ThomasModels said:


> So we take our beater to Earl Scheib and he gives us a new coat of pearly grey!
> http://www.thomasmodels.com/exeter/ksaucer14.jpg



Sweet, Thom! :thumbsup: Did you put in the structure pieces by hand? Looks like hours of work.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Ain't them gridlines awfully deep?


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

It took about 2 hours to lay in all those strips. Nothing is equaly spaced. I just followed the grid lines and had the strips radiating outward.

Those grid lines are kinda deep. I listened to the 'FX coordinator' who suggested that something be added to indicate severe hull distressing. He originally wanted me to have _every_ hull section buckled like the one near the bridge, and to cover the open panels with damaged panels with the corner bent up or something.

I'm just going to ignore those lines and hopefully they won't show up too much during the weathering painting. I might give a black wash around the damage chunks to indicate the distressed panels. A few pencil lines and the effect should be passable for a four second shot.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Then again, you probably should exaggerate for internet video. The detail might not show up very well on a compressed 320-wide internet episode presentation.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Looks great, Thomas! I love the detail you added in the blown off panels and torn away sections.


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

The entire production has been and is currently being shot in higher definatition than you will ever see online. The entire episode is being designed for DVD. When it is available for download, it will be at less than half of the pixel size of the DVD version with only about 10% of the resolution.

There's nothing in it for me here, but I would recommend buying the DVD set when it comes out. There will be TONS of behind the scenes interviews and pictures including the two pictures I haven't posted online.  Plus, you will get as a freebie, a hi-def film to watch.


----------



## starmanmm (Mar 19, 2000)

I just checked out the movie that is currently on the site.

Hey, I'd buy the dvd.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

*Exeter Delayed again!*

Jimm Johnson posted that the release of the film will be delayed until July 1st.
He said that they need more time. I say when it comes out, it comes out. 
So tighten up Thomas!

Lloyd 
Exeter Reporter to Hobby Talk :freak:


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

Lloyd Collins said:


> Jimm Johnson posted that the release of the film will be delayed until July 1st.
> He said that they need more time. I say when it comes out, it comes out.
> So tighten up Thomas!
> 
> ...


Yeah, I bet it's Sasser's fault. Let's get 'im !!!!

:tongue:


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

I heard they had a phaser malfunction.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Man... That's embarrassing. I don't think I'd tell people that. I think I'd tell 'em... the car broke down on the way to work and they had the change the tire..... :tongue:


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

Here's one for Chuck_PR:
http://www.thomasmodels.com/exeter/shutint04.jpg

and one for WTF?
http://www.thomasmodels.com/exeter/sb16.jpg


----------



## norge71 (Apr 13, 2004)

I recognize that building. Wasn't that in the background on Eminar 7?
***warning*** geek alert ***warning***


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I still think the problem has to do with Tribbles,or Dennis Bailey!


----------



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

ThomasModels said:


> Here's one for Chuck_PR:
> http://www.thomasmodels.com/exeter/shutint04.jpg
> 
> http://www.thomasmodels.com/exeter/sb16.jpg


Looks Great!!

It's a shame that when it comes to complicated curves I'm about as artistically competent as a chimp with a crayon trying to design an engine.

But I'll get mine done one way or the other...


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

^^ Have you got a picture of that chimp?:jest:


----------



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

He's my technical director. Doesn't like to be photographed...


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

ThomasModels said:


> and one for WTF?
> http://www.thomasmodels.com/exeter/sb16.jpg



Whoa! Awesome!! Are they using that scene in some part of the episode?


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

Yes, scene 3A.

Here's some more:
http://www.thomasmodels.com/exeter/ks8.jpg


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

ThomasModels said:


> Yes, scene 3A.
> 
> Here's some more:
> http://www.thomasmodels.com/exeter/ks8.jpg


Up a little late, Thom?
Nice job on the hull pattern. It matches the style Dennis is using for the Exeter CGI model very well IMHO.
You got the rust ring too! Looks like that was Starfleet standard, eh?

:thumbsup:


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

Thanks, but the model and comped shot will be done by monday. Still plenty of time to insert it in for the original release date.

The beginning of debris piece #5:
http://www.thomasmodels.com/exeter/k201.jpg


----------



## dsscse (Dec 19, 2004)

KUROK said:


> Thom,
> What's that round, gray thing in the photo?
> 
> ;-)


Its obviously a compression artifact blocking the view of the table Thomas please write better image compression algorythems!!!!!! :tongue:


----------



## dsscse (Dec 19, 2004)

Trek Ace said:


> What the shot could really use to impart scale is atmospheric haze. That's why miniatures are often shot in a smoke-filled environment - to produce an atmospheric density that is in scale with the model.
> 
> The leading edge of the saucer in the photo looks to be some distance away - perhaps 1500' or more, depending on the focal length of the lens (if this camera uses a 2/3" CCD block, and the distance to the saucer section was about 1500', the field of view would be approximately 500' with a 25mm lens, which would allow the full saucer to be within the frame with some space on either side). The back edge of the saucer, where the impulse deck is, would be another 400-plus feet further away.
> 
> ...


what if the makers got all the "talent" for the over the shoulder shots on the miniature FX stage to Fart at the same time thereby bringing up the atmospheric dencity and greatly increasing the particulate matter.....No then they would have to wear EVA suits in a sulphur-dioxide/methane atmosphere...he he he "I kill me" (Alf) if the atmosphere didnt ROFL :freak:


----------



## dsscse (Dec 19, 2004)

Seriously you guys and girls are doing a FANTASTIC job and I really envy your talent and dedication to a subject we all love!
Best wishes for a smooth release

A BIG HUG to every last one of you


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

^^ Alien attack?


----------



## dsscse (Dec 19, 2004)

X15-A2 said:


> I love the composite image, really great stuff there!
> 
> However, I would disagree that such a ship would be smashed to bits after such a landing, as has been suggested by others. The reasons are primarily these:
> 
> ...


I agree and also the collapsability factor talked about with the SIF not working post crash relates more to the beheamuths of the TNG era. e.g. the Ds saucer section even with its relatively light weight but incredably strong stringers could not withstand 1G without its SIF, it may not have collapsed like a defated baloon but there would be crush effects that ( if I remember correctly from Generations background info) rendered the Saucer unsalvageable on a practical/cost basis, hence Star Fleet did not just supply a "loaner" saucer untill the crashed one came out of the bodyshop and a replacement battle section, they got a New for Old replacement.(how come our insurance companies bitch and whine over $30k!)
So the point is the MUCH smaller in diameter and volume Constitution-class would NOT have these problems to a significant degree. :thumbsup:


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

Here's a clip of one of the Kongo debris parts:
http://www.thomasmodels.com/exeter/debrisweb1.wmv

Any jerky-ness in the image is due to the ultra high compression used to make this small file.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Thanks,Thomas! I have more behind the scene stuff from Exeter, than a lot of DVD's have.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

SOOOOOOOO cool ! :thumbsup: 
Love the dramatic music that goes perfectly with it !


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

VERY cool! Love the timing of the music to the reveal of the 'NCC' lettering on the hull fragment.


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

One more:
http://www.thomasmodels.com/exeter/debrisweb2.wmv


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

IN..FOR..MAT..ATION OVER...LOAD! SHUTTING DOwn....


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Love it! Perfect music for the occasion!

Nice piece of detail work on the backside of the debris.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

Very cool! Will there be a starfield in the background?


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Kewelness. Any word on if this episode is on track and should still be out 1 July?


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

ThomasModels said:


> Here's a clip of one of the Kongo debris parts:
> http://www.thomasmodels.com/exeter/debrisweb1.wmv
> 
> Any jerky-ness in the image is due to the ultra high compression used to make this small file.


 
'WEee-are the knights who say...NCC'


----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

ClubTepes said:


> 'WEee-are the knights who say...NCC'


LMAO!!!!   :lol:


----------



## ccbor (May 27, 2003)

It's only a flesh wound!




but seriously

Very nice work I can't wait to see the show.
Rob


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I am now selling advance tickets.


----------

