# ULTIMATE TMP Enterprise/"Refit" Reference!



## star-art (Jul 5, 2000)

It's not often we get to see something like this. Thanks to the generosity of a StarshipBuilder member, we are able to present what could be the ultimate modeling references for the Motion Picture Enterprise.

Sure, you've all seen photos of the studio model. Images have been widely available on the Web for some time now. Recently the model itself went up for auction and many great new photos were taken.

Such photos are no doubt an invaluable reference for modelers. But what about orthographic plan view photos and/or renderings to assist the scratchbuilder? What about detailed images that can serve as an overall paint guide or texture map? Well, you won't have to wait any longer for just that!

The first batch of some incredible new references for the TMP Enterprise have just been posted at http://www.StarshipBuilder.com in the *Forums/Reference Desk/Star Trek section*. It is my understanding that these were generated directly off the CG model built for the Director's Edition of _Star Trek: The Motion Picture_!

It is a rare opportunity to get actual data from the real studio miniature. A sample image is attached. To see more, please visit my site. Please note these images are reserved for registered members only. Registration is completely FREE and without obligation.

Coming soon: More great references from this model including Aztec templates!

http://www.starshipbuilder.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1730

Enjoy!

====================================
Author, *MODEL DESIGN & BLUEPRINTING HANDBOOK, Volume 1*
Now available from www.ModelersNotebook.com


----------



## REL (Sep 30, 2005)

Cool Charles, but these have been out for quite awhile.

edit:Just not publicly.


----------



## star-art (Jul 5, 2000)

That's the point!!!!  Isn't it about time the rest of us got to see them???


----------



## REL (Sep 30, 2005)

I agree they should be shown, nice reference there. But the one's I have aren't covered in image tags etc LOL.


----------



## star-art (Jul 5, 2000)

Hey, gotta get some credit for hosting/sharing them.


----------



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

star-art said:


> Hey, gotta get some credit for hosting/sharing them.


It's much appreciated. Thanks! :thumbsup:

Having said that, is there any chance of posting higher res versions, or links to them?

Something that shows all the lines at a good resolution, especially the vertical and horizontal lines on the secondary hull?


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

The ST Reference thread is empty, at least right now when I just tried it. 
The CG model for the STTMP has been hugely dissed on all threads, and it is not a "real" miniature.


----------



## chiangkaishecky (Oct 4, 2000)

starseeker said:


> The ST Reference thread is empty, at least right now when I just tried it.


It's a private forum so you need the secret clique handshake i.e. you have to register and be logged in (altho' I've heard of problems even after that rigamarole so good luck)


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Registration is free and it's being a requirement helps to keep the SPAMMERs to a bare minimum. Plus, the only "rigamarole" I know of us simply waiting for Charles to activate your account. As with the rest of life, patience is cautioned.


----------



## Gunstar1 (Mar 1, 2007)

Yeah I have the non-tagged files somewhere in my computer, but I haven't looked at them since I downloadd them because there are a lot of innacuracies. I'd be interested to see the painting templates when they come out, but I don't have much hope that they will be accurate according to TMP. It looks more like detail that's been added to the same graphics on Mr Scott's Guide (the same structural innacuracies are present, plus some more - most apparent on lower sensor dome configuration, warp engines, various grilles, hangar area, gangway ports on both sides of ship.

Even if these are right from the CG model, I was not impressed with it in the director's edition. I would rather they had used stock footage and doctored that instead of trying to recreate the ship.

I'd be interested to see what the templates will look like.


----------



## uscav_scout (Feb 14, 2007)

Registered still waiting to be allowed access to see her.

Good thing I got Duty tonight! Thought I was going to be bored out of my mind.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Sorry, but for me, it's not _ultimate_, since it doesn't depict the original, but a reproduction of existing references which have been interpreted by (and filtered through) human eyes. It needs to be evaluated next to the Cloudster references for accuracy.

To me, the ultimate reference would be clear, complete, colour photos of the original TMP miniature taken before the TWOK repainting. That's what I want to see. If this ref was based on such photos, then it has more credibility, but I can't evaluate it without seeing those photos. If they do exist.


----------



## Gunstar1 (Mar 1, 2007)

Ok, I just compared pics of the strongback (black & white TMP, Cloudster, screencap, these "new" pics, and penndragons decals)

My "opinion" is that these new pics based on the CG model are wrong - they don't match the B&W photos at all. Penndragons decals are very very accurate to TMP. The paint job (secondary hull) for ST II (cloudster) covers up the TMP detail, and actually makes it look messy.

Another point, the underside of the hangar bay area should not have any panelling at all (for TMP). I've not seen anyone paint that part the way Paul Olsen describes (layering the 4 color pearl paints freehand, broad strokes up n down the length, to make it look like energy is flowing from there). Then again, only a couple of people have attempted pearl paints (red, blue, green, gold). The CG model used grays instead.


----------



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

I think the CG model is only meant to be proportionally correct to the filming miniature.

As someone once explained in one of these threads, it was only used in a few shots(non-hero or non-closeup). It wasn't used to replace the ship in every single shot in the director's cut from what I understand.

Perhaps someone else here can confirm that.

P.S. I still greatly appreciate the pics, nonetheless star-art. Would still love to have even higher res versions of them.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

The Cloudster TMP shots give some impression of Olsen's fantail art, but no matter what we do in that area, it'd be conjectural, since TMP refs for that area are practically nonexistent.

But that means anyone who gives it a good effort couldn't be faulted for inaccuracy ...


----------



## uscav_scout (Feb 14, 2007)

Finally got registered but STILL cant access the picts...

somebody must be plotting on me.


----------



## RonH (Apr 10, 2001)

Don't get all excited. The _only_ model these are accurate to is the *mesh* used in the Director's Edition, which was done on a short schedule and is not completely faithful to the physical model because it was only meant to be seen from a distance and/or in deep shadow lighting. Want proof ? Look at the renders of the mesh that were posted everywhere, and compare them to Phil Broad's pix.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Gunstar1 said:


> Ok, I just compared pics of the strongback (black & white TMP, Cloudster, screencap, these "new" pics, and penndragons decals)


The pics were created with different textures. A peeling of each texture if you will. You will need at least 3 of the pics to create the full strongback pattern which appears to be accurate to TMP.

Apparently, KTM and Oyl Psylk are working with another to create accurate blueprints that will be available for free, scaled to 1/250th.


----------



## JT1 (Nov 11, 2006)

uscav_scout said:


> Finally got registered but STILL cant access the picts...
> 
> somebody must be plotting on me.



Same here, I am awaiting "moderator approval".
I wonder what criteria I am beeing evaluated on?

Seems like an unneccessary step.


----------



## star-art (Jul 5, 2000)

The "criteria" is that you're not a spammer, only registering to post annoying spam on the board. I've got some clowns from the far east who attempt to register on average 5-7 TIMES EVERY DAY trying to post their spam (you know, meds and porn). You can thank nice people like that for the necessity of having to moderate all new registrations on my board. . .

And, BTW, I generally moderate once per day. But, in special cases where I get lots of new registrations at once (like for this), I try to do it as often as I can.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Don't worry Charles... I think most people understand your predicament. :thumbsup:


----------



## JT1 (Nov 11, 2006)

star-art said:


> The "criteria" is that you're not a spammer, only registering to post annoying spam on the board. I've got some clowns from the far east who attempt to register on average 5-7 TIMES EVERY DAY trying to post their spam (you know, meds and porn). You can thank nice people like that for the necessity of having to moderate all new registrations on my board. . .
> 
> And, BTW, I generally moderate once per day. But, in special cases where I get lots of new registrations at once (like for this), I try to do it as often as I can.


Interesting. I am a member of many different forums, and a moderator of 1, in my experience, very few require the moderator approval (yours is only the second one I've come across).


----------



## Gunstar1 (Mar 1, 2007)

Raist3001 said:


> The pics were created with different textures. A peeling of each texture if you will. You will need at least 3 of the pics to create the full strongback pattern which appears to be accurate to TMP.
> 
> Apparently, KTM and Oyl Psylk are working with another to create accurate blueprints that will be available for free, scaled to 1/250th.


You are saying that the pics that are now posted are incomplete pics? Why "at least 3"? 3 of the same? 3 different layers? 3 not 4? Each layer a different metallic sheen (red blue green gold)?
I guess I'm wondering where you got this info from - you've seen these layers put together as well as seperate? - you say blueprints... meaning a mapping/template of all panelling, or just structure of the ship? 1/250?

Sorry for all the questions


----------



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

RonH said:


> Don't get all excited. The _only_ model these are accurate to is the *mesh* used in the Director's Edition, which was done on a short schedule and is not completely faithful to the physical model because it was only meant to be seen from a distance and/or in deep shadow lighting. Want proof ? Look at the renders of the mesh that were posted everywhere


Some links to high def orthographic renders of these, please?

Higher def versions of meshs might be of better use to me then these.


----------



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

Raist3001 said:


> The pics were created with different textures. A peeling of each texture if you will. You will need at least 3 of the pics to create the full strongback pattern which appears to be accurate to TMP.
> 
> Apparently, KTM and Oyl Psylk are working with another to create accurate blueprints that will be available for free, scaled to 1/250th.


Of course!

KTM and Oyl Psylk!







Just two questions:


Who are KTM and Oyl Psylk?

and are said beings posting anywhere?


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

I'm not for certain, but I believe KTM = Kirk Trek Modeler. I have no clue who the other fella is.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Mxyzptlk?


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Oh, man! The little man is back? Where's Superman when you need him?!?



(sorry, couldn't resist....)


----------



## swhite228 (Dec 31, 2003)

JT1 said:


> Interesting. I am a member of many different forums, and a moderator of 1, in my experience, very few require the moderator approval (yours is only the second one I've come across).


I have 5 forums spread from ezbard to Yahoo, and Msn. Moderator approval is a must on Yahoo, ezboard is better,Msn I honestly dont know as it's only used to move pictures between boards.
Scott


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

JT1 said:


> Interesting. I am a member of many different forums, and a moderator of 1, in my experience, very few require the moderator approval (yours is only the second one I've come across).


Guess you've never registered at RPF - the Prop Forums - or you'd likely be a lot more understanding of Charles. RPF only takes new members about four times a year and only for about a month each time. So, only four months out of the year can you even register. 

I'm also pretty certain that The Clubhouse requires Moderator Approval, as do one or two others I've belonged to. And there are at least two I can think of that require you to be a member to view the forum. 

Anyhow, let's stop nitpicking on the protocol's of another forum, please. It's pointless and doesn't move the discussion forward for the topic at hand.


----------



## uscav_scout (Feb 14, 2007)

Moving right along...Finally got approved. After much thinking I'm kinda glad that Charles conducts bussiness the way he does. Security is a must these days. Griff should know what I mean.

Anyway, got a look at the picts. Aztec Dummy makes the big really identifiable patterns. but what about the small stuff that looks fuzzy under them? Do I just make some squares and do a random job? Help me the "it must be perfect" demons have a hold on me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously, my time is very limited (Drill Sergeant 0400-2200 mon thru sat) don't really want to do her again (ok maybe a little.) Just want to do a one shot, one kill on her.

RECON

By the way Griff what job do you do for the Air Force to have so much Time to play here? Should have joined the Air Force...many, many, moons ago.


----------



## star-art (Jul 5, 2000)

Thanks guys. 

To make the surface look more detailed, the FI guys did the Aztec pattern in two layers. The first layer is the pattern we all know. Then, underneath that, they just made a series of squares that were varying shades of grey. This served to "break up" the lines of the Aztec pattern so it didn't appear so stark.

Remember, the actual model basically had varying degrees of sheen from one panel to the next. Trying to recreate this in CG must have been a chore.

It's been a LONG time since I did any serious studying of the Refit, but I seem to recall the double layering of two Aztec patterns -- one underneath and another, possibly reversed, superimposed on top. This makes it look very complex. It certainly is a beautiful paint job!


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

uscav_scout said:


> By the way Griff what job do you do for the Air Force to have so much Time to play here? Should have joined the Air Force...many, many, moons ago.


Nuthin' special, just work in a C-130 squadron. Most Zoomie jobs are "9 to 5", tho. I work an 8 hour shift (Swings) and live on-base, which makes for a 5 minute drive to/from work.


----------



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

Griffworks said:


> I'm not for certain, but I believe KTM = Kirk Trek Modeler. I have no clue who the other fella is.


Sorry, KTM perhaps should have occured to me.

However my limited old school brain is starting to totally blank out on all these friggin' anachronyms our society seems to be insisting we use every single day.

It seems that if the full name of something is ever stated once that is permission for virtually every single time it is used afterwards for someone to use initials.

Some of them are ridiculous!

Anyone seen the new cell phone commercial in which the daughter talks to the mom about her texting in virtually nothing but initials?!?

It's funny because it is only one step removed from becoming reality.


----------



## fiercegaming (Jul 21, 2004)

So to what I understand these photots are of the cg model that was made after they looked at the NCC-1701-A for the directors cut (they obviously couldn't see the org). Anyway I can't seem to get the link to that thread. So like stever said...what we need are the org of the refit...not b and w but actual color. But anyway I still want to see these, if anyone could maybe shoot them to me in email or something.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

UNBELIEVABLE!!  
I finally get access and the pictures were taken down!!
Just because they're not 100% accurate?!!  
So what?!!
Stupid.


----------



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

That does suck.

And NovaDesigns apparently had posted some good stuff I missed myself.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Gunstar1 said:


> You are saying that the pics that are now posted are incomplete pics? Why "at least 3"? 3 of the same? 3 different layers? 3 not 4? Each layer a different metallic sheen (red blue green gold)?
> I guess I'm wondering where you got this info from - you've seen these layers put together as well as seperate? - you say blueprints... meaning a mapping/template of all panelling, or just structure of the ship? 1/250?
> 
> Sorry for all the questions


Sorry Gunstar, I did not explain myself well enough. I am not talking about the aztec sheen. I really meant layors. Suppose you wanted to make decals for the strongback. You would lay down pic one which is just the greenish pattern, then lay down pic 2 which is the strong back pattern with a few details, then the last pic with the rest of the detail. Not saying that one would create a decal this way, but in short, the reference pics are in layers.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

uscav_scout said:


> Aztec Dummy makes the big really identifiable patterns. but what about the small stuff that looks fuzzy under them? Do I just make some squares and do a random job? Help me the "it must be perfect" demons have a hold on me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


The secondary aztec is actually over the main aztec. And the main aztec is of course what we are all used to seeing.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b391/Raist3001/P81200261.jpg

This particular pattern is from an early Aztek Dummies set. It has since been corrected.

The secondary pattern is over the main.










http://s23.photobucket.com/albums/b391/Raist3001/?action=view&current=Aztec.flv

Just my interpretation on a test saucer. My current build will have at least 4 layors of aztecing.


----------



## RonH (Apr 10, 2001)

They were taken down because they were intellectual property of Paramount Pictures.


----------



## Gunstar1 (Mar 1, 2007)

As fun (and emotionally charged) as this debate is, I don't think we need to bother worrying about these images. 
For example, the screenshots from the CG model (Kirk & party walking on saucer) only show the basic aztek pattern, not the subpattern. The sidewalls have no detail whatsoever. That is the only really close up shot and the detail which so many are looking for is not even there. I doubt it was ever created at all - the sample imges of the ship are probably a "test" run - as in maybe those skins were not used in the final edit. The aztek on the saucer is even out of whack. Others have pointed out that the shape is wrong. So, even without the issue that it's not the studio model, I can't think of any reason to use images of this (I would not ever call "canon") CG representation


A good source for TMP refit colors are the few promotional '79 era photos that are floating around (at cloudster). What would be helpful is if someone had access to these posters/photos and did more complete high res scans.... I wonder if it's possible to locate/contact the new owner of the model....


----------



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

Gunstar1 said:


> As fun (and emotionally charged) as this debate is, I don't think we need to bother worrying about these images.
> For example, the screenshots from the CG model (Kirk & party walking on saucer) only show the basic aztek pattern, not the subpattern. The sidewalls have no detail whatsoever. That is the only really close up shot and the detail which so many are looking for is not even there. I doubt it was ever created at all - the sample imges of the ship are probably a "test" run - as in maybe those skins were not used in the final edit. The aztek on the saucer is even out of whack. Others have pointed out that the shape is wrong. So, even without the issue that it's not the studio model, I can't think of any reason to use images of this (I would not ever call "canon") CG representation
> 
> 
> A good source for TMP refit colors are the few promotional '79 era photos that are floating around (at cloudster). What would be helpful is if someone had access to these posters/photos and did more complete high res scans.... I wonder if it's possible to locate/contact the new owner of the model....


That wouldn't help you with TMP colors. Heck I doubt the aztecing is even the same muchless TMP colors.

Would be helpfull if someone could take a handheld 3D scanner to it and made some perfect orthographic blueprints and 3D models though...

They could perhaps even be published, as long as Star Trek and other key words were not mentioned(just as FJ's daughter can post and sell licenses for the stuff inside her dad's tech manual as long as none of the products use the words Star Trek etc.)


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

THAT looks awesome. :thumbsup: 



Raist3001 said:


> The secondary pattern is over the main.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Gunstar1 (Mar 1, 2007)

Raist3001 said:


> The secondary aztec is actually over the main aztec. And the main aztec is of course what we are all used to seeing.
> 
> This particular pattern is from an early Aztek Dummies set. It has since been corrected.
> 
> ...


Tony - I think when you first published this test work (a while back) you were probably the first to use the secondary pattern. Very happy you're doing this - I'm assuming when you say 4 layers it will be the blue, green, red, and gold pearl colors (as Olsen did). I know you made masks out of styrene or something for this 2nd pattern, but (as long as this was just a test) here's my "challenge" to you - that you make another set of masks such that the 1st aztek pattern itself is what's fragmented into smaller squares, as opposed to more random squares where some may only cover, say, a corner of an aztek edge... make sense? maybe this is what you are planning anyway, just wanted to be sure. Myself, I'll be doing the 4 colors, but not over and aztek of gloss and flat. I believe that the aztek (main) is the blue and green pearl colors, with the red and gold further breaking the pattern up. Olsen does not say anywhere that there was a flat/gloss combo that causes the flip-flopping of sheens, but rather it was soley the 4 pearls.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Gunstar, what you have challenged me with is exactly what have been trying to accomplish  I am looking into various sources who will be able to laser cut my main aztecs as well as the secondary aztecs. The goal is to be able to lay the secondary aztec over the main aztec and have the tiny squares perfectly align on the main pattern. This way as you said, it is the main aztec that is fragmented into squares. 

I have also toyed with the notion of spraying the main aztec a pearl blue. Problem I have encountered with the blue is that when applied over white, it's sheen color is rather yellowish. 

If anyone out there knows of anyone who can cut the patterns out of thin styrene, please let me know


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

Gunstar1 said:


> Tony - I think when you first published this test work (a while back) you were probably the first to use the secondary pattern.


Well, I like to think that I was... tests from February 1992. Keep your audio on for the movie soundtracks! :

http://members.aol.com/trekfx/1701_refit_paint.avi

http://members.aol.com/trekfx/AztecOutakes.mov

http://members.aol.com/trekfx/RefitAztecDevelopment.jpg

http://members.aol.com/trekfx/Refit_Friskets.jpg

Kinda cool that the Tamiya flat white I used as a base, as well as the Future I used as the pearl carrier, have held up well against yellowing.

My opinion, based on photos and looking over movie scenes, is that the main pattern is laid over the sub pattern. At certain angles, the reflectivity of the main pattern buries the sub-pattern.

I countered my problem with pearls tinting the pattern overcoats yellowish by the addition of a bit of blue.

VERY nice, Mr. Raist!!!!!!!


----------



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

Raist3001 said:


> If anyone out there knows of anyone who can cut the patterns out of thin styrene, please let me know


Are you think of glueing them on and making the world's first Polar Lights non-Smoothy Refit?


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Its attack of the 4-foot Enterprise D Syndrome! :wave:  :tongue:


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Are you think of glueing them on and making the world's first Polar Lights non-Smoothy Refit?


Bite your tongue 

I want to create a stencil like the walker templates so I can spray, and use them again


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

TrekFX said:


> VERY nice, Mr. Raist!!!!!!!


Thank you 

When you cut your frisket templates, did you just use an exacto? How did you get your nice curves?


----------



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

Raist3001 said:


> Bite your tongue
> 
> I want to create a stencil like the walker templates so I can spray, and use them again


Thought that would get your attention. :tongue:

Seriously though, if thin yet slippery styrene would be reusable, why not get someone like Arthur to do the secondary as well as primary templates in vinyl for you.

Then you could buy some big bottles of "Goo Gone" rather cheaply($4 bucks at Lowes Home Improvement) and just saturate the sheets with them and then wash them so that the adhesive dissolves and goes away.

With no adhesive, the vinyl should not stick during application...

and since they wouldn't stick they probably wouldn't stretch during removable.


Might that not work for reusable templates?

Shouldn't they conform better then plastic even without the glue?

You could try it out on a smaller sample.

If you do try this, let us know how it turns out please.

BTWay, fantastic paint job! :thumbsup:


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

Raist3001 said:


> Thank you
> 
> When you cut your frisket templates, did you just use an exacto? How did you get your nice curves?


I used a compass fitted with a cutting blade.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

TrekFX said:


> I used a compass fitted with a cutting blade.


Ahhh....understood. 

You've done some Fantastic paint job


----------



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

Checkout these tools, Raist. This one only goes up to 8" but is very easy to keep square and the circles perfect:

http://www.michaels.com/art/online/displayProductPage?productNum=nw0150

Since the PL Refit saucer is a max width(without counting impulse engine) of 16.0625 inches, this one should be the biggest you ever need:

http://www.ares-server.com/Ares/Ares.asp?MerchantID=RET01229&Action=Catalog&Type=Product&ID=82489

But just in case there is this one too:

http://www.ares-server.com/Ares/Ares.asp?MerchantID=RET01229&Action=Catalog&Type=Product&ID=82966

Don't forget to get some blades to replace one of the points in the last one above:

http://www.ares-server.com/Ares/Ares.asp?MerchantID=RET01229&Action=Catalog&Type=Product&ID=14354


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)




----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)




----------

