# Seen this refit detail before? (little bridge lights)



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

I don't know if this is old news, but studying all my bridge reference pix this struck me:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/7698640006/in/photostream/lightbox/

Looks like fiber-optic with "mushroomed" ends. Small, but "it's the little things...!"


----------



## galaxy_jason (May 19, 2009)

Interesting. Is there a larger photo somewhere?


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

Good question. Here's two more from different angles (and eras!) The BW is soon after the STTMP shoot, when she was so much prettier!

Your recent build is a thing of beauty, BTW!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/7699730792/in/photostream/lightbox/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/7699704328/in/photostream/lightbox/


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

I'm not sure all of those are light sources. But clearly, some of them are. Many of those look like little "rivet heads."

I think I'm going to mentally treat the little lights to either side of the scanner port as being the source for the "NCC banner" illumination...


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

I like that thinking.

Because according to these shots from ST III, those "slot" lights don't seem to light the registry:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/7700760882/in/photostream/lightbox/


Myself, I like how they used practical sources for NX-01 and "Trek Eleven". I sort of think of those two "shutters" at the very front of B/C (which happen to have 4 of those 'shrooms...) as the intended source, even though they're never shown lighted.

We all know they cheated for the lights anyway, so we're faced with a near-impossible task to replicate it as part of the ship (without cheating...!)


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

I just had to kick myself...

I was thinking how I commented on the B&W photo being "indistinct."

There was a time when a shot like that would be like gold to a modeler!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Wow, I love that pics like this are showing up. Oh, to have had them way back in the day.

May I posit another possibility?

IIRC the Refit was made from fiberglass shells fitted over a frame that also supported the internal lights, and the attachment points for the support that held it during filming, correct?

Might these mushrooms be some form of cover for the various screws that may have held the shell to the frame? Something that was just *dot* put over the holes/heads? Time and handling might/would knock them off because nobody felt a need to replace them.

Now, see, I don't KNOW that the shell is held to the frame by screws, but I'm pretty sure you don't glue something shut when you may need to access the interior to change out lights, or fix wiring.

As for what they COULD be, I'm OK thinking of them potentially being spotlights placed to light specific areas of the hull, as the spot that lit the elevating platform when Kirk et al. embarked on their stroll to visit V'GER in person.

Say, are there 'shrooms on the Engineering hull around the plate that's removed for the side mount? Or did they just have a plug on the inside of the hull exterior that friction fit into the mount to hold it in place?


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Many of the visible "mushrooms" on these models are screw heads. They use tiny allen screws with security heads for holding many details in place, but allowing access to the interior components.

The refit saucer was made of vacuformed ABS (yes, that same hated material that causes styrene cement-only modelers to shriek in terror).


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Never noticed the two litle light spots between the "foold lights". But I agree most of the "mushrooms" are crews to hold stuff in place or to give acces to the inner workings. 

As for the STII picuters. ILM wanted to symbolize "Elvis is in da house" when the bridge lights come on, tahts why there is no flood on the registry although it should.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Perhaps the lights were on "high beam".


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

Given the size of the bridge components (between 2 and 3 times the size of the 1/350 kit, very roughly about 2.5x) I don't read these as screws. They've really got that heat-mushroomed lens look, and some do appear lighted.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

TrekFX said:


> Given the size of the bridge components (between 2 and 3 times the size of the 1/350 kit, very roughly about 2.5x) I don't read these as screws. They've really got that heat-mushroomed lens look, and some do appear lighted.


I think it's very likely that we're seeing a variety of details, making up a variety of functions, and made in a variety of ways.

It's certainly possible that some are, as you say, actually "spread" optical fiber ends. And it's CERTAIN that some are sources of light, no doubt. But we don't know if these are fibers, or are actually little glass beads used as lenses, or... well, ANYTHING, really.

It's also very, very possible that some of these are, as suggested, either exposed screw heads, or more likely, some sort of easily removable "cap" on top of a screwhead (think of the little plastic caps used in some "pressboard" type furniture to cover exposed screw heads, for example, or the chromed caps used in some screw-mounted mirrors, just for a couple of examples)

I actually am cynical that this would be "mushroomed optical fiber," mainly because the light-carrying capacity of such a fiber, at least as available in 1979, would be so low that it would be essentially useless for "filming" purposes. It seems more likely that this might be a bit of polycarbonate rod or something a bit more robust and "capable."

Still, it's ALL supposition right now, isn't it?


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

TrekFX said:


> I like that thinking.
> 
> Because according to these shots from ST III, those "slot" lights don't seem to light the registry:
> 
> ...


But clearly, in ST:TMP, the banner illumination came on at the same instant as the 'scanner' lights.
Since there are three lights around the bridge and three areas of illumination, I'd say there meant for the banners.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

CLBrown said:


> I think it's very likely that we're seeing a variety of details, making up a variety of functions, and made in a variety of ways.


Maybe they're just greeblies.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

ClubTepes said:


> But clearly, in ST:TMP, the banner illumination came on at the same instant as the 'scanner' lights.
> Since there are three lights around the bridge and three areas of illumination, I'd say there meant for the banners.


Well, from a practical standpoint, this makes very little sense... those are not spotlights, they're slots with an array of hardware inside. It's pretty well-established that they're scanner arrays.

So, either (1) the scanner arrays have a non-scanner device in the same space (possible, but very poor design practice!), or (2) the "banner illumination" is just a happy side-effect of the scanner platform... or (3) the scanner platforms are not the source of the banner illumination at all.

The image shown above, showing the scanner ports lighting up without illuminating the banner, does tend to "disprove" the idea that these are where the banner illumination comes from. (Though, of course, we all know that the practical illumination was provided by external sources, and in the case of TMP, dental mirrors, to achieve the desired lighting effects... and we COULD treat the ST-III shot shown above as a special-effects error, I suppose).

It just makes very little practical sense to me for a HUGE opening like that, with a variety of visible devices inside, and identified, from the time of ST-TMP, as being sensor/scanner ports, would instead just be a billboard illumination system. Especially since very small lamps can provide the sort of illumination we seen on the hull of the Enterprise, even today.

If we treat the two "lighted dots" seen in these images as, in scale, about 1 foot diameter spotlight lenses.. the effect seen in ST-TMP makes perfect sense. The more "trimmed outline" lighted areas seen in ST-TWOK also make sense, as you could do this simply by applying a mask to the lamp lenses (think "batsignal" in reverse).

I'm not sure I recall ever seeing all three areas, adjacent to the three sensor ports on the upper p-hull, illuminated. But if they were... they'd need to be, not at 90 degree separations, but rather about 75 degree separations. Anyone have a screen-cap showing that sort of three-lobed, 75-degree-or-so-separation, "three-leaf clover" effect on top of the hull?

My memory isn't perfect... and it's not getting better with age!... but I sure don't recall seeing that. And if the only place it happened is under Bran Ferren's work... I'll refuse to count that anyway!


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

deleted


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

ClubTepes said:


> But clearly, in ST:TMP, the banner illumination came on at the same instant as the 'scanner' lights.
> Since there are three lights around the bridge and three areas of illumination, I'd say there meant for the banners.


I agree, the three slot lights below the bridge were very well established in "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" as being the source of illumination for the registry mark on the upper side of the hull just as the four opening on the underside illuminated that part of the hull. When the lights came on, the hull was bathed in pools of light, that is the impression they wanted the viewer to have and that is the impression the viewers got. Not sure what was written in the fan community that would contradict this, it still does not alter the original intent of the lights seen on film. 

It always did bug me why the spotlights failed to appear on the hull in ST: III, but I write that off to a rushed filming schedule that led to mistakes in production. If I am not mistaken, in all the films after the first, the warp engines are lit in scenes where the ship is on impulse engines and the sensor dish is always blue. The ship was designed and wired to have the sensor dish orange when on impulse and blue when it was at warp, likewise, the warp engines were to be dark when the impulse engines were lit. They were even color coordinated the engines with the sensor dish, orange impulse engine lights and blue warp engine lights. These changed to a more red and purple look in later films.

I really only refer to ST:TMP for how the Enterprise looked as it was the most thoughtout as far as filming goes. :thumbsup:


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

CLBrown said:


> Well, from a practical standpoint, this makes very little sense... those are not spotlights, they're slots with an array of hardware inside. It's pretty well-established that they're scanner arrays.


Really? So be so kind to name the canon source that says those light panels on the Refit bridge rim and lower sensor dome are "scanners" (remember, canon in Star Trek is only what was seen and said in the movies / TV series). AFIK those light panels have always been identified as the sources of the Refit spotlights with the prominent source beeing TMP when the spot lights come on at the dry dock "power up" sequence. The bridge light coming on with no spot at the top registry in ST3 was to say "Kirk and Crew have arrived at the ships bridge" after the Mr Adventure scene.



RSN said:


> If I am not mistaken, in all the films after the first, the warp engines are lit in scenes where the ship is on impulse engines and the sensor dish is always blue.


Happened in TMP too. Just after the wormhole incident and after Spock arrived the ship passes by at presumably impulse, Kirk makes a log report and states the warp engines are being repaired, yet the nacelles inner warp grills are glowing blue and the dish is blue as well. But to give the makers credit: they just reused this shot that was obviously as a "warp flyby" for use after the frist successful warp flight. It's the same shot, you can tell by the flicker of the port pylons flood light. Look out for it in both sequences and you'll see.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Garbaron said:


> Really? So be so kind to name the canon source that says those light panels on the Refit bridge rim and lower sensor dome are "scanners" (remember, canon in Star Trek is only what was seen and said in the movies / TV series). AFIK those light panels have always been identified as the sources of the Refit spotlights with the prominent source beeing TMP when the spot lights come on at the dry dock "power up" sequence. The bridge light coming on with no spot at the top registry in ST3 was to say "Kirk and Crew have arrived at the ships bridge" after the Mr Adventure scene.
> 
> 
> 
> Happened in TMP too. Just after the wormhole incident and after Spock arrived the ship passes by at presumably impulse, Kirk makes a log report and states the warp engines are being repaired, yet the nacelles inner warp grills are glowing blue and the dish is blue as well. But to give the makers credit: they just reused this shot that was obviously as a "warp flyby" for use after the frist successful warp flight. It's the same shot, you can tell by the flicker of the port pylons flood light. Look out for it in both sequences and you'll see.


Thank you for the correction. I will watch for that shot the next time it is on. :thumbsup:


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Garbaron said:


> Really? So be so kind to name the canon source that says those light panels on the Refit bridge rim and lower sensor dome are "scanners" (remember, canon in Star Trek is only what was seen and said in the movies / TV series).


Well, if you want to go with that definition... be so kind as to name the "canon" source in the movies which makes it clear that the bridge is in that dome, or that the things above and behind the ship are the warp engines, or that the thing at the front of the secondary hull is a sensor/deflector device.

I, personally, will accept the "off-screen" information given by Lee Cole, David Kimble, and Andrew Probert, even if you don't.

And since none of this "really" exists... I guess neither one can be defined as 100% correct, huh?


> AFIK those light panels have always been identified as the sources of the Refit spotlights with the prominent source beeing TMP when the spot lights come on at the dry dock "power up" sequence.


That two things happen at one time does not make them the same thing.

When you put the key into the ignition of your car, and turn it, a number of things happen all at once. Does that mean that they're all the same thing?

Yes, we see individual systems turning on all across the ship's exterior, in a sequence... but is that intended to show us things happening in that sequence, or perhaps might that not be a series of events which "really" happened all at once, but could not effectively be shown to us "all at once?"

I see no conclusive indication that the HUGE SLOTS exist for the sole purpose of being really large, awkward, inefficient light sources. Especially given that, even today, our technology is far, far more advanced than that.

I said, earlier, that it's POSSIBLE (though it would seem like poor design practice) that the lamps might be installed among the scanner equipment in those arrays. You ignore that, of course, and insist that the slots must be ONLY LIGHT SOURCES.

In other words, you're taking a very aggressive tone... saying that you, and only you, must be 100% right. I'm sorry, but that's just unjustifiable.


> The bridge light coming on with no spot at the top registry in ST3 was to say "Kirk and Crew have arrived at the ships bridge" after the Mr Adventure scene.


But, by your own claim, "if it's seen on-screen, it's canon." So... by your own argument, this is NOT the source of the "banner lighting." You can't use an argument at one moment, then abandon it at the next, out of pure convenience.


> Happened in TMP too. Just after the wormhole incident and after Spock arrived the ship passes by at presumably impulse, Kirk makes a log report and states the warp engines are being repaired, yet the nacelles inner warp grills are glowing blue and the dish is blue as well. But to give the makers credit: they just reused this shot that was obviously as a "warp flyby" for use after the frist successful warp flight. It's the same shot, you can tell by the flicker of the port pylons flood light. Look out for it in both sequences and you'll see.


I'm not convinced that this is the same shot. While it's similar, to be sure, I don't see the identicalness you do, and I believe I see some differences.

Still, it hardly matters.

Look... you can believe whatever you want to believe, and since there is no "real" Enterprise, you can treat those roughly fifteen foot by three foot openings as being very, very crude illumination sources, rather than as anything else.

What we DO know is this:
1) In the model, they did not actually produce a "flood light effect." The effects seen were produced by external light sources.
2) As seen on-screen, these can be illuminated without the "banner lighting" being present.
3) The "banner illumination" is AHEAD. There is not an identical patch offset at the +/- 75-degree locations aligned with the other two slots.
4) Those who designed and defined the ship, for TMP, called those slots sensor/scanner ports (even if this was never stated in on-screen dialog).

So... I have never accepted those as the source of the illumination.

Your mileage may vary. And that's OK, because it's a MAKE BELIEVE SHIP, after all.:wave:


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

You are splitting hairs and you know it. You say it's "well established" when it's not. You say you "never accepted those as the source of illumination" which does not make your believe more viable over others and multiple statings of "this is just a show" and "its all make believe" to discount other opinions isn't very helpful either. 

If those are "scanners" for you, fine, but the majority, and am sure of that, of trekkers who favor the Refit will tell you those are the spot lights. And you can't come around the corner spilling "well estabalisehd" if it just is not. I think I know the Refit very well and read most of the source material there is, even some you can't get easily and NEVER read that those are supposed to be "scanners". 

As for your "what we DO know " points: 

- yes, they did the spot lights with an external source. But the location of the bridge allows and makes it possible to light the forward registry as seen in the movies. I know since I have done it on the PL Refit. And it only worked AFTER I relocated the bridge to where it is on the studio model, since PL moved it slightly backwards. Same for the lower registry, it immediately works if you put a light source at the opening: 


















So even if they did it with external sources and did not include the lights for real, the light panel location do make it possible to cast those spots. You can do the three on top and four on the bottom if you like, I chose to only do the "mains" since those are seen mostly throughout the movies. The fact that it works is a "proof of concept" as designed by Andrew Probert and his and Dykstra idea of "self illumination" and makes it viable that those light panels are indeed the light sources for the saucer spot lights .

- Taking one scene in ST3 where the panel is lit and no spot showing does not negate the great number of shots that show the panels and spots lit at the same time. And TMP makes it perfectly clear thats where the light for the top spot is coming from. The light panels glowing without a spot showing on the hull in ST3 is arguably a low power setting. Pump up the power and there would be your spot light.

- Three patches of light on the top saucer. Watch TMP again, specifically when Spocks shuttle arrives and docks. Have a look at the top saucer to the left and right of the bridge. There are two distinct patches of light to the left and right of the bridge at the phaser locations. Those even show up on the close up of the bridge when the shuttle rotates to dock. Granted it is the only sequence where we see those lights, but still they are there. 

- give me a source where e.g. Andy Probert says those are "scanners". I know of no such comment of him, but would be happy to read all about it. But I agree taking the scale those are large panels that could also house other equipment, which in fact would make sense, since those are at the very top and bottom of the saucer with completely free line of sight.

And YES the fx shot of the Refit passing by when Kirk makes his "warp drive under repair" log and the one after she reaches warp 7 are identical. 
Look for the flicker at the port (right) side pylon flood light. Its the exact same shot. They even reused it in TWOK, its just before Saavik enters the Tubrolift with Kirk.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Some of the floodlight effects were, in fact, from internal light sources, just enough to justify using the dental mirror setup to light up that sucker like a Christmas tree. But the concept was always that the ship was providing its own lighting. The fact that it's next to impossible to duplicate that effect _without_ resorting to some external source is irrelevant.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

I do remember Andy Probert, or one of the designers, said that when he redesigned the Enterprise for ST:TMP from the "Phase 2" design, he wanted to address the fact that without a sun nearby, the Enterprise would have to illuminate herself and that they modified the design. Taking that into account and the fact that the area in question under the bridge with the three light bars was added by him as well as the 4 sided lighting array on the underside of the primary hull and there are pools of light that correspond and appear when those lights came on, it is clear beyond a doubt to me that his intent is that they were infact the light sources. :thumbsup:

(Oh, and why I turn my porch light on by the switch at the fron door, my garrage door does not open!)


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Garbaron said:


> You are splitting hairs and you know it. You say it's "well established" when it's not. You say you "never accepted those as the source of illumination" which does not make your believe more viable over others and multiple statings of "this is just a show" and "its all make believe" to discount other opinions isn't very helpful either.
> 
> If those are "scanners" for you, fine, but the majority, and am sure of that, of trekkers who favor the Refit will tell you those are the spot lights. And you can't come around the corner spilling "well estabalisehd" if it just is not. I think I know the Refit very well and read most of the source material there is, even some you can't get easily and NEVER read that those are supposed to be "scanners".
> 
> ...




Word.

Granted, there's no 'real' reason why there can't be other things in those slots in addition to the spots, OTOH if there were nothing BUT various lights in the slots to illuminate others parts of the hull (for repair, as one example), or for some kind of visual identification purpose, that would be OK too. 

And I'm still thinking all the little mushrooms are covers for screws. The fact that handing of the model over time seems to have knocked some off and there appears to have been no attempt to replace them says to me they weren't judged to be vital. 

Forensic archaeology on filming models is, at best, guesswork. Informed guesswork, moreso than trying to figure out what a shard of pottery means to be sure, but still guesswork. Context is the problem. We can have all the beautiful, wonderful photography in the world but without some context, some 'why' to go with the 'how', we can only fumble about. Thing is, back with the beast was built, nobody thought it MATTERED, right? ABS shell, metal frame, lights and lights and lights. Who stops to think about how that shell is attached to the frame? It's just assumed, it must be so, it must be attached. Yet it can't be just glued, they knew they would have to get back inside, change out some floros, fix some wiring, maybe cut in some new windows. The spot in the slots weren't LEDs I'm sure, they were likely high power incandescent of some form and THEY would burn out and need replacing.

At least the builders of the Refit are mostly still alive (aren't they?) so these things could be answered, unlike some cases like the Jupiter II (where everything thought about it, in terms of the practical mechanics, seems to come from bits and pieces that remained when they were gutted for City Beneath the Sea), a subject that people seem to be willing to come to fisticuffs over. 

So, we got Hollywood connected people here. Howzabout some calls get made and we find out first hand? Someone should write the complete autopsy of that beautiful thing.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Garbaron said:


> But the location of the bridge allows and makes it possible to light the forward registry as seen in the movies. I know since I have done it on the PL Refit. And it only worked AFTER I relocated the bridge to where it is on the studio model, since PL moved it slightly backwards.


Um ... what was that? How much backwards? Got pics of the fix? Because if I can now light the registry properly ... that would be cool.

edit: found it! http://www.starshipmodeler.net/talk/viewtopic.php?t=98256&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=120


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Garbaron said:


> You are splitting hairs and you know it.


Look, I get it that this is the internet... but that doesn't change the rules for basic conversation, or for basic debate.

You have NO IDEA what "I know" or what "I don't know" except for "what I say." Please knock off (a) the presumption that you can speak for what I "really mean," and (b) the confrontational, hostile tone.

You're trying to pick a fight. Why, I don't know. But I DON'T CARE "why."

I've said, several times, that you can believe whatever you want to believe. I've pointed out that, yes, this is a "make believe" subject so you don't have to agree with me. I've merely put forward an argument supporting my position.

And you, by contrast, are telling me "YOU ARE WRONG!!!!" and acting like you, personally, need to "fight" the issue.

Knock it off.


> You say it's "well established" when it's not. You say you "never accepted those as the source of illumination" which does not make your believe more viable over others and multiple statings of "this is just a show" and "its all make believe" to discount other opinions isn't very helpful either.


Well, Lee Cole said that they were scanners. David Kimble said that they were scanners. And yes, Andrew Probert told me that they were scanners. So, yeah, I buy that they're scanners. You can believe that they're toaster slots for all I care... knock yourself out.

And ya know what? You're right... I said "I never accepted" that they were the sources of illumination. In other words... I'm stating MY OWN OPINON. ABOUT A FICTIONAL TOPIC. I did not say "YOU ARE WRONG, ADMIT IT YOU JERK," now, did I?

Yet, let's be clear, that's pretty much what you're doing right now. You are the one who's claiming that "other opinions aren't acceptable, everyone needs to agree with me."

You seem to feel like you need to "win" something here. You don't... you really don't.


> If those are "scanners" for you, fine, but the majority, and am sure of that, of trekkers who favor the Refit will tell you those are the spot lights.


Really? You believe that you, personally, are in a position to speak for anyone but yourself? Be careful about doing that... it's not likely to end well.


> And you can't come around the corner spilling "well estabalisehd" if it just is not. I think I know the Refit very well and read most of the source material there is, even some you can't get easily and NEVER read that those are supposed to be "scanners".


Man, you are really getting exercised about this, aren't you?

I get it. I do. You're used to being "the expert" in your personal circle, regarding this topic. You're not used to having any of your personal opinions or beliefs about this fictional ship questioned. And in your personal life, it's likely that nobody cares enough about this to ever WANT to do so.

But that's not the case here. You are not the "all knowing authority" here. You're just another guy with another opinion, and not everyone is going to agreed with you.

You can take the position you're taking... ie, "get upset if someone disagrees with my long-held position"... or you can avoid the topic altogether... or you can actually try to ... gasp... HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE TOPIC. But that "discussion" bit will mean having to actually listen to other arguments, and having to support your own case, and maybe having others not accept your position.

That's all I've done here. If you don't like it... that's fine. But please, enough with the argumentativeness. I'm not trespassing in your personal playhouse here. This is my playground too, and I have every bit as much right to play in it as you do, or anyone else does. 


> As for your "what we DO know " points:
> 
> - yes, they did the spot lights with an external source. But the location of the bridge allows and makes it possible to light the forward registry as seen in the movies. I know since I have done it on the PL Refit.


So, you have a personal opinion about what goes where and why, based upon having built a model. I have a personal opinion, based upon thinking through what you'd do on a "real" spacecraft. I don't particularly care about how hard you had to work to get a "close approximation" of the on-screen appearance in your model. I'm sure it's quite nice to look at, but that has pretty much nothing to do with the subject we're discussing here.

Don't forget, I only postulated that the little light sources on either side of the slot seemed, to me, to be great locations for the "banner illumination" and that I would treat them as such from now on. You, then, came along and chastised me for "being wrong."

I will still treat those as the source of the banner illumination. You can treat them anything you want. I really, truly don't care.


> And it only worked AFTER I relocated the bridge to where it is on the studio model, since PL moved it slightly backwards. Same for the lower registry, it immediately works if you put a light source at the opening:


Look, it's a nice model... but that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT I WAS DISCUSSING... OR THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD.

The topic of this thread is about the various little details on/around the bridge dome on the studio model... NOT WHAT YOU DID ON YOUR PERSONAL R2 REFIT KIT.

So... what you did with your kit may be something you're proud of, but it's pretty much off-topic for this thread.


> So even if they did it with external sources and did not include the lights for real, the light panel location do make it possible to cast those spots.


Yes, you can. You can also do it in many, many other ways, and have the same effect. Just because you like one approach does not mean it's the "only correct approach."


> You can do the three on top and four on the bottom if you like, I chose to only do the "mains" since those are seen mostly throughout the movies.


Of course, there is only one "illumination area" on top of the 1701, and only one on the underside saucer of the 1701... despite the presence of multiple scanner ports/light-panels/big-screen-external-tvs/whatever-the-hell-you-wanna-call-them.

To me, that's actually one of the strongest arguments against them being "non-functional lighting sources." If they were just for lighting, as you're arguing... why wouldn't the +75-degree and -75-degree ones on the topside saucer provide identical patches of light on the hull? They SHOULD, shouldn't they?


> The fact that it works is a "proof of concept" as designed by Andrew Probert and his and Dykstra idea of "self illumination" and makes it viable that those light panels are indeed the light sources for the saucer spot lights .


At what point did you (erroneously) come to the conclusion that I disagree with, or even "don't know about" the self-illumination concept?

Again, please note that I never told you that you can't treat them that way. You're the one telling me that I MUST treat them as you, personally, want to treat them, because "you're right."

All I said is that I, personally, will treat the little lights on either side of the center scanner port slot as being the source of the banner illumination.

Please find where I told you that you, personally, must also treat them that way or I'd shoot your puppy.

To me, the sensor/scanner ports are what I called them. That's also what David Kimble called them. And Andrew Probert, in one of our conversations, recognized what I was referring to when I referred to them by that name, and discussed them with me using that name, so yeah, I buy that this is what they were supposed to be. You don't have to agree.


> - Taking one scene in ST3 where the panel is lit and no spot showing does not negate the great number of shots that show the panels and spots lit at the same time.


You said it yourself... "if it's on-screen, it's canon." Right? But you seem to really mean "if it's on-screen, and I like it, it's canon. If I don't, it's not."

Furthermore... the other scanner port slots up there do NOT put out identical regions of illumination. (If I'm mistaken, please provide screen-caps or other "canon" images of the other two "lobes" on the upper hull, or the other three "lobes" on the underside saucer surface for that matter.) If the only purpose of those features is to provide light... why do those other features NOT ILLUMINATE THE HULL?

That's another pretty strong argument, I think. I've raised it already, but you've merely disregarded that point, it seems, and I wonder if you're going to do so again.


> And TMP makes it perfectly clear thats where the light for the top spot is coming from.


No, it doesn't. We see two things happen at once... but as I said, that shows us nothing but that the two things happen at once.

You're making an unsupported assumption and claiming that it's "the only right answer." I'm telling you that there are other possible answers, and they're every bit as "right" as the one you've decided that any disagreement with should result in a trial for being a heretic, it seems.

You see it one way... I see it another way. Let's go look at the real Enterprise, up in the orbital museum, and check.

Oh, wait... THIS SHIP DOESN'T REALLY EXIST. All we really have is a filming miniature, and a design concept. There's no actual ship. So, no matter how much you want to claim otherwise, other views besides your personal one are possible... and as long as they can WORK... they're every bit as "right" as yours is. (Maybe, even more so...)


> The light panels glowing without a spot showing on the hull in ST3 is arguably a low power setting. Pump up the power and there would be your spot light.


Except, of course, that the light intensity level as seen on-screen doesn't support that conclusion. "Canon is what's seen onscreen," remember.

Yes, we know that the miniature lamp was either "on" or "off" and didn't have a "dimmer switch" wired in. So you can choose to believe that this shot "really was intended to show something else, but they were limited by the physical miniature."

I have a different opinion, and so do other people. And we're every bit as "right" about this as you are.


> - Three patches of light on the top saucer. Watch TMP again, specifically when Spocks shuttle arrives and docks. Have a look at the top saucer to the left and right of the bridge. There are two distinct patches of light to the left and right of the bridge at the phaser locations. Those even show up on the close up of the bridge when the shuttle rotates to dock. Granted it is the only sequence where we see those lights, but still they are there.


I disagree... I see highlights on the ship... reflections of ambient studio lighting. I don't see "floodlight illumination" areas, as seen elsewhere on the ship.


> - give me a source where e.g. Andy Probert says those are "scanners".


Andrew used to frequent the TrekBBS, as did I. We had a number of conversations about various topics, both on the board and offline. By the way, if you knew him, you'd know that he does NOT like being called "Andy." His name is ANDREW, and that's what you should call him.

A few other folks who post here have had conversations with him as well... John Payne, "Captain Robert April," and maybe one or two others. I haven't had any conversations with him, either by phone or by email, in more than a year though... it's not like I'm claiming we're "best friends" or any such nonsense.

But in conversation I had with him, yes, he did identify them as "active sensors."

(Technically, that's a a bit of a misnomer... an "active sensor" is, by definition, a "scanner," while what we called "sensors" without the modifier are PASSIVE devices. A radar system or sonar system would be considered "scanners" for example, while an infrared camera would be an example of a passive sensor.) 


> I know of no such comment of him, but would be happy to read all about it.


I didn't record the phone call, sorry. But I know he's said this sort of thing before. And if you review David Kimble's work, or Lee Cole's work, well... they used Andrew's idea as the source.

Remember, the original state of the model didn't have those details. They were added after Andrew inherited the model's detail work. Lots of things on the Enterprise weren't his ideas... the warp nacelle design, for example, had pretty much nothing to do with him. But the bridge redesign, going from the "dome with mickey-mouse-ear lift tubes" to what we got in TMP, was all his idea. Same with the lower scanner platform, with the most powerful scanner facing forward, less powerful ones facing port and starboard, and a 'split pair" facing aft (looking to either side of the dorsal).


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

If one of us is "getting in to it" it's definitely you, just look at your very angry and lengthy reply. 

Am not shouting ("all caps" means shouting you know) at you, you are.
Am not using strong language like "jerk" or implying it, you are. 
You start to personally attack me with stuff like this



CLBrown said:


> And in your personal life, it's likely that nobody cares enough about this to ever WANT to do so.


Do I know you? Do you know my friends? No you don't! What gives you the right to do make the above statement?
Yet you want tell me I don't know anything about you and I should stop thinking so.

So who's fighting here? 

In my mind with the above quote you disqualified yourself to be further talked to on this or any further topic. 
And no, you did not win this argument since you still have not given prove where it is "well established" those light panels on the bridge are indeed "scanners".

Good day.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Garbaron said:


> If one of us is "getting in to it" it's definitely you, just look at your very angry and lengthy reply.
> 
> Am not shouting ("all caps" means shouting you know) at you, you are.
> Am not using strong language like "jerk" or implying it, you are.
> ...


Best to ignore it and just have fun with the hobby!

I had the pleasure of spending the afternoon with Larry Albright in his studio about 30 years ago. he is the man who actually put the neon lights in the studio model for ST:TMP. He told me that the lights in those prots did not give the pooling effect on the hull like they wanted so the dental mirrors were used to bounce reflected light onto the filming miniature. So from the mouth of the man that lit the model, those were to be the light source, in the real world, lighting the ships registry markings.

I too have been able to replicate the pools to some extent, as you have and your input here is very much appreciated, and your build looks great! We are after all building models of models, not building 1,000 foot ships based on 1,000foot ships.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Garbaron said:


> If one of us is "getting in to it" it's definitely you, just look at your very angry and lengthy reply.


There you go again...

Not angry. Frustrated, though. Annoyed, certainly. But not angry.

"Lengthy?" Sure. You made multiple points, and I addressed your points, rather than ignoring them.


> Am not shouting ("all caps" means shouting you know) at you, you are.


No, I'm not typing an entire response in "all caps," I'm using words, or phrases, "all caps" to provide "EMPHASIS."


> Am not using strong language like "jerk" or implying it, you are.


That's really, really cute... I point out that "Hey, you're acting like I said something bad, like this, but I haven't so please stop"... and pretending that this means "I really said that thing." 


> You start to personally attack me with stuff like this:
> 
> "And in your personal life, it's likely that nobody cares enough about this to ever WANT to do so."
> 
> Do I know you? Do you know my friends? No you don't! What gives you the right to do make the above statement?


"The right?" So... are you going to tell me that, in your personal life, everyone you know really, really cares about what these slots around the bridge of the Enterprise "really" are?

I can safely say that in my own personal life, few people would even keep their eyes open for that sort of discussion. This is MY HOBBY, not theirs. At best, someone who isn't into this topic would "tolerate" it. But they would, almost certainly, not be INTERESTED.

So... you take it as some form of personal attack for me to point out that it's probably the case that the folks you know outside of this sort of internet forum don't especially care about the slots around the bridge of the Starship Enterprise? You think that's an insult?

"Yeah, you're a loser because you have people in your lives who aren't total Star Trek geeks?"

Is that what you think I was saying, and is that what's upsetting you?

Being told that I assume you have an actual life, with normal people in it, who could (by and large) not care less about this sort of thing... that's somehow something you view as a "personal attack."

I think maybe you're projecting a wee bit.


> Yet you want tell me I don't know anything about you and I should stop thinking so.
> 
> So who's fighting here?


Yes, I DID assume you have people in your personal life who don't care about the lighting of the Enterprise. I guess that does qualify as "aggression and hostility," huh? 


> In my mind with the above quote you disqualified yourself to be further talked to on this or any further topic.


And that's because, like with everything else in this little interchange, you're evidently incapable of seeing any other viewpoint but the one you started out with. You're so dedicated to the idea of taking offense that (a) you took offense that I put forward a suggested alternative to something you, personally, have chosen to believe, (b) did not just immediately acknowledge that your opinion is more valid than anyone else's, and (c) pointed out that in your "real life" the people you know likely don't care about the lights around the Enterprise bridge... only people in this sort of situation are likely to even pay attention to the conversation at all.

You might... you just MIGHT... want to re-read the comment. I stand by it. You are used to, like everyone else in these conversations, being the "person who knows it all" about this FICTIONAL TOPIC, in your personal life. I'm guessing, I know, but unless you have a VERY odd personal life, you're like the rest of us... you're surrounded by people who don't care... AT ALL. about the lighting of the Enterprise.

What I said, which you seem to be so emotionally tied up that you can't seem to see, is this - in our real lives, nobody ever questions the fictional assumptions we've adopted about this fictional space ship. And when you're used to being "unquestioned" about something... it's not tough to react as you have in this interchange... as if you're' somehow defending your "turf"... when someone suggests something different.

That's how you've been acting... as if you're defending a point of honor. ABOUT THE LIGHTS ON THE USS ENTERPRISE. Think about that for a moment.

(And by the way... that "all caps" you see there is not "screaming maniacally," it's "making a strong emphasis on the phrase." It's a writing technique which has been used since before the Internet existed, and will exist long after the internet ceases to be part of our lives (perhaps sooner, in many cases, than seems possible at the moment)


> And no, you did not win this argument since you still have not given prove where it is "well established" those light panels on the bridge are indeed "scanners".


Oh, maybe that's because I feel no need to convince you to change your own position, and have not told you that you need to. Ya think?

I posited an alternative. I think it's a good one. I, personally like it. But, as I said, it's entirely possible "in universe" that there could be a lamp mounted in those slots which provides that illumination, alongside other hardware. It's also possible, your strong protestations to the contrary, that the lighting could be coming from someplace else.

The two little "lighted dots" to either side of that forward slot seem perfectly suited to that role. There is on-screen (aka "canon") evidence that the slot isn't the source of the banner illumination. So, this is my own preferred solution.

You know what I'd consider a "win?" Having you acknowledge that there are other legitimate, acceptable solutions besides your own preferred one. That would feel like a "win" to me. That's all I've been doing.

I've been doing that because you attacked me for suggesting that there might be other legitimate possible solutions to a FICTIONAL PROBLEM relating to a FICTIONAL SPACE SHIP.

I call these 15-foot-by-3-foot slots "scanner ports." I have my own reasons for believing that.

You can call those 15-foot-by-3-foot slots "spotlights."

You can, as JJ Abrams decided, call them "bridge windows."

You can call them "big-screen TVs" for all it matters.

What they really are is lighted panels on a model, and lighted panels which do not project light onto the surface of the model in in any significant way.

Nothing else can be stated as hard fact, and everyone is able to make their own judgments on what's what.

We may support our positions with various arguments, and explain why we, personally, accept one or the other solution to a particular problem. As long as we don't start requiring everyone else to accept the same solution... that's OK.

The problem, it seems, is that you insist everyone else accept your preferred solution.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Garbaron said:


> You are splitting hairs and you know it. You say it's "well established" when it's not. You say you "never accepted those as the source of illumination" which does not make your believe more viable over others and multiple statings of "this is just a show" and "its all make believe" to discount other opinions isn't very helpful either.
> 
> If those are "scanners" for you, fine, but the majority, and am sure of that, of trekkers who favor the Refit will tell you those are the spot lights. And you can't come around the corner spilling "well estabalisehd" if it just is not. I think I know the Refit very well and read most of the source material there is, even some you can't get easily and NEVER read that those are supposed to be "scanners".
> 
> ...


I did some screen shots to show how the reflected lights the FX crew used lined up with the light source built into the model.

In the first shot, it is pretty clear that the lights on the bottom of the hull all match up, and they look spectacular! What is interesting is the setup at the rear of this light housing, it has 3 distinct lights, not just one solid like the other three sides. One light, in the center, seems to illuminate the rear underside registry while the two on each side line up with pools of light halfway up the nacelle struts. Convienient if they also double as sensors, the bridge will always know the connecting dorsal and engine pylons are there!

The second shot shows what you were referring to on the shuttle approach. There are clearly pools of light on the sides of the hull corrisponding with the lights under the bridge and the third picture shows it even clearer.

One light source is hard to find and that is the pennant lights on the sides of the secondary hull. The best I can determine is that they are one of the two lights on the front of the warp engines, (Unless ofcourse these are not lights at all, but rather more "sensors!"), as they seem to line up line of sight with those light pools.

Throughout much of the film many of the lights come and go and change shape and intensity, but I think most will agree that there is more than enough visual evidence as to the purpose and source of the lights! :thumbsup:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

As for the topic at hand, in watching the end of the film, with the only really good close-up of the bridge dome with the lights on, the two small fiber optic lights are seen dimly lit, far too dimly to illuminate the forward registry. In that fictional world, the only source of hull illumination would be coming from the intense strips of light below the bridge.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

RSN said:


> As for the topic at hand, in watching the end of the film, with the only really good close-up of the bridge dome with the lights on, the two small fiber optic lights are seen dimly lit, far too dimly to illuminate the forward registry. In that fictional world, the only source of hull illumination would be coming from the intense strips of light below the bridge.


It's perfectly fine for you, or Garbanzon, or anyone else, to prefer that. Doesn't mean it's "the one right answer," though.

The little light sources seems to be very practical as light sources for the banner illumination. Yes, you can't see a lot of "spill light," but that's not uncommon for good optics on light sources. 

Grab a good, high-quality flashlight... say, one of these:

http://www.maglite.com/Maglite_Solitaire_AAA.asp

It has very little "spill" light. (Unless you take the optics cone off, that is... they do show it as being able to be used in that fashion in the product page, of course).

Point it in any direction other than just about straight at you, and you'll see very little illumination. But point it straight at your eyes, and it'll pretty well blind you. The light is directed, rather than being omnidirectional.

The spread on the hull, for the "banner illumination," is not a broad pattern... it's actually pretty well directed. Not quite as much as with a searchlight, but it's definitely not a floodlight. In fact, the pattern seen is very, very similar to what you'd see by using the little Maglite I linked to.

I just don't buy it. It never, ever "felt right" to me, and now that I've seen these details (which I hadn't noticed previously), I think that they're better suited to serve in that role.

You don't have to agree, any more than than I have to agree with you guys, though. It's a freakin' HOBBY here, and there's no one "right" answer when dealing with make-believe. Unless it was explicitly shown on-screen that "the light comes from this source" (and it wasn't, sorry... some folks may feel it's "strongly inferred" but that' snot the same thing)... there can be multiple answers, and no one is "the one true answer."

Personally, if I was going back and doing this from scratch... reworking ST-TMP today, that is... I'd likely have some sort of electroluminescent markings on the hull. Maybe the red outline around the lettering would be illuminated, for example? They did something similar to this on the movie "Serenity," and I think it worked pretty nicely.

From a purely technical standpoint, there's no reason to have self-illumination at all, unless you're engaged in a close-up rendezvous where you want the ship/shuttle/etc you're coordinating with to be able to see you. Yes, we get why they did this for a movie... but it's hardly a practical design criteria.. having the ship lighting itself up for no reason, when nobody would be able to see that anyway.

There are some other issues with the self-lighting that are more significant issues than this one. For example... where is the light source that illuminates the NCC banner on the outboard engine nacelles? How about the source for the secondary-hull banners (I suppose that they COULD be the bits on the underside front nacelle, but the angle just doesn't work out.. there would be shadowing which doesn't actually show up on the model.)

There's a lot to debate, discuss, and evaluate re: the TMP ship. But we know, perfectly well, that it wasn't as well-thought-out as a real ship would be... and there were issues which don't work at all (scale issues, window locations along the primary hull edge, fitting the Rec Deck into the saucer, fitting Main Engineering into where it's supposed to be and still having the corridor out the front, and so on and so on.) 

And with later shows... how many decks are there on the Enteprise? 78? Do they count upwards or downwards? Are the decks referred to by letters, or by numbers? How many torpedo rooms are there? How can you fit these into the space available?

I love this stuff... and love to address the issues involved, and to come up with what I think is the best compromise. But... EVERYTHING IS A COMPROMISE.

To me, personally, I just can't accept these big, 15' x 3' illuminated panels, surrounded with greeblies, as somehow being "spotlights." It just makes no sense.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

CLBrown said:


> It's perfectly fine for you, or Garbanzon, or anyone else, to prefer that. Doesn't mean it's "the one right answer," though.
> 
> The little light sources seems to be very practical as light sources for the banner illumination. Yes, you can't see a lot of "spill light," but that's not uncommon for good optics on light sources.
> 
> ...


SÉLAVI :thumbsup:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

After re-watching some of the FX scenes this morning, I made these assessment based on my obsevations:

1) The bumps and details seen on the bridge cap seem to have no source of illumination. In fact, in the close-up shots in the fly over near the beginning and the zoom-in at the end, they barely show up at all on film. If there was a real purpose designed into them, they were not trying to draw attention to them.

2) The two small fiber optics on either side of the hull illuminating light below the bridge can only be seen dimly lit in the zoom-in after the destruction of V'Ger. They are so dim that they seem to have gone undetected by all of us "experts" for 33 years, so I would assume they were of no real importance to the design of the model.

3) I think that all of that tiny detail in the photos that started this thread are just greeblies added to show a bit of detail should any of these areas be seen in extreme closeup. Some would need to be screws, if these areas were removable and some could be covers for those screws, but overall I think they are just........there. 

I love this shot of the FX guys filming. If you look in the lower left corner you can see the dental mirrors that illuminated the surface of the Beautiful Lady.

Build on, don't sweat the details and don't over think the wheel!! :thumbsup:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Well, getting a little heated in the room! I'm sure it's mostly due to the limitations of the written word, were we all in a room talking there would be more laughter amid the "I'm right you're wrong!" "oh YEAH?" stuff. 

Anyway, nobody mentioning the specific spotlight that switches on when Kirk and co. are on the lift platform on the saucer?

And the ONE place of self-lighting that has always bugged me, the ship registry on the external aft warp nacelles. I *think* there's an indication of a spot built into the RCS cluster unit.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Steve H said:


> Well, getting a little heated in the room! I'm sure it's mostly due to the limitations of the written word, were we all in a room talking there would be more laughter amid the "I'm right you're wrong!" "oh YEAH?" stuff.
> 
> Anyway, nobody mentioning the specific spotlight that switches on when Kirk and co. are on the lift platform on the saucer?
> 
> And the ONE place of self-lighting that has always bugged me, the ship registry on the external aft warp nacelles. I *think* there's an indication of a spot built into the RCS cluster unit.


I only have the Remastered cut of ST:TMP and in the scene where they come up in the elevator onto the Primary Hull, it is now CGed and the light that shines onto the registry number becomes brighter and shines on Kirk and company as a seperate spotlight. I thought I remembered in the original FX shot that a seperate light came on from a differnt location, possibly tying in with one of those two tiny blue fiber optic lights. Been a while since I have seen that version.

Yes, you are correct, there is no obvious, dedicated light on the model to shine on the registry numbers on the rear of the nacelles, on either the inner or outer side. This is the only one that truly puzzles me after I figured the pennants on the side of the secondary hull were lit from the front of the warp engines.

Don't let the conversation throw you, most of us know this is only a model we are talking about and that this is a relaxing hobby! :hat:


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

RSN said:


> After re-watching some of the FX scenes this morning, I made these assessment based on my obsevations:
> 
> 1) The bumps and details seen on the bridge cap seem to have no source of illumination. In fact, in the close-up shots in the fly over near the beginning and the zoom-in at the end, they barely show up at all on film. If there was a real purpose designed into them, they were not trying to draw attention to them.


Yeah, I think that's likely true. This sort of detail exists for one of two reasons, normally... either "covering for real physical elements which we don't want recognized" or "subliminal texture that the audience won't ever really notice." I think we're likely looking at about a 50/50 mix between the two, up there and elsewhere around the model.


> 2) The two small fiber optics on either side of the hull illuminating light below the bridge can only be seen dimly lit in the zoom-in after the destruction of V'Ger. They are so dim that they seem to have gone undetected by all of us "experts" for 33 years, so I would assume they were of no real importance to the design of the model.


Except, of course, that someone actually had to spend some time putting them in. Some labor went into putting them there, so I presume that they were there for a reason, even if we don't know for certain what it was.

There are a million "in-universe" possibilities for what they are. In reality, they're some sort of intentionally-installed light sources. For what purpose... well, I know what I think, but in the end, they're probably just little acrylic rods poking through the vac-formed shell of the bridge dome.


> 3) I think that all of that tiny detail in the photos that started this thread are just greeblies added to show a bit of detail should any of these areas be seen in extreme closeup. Some would need to be screws, if these areas were remocable and some could be covers for those screws, but overall I think they are just........there.


Very likely true. I lean towards the "subliminal detailing" side of things, for the most part... detail just below what the camera can clearly capture, but which provides a sense of "texture" that gives a sense of scale to the model which otherwise would be absent.


> I love this shot of the FX guys filming. If you look in the lower left corner you can see the dental mirrors that illuminated the surface of the Beautiful Lady.
> 
> Build on, don't sweat the details and don't over think the wheel!! :thumbsup:


Agreed. :thumbsup:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

CLBrown said:


> Yeah, I think that's likely true. This sort of detail exists for one of two reasons, normally... either "covering for real physical elements which we don't want recognized" or "subliminal texture that the audience won't ever really notice." I think we're likely looking at about a 50/50 mix between the two, up there and elsewhere around the model.
> Except, of course, that someone actually had to spend some time putting them in. Some labor went into putting them there, so I presume that they were there for a reason, even if we don't know for certain what it was.
> 
> There are a million "in-universe" possibilities for what they are. In reality, they're some sort of intentionally-installed light sources. For what purpose... well, I know what I think, but in the end, they're probably just little acrylic rods poking through the vac-formed shell of the bridge dome.
> ...


I don't think I personally would try to recreate any of these new found details when I get around to either of my 1/350 refits, just too small and not worth damaging the parts beyond use. If I were building a studio scale or a bit smaller, then I would probably incorporate them.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

RSN said:


> I don't think I personally would try to recreate any of these new found details when I get around to either of my 1/350 refits, just too small and not worth damaging the parts beyond use. If I were building a studio scale or a bit smaller, then I would probably incorporate them.


Most of those little "domes" are best made, IMHO, with a small but thick "dome droplet" of paint on the surface, I think. Maybe a subtly different color than the base hull color? But yeah, few of those would be done "in plastic" in anyway.

For me, personally, I think I'll run some 0.010" optic fiber (I still have a pretty decent sized reel of the stuff) to the places I'm calling "banner spotlights" when I finally get around to building either of my two R2 3ft TMP kits. Obviously, 0.010" fiber won't provide a real "spotlight effect," but I'm not too concerned about that. No "internal lighting" can ever really give the effect seen on-screen, anyway. So, I'll just leave the "self-illumination" out, entirely.

By the way... the only really effective "banner illumination" effect I've ever seen in a self-contained kit has been done by leaving out the "light blocking" on the parts' interiors where you want the illumination,and by using a strong internal backlighting effect. This actually works pretty nicely!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

CLBrown said:


> Most of those little "domes" are best made, IMHO, with a small but thick "dome droplet" of paint on the surface, I think. Maybe a subtly different color than the base hull color? But yeah, few of those would be done "in plastic" in anyway.
> 
> For me, personally, I think I'll run some 0.010" optic fiber (I still have a pretty decent sized reel of the stuff) to the places I'm calling "banner spotlights" when I finally get around to building either of my two R2 3ft TMP kits. Obviously, 0.010" fiber won't provide a real "spotlight effect," but I'm not too concerned about that. No "internal lighting" can ever really give the effect seen on-screen, anyway. So, I'll just leave the "self-illumination" out, entirely.
> 
> By the way... the only really effective "banner illumination" effect I've ever seen in a self-contained kit has been done by leaving out the "light blocking" on the parts' interiors where you want the illumination,and by using a strong internal backlighting effect. This actually works pretty nicely!


I did that on the lighted refit kit that came out years ago. Even using the kit provided grain of wheat bulbs, the effect was quite good. I just masked off an oval on the inside of the hull and painted it balck. To be clever and to give the effect that the spotlights were on even when the kit was not lit, I masked off the outside of the hull to match the inside and then painted the hull lught gray. I then painted some of the awful simulated aztec panels, (Sorry, I didn't know better then!), white. I removed the outer mask and painted a few squares gray in the spotlight area and then sprayed a thin coat of white over the whole thing. The masked area now looked lighter than the rest of the hull and looked lit without internal lights, and when the lights were on, it looked even better. I repeated this on the seondary hull and on the engine registry. All in all, for my skill level 20 years ago, I was happy with the experiment.


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

I hope we're all smilin' here, 'cos this is s'posed to be fun. Don't make me spank you 

I'm too lazy to load another grab, but if you put on your Sherlock hat, look again very closely at that early inspection flyover scene in TMP. Look very closely at those slots we're interested in. What's in there? Well, the little "grates" at each end are *not* there, but there is a blank panel with a little dot or something. And, the other little 'shrooms are nowhere to be seen. So they made a few revisions while the shoot was on...

As a funny aside, way back when, when I got my first original AMT smoothie, I couldn't figure out where the spots were. But watching that last scene where the E comes out of the V'ger bang and fills the frame, there is a big kick of light right at the top of the dome... I figured "AHAH! That's the spot!" Now, I figure it's a glint from the mirror-light...

EDIT:

Got un-lazy and uploaded

no 'shrooms
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/7741896304/in/photostream/lightbox/

yay, 'shrooms and some grills to cook 'em on
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/7741905174/in/photostream/lightbox/

and... what were they thinking...??? Is this to be considered a canon reference?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/7741855956/in/photostream/lightbox/
sorry... couldn't resist


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

RSN said:


> I only have the Remastered cut of ST:TMP and in the scene where they come up in the elevator onto the Primary Hull, it is now CGed and the light that shines onto the registry number becomes brighter and shines on Kirk and company as a seperate spotlight. I thought I remembered in the original FX shot that a seperate light came on from a differnt location, possibly tying in with one of those two tiny blue fiber optic lights. Been a while since I have seen that version.
> 
> Yes, you are correct, there is no obvious, dedicated light on the model to shine on the registry numbers on the rear of the nacelles, on either the inner or outer side. This is the only one that truly puzzles me after I figured the pennants on the side of the secondary hull were lit from the front of the warp engines.
> 
> Don't let the conversation throw you, most of us know this is only a model we are talking about and that this is a relaxing hobby! :hat:



The inside nacelle idents are easy, I recall there are indications of spotlights on the inside that would, in the logic of the concept, shine across to the opposite side. Those outside aft idents are a puzzler because of the uniform smooth oval of light and not a 'spray'. 

And I'm not too worried. I just don't want things to get so heated the thread gets locked.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

> and... what were they thinking...??? Is this to be considered a canon reference?
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/7741855956/in/photostream/lightbox/
> sorry... couldn't resist


Oh man I always hated that shot. Even as a kid when I saw this I knew it didn't look right.


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

Opus Penguin said:


> Oh man I always hated that shot. Even as a kid when I saw this I knew it didn't look right.


I have it from reliable sources (mostly dead, but they keep talking...) that indicate this effects shot wasn't completed due to budget constraints and certain "creative differences" between the various factions.

Though it was never really completed properly even for the Director's Cut, here it is, the way it was intended all those years ago...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/7749077224/in/photostream/lightbox/


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

Opus Penguin said:


> Oh man I always hated that shot. Even as a kid when I saw this I knew it didn't look right.


Actually, I think they overshot their prediction of how wide "widescreen" could be...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/7749161958/in/photostream/lightbox/


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

TrekFX said:


> Actually, I think they overshot their prediction of how wide "widescreen" could be...
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/7749161958/in/photostream/lightbox/


Ya know... that actually looks RIGHT... or nearly so, anyway.. it does sort of make ya wonder.

Those two shots were just the most remarkably bad shots I can recall seeing in any film. Of course, it may be because I knew what to expect. After all, as the interior decorator... oh, sorry, set designer... for the film said on at least one occasion... it's not like the audience is going to bring sliderules into the movie, is it? 

Those bother me exactly to the same extent that the forward corridor in Engineering, or the Tardis-like Rec Deck, bother me... ie, as soon as I see them, any ability to suspend my disbelief is ruined.

But for most folks... they'd never even notice. So maybe the interior decorator was right?


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

CLBrown said:


> Ya know... that actually looks RIGHT... or nearly so, anyway.. it does sort of make ya wonder.
> 
> Those two shots were just the most remarkably bad shots I can recall seeing in any film. Of course, it may be because I knew what to expect. After all, as the interior decorator... oh, sorry, set designer... for the film said on at least one occasion... it's not like the audience is going to bring sliderules into the movie, is it?
> 
> ...


Trust me, most folks noticed!


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

I wish Paramount would release an HD version of the Director's Cut. I read the reasons they can't but I still wish they would invest in it. The attached picture seems more realistic then the bad matte we have seen here.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Opus Penguin said:


> I wish Paramount would release an HD version of the Director's Cut. I read the reasons they can't but I still wish they would invest in it. The attached picture seems more realistic then the bad matte we have seen here.


I was happy with the CG additions in the directors cut. I think they went a long way to match the look of the filmed miniature. I too was dissapointed when it was not in the Blue-ray set.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

RSN said:


> I was happy with the CG additions in the directors cut. I think they went a long way to match the look of the filmed miniature. I too was dissapointed when it was not in the Blue-ray set.


I've never read the "official explanation" for not doing this, but I think I understand...

Isn't it supposedly because they only rendered the shots in DVD-quality resolution, not theatrical-level resolution? So, they'd have to go back and re-render all of those shots.

I'm certain that they kept the files the rendering was done from, though... PPC may have eventually decided to clear out warehouse space from props and physical models and so forth, but computer data is a lot easier to keep, and I'm sure that they've got it (and that the same fiasco which happened with the Babylon 5 CGI assets didn't happen here).

So... it's just a matter of someone building the business case to go back in, clean up the CG models to be suitable for the higher-resolution renders, and then lease a renderfarm for a month or so to generate the shots which they'd recreated for the "edited" version.

It's not all that many shots, really. And it's not very many models, either. Mainly, you've got the Enteprise, and you've got V'Ger. Everything else is just fine in the "as filmed" state, and MOST of the Enterprise shots are just fine, too (and in fact are better than any CGI work would be!)

So... why is this not out yet? Well, it's either due to consummate stupidity (WHERE IS MY BD VERSION OF TRUE LIES, OR THE ABYSS?!?!?!), or more likely, they're holding back for the next "major anniversary" to do this. The film is currently 33 years old.. I suspect that they'll do this for a "35th anniversary edition" re-release.

On the other hand, it may take 'til the 40th anniversary. But in any case, I'm sure that they have SOME rationale for holding back on making and selling this just yet... and I suspect it has to do with trying to sell off an many BD sets with the theatrical version as possible, first, then only putting this out when they can no longer sell the theatrical release. It's all about making money... apparently, PPC has figured out what "STEP 2" is! (Remember, STEP 3 is "PROFIT!!!")


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Paramount has always had the stingiest and most short-sighted home video division. It's not just Star Trek they screw with, it's any title. Oftentimes, it's like pulling hen's teeth to get them to even do some basic extras on a DVD release. So something that counts as an actual expense, like having to re-render significant chunks of a film to HD, don't hold your breath.

I suggest being content with the upconversion from the Blu-Ray player.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Captain April said:


> Paramount has always had the stingiest and most short-sighted home video division. It's not just Star Trek they screw with, it's any title. Oftentimes, it's like pulling hen's teeth to get them to even do some basic extras on a DVD release. So something that counts as an actual expense, like having to re-render significant chunks of a film to HD, don't hold your breath.
> 
> I suggest being content with the upconversion from the Blu-Ray player.


I disagree... I'm pretty confident that they won't bypass the profit potential of selling us all yet another copy of a movie we already own, several times over, with just a few on-screen minutes worth of re-rendering required.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Though TMP is near and dear to me (not my favorite ST film but I still loved it), I have never purchased a copy of it on Blu-Ray until they someday offer the Director's Cut version. The original theatrical version was just too lacking. I do own it on DVD but would gladly purchase a Blu-Ray version.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I have the original theatrical cut on VHS, just for the novelty factor, and the Director's Edition on DVD, and now that I have a spiffy laserdisc player, I might track down a version in that format, but since the theatrical cut amounted to the longest test screening in motion picture history, and we already have the finished version now, in the form of the DE, I see no reason to perpetuate the legitimacy of the original cut by buying any new offerings of it.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

RSN said:


> The second shot shows what you were referring to on the shuttle approach. There are clearly pools of light on the sides of the hull corrisponding with the lights under the bridge and the third picture shows it even clearer.


The shuttle approach is not to the big model. The shuttle model is to a larger scale. The patterns on the side of the bridge are different from the model.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

bigjimslade said:


> The shuttle approach is not to the big model. The shuttle model is to a larger scale. The patterns on the side of the bridge are different from the model.


And yet the pools of light are still there, showing that they come from the light slots under the bridge and shine on the hull. :thumbsup:


----------



## goose814 (Feb 26, 2002)

TrekFX said:


> I hope we're all smilin' here, 'cos this is s'posed to be fun. Don't make me spank you
> 
> I'm too lazy to load another grab, but if you put on your Sherlock hat, look again very closely at that early inspection flyover scene in TMP. Look very closely at those slots we're interested in. What's in there? Well, the little "grates" at each end are *not* there, but there is a blank panel with a little dot or something. And, the other little 'shrooms are nowhere to be seen. So they made a few revisions while the shoot was on...
> 
> ...


It's been stated that during production the bridge was damaged by a leaking air conditioning unit in the ceiling of the studio. The bridge, which was made of wood at the time had to be remade by Mark Stetson, this time from plastic, and the B-C area had the paint retouched by Ron Gress due to the paint coming off when the bridge was removed. They also stated that extra detailing was added to the bridge when it was remade.

I wonder if this may be the difference in the detailing that isn't there in some shots but appears in others?


----------



## Gregatron (Mar 29, 2008)

goose814 said:


> It's been stated that during production the bridge was damaged by a leaking air conditioning unit in the ceiling of the studio. The bridge, which was made of wood at the time had to be remade by Mark Stetson, this time from plastic, and the B-C area had the paint retouched by Ron Gress due to the paint coming off when the bridge was removed. They also stated that extra detailing was added to the bridge when it was remade.
> 
> I wonder if this may be the difference in the detailing that isn't there in some shots but appears in others?



No, I think the original Bridge that was damaged was the more TOS-style one seen in some early test photos.


----------



## goose814 (Feb 26, 2002)

Gregatron said:


> No, I think the original Bridge that was damaged was the more TOS-style one seen in some early test photos.


Based on the info I read, the bridge and lower saucer sensor had already been modified before the water damage occurred.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

goose814 said:


> Based on the info I read, the bridge and lower saucer sensor had already been modified before the water damage occurred.


The bridge module was re designed when the air conditoning accident happened, its bee told by various people involved be now. As for the lower saucer sensor, perhaps in tandem with the bridge, perhaps before or later, Paul Olsen just cant remember at what time exactyl it was changed. Well that is what he told me anyway.


----------



## Gregatron (Mar 29, 2008)

Garbaron said:


> The bridge module was re designed when the air conditoning accident happened, its bee told by various people involved be now. As for the lower saucer sensor, perhaps in tandem with the bridge, perhaps before or later, Paul Olsen just cant remember at what time exactyl it was changed. Well that is what he told me anyway.



The changes to the lower dome were certainly dictated by Trumbull, who wanted to emphasize the self-illuminating/spotlight effects. My guess is that the Bridge damage led to the redesign of the bottom dome, too. The light slots were added to both domes.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Garbaron said:


> ...its bee told by various people involved be now.


That statement be confusing.


----------



## goose814 (Feb 26, 2002)

Garbaron said:


> The bridge module was re designed when the air conditoning accident happened, its bee told by various people involved be now. As for the lower saucer sensor, perhaps in tandem with the bridge, perhaps before or later, Paul Olsen just cant remember at what time exactyl it was changed. Well that is what he told me anyway.


Actually, the reference I was using was Paul Olsen's book. He states that the model was moved to a facility behind Magicam where Richard Taylor redesigned the bridge and lower sensor and these items were applied to the model. Later when Trumball took over, the model was moved to his facility in Marina Del Rey. It was there that the air conditioning accident happened.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Trek Ace said:


> That statement be confusing.


Yeh well that is what happens when you are bound to leave for work but want to post a reply anyway ... 




goose814 said:


> Actually, the reference I was using was Paul Olsen's book. He states that the model was moved to a facility behind Magicam where Richard Taylor redesigned the bridge and lower sensor and these items were applied to the model. Later when Trumball took over, the model was moved to his facility in Marina Del Rey. It was there that the air conditioning accident happened.


Ah so Paul got his memory sorted later on, when we talked he was not sure and wanted to check back on Taylor and others. Thx, did not know that.


----------

