posted
I'm pretty sure they use chroma keying or something similar to match certain colors or areas on the film and apply changes to add the effects. For example, the Centaur had fluorescent green paint for windows (see the first pic), which they substituted with the white lights.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
As to the Curry...man, it's waaay worse than I thought! the secondary hull is SO TINY! When I made my own, I assumed the entire Excelsior secondary hull was used....
I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. The entire secondary hull was used, and there's no difference in size.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
It seems shortened to me- look at my model compared to the studio moedel- sure. I kept the rear hangar thingie, but that should not account for any exta length. See how much farther back the seondary hull extends past the impulse engines of the saucer? Could they have mounted the neck connection facing backwards? That would account for the saucer being farther nack along the secondary hull...
Of course, the jumbo nacelles are perspective are not helping judge the studio model...man, what a dog.
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
It seems shortened to me- look at my model compared to the studio moedel- sure. I kept the rear hangar thingie, but that should not account for any exta length. See how much farther back the seondary hull extends past the impulse engines of the saucer? Could they have mounted the neck connection facing backwards? That would account for the saucer being farther nack along the secondary hull...
I think what's causing the confusion is that the saucer is placed further back on the secondary hull...which is the mistake I made when building my model before Curry sent me the pics. So the front of the secondary hull is jutting further forward than, say, the Raging Queen's secondary hull did.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Hmmm...msybe so. My neck part is mounted right on top of where the nacelle pylons join the secondary hull- and it's leaning forward, as God intended...that's as far back as I'm willing to go designwise on the secondary hull....
Ah! I see what I did differently now! When I added the forward facing pointy hangar bay part, I actually added extra length and blended it into the secondary hull to give the ship a more aggressive look...or I just though it looked better that way. I recall it was kinda a bitch to make look right, but was the right choice from a modeling perspective.
So....what can you explain to me about that abomination with the giant phaser ball turretts? Looks like something from the new JJverse movie. Prior to this thread, I have never seen such a thing and kinda assumed you were ducking with us again (which would have been funny for a while, but now less so).
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Those ball turrets, they look like the ion cannon the Rebels had at Echo Base in The Empire Strikes Back. I recall having a Galoob MicroMachines Hoth playset that had the ion cannon, I wonder if whoever built the Trieste had several of those playsets. It would about the right time period (mid to late 90s).
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
