I noticed in "Peak performance" that the msd-schem and a sideview of the Hathaway seem somewhat different. In my opinion, the msd shows a slightly longer ship and shorter nacellestruts. It might be the cameraangle, but it sure does look different
USS Hathaway Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The screen in the screengrab is at a oblique angle to the camera- I think that's all it is.
Man, that second screengrab really shows how laughably mis-scaled the hathaway was...awful compositing there.
Stuff like that is why I long for an effects upgate to TNG like TOS got- the scaling thing and the insane use of stock footage make some old TNG episodes just painful to watch instead of exciting.
[fanboy] Also, I want to see the Hathaway really fight in the mock battle- with it's extra five saucer mounted phasers! [/fanboy]
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
The remastered edition of Peak Performance also featured a CGI model of the Hathaway, which has some differences from the physical model.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Only in a couple of shots, though. Most of the time it's the physical model. That shot of the ship being towed is also a reused shot of the Stargazer. I have no idea why the Enterprise should be towing the Hathaway at that point, and it vanishes shortly after when the Enterprise goes to warp.
Saying all that, I think the MSD does show a much longer ship. I agree it's not clear though, so I might have to give Peak Performance a watch. Which is good, because Peak Performance is awesome.
(I need a blu-ray player on my PC to take screenshots. I don't believe there's anyway to get screenshots off a PS3, is there?)
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Looking again, is the scale THAT wrong? I always thought that the Galaxy-class nacelles were roughly the same length as the refit-Constitution nacelles.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
Man, that second screengrab really shows how laughably mis-scaled the hathaway was...awful compositing there.
I choose to interpret the VFX as having the Hathaway much closer to the camera, and the Enterprise's tractor beam is coming from the side of the ship rather than right behind. I can understand why they did it that way though...if the scales were correct the Hathaway would be too small in the shot.
Posted by Starship Freak (Member # 293) on :
Also, notice the underbelly of the actual ship, the "cannons" or whatever it is, sensors?, the do not appear on the msd.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by Starship Freak: Also, notice the underbelly of the actual ship, the "cannons" or whatever it is, sensors?, the do not appear on the msd.
It's just an inaccurate MSD. The Defiant had an inaccurate MSD when it ws first introduced as well.
Posted by Starship Freak (Member # 293) on :
Actually, that is true, I remember that msd. However, I also remember the Phase II enterprise msd shown in one of the early star trek films. Perhaps this is a similar case?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
The difference in those cases (and the Enterprise-B) is that the model was being worked on at the same time as the MSD. For the Hathaway, the model had already existed for over a year.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
In the screencap it definitely appears to me that the ship is closer to the camera than the Enterprise, and that her bow is angled slightly towards the camera as well. Whether this fully accounts for any discrepancy with the MSD I cannot say.
Posted by Starship Freak (Member # 293) on :
The bow might be angled, but if you look at the nacelles, if the bow was angled much, you would see the nacelles behind a bit more, wouldn´t you?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I certainly don't think it's angled "much," but it also doesn't look like a dead-on side view either. The Enterprise is pointed slightly away from the camera, and the Hathaway is pointed slightly towards it, the key word being slightly.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Looking again, is the scale THAT wrong? I always thought that the Galaxy-class nacelles were roughly the same length as the refit-Constitution nacelles.
No, the Galaxy's nacelles are much longer- and the Constelation's nacelles are even shorter than the Refits- their ends having been chopped off and greebles added to the rear of each instead of the fins...no RCS packages back there either, which is pretty odd. I guess they just had front wheel drive on that model.
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: The difference in those cases (and the Enterprise-B) is that the model was being worked on at the same time as the MSD. For the Hathaway, the model had already existed for over a year.
If you mean the model in the office, that's another kettle of fish- and tat might explain why the MSD is off. The MSD might be based on the office desk model, which is a lot different than the model they made for the Hathaway/Stargazer. The office model does not have the lower labs with that jutting telescope(?) or the robot model kit...or the five extra phasers on the saucer where the Refit has elevators.
I'm pretty certain most of the small quirks of the shooting model are not present on the desk model- the ventral side of the primary hull in particular seems to be from the ventral saucer of the Refit model, not a second dorsal saucer like the shooting model uses.
YEP- The desk model definitely appears to be longer than the filming model- I think the custom nacelle pylons are the difference- they seem more swept back on the desktop version, which would make the ship not only longer but probably a bit shorter overall.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
I recall that the Stargazer (both desktop model and studio model) were built with parts from a VF-1 Valkyrie from the anime Super Dimensional Fortress Macross. Years later, on Macross 7, a ship called the Stargazer was featured in an episode. If that's not a reference, it's one hell of a coincidence.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Actually, though the VF-1 model bit is repeated over and over, most of what was used was from the anime Crusher Joe.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Actually, though the VF-1 model bit is repeated over and over, most of what was used was from the anime Crusher Joe.
Parts from Starblazers and Orguss kits were also used. Plus, the little robot on the desktop model underside was something called Xabungle (a sequel to Mobile Suit Gundam). It was a super-deformed version of the original robot. Jein's full-scale Stargazer barely reproduces it, but it's quite noticeable as a little robot toy on the desktop model.
I have photos of the desktop model's underside, showing all the above kit parts and the robot, and a pic of the robot toy itself if anyone wants to see them.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
I do please. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
It would be cool to make a studio sized model with Bender down there instead.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Sorry about not posting these earlier...was a bit busy
Anyway, here's the pics of the desktop model's underside, both the regular pic and the labeled pic:
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
