T O P I C ��� R E V I E W
|
SoundEffect
Member # 926
|
posted
A long-awaited update to the MSFM site:
John Tate's scratchbuilt Enterprise is finally up for all to see. The pictures do not do this one justice. It's just huge at over 7 feet in length!
Comments are welcome as always, but any detail nits should be tempered with the fact that it was constructed in the early 80's...you all know how much accurate reference material was around then!
It has undergone a few restorations over the years, but I still think it's gorgeous!
John's USS Enterprise
|
WizArtist
Member # 1095
|
posted
That's cool. And with 80's modeling techniques? SHEESH!
|
Jason Abbadon
Member # 882
|
posted
Truly amazing work: what the TOS E would have looked like with better cameras.
|
AndrewR
Member # 44
|
posted
Wow! That is AMAZING!!
I can't see anything that is off - what are some of the errors - if any!?! (I'm not an absolute expert on all the little Enterprise details).
This makes the Enterprise more REAL - and less fake than it does in the series (due to the way it's shot I guess)... That shot from under the saucer - is reminiscent of the shot of the E-refit passing over the camera in TMP and reused in TWOK.
Mind if I fiddle with it in Adobe?
Andrew
|
AndrewR
Member # 44
|
posted
A bit of playing around in Adobe: http://flareupload.pleh.net/uploads/44/halkaii.jpg
a scene from the original episode "Mirror, Mirror":
http://flareupload.pleh.net/uploads/44/mirrormirror.jpg
|
Kazeite
Member # 970
|
posted
Stunning. Simply stunning.
It cannot possibly get better than that
|
SoundEffect
Member # 926
|
posted
That's great Andrew! The photos and chosen angles are mine. I try to capture some neat *as seen on TV* type of angles in addition to enough to get all the details. At this show in November I took 73 photos around the show but only about 16 were of stuff other than the Enterprise...my focus was photo documentation of John's model.
There will be a build-up article coming soon to the MSFM site. John's provided me with some old construction photos and I'll use a bunch more of the photos I took at the show.
|
Nim
Member # 205
|
posted
Very nice. Hmm, there are three slots on his webpage under "Star Trek", only one of them filled with "Enterprise". What might the other two be, I wonder... An ultra-detailed D7 or the BoP, perhaps?
|
MinutiaeMan
Member # 444
|
posted
Absolutely awesome. I wish I had that kind of time (and skill)...
|
SoundEffect
Member # 926
|
posted
Nim,
The way I set up the website, everyone has a table 3 cells wide. John's the only member who only has one model complete so it looks odd for that reason.
John has been talking of doing an in-scale K'Tinga class however....
|
Nim
Member # 205
|
posted
Well then, let's hope it's the Kronos One, with battle wounds. What does "in-scale" mean in this context?
|
TSN
Member # 31
|
posted
Probably, to scale with his E model.
|
SoundEffect
Member # 926
|
posted
yes, what TSN said. 1/130 scale. Not too much to that scale, but the Monogram Maquis ship was done in 1/130!
Another of our members has a 1/130 Defiant Class already drawn out but needs some space and materials and I have has drawings for a 1/130 (almost 4ft) Oberth Class model for a while...again, no free time.
What I would like to do also is a 1/130 K-7 space station! That would be great!
John's contacted me about doing an in-scale Galileo 7 shuttle for his Enterprise.
|
Matrix
Member # 376
|
posted
If you're going to go big, do the Spacedock in 1/130th scale. Well's if you want a challenge...
|
WizArtist
Member # 1095
|
posted
I think I'll do a 1/700 scale nanite.
|
AndrewR
Member # 44
|
posted
Wouldn't that be a 700/1 scale model of a nanite? Would that be a macrite?
|
TSN
Member # 31
|
posted
A 1/700-scale model would not be a 700/1-scale model, no.
|
AndrewR
Member # 44
|
posted
Bah! You know what I'm talking about. Hence macrite and the smiley face.
|
Jason Abbadon
Member # 882
|
posted
I model in 2500th scale: my people are practically nanites.
|
TSN
Member # 31
|
posted
Well, I would also think that the opposite of a nanite ought to be a gigite...
|
AndrewR
Member # 44
|
posted
Well, your just fuck'n marvellous - aren't you?
I couldn't think of the prefix - and thought macro to convey size was still appropriate.
|
Cartman
Member # 256
|
posted
Well, no, since macro is the opposite of micro, and they're called nanites, not micrites. ARGUMENT DESTROYED!
|
AndrewR
Member # 44
|
posted
LOL! nanites are microscopic - a large scale tangible version would be macroscopic... I explained I used this prefix to convey SIZE as I couldn't remember the prefix to use... I could have called them gigites yes - but I DIDN'T.
Argument resurrected!
|
WizArtist
Member # 1095
|
posted
Saavik...punch up the nanites prefix code....
|
AndrewR
Member # 44
|
posted
LOL!
|