It has been some time since I did some Trek-related art (or better: anything Trek-related at all). Now, two weeks after my final exams are over, I'm looking forward to a summer full of work on the stuff that has been lying around. First a little warm-up.
The DS9TM-Warbird - allthough surprisingly accurate in shape - has always annoyed me. Think it's time for a new attempt. I hereby declare the "Romulan Week". This is the result of todays work and will of course be cuntinued tomorrow. Based on publicity photos and the DS9TM-art. (And don't tell me there are lines that don't belong there or there are lines missing, I know that. It is just the extrapolation of the shadows)
Back again. What a good feeling. Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Uh, I just noticed something; the differences between the physical model and the CGI-model are bigger than I thought. Seems I have to do two different versions. The one you see - and Drexlers Warbird from the DS9TM - are just based on pictures of the physical model. I thought the only difference is the level of detail, but obviously there are certain other differences, for example longer nacelles and a different nose section.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov: ...cuntinued...
Heh heh heh...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
There are lines that don't belong there or there are lines missing, but it's a really good start.
Gonna make my week and do a Valdore schematic for me to build a model from?
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Sure, why not. Actually, that was my intention when I started this one. Problem is: I have to look for some good images first.
Topher: My initial reaction: , then , followed by and , I hope you understand.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Doug Drexler is a good artist. Really. But when it comes down to accuracy, he could handle thing a bit better. In my initial post I said I didn't find any larger errors on his image, but the situation has changed. After going into detail with the additional images I gathered I was able to make out several things that needed to be changed. Took me hours to do so. And thanks to Mr. Anonymus who provided the surprisingly good 5-view drawings of the D'deridex (you can find them on ship schematics and other sites). That was my only source for the bottom wing structure. I think I know which image he used to create the pictures so it isn't 100% spot-on either, but IMO he did a better job than Drexler at recreating the ship. Here's the final 2-color-WIP, some things look better now (my favourite is the wing structure), some look ugly (the asymetrical tail, but I've checked various references, that thing looks like that and is not symetrical as the DS9TM and other sources suggest), overall I am quite satisfied with that old bird.
Additional information: After checking dozens of images, beauty shots and screen caps I am now convinced there are at least four different variants. Variant 1: Seen above, the ship that appeared throughout the first few seasons of TNG Variant 2: For example seen in "Data's Day", this could have been the first appearance. Most notably there are more windowed sections and an additional 'thing' on the nacelle's outside; if any we have just light coor changes. Variant 3: First (and probably last) seen in "The Die is Cast", DS9. No changes to the model as far as I can see, but the thing now has a strange dark grey color instead of the usual green. (Maybe the Tal'shiar variant of the ship?) Variant 4: CGI. Less detailed, some minor changes, the green color is back.
I guess - since I want to finish this first - I'll do all four variant's sideviews before either approaching the topview/frontview or starting the Valdore (at my current state of mind I'll do the Valdore first. I can't stand that damn Warbird anymore. And it has always been my favourite alien ship... )
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
Isn't there some detail different in two of the versions? There are claw-like structures on the underside leading edge of the secondary hull as seen in "The Mind's Eye" that I don't recall seeing in "The Neutral Zone".
I know these structures are not on the AMT model of the Warbird, but are there on the Playmates toy.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
I need to check this. Let's see if I can find something. But images of the underside of the Warbird are rare, especially images of the toys. I have the micromachines Warbird and the Innerspace Warbird, but I'd need an AMT model to check it.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I have the AMT model (well, I have it in sections) & I can tell you that there is NO "clawlike structure" that I can see or otherwise discern.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
What I'm saying is I can tell you for certain there's a difference between the details of the Playmates Warbird and the AMT model...what I was asking was whether there's a difference with onscreen evidence. I don't have as many ready at hand resources to check with.
I was used to the details of the AMT kit for a long while. When I first saw "The Mind's Eye" and I saw the warbird hanging over Geordi's shuttlepod, I noticed the claw-like details that the AMT kit also has on either side of the bottom neck connection were also repeated on the bottom of the warbird on-screen. I haven't gone back to check if prior warbird appearances have had this detail all along. I wish I had the DVDs to reference.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
I also have the AMT Warbird and I can confirm that it's lacking the claws that should be on the ventral surface.
I'm pretty sure that there's two physical studio miniatures of the D'deridex. A guy that claims to have worked on TNG VFX, his name is Mitch Jones, informed me some time ago that a smaller, lighter, and more detailed Warbird was built to replace the cumbersome original miniature. This is quite possible considering they did the same thing for the Ent-D (the 4-footer replacing the 6-footer).
As far as I can tell, the new Warbird miniature was first utilised in "Defector" -- it's the first time the Warbird seems to have a shit load of lights/windows in the tail section. I'm pretty sure "Defector" was the first time the 4' Ent-D was used too.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Makes sense... then soon after in "Tin Man" we start to get the 'multiple' D'Deridex appearences.
I maintain that the "B-type" Warbird - the D'Deridex is the smaller type seen in episodes like "Tin Man" and the "A-type" is the big muthafukka we saw in "The Neutral Zone" - which presumably had two Captains or something... since they spoke on equal footing. It also would have been the ship of choice to 1. Investigate someone who is scooping out Romulan bases along the Neutral Zone and 2. To freak out the Federation in their first contact in over 20? years. AND that it was the Federation's Flag ship AND it was the Enterprise (presumably a name that makes most Romulan commander bristle) that was sent to the Neutral Zone for that reknewed contact.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: I maintain that the "B-type" Warbird - the D'Deridex is the smaller type seen in episodes like "Tin Man" and the "A-type" is the big muthafukka we saw in "The Neutral Zone"
I maintain that all D'deridex looking Warbirds are B-type and that A-type Warbirds are an earlier class that we've never been shown. The A-types IMHO would've been the kind that destroyed the Ent-C, for example. Following this trend, the Valdores would be C-type.
I prefer avoiding the scaling paradox within reason, and I really don't see it necessary to classify "TNZ" Warbird as something different. It's just a shame that the truly massive size of the Warbirds rarely came across.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Cpt. Kyle Amasov: In "Shadows and Symbols", during Kira's blockade, I believe one of the Warbirds makes a banking pass in front of the camera viewpoint, giving a good ventral view, IIRC. Also, an excellent up-the-kilt shot. (sic)
Here's one, there are other passes too, but if someone with the DVDs could make some snapshots, that would be gold.
Of course, they haven't gotten furter than, what, Season 2 now? >:-(
[ July 20, 2003, 03:27 AM: Message edited by: Nim ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Nim:
Season IV is on DVD in August.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
As I'm in the midst of building the AMT Warbird even as this thread began, I have done some research for my own references and I've found that two variants do exist, although I don't know if modifications were made to one model or if another was built.
Two things I've definitely found on version 2 that were not on the original was the claw-like structures on the forward underside of the main hull, and the linear details on the outboard warp nacelles. Just thought I'd share.
My Warbird model will be version 1.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
Interesting. Although I knew about the claw inconsistency, I hadn't noticed that detail on the nacelles before.
Anyway, it's pretty clear now that the AMT model is based on the original appearance/miniature of the Warbird.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
This is the grey DS9-ship from "The Die is Cast", with claws. If there are two different models instead of one, it would explain their return.
And I think the additional applications on the nacelles are one of the most notable changes. At least it was the first thing I noticed.
I've had a close look at the CGI-Warbird and ironically I think the CG-team worked from the drawings from the Encyclopedia and later DS9TM instead of the actual model. Most notably the real Warbird has an asymetrical tail (my second attempt) while the official image's tail is completely symmetrical (first attempt). The CGI-Warbird has a symmetrical tail. Furthermore, the nose section's lower end seems to be split up and curved backwards a little. And the nacelles got the "Eaves-touch" (longer and sharper). All these little details tell me that Foundation did not have access to the shooting model (and I do not think that it was ment to be a minor redress; if that's the case, they would have put in more detail. This thing was ment for background shooting only).
Do you think it's the right gree color? I'm pretty sure I got the overall green right, but the darker areas look fake. Maybe it's just me, but... I don't know. Suggestions?
[ July 22, 2003, 07:47 AM: Message edited by: Cpt. Kyle Amasov ]
Posted by Axeman 3D (Member # 1050) on :
I hadn't really noticed the pronounced difference in the tail section before, I've never built a CG version of the ship, only the AMT model kit which had a symetrical tail end. You live and learn, eh?
Colour on a model is a very relative thing. Speaking as a CG artist I know first-hand how much ambient lighting and surroundings effect how a ship looks, often I'll colour a ship as i think it looks in the drawings or series only to find it looks wrong when lit in context in a scene. I studied some of Greg Jiens shuttle models and noted the slightly yellow colouring, yet the minute you stick it under bright lights the specularity and glossiness cause it to turn almost white. I think when it comes to colour, in the absence of the real shooting model anyway, your guess is about as good as anybody elses.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
Colour? I'd personally make it a little lighter and maybe add a touch of brown to the mix. Actually, the darker colour you're using in the recessed areas would probably be perfect for the overall/main colour if it was lightened up. Am I making any sense?
BTW, is it just me or are the Warbirds from "Die is Cast" just as green as the rest?
Posted by CaptainMike20X6 (Member # 709) on :
id read up on probert's and the modelmakers design.. seems to me i recall this ship being greenish but not really being green, but showing up on screen looking green so its referred to as green forever after.. just like the artists wanted the 1701D to be blue and it came out grey on screen
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
quote:Originally posted by Axeman 3D: I hadn't really noticed the pronounced difference in the tail section before, I've never built a CG version of the ship, only the AMT model kit which had a symetrical tail end.
Actually, the AMT kit is surprisingly accurate as far as I can tell. The tail section IS NOT symmetrical...it definitely has the little upward curve to it as seen in Cpt. Kyle's revised diagram.
Cpt. Kyle, would it benefit you drawing to have pics of the AMT warbird pieces, even though my model is not all together yet?
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Could the apparent color difference between the real big Warbirds be the same as with the miniature? The miniature is dark grey for all I know, and becomes green through the lighting. Maybe it's possible that the Warbird is sometimes self-lighted with green spotlights and sometimes not.
The "authentic color" of the schematic would depend on that. I would suggest that the "pale" variant of the Warbird (if this is a color variant) is actually still green, but looks grey simply because it's dark.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I agree with Bernd, a low saturation green/grey would look best. Here's a sample gradiant of what I might use.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: Here's a sample gradiant of what I might use.
I like. That's reasonably close to how I painted my AMT model. If only I had a digital camera.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
It is just the extrapolation of the shadows)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
, then ![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
, followed by ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
and ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
understand.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
