In particular, I'm looking for closeups of the panel lines, particular towards the edge of the raised/curved part of the top of the saucer. In other words, I need a closeup of the part this guy's left hand is right in front of:
If anyone knows where such images can be obtained, I'd greatly appreciate knowing about it. Thanks.
BTW, here are the refs I already have, so as to avoid unnecessary duplication:
Unfortunately, no, as that is not the actual studio model. You'll find that no commercially available model is ever a perfect reproduction of the original, and many are off in astoundingly obvious ways, sometimes even in basic proportions and shapes. In the case of that particular one, the outter rim of the saucer is too angled, and the grid lines aren't positioned quite correctly on the top of the saucer.
Thanks anyway, though.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
If anyone has an exact model though, it's Thomas sasser: he just mastered the new Polar Lights Enterprise and Ent Refit.
Posted by seanr (Member # 277) on :
That may be, but I can still spot the errors on it a mile away. I only trust the original artists who actually built the studio model to really truely get it all right. Everyone else is going to miss something.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Already seen all of those, but thanks.
Posted by TheYoshinator (Member # 1066) on :
I threw these up for you. These are the Replica's that Greg Jein made from molds of the studio model. They were sold at the Star Trek store... not sure where though. Check William McCullars' page. I know he has some of it too. As a matter of fact these may be his. I can't remember where I got them. It was years ago.
Just so you know seanr, the pics Yoshi posted are Greg Jein's replicas of the 4-foot model built for Voyager's "Flashback" episode, not picture of the original 8-footer. THere are bound to be minor differences because it is a half-scaled model of the original.
I'm not sure exactly what you're after though...are those Lakota pictures you have not show you what you need? The Lakota is the original Excelsior model with a few removable additions to it. The saucer wasn't changed drastically.
Posted by seanr (Member # 277) on :
Yoshinator - any chance you could put all the thumbnails on one page, instead of one page per thumb? It's a litle bit of a pain to dig through them that way.
SoundEffect - The lakota pictures do show it a little, but they're not high-res enough.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Just how much resolution are you going for, here? What's the particular bit you're interested in, besides the thruster assembly?
Just curious, 'cause it seems like the extraordinary reference images given thus far ought to be enough for virtually any effort.
Posted by TheYoshinator (Member # 1066) on :
Thanks for clarrifying that those are of the 4-footer. It explains why some of the edges are softer than the 8 footer.I know the Constitution-Refit better than I do Excelsior.
As for consolidating the thumbs... I can't easily do that... just too busy. You could just back up into the directory and click on the image names or just download them.
Posted by seanr (Member # 277) on :
OK, that'll work, Yoshi, thanks.
Guardian, the part in question is the paneling just inside the edge of the raised portion of the saucer.
Posted by Masaki (Member # 1030) on :
These are not very good resolution images, but very rare behind-the-scene images from TNG pilot.
Hey! The hood's an Excelsopr Pre-Fit! It still has the old bridge, impulse crystal and that odd dome at the aft.
I didint know that!
So the prototype style of Excelsior is still in service into the TNG era (and the Hood herself was built long after the Excelsior was refit for STVI) so that makes the prototype version a viable variant (not just a one-off that ws changed as tech was refined).
Cool- from my geeky starship modeler perspective.
[ March 29, 2004, 10:03 AM: Message edited by: Jason Abbadon ]
Posted by seanr (Member # 277) on :
Yep, I noticed the same thing. Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Th'hell?!
USS Hood is NCC 2541? Whatever happened to 42296?
mark
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Is that 2541 even genuine? What's the deal with the "cursor pass highlighting"? Who's the resident katakana expert?
This could explain the 2544 rego of the next close-upped TNG Excelsior, the Repulse (or her close-upped shuttle), of course... Since 2544 is solid canon, 2541 works just fine for me, too (even though it steps on Belknap toes...). And didn't we have some confusion about a 42296 close-up with the wrong name in DS9?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by seanr (Member # 277) on :
I've long since given up on trying to follow reg numbers. That's a waste of time.
Posted by Masaki (Member # 1030) on :
Since this is Web translation, it also have some incomprehensible texts. The word which cannot be translated is a capital letter or garbled .
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, I understand the first two paragraphs pretty well. It kind of falls apart after that. But the point in the beginning seems to be that, by looking at the negative of that first image, they think that someone has erased the registry number from the photo.
And it seems that the Japanese name for a phaser is "feiza". Fascinating.
Oh, and I don't know if "fur point" is a translation error, or what, but "Encounter at Fur Point" sounds like a bad porn title.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
And, on a lighter note, I love bad translations from the Japanese language. It's given us such gems as "All your base are belong to us" and the comment in the article enshrined below:
What must not be published will surely be written here. Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Japanese katakana has a limited ability to transliterate the many sounds and spellings of English, so it can get pretty weird when you go from English to katakana and back to English again. "Phaser" is transliterated into Japanese with katakana for "fe-i-za," so comes back out as "feiza." "Fur" and "far" are both transliterated as "fa-a," so the computer makes its best, albeit incorrect, guess
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Lousy computers. When will they learn?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
One wonders why the Japanese translation of "Farpoint" isn't [Japanese word for "far"] + [Japanese word for "point"].
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Because they didn't translate it, they just wanted to write the English word in Japanese characters.
Posted by machf (Member # 1233) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Is that 2541 even genuine? What's the deal with the "cursor pass highlighting"? Who's the resident katakana expert?
This could explain the 2544 rego of the next close-upped TNG Excelsior, the Repulse (or her close-upped shuttle), of course... Since 2544 is solid canon, 2541 works just fine for me, too (even though it steps on Belknap toes...). And didn't we have some confusion about a 42296 close-up with the wrong name in DS9?
Timo Saloniemi
The picture certainly looks like someone erased the registry number.
Besides, both Hood and Repulse were named after British battlecruisers. If there were a Renown, it would complete the trio.
Where does 42296 come from: aired material, photographic evidence, or something reported by Okuda? I'd consider the priorities in that oreder...
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
In DS9's "Tears of the Prophets," a CGI Hood was labeled with the registry of the U.S.S. Lakota (NCC-42768).
Masaki: Where did that NCC-2541 pic come from? Is it authentic? Why has it never been mentioned before?
-MMoM Posted by Masaki (Member # 1030) on :
Hi MMoM!
The images from CultTVman's SF Modeling Forum in 2001. I was very surprised that the true registry number of USS Hood was NCC-2541.
I got permission to the writer of the thread, and put what emphasized the outline of original images on my site.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote: and the kimono is stuck the color and detail of the sensor for planets
hehehe. Where is the Kimono on the Excelsior? Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Well, I'd rather accept 42296 for the Hood. However, I would also accept 2541 as the Hood also, one that is a predecessor to 42296. Part of the batch of Excelsiors that included the Repulse.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Maybe it's an alternate registry like the Yamato?
Wasn't the Farpoint shot used for a lot of other stock shots of Excelsiors leaving - does that mean that they too are Excelsior type 1?
Posted by Masaki (Member # 1030) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR:
quote: and the kimono is stuck the color and detail of the sensor for planets
hehehe. Where is the Kimono on the Excelsior?
Better translation is ...
quote:It can be seen that some black vinyl tape or something have stuck to some places of a hull.
The kimono is hidden into the aztec patterns. Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Lousy computers. When will they learn?
About 20 minutes before they slaughter every human on the planet.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Nonsense! They'll love us as their parents and serve us faithfully and with respect...just as all children do.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
And 0.68 seconds later, they'll nuke us anyway.
Posted by seanr (Member # 277) on :
OK, hows about we get back to the refs I'm needing? Any and all available high-res photos of the studio model's saucer (Ent-B or Excelsior, but not Greg Jein's model) would be greatly appreciated.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: And 0.68 seconds later, they'll nuke us anyway.
Come on....would you ever want to nuke your parents?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
If I had a computer brain, sure. B)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I'll ask you again after Thanksgiving.
Posted by seanr (Member # 277) on :
*cough, cough*
quote:OK, hows about we get back to the refs I'm needing? Any and all available high-res photos of the studio model's saucer (Ent-B or Excelsior, but not Greg Jein's model) would be greatly appreciated.
LOL Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Well, Sean, I hate to say it but it seems like we've all pretty much exhausted out known sources for studio model pics. If what you're looking for isn't on one of those sites, it probably isn't on the internet. Sorry. Posted by seanr (Member # 277) on :
LOL. Paramount needs to provide more detailed and accurate reference material, then. Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Hey! The hood's an Excelsopr Pre-Fit! It still has the old bridge, impulse crystal and that odd dome at the aft.
I didint know that!
So the prototype style of Excelsior is still in service into the TNG era (and the Hood herself was built long after the Excelsior was refit for STVI) so that makes the prototype version a viable variant (not just a one-off that ws changed as tech was refined).
Cool- from my geeky starship modeler perspective.
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: Maybe it's an alternate registry like the Yamato?
Wasn't the Farpoint shot used for a lot of other stock shots of Excelsiors leaving - does that mean that they too are Excelsior type 1?
Well, one point to note in all of this is: Star Trek VI hadn't been made yet. Since the model would not have been too clear on 80's TV screens, I doubt they felt a need to detail the model any more.
The Excelsior was not "refit" at the time TNG started so I guess we have a winnah on the issue of the Hood being a "Pre-Fit"!
hmmmm......making a pre-fit (STIII Excelsior) out of the Generations Refit (Enterprise B)model is even more problematic than making the STVI version Excelsior from it!
Ug.
A modeler's work is never done.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
That picture was first published in the old Starlog Star Trek Magazine and the caption had something to do with them uncrating the Excelsior model to refurbish for a shot in TNG as the Hood. That explains the '86 on the hat.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Were the ends of the warp nacelles changed for ST VI? Or have they not put the tops back on in that picture?
Posted by seanr (Member # 277) on :
As far as I know, the nacelles did not change at all between ST III and ST VI. It looks to me like they removed the endcaps (probably to check the wiring or something) - the Excelsior has never appeared like that in any show or movie.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
No nacelle changes till Enterprise B shows up.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
The nacelle cap thing missing is just the area where they can remove a panel for lighting and wiring of the navigation lights.
Although the Enterprise-B has a fin on top, you can still see in THIS PICTURE the seam line where the removable panel is.
Posted by seanr (Member # 277) on :
Right, but that never appeared before Star Trek Generations, which is what all of us have already been saying. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Why the heck do you need this refrence again?
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
quote:Originally posted by seanr: Right, but that never appeared before Star Trek Generations, which is what all of us have already been saying.
The seam line for that removable panel was always there, yes, it's just that the behind the scenes photo was taken with that panel removed and think that it's a nacelle variation or some such thing. Just a removed panel.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Why the heck do you need this refrence again?
My guess is that he's building a 1:1 scale model and wants to be precise. Given the level of detail that is seemingly required about this not-too-significant bit of the ship, that's the only conclusion I can draw.
Posted by Captain Mike XLVII (Member # 709) on :
on 1:1 models: i built a 1:1 Constitution on my dad's property but the nacelles keep falling off.. one crushed the garage, and there are a lot of animals getting into deck 23 where the laundry processing area, antimatter storage, and bowling alley are. the whole thing is more trouble than its worth, man...
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
He's trying for force people to make super accurite 3d models Posted by seanr (Member # 277) on :
Boh, that's not exactly accurate. Yes, I dumped a load of refs on al3d, but it's his choice whether to fix the nits or not. My main gripe with him is he was contradicting me on a very obvious point, and he got me rather peeved. Had he said, "Yes, you're right, but I like it better this way," I'd have dropped it immediately, because at that point, it becomes a case of artistic license. But, when the refs scream one thing, and you insist claiming it is something completely to the contrary, that's just hard-headedness and deserves to be refuted.
That said, I am collecting refs primarily for my own project, the restart of which was inspired by his and overwhelmingly voted for by those who chose to vote in my thread. You can see my thread in the SFM 3D WIPs forum (haven't you replied to it?).
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
Note he still doesn't say what his project is I bet it is working 1:1 model and he just doesn't want to share.
I call dibs on OPS - I don't think that console blows up as much.
Posted by seanr (Member # 277) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I only trust the original artists who actually built the studio model to really truely get it all right. Everyone else is going to miss something.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)