Boris,

Well.. your making me think. This was a long time ago, about 4 years or so since I have touched the Defiant model. I am afraid that my information will not be %100 accurate either.. but here goes:

1) How long is the physical miniature of the Defiant?

I'd be guessing.. but the model I used as reference was around 3' long.. this is just a guess, I never actually measured it. We went to ImageG where they do the motion control on the model and we took stills of the model, top, bottom, side, front, back. We built the model right off of those stills. There were no blue prints if I remember correctly.. even if there were, we still would have built off of the pictures.

I know we had blueprints of the Runabout and the real model deviated quite a bit from the blueprints. Since we had to match the real model, it's safer to build right off the pictures.. also that way we can use the same pictures for our textures.

2) Were you given any information on the ship's scale/size to use in compositing, and if so, by whom specifically?

In most of the shots there really isn't any way to judge scale, so it wasn't an issue. I know that it was described that it was a smaller ship.. if you look at the size of the cockpit and see the set that they built for the interior you can sort of judge the size. Also there is a docking shot with the DS9 Station that gives some idea. I don't know the size specifically. Differnt shows had different FX supervisors.. don't remeber which one guided us on the Defiant..

3) Are there any differences whatsoever in the details or proportions between the original miniature and the CGI model?

Yup.. there are probably lots of differences since we didn't have blueprints and we were building off images. That introduces all sorts of distortion of the data.. lens perspective.. correlating several images together.. so on. I think the method was defiantly good enough to capture the general dimensions and feel of the ship. Some of the detail we didn't build and left to bump mapping and texture. For areas that the images didn't give us we had to guess a bit.. mostly that was for parts of the ship that you don't really see very well anyway.

I don't know if there was a blueprint that definitively said what the sizes are.. if so all of the models built, cg or otherwise, probably had fudge factors in the building of them. That might account for the discrepancies.

4) Is yours the Defiant CGI model used for the rest of the show, or are you aware or any others in existence?

I am not aware of any other CG Defiants. That's not to say there aren't any. We haven't done any DS9 work in a long time. The models are owned by Paramount.. so we have sent the model off to other production houses in the past. I know that we sent it off to ILM for one of the movies (I think it's in an opening sequence fighting a Brog ship?).. I am not a StarTrek buff myself.. so I can't remember the name of that movie. I don't know whether they used our model and texture directly, or maybe they modified it.. or maybe re-built it.. don't know. It's a pretty good model so at most I think they probably modified it if they needed to.

That's about all I can give you.. guess it's just more vague info to though in the mix.

-Daniel

------------------
"Wrong again. Although we want to be scientifically accurate, we've found that selection of [Photon Energy Plasma Scientifically Inaccurate as a major Star Trek format error] usually indicates a preoccupation with science and gadgetry over people and story."

---a Writers' Test from the Original Series Writer's Guide

My god!

I cannot prove it yet, but my intuition at the moment is that the Fact Files/STMAG/AMT Model version of the blueprints is based on the CGI model, while Doug Drexler's drawings are based on the miniature. The difference between the two is the width, among other things. At 560 feet, the width of the Doug Drexler version is 440 feet, while that of the Mag version is only 380 feet.

------------------
"Wrong again. Although we want to be scientifically accurate, we've found that selection of [Photon Energy Plasma Scientifically Inaccurate as a major Star Trek format error] usually indicates a preoccupation with science and gadgetry over people and story."

---a Writers' Test from the Original Series Writer's Guide

I'd be surprised if the AMT/FF schematics are based on anything from the show. For one thing, the AMT model's nose doesn't hang nearly far enough down.

Boris

------------------
"Wrong again. Although we want to be scientifically accurate, we've found that selection of [Photon Energy Plasma Scientifically Inaccurate as a major Star Trek format error] usually indicates a preoccupation with science and gadgetry over people and story."

---a Writers' Test from the Original Series Writer's Guide

Boris

------------------
"Wrong again. Although we want to be scientifically accurate, we've found that selection of [Photon Energy Plasma Scientifically Inaccurate as a major Star Trek format error] usually indicates a preoccupation with science and gadgetry over people and story."

---a Writers' Test from the Original Series Writer's Guide

Oh, I've seen the Valiant CGI (or whatever it is) renamed and reregistered as the Defiant NX-74205. There are small pictures of this in the Starlog Yearbook Vol 17.

Yes, the model has to be destroyed if the explosion is to be done via motion control. There was a TV special recently, which among others showed the filming of the Saratoga explosion at Wolf 359. Rob Legato and his team successively exploded three Miranda miniatures, before deciding that the third explosion looked good.

Boris

------------------
"Wrong again. Although we want to be scientifically accurate, we've found that selection of [Photon Energy Plasma Scientifically Inaccurate as a major Star Trek format error] usually indicates a preoccupation with science and gadgetry over people and story."

---a Writers' Test from the Original Series Writer's Guide

Do you know how they destroyed the Melbourne in "Emissary"? I'm thinking they wouldn't dare damage the ILM Excelsior model.

Oh yeah, this Valiant model being used for the Defiant would also explain why the Defiant had the NCC-74210 rego in "TotP". They probably altered the big rego on the nacelle sides but neglected to change the small nose rego.
------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets)
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK

Now, we can be pretty certain that the VFX crew pulled out a Valiant model and renamed it Defiant for TOTP because they couldn't use the usual model for some reason. Now, there are two possibilities as far as the type of the model is concerned:

1) They couldn't access the Defiant CGI model, and the only one available was the Valiant CGI model. In order for this to happen, the CGI model would have to be stored in a limited number of computers, with no copies made.

2) They couldn't access the Defiant physical model (for any number of physical reasons, damage, what you will), and the only one available was a leftover from the Valiant explosion shooting. They modified the lettering but forgot about the registry, or left it there, figuring nobody would notice.

Number 2 seems more likely because of the relative ease of damaging or losing a physical model, compared to a computer file. Of course, the only person I know who could answer this question (as well as the Valiant model situation) conclusively would be David Stipes. I think I'll send him an e-mail on the subject.

Boris

------------------
"Wrong again. Although we want to be scientifically accurate, we've found that selection of [Photon Energy Plasma Scientifically Inaccurate as a major Star Trek format error] usually indicates a preoccupation with science and gadgetry over people and story."

---a Writers' Test from the Original Series Writer's Guide

Well as far as I can recall they constructed 3 new models and blew them all up (as I recall the 3 one was going to be the last one alway, because that was the last one they had). Errr I don't know about the ILM Excelsor model. Hey does anyone recall exactly when DS9 switched to Foundation.

Finally I thought the way stuff was done now is that there is only one real model and all explotions and stuff are done one CGI, cuz models are expensive and can only be blown up once while CGI you can blow it up again and again...

------------------
HMS White Star (your local friendly agent of Chaos and a d*mn lucky b*st*rd:-) )