40th Anniverssary Ships of the Line Calendar
Jack Bohn
answered a growing puzzlement I had looking at the illustrations
an noticing that it could be called with some justification the
SHIP of the Line calendar. It's the Enterprise, no bloody -A,
-B, -C, -D, -E, -J, *or* NX-, and of the TOS era, although two
pictures push up against the TMP refit, and two occur in a "What
If--" if not "Mirror" Universe and one occurs some unspecified
time before TOS (more on that below).
As familiar as you may be with the Constitution layout, these
pictures repay close study. In fact, I feel as if I should post
spoiler warnings.
.
.
.
We begin with the cover: the Enterprise approaching a base
station, with several "Woden-class" robot freighters in the
background. Nice. I can't help wishing they would have used the
"More Tribbles, More Troubles" drone freighter or the "Pirates of
Orion" crewed freighter from an angle where they would look good.
It would be a great advertisement for the Animated Series.
(Aren't they going to release TAS? They've run out of other
stuff to put on DVD.) I would guess this is not K-7, I can't see
any number on the hull, but we had plenty of views around it in
the original episode and that attention-grabbing planet would
have been noticed.
January gives us a Special Edition version of a scene from "The
Corbomite Maneuver". I really like the perspective on the
Enterprise here, it reminds me of the covers of James Blish's
books back in the '70s where the artist would paint an impression
of the Enterprise not quite like what we'd seen in the episodes.
That the artist here is able to do it using (presumably) a model
literal to its appearance in the series makes it even more
impressive.
February is a guest-shot, Romulan Birds-of-Prey in the skies over
the capital of Romulus. Reminds me of one theory that the bird
of prey painting began as a way to overawe primitive populations
of planets they conquered.
March has the Enterprise in front of some energy ribbon/space
anomaly... Wait... Oh, I see what it is, now! (Look under the
saucer, does it look like the registry number is ending "64"?)
April is an odd one: "Starfleet Proving Grounds" with an unnamed
NCC-1000 design. What is the canonical status of this ship? :>
How much older than the Constitution-class would you say this is,
by its looks alone, or taking into account the Bonaventure or
NX-01? Based on it having an NCC rather than an NX, I would say
the "Proving Grounds" are less similar to test-firing of
prototype missiles than to sea trials of the output of naval
shipyards before commissioning.
May has what appears to be a Special Edition scene from "The
Ultimate Computer". While the title, "This Unit Must Survive!"
makes it sound like it is occurring during the battle, this is
actually cleaning up in the aftermath of the episode, as seen by
all the 1701/2 shuttles buzzing about. I suppose the ships could
have limped or drifted together from the long ranges of the
battle, but it looks too crowded and the composition is too busy.
(Look at the ship *in front of* the debris in the lower right...
did the M-5 go back and destroy the base station from the
beginning of the episode?)
June shows us the end of the five year mission with the
Enterprise in drydock and our heroes leaving on the Galileo II
(you can almost see their faces in the window) between an honor
guard of travel pods. Lots of little details here, as the dock
and workbees are already working on the Enterprise in the
background. Two workbees are tucked under the hanger fantail, it
looks like the red-outlined square there has moved back; was that
a storage place for them? Although see the centerfold...
"Repairs on the Rim of Starlight" Something about this scene
and title makes me think this is what we didn't see in "Where No
Man Has Gone Before", a work platform orbiting the automated
cracking plant, and shuttlecraft pressed into service hauling
parts, although it could be from an unaired episode.
July is another guest-shot, one of the Farragut's shuttlecraft
flying through a canyon.
"It Would Have Been Glorious!" If the Organians hadn't
interfered and the Lexington hadn't been trashed by the
Federation three months back. One of the Klingon ships is of the
old "held together with spit and bailing wire" designs. The
other one is what we are supposed to accept the TOS battlecruiser
"really" looked like? I would prefer detailing a little subtler,
like the suggestion that the TOS E had slight aztecing from a
previous calendar.
September is another Special Edition, from "The Doomsday Machine"
October the Enterprise is further along in her refit, although I
haven't got out the calipers to see if they have added the
necessary diameter to the saucer. I'm not sure the new engines
need a four-nacelled Oberth variant to haul them around, it
depends on how far the had to move them, I guess. (Reminds me of
the time I compared a Franz Joseph Tug and Pod to the
Galaxy-class nacelle.) The new nacelle strut looks like it's
puttied on to the hull, have to smooth that out later. (Look for
the standard shuttlecraft variant proposed for the Vulcan long
range shuttle!)
November looks to be inspired by that alternate ending proposed
for ST:TMP. The saucer has separated in a desperate attempt to
battle the Klingons. I would place this event in an alternate
universe, but it could be an explanation why the E needed such
extensive drydock work... (nah, way too late for us to accept
that we had never been told about it before.)
December: Is it a painting, or playing with Photoshop filters?
As it's by John Eaves, I would guess the former.
Altogether another successful calendar. The unity of subject
matter is matched with a diversity of approach that actually
hints at the history of Star Trek production. John Eaves's
painting is reminiscent of a similar one he did of the E-E.
Several of the pictures adapt to the perspective and style of
TMP; not just the ones in drydock, but the cover as well. (Note
that the Enterprise isn't self-lit. Those beams come from the
proto-workbees.) I quite look forward to 2009, the 30th
anniversary of ST:TMP, and an all-refit era calendar
guest-starring Mirandas, Oberths, and Excelsiors. (Hmm... a rear
view with the long range shuttle docking... somehow framed
between the nacelles of its warp drive sled and those of the
Enterprise... have to play around to find the right
composition...)
--
-Jack
Joseph Nebus
>There's a small 40 in a Starfleet emblem on the back, which
>answered a growing puzzlement I had looking at the illustrations
>an noticing that it could be called with some justification the
>SHIP of the Line calendar. It's the Enterprise, no bloody -A,
>-B, -C, -D, -E, -J, *or* NX-, and of the TOS era, although two
>pictures push up against the TMP refit, and two occur in a "What
>If--" if not "Mirror" Universe and one occurs some unspecified
>time before TOS (more on that below).
Oh, my ... what a lovely little gift to Original Series fans,
that, then. Not that I dislike Modern Trek stuff, but there is this
special tug I feel from the Original Series, and it seems to be getting
stronger as time goes on. Much more of this and I'll have to dig out
my copy of Mr Scott's Guide to the Enterprise when I'm home for the
Christmas holiday.
>As familiar as you may be with the Constitution layout, these
>pictures repay close study. In fact, I feel as if I should post
>spoiler warnings.
>.
>.
>.
>(Aren't they going to release TAS? They've run out of other
>stuff to put on DVD.)
You'd think, wouldn't you? In fact, Amazon has put up a
placeholder for The Animated Series On DVD, so you can get notified
if its status changes, such as by starting to exist. The current
``Availability'' date is December 31, 1969, suggesting someone has
a 32-bit Unix system keeping track of the dates, and otherwise being
a rather nifty trick.
The reviewers have given it four and a half out of five stars.
>January gives us a Special Edition version of a scene from "The
>Corbomite Maneuver". I really like the perspective on the
>Enterprise here, it reminds me of the covers of James Blish's
>books back in the '70s where the artist would paint an impression
>of the Enterprise not quite like what we'd seen in the episodes.
I'm glad if they are getting into that sort of abstracted
style again. I miss those old-style and very atmospheric Blish
novelization covers.
>March has the Enterprise in front of some energy ribbon/space
>anomaly... Wait... Oh, I see what it is, now! (Look under the
>saucer, does it look like the registry number is ending "64"?)
Bah, sullied with apocryphia again ... ah well.
>April is an odd one: "Starfleet Proving Grounds" with an unnamed
>NCC-1000 design. What is the canonical status of this ship? :>
Can't wait.
>May has what appears to be a Special Edition scene from "The
>Ultimate Computer". While the title, "This Unit Must Survive!"
>makes it sound like it is occurring during the battle, this is
>actually cleaning up in the aftermath of the episode, as seen by
>all the 1701/2 shuttles buzzing about.
Hm ... you know, I can't think of a time the Original Series
did do an ``aftermath'' type episode. A few touched on the feelings
after the action, but mostly along the way to starting up a new round,
as in ``The Doomsday Machine''. Next time I'm in 1967 I'll have to
see about submitting a script where the battle is the start and the
putting of things back together is the focus.
>"Repairs on the Rim of Starlight" Something about this scene
>and title makes me think this is what we didn't see in "Where No
>Man Has Gone Before", a work platform orbiting the automated
>cracking plant, and shuttlecraft pressed into service hauling
>parts, although it could be from an unaired episode.
Man, they've really got the Original Series Tech Fandom in
mind this year, haven't they?
> (Reminds me of
>the time I compared a Franz Joseph Tug and Pod to the
>Galaxy-class nacelle.)
I'll bite -- how did they compare?
>November looks to be inspired by that alternate ending proposed
>for ST:TMP. The saucer has separated in a desperate attempt to
>battle the Klingons.
Oh, cool.
Not that I truck with such shallow things as big space battles
and stuff, mind.
> I would place this event in an alternate
>universe, but it could be an explanation why the E needed such
>extensive drydock work... (nah, way too late for us to accept
>that we had never been told about it before.)
Well, the intent was that reattaching the saucer would take
a starbase-grade work; certainly there's wide swaths of time which
are reasonable unaccounted for and as much as a year's worth of work
might be slipped in without really forcing any issue other than the
line of Gene Roddenberry's in the novelization of The Motion Picture
that Kirk's Enterprise was the first to come back from a Five-Year
Mission reasonably intact. But that was a hard line to quite justify
either.
But then after some sulking I was able to accept the idea of
the nacelle replacement from the Reeves-Stevens novel ``Prime
Directive''. Of course, ``The Paradise Syndrome'' already gave us a
big chunk of starbase-required repairs for the ship as-is.
I'll have to put it on the Christmas List, then buy it myself
because nobody ever believes me when I put calendars down on my
Christmas List. (My family *never* believes I want the things I say
I want, then sulks that I'm hard to shop for.)
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bohn
wrote:
>Jack Bohn <jack...@bright.net> writes:
>
>>March has the Enterprise in front of some energy ribbon/space
>>anomaly... Wait... Oh, I see what it is, now! (Look under the
>>saucer, does it look like the registry number is ending "64"?)
>
> Bah, sullied with apocryphia again ... ah well.
Sorry, I have a terrible head for numbers. I just had occasion
to see the Defiant again and I realized this is a case like all
the shuttles running around marked "1701/2, Gallileo" Someone
re-used the model for the Enterprise without "washing it off"
first.
>>"Repairs on the Rim of Starlight" Something about this scene
>>and title makes me think this is what we didn't see in "Where No
>>Man Has Gone Before", a work platform orbiting the automated
>>cracking plant, and shuttlecraft pressed into service hauling
>>parts, although it could be from an unaired episode.
>
> Man, they've really got the Original Series Tech Fandom in
>mind this year, haven't they?
Looking again, the long strip in the foreground may not be an
orbiting work platform... it may be the nearer nacelle stripped
of its cylindrical shell.
>> (Reminds me of
>>the time I compared a Franz Joseph Tug and Pod to the
>>Galaxy-class nacelle.)
>
> I'll bite -- how did they compare?
The GCS nacelle is a little longer, but flatter and not as wide.
I envision some type of adaptor collar to mate it to the towpad.
Of course, its mass of 615 * 10^3 metric tons surpasses the
heaviest Pod of 122 * 10^3, even considering the Tug can pull two
of them. (Perhaps if the power conduits through the towpad are
robust enough to power the nacelle?) (As an aside, would it be
possible the supply ship Lantree -that Miranda without a rollbar-
has mechanism to lower some panels in the aft of its primary hull
to form a towpad?)
> I'll have to put it on the Christmas List, then buy it myself
>because nobody ever believes me when I put calendars down on my
>Christmas List. (My family *never* believes I want the things I say
>I want, then sulks that I'm hard to shop for.)
Lucky me. My brother gave me last year's. I didn't have the
heart to tell him I already had one.
--
-Jack
DDAY
tore the shrink wrap off my copy and finally looked at the full artwork. My
comments are below.
----------
In article <b3t0n11ddi3uls5h0...@4ax.com>, Jack Bohn
<jack...@bright.net> wrote:
> We begin with the cover: the Enterprise approaching a base
> station, with several "Woden-class" robot freighters in the
> background. Nice. I can't help wishing they would have used the
This is a decent image, although I'm not thrilled with the composition. The
various starships and other craft seem to be somewhat randomly scattered
around the frame.
> January gives us a Special Edition version of a scene from "The
> Corbomite Maneuver". I really like the perspective on the
> Enterprise here, it reminds me of the covers of James Blish's
> books back in the '70s where the artist would paint an impression
> of the Enterprise not quite like what we'd seen in the episodes.
Agreed on your observation. It is an unusual angle reminiscent of the Blish
novelizations. Not bad.
> February is a guest-shot, Romulan Birds-of-Prey in the skies over
> the capital of Romulus. Reminds me of one theory that the bird
> of prey painting began as a way to overawe primitive populations
> of planets they conquered.
Also not a bad image, although too much of the city is in shadow, giving it
a late afternoon feel.
> March has the Enterprise in front of some energy ribbon/space
> anomaly... Wait... Oh, I see what it is, now! (Look under the
> saucer, does it look like the registry number is ending "64"?)
You completely missed this one. It's not en energy ribbon, it's a hand. In
fact, it's supposed to be a recreation of Apollo's hand from "Who Mourns for
Adonais?"
Also not a bad image, but like all of the ones in the catalog, the CG art
lacks detail. It doesn't look real enough.
> April is an odd one: "Starfleet Proving Grounds" with an unnamed
> NCC-1000 design. What is the canonical status of this ship? :>
> How much older than the Constitution-class would you say this is,
This is somewhat reminiscent of the really ugly light cruiser design that
they used for that role playing game a few years back. This one is not
nearly as ugly as that one, but it doesn't quite work. Putting that
cylinder through the primary hull like that makes the ship look like it has
a big nose.
This violates what I think should be the number one rule for Star Trek ship
design: it must look cool. And "cool" also includes elegance. This lacks
that. It is a rather uninspiring design.
> May has what appears to be a Special Edition scene from "The
> Ultimate Computer". While the title, "This Unit Must Survive!"
> makes it sound like it is occurring during the battle, this is
> actually cleaning up in the aftermath of the episode, as seen by
> all the 1701/2 shuttles buzzing about. I suppose the ships could
> have limped or drifted together from the long ranges of the
> battle, but it looks too crowded and the composition is too busy.
> (Look at the ship *in front of* the debris in the lower right...
> did the M-5 go back and destroy the base station from the
> beginning of the episode?)
This is an absolutely awful composition. The giant girders make no sense
aty all, and the perspective is terrible. For instance, note that for the
ship in the upper left corner the girders are in front of the ship and
approximately the same size. Since they are closer to us, we presume that
they must actually be _smaller_ than the ship, but appear the same size
because of their closeness.
But then look at the ship in the lower right. Similar girders are behind
it, but are much _larger_ than it. This means that those girders--of the
same design as the other ones--must actually be massive. They are much
farther away, but appear much bigger, so they must be giant.
None of that makes any sense. It's horrid. And you're right that it is too
busy.
> June shows us the end of the five year mission with the
> Enterprise in drydock and our heroes leaving on the Galileo II
> (you can almost see their faces in the window) between an honor
> guard of travel pods. Lots of little details here, as the dock
> and workbees are already working on the Enterprise in the
> background. Two workbees are tucked under the hanger fantail, it
> looks like the red-outlined square there has moved back; was that
> a storage place for them? Although see the centerfold...
This is a pretty nice image, one of the best. I think that the only thing
that mars it is the two lines of travel pods. The perspective is all wrong.
In fact, that is my complaint with a number of the images--really lousy
perspective.
> "Repairs on the Rim of Starlight" Something about this scene
> and title makes me think this is what we didn't see in "Where No
> Man Has Gone Before", a work platform orbiting the automated
> cracking plant, and shuttlecraft pressed into service hauling
> parts, although it could be from an unaired episode.
No, the platform in the foreground is clearly the cylindrical nacelle with
the skin stripped off.
I'm not fond of this one, although it was an interesting try. Look at the
raised ridge on the saucer running forward between the two impulse engines.
The perspective there is not right.
> July is another guest-shot, one of the Farragut's shuttlecraft
> flying through a canyon.
A lousy image. The canyon is all blurry and poorly lit. Looks like they're
flying through an underground sewer.
> "It Would Have Been Glorious!" If the Organians hadn't
> interfered and the Lexington hadn't been trashed by the
> Federation three months back. One of the Klingon ships is of the
> old "held together with spit and bailing wire" designs. The
> other one is what we are supposed to accept the TOS battlecruiser
> "really" looked like? I would prefer detailing a little subtler,
> like the suggestion that the TOS E had slight aztecing from a
> previous calendar.
This is a neat image, although the composition is a little off. Why are the
Enterprise and Lexington pointing in different directions? They would have
to be coming in to attack separately.
The two cruisers you mention are K'T'inga designs from TMP.
> September is another Special Edition, from "The Doomsday Machine"
The perspective on this is all wrong. But it's the Constellation getting
blasted.
> October the Enterprise is further along in her refit, although I
> haven't got out the calipers to see if they have added the
> necessary diameter to the saucer. I'm not sure the new engines
> Galaxy-class nacelle.) The new nacelle strut looks like it's
> puttied on to the hull, have to smooth that out later. (Look for
> the standard shuttlecraft variant proposed for the Vulcan long
> range shuttle!)
Yeah, the connection point there doesn't work
> November looks to be inspired by that alternate ending proposed
> for ST:TMP. The saucer has separated in a desperate attempt to
Terrible perspective. Look at the fronts of the two nacelles and the
connecting neck of the ship. They don't hang at the proper angles to each
other.
> December: Is it a painting, or playing with Photoshop filters?
> As it's by John Eaves, I would guess the former.
Actually, I believe that somebody did a painting similar to this back around
the time of TMP. My suspicion is that this one was inspired by that one.
> Altogether another successful calendar. The unity of subject
> matter is matched with a diversity of approach that actually
> hints at the history of Star Trek production. John Eaves's
I'm happier with the subject matter than with the actual implementation.
The perspective is off for a number of these images, and if you look at them
closely you realize that the nacelles, pylons, etc. would not really look
that way if you were looking at them from that spot outside the ship.
Perspective is really difficult for artists, of course, and they messed up
on a few of these. Generally they are more successful when they back away
from the ship and show it from the sides. Push in too close with the
nacelles and pylons filling the frame and they mess up.
D
Jack Bohn
>This post was made back on November 8, over three months ago. But I just
>tore the shrink wrap off my copy and finally looked at the full artwork. My
>comments are below.
Hooray! More discussion!
>In article <b3t0n11ddi3uls5h0...@4ax.com>, Jack Bohn
><jack...@bright.net> wrote:
>
>> March has the Enterprise in front of some energy ribbon/space
>> anomaly... Wait... Oh, I see what it is, now! (Look under the
>> saucer, does it look like the registry number is ending "64"?)
>
>You completely missed this one. It's not en energy ribbon, it's a hand. In
>fact, it's supposed to be a recreation of Apollo's hand from "Who Mourns for
>Adonais?"
Well, my version of spoiler space. It took me a while to get it,
and I wanted others to have the "Wait... Oh, I see what it is,
now!" experience. Still waiting for someone to point out that
the energy swirls around the hand are strings of Greek text;
well, strings of Greek letters, anyway. I don't know enough to
tell if they hang together into Greek words, or if the words hang
together into Greek phrases.
--
-Jack
Phillip Thorne
>This post was made back on November 8, over three months ago.
>But I just tore the shrink wrap off my copy and finally looked
>at the full artwork.
I myself just bought a copy at half-price from my local "More
calendars than you'd possibly need" mall kiosk. My own comments will
follow later, but here's a point, probably an important one: all the
pictures were done by different CG artists, and not ones whose names
we've seen in the TV credits. (The name and title are on every month,
but in random corners.)
Jack Bohn wrote, long ago:
>>> April is an odd one: "Starfleet Proving Grounds" with an unnamed
>>> NCC-1000 design. What is the canonical status of this ship? :>
Me, I'm more puzzled about the UFP-looking space station with the
crackling violet arc running down its axis. Why?
"DDAY" <DD...@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>>This violates what I think should be the number one rule for Star Trek ship
>>design: it must look cool. And "cool" also includes elegance. This lacks
>>that. It is a rather uninspiring design.
Possibly an ideal rule, but just how many on-screen ships fail it?
Especially once VGR went all-CG and we started getting greebles and
odd shapes out the wazoo. (E.g. IMHO, the Hirogen ships are lousy.)
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Steve Hall <sha...@canada.com> wrote:
>[...] I think it was supposed to be a transitional design between
>the NX class and the Connie. Saucer only -> Saucer with embedded
>cylinder -> Saucerand separate cylinder.
That's my take, too. Consider this "NCC-1000" as an intermediate
morph between the two shapes:
* The saucer-mounted deflector dish has grown circular, but still has
a blue deflector-ish glow behind it.
* There are window notches in the upper curve of the hull.
* The split aft hull and suspended pod-thingy have fused together.
* The nacelle shapes are intermediate.
Eventually the bulge that intersects the cylinder will migrate back
and down, growing the neck dorsal.
/- Phillip Thorne ----------- The Non-Sequitur Express --------------------\
| org underbase ta thorne www.underbase.org It's the boundary |
| net comcast ta pethorne site, newsletter, blog conditions that |
\------------------------------------------------------- get you ----------/
DDAY
In article <229ns1pcp0tketbi7...@4ax.com>, Steve Hall
<sha...@canada.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure if either of those was the artist's intention. I think
> it was supposed to be a transitional design between the NX class and
> the Connie. Saucer only -> Saucer with embedded cylinder -> Saucer
> and separate cylinder.
Yes, it is surely intended to be a transitional design. It's okay, but not
good. The deflector really does look like a nose. When they designed the
NX-01, they wisely de-emphasized the deflector dish.
The reason that the original 1701 design worked so well was because of those
nacelles and pylons, which gave it a vague birdlike shape.
D
DDAY
In article <fvoos19eo7ab6ebak...@4ax.com>, Phillip Thorne
<tho...@underbase.org> wrote:
> I myself just bought a copy at half-price from my local "More
> calendars than you'd possibly need" mall kiosk. My own comments will
I bought it full price because I was not sure it would still be there when
the prices dropped after Jan 1. I always end up buying more calendars than
I need. I think I now have five.
But this one is not a practical calendar. You cannot hang it. I don't have
the wall space at work or home to hang a horizontal calendar that big. And
you have to poke two holes in the wall, and remove both hooks when you
change the month. Frankly, I'd pay full price for this thing as a nice set
of (unfolded) prints.
> follow later, but here's a point, probably an important one: all the
> pictures were done by different CG artists, and not ones whose names
> we've seen in the TV credits. (The name and title are on every month,
> but in random corners.)
I noticed that. However, it is clear that they are all using the same
software. I'm not a graphic artist, but they're all starting from the same
3D model of the ship. It lacks a certain amount of realism and detail that
hurts the images.
> Me, I'm more puzzled about the UFP-looking space station with the
> crackling violet arc running down its axis. Why?
Yeah, that just looks silly.
> Possibly an ideal rule, but just how many on-screen ships fail it?
> Especially once VGR went all-CG and we started getting greebles and
> odd shapes out the wazoo. (E.g. IMHO, the Hirogen ships are lousy.)
Xactly.
Of course, it is all in the eye of the beholder. There are plenty of
14-year-old boys who think that "cool" means sticking gun turrets on a
saucer shape.
Of all the fan designs for Federation ships over the years, I think only a
few dozen at most fit my definition of "cool" and "elegant." Some of these
are not significant variations on the basic Enterprise design. For
instance, the Starstation Aurora designs, such as the Belknap, are high on
my list. A few of the old FASA designs such as the Chandley also are quite
nice.
Trek itself has done better in the movies than TV. The TMP Enterprise is my
favorite. And of course the Reliant was a nice variation. But I also like
the 1701-E.
D
Jack Bohn
>I'm happier with the subject matter than with the actual implementation.
>The perspective is off for a number of these images, and if you look at them
>closely you realize that the nacelles, pylons, etc. would not really look
>that way if you were looking at them from that spot outside the ship.
How can that be? I'm under the impression that they are (with
the possible exception of December's) made from computer models,
which are the 2nd closest thing to putting a camera at a spot
outside the ship. I agree that November's "Double the Odds" the
starboard nacelle and strut don't look like they belong there,
but I can't quite be convinced I'm not wrong about that. (Did
the artist, Sean Scott, having disassembled the ship for the
saucer, also take off the nacelle and move it around just to make
sure we knew it was still there?)
Ah! That gives me an insight on "This Unit Must Survive!"
Likely the artist (Koji Kuramura) did not set them up in a
kilometers-wide scene (as would be my first instinct), but
rendered each ship with its different name and orientation, then
cut-and-pasted the images, shrinking them to the size he felt
necessary (and slipping on the debris he added).
>Perspective is really difficult for artists, of course, and they messed up
>on a few of these. Generally they are more successful when they back away
>from the ship and show it from the sides. Push in too close with the
>nacelles and pylons filling the frame and they mess up.
Again, are you saying the perspective is wrong objectively, or
artistically? I could agree with the latter. I remember a photo
from before the release of ST:TMP that showed the new Enterprise
and really tried the push the size of the ship. The perspective
looked wrong to me -- even if it was technically correct, it was
not flattering.
--
-Jack
Jack Bohn
>"DDAY" <DD...@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>>>This violates what I think should be the number one rule for Star Trek ship
>>>design: it must look cool. And "cool" also includes elegance. This lacks
>>>that. It is a rather uninspiring design.
>
>Possibly an ideal rule, but just how many on-screen ships fail it?
>Especially once VGR went all-CG and we started getting greebles and
>odd shapes out the wazoo. (E.g. IMHO, the Hirogen ships are lousy.)
Speaking of the Hirogen, I liked Rick Sternbach's design better
than the CG-model (perhaps I should have bid on it on e-Bay...)
Perhaps it was the clarity of a drawing vs a lit and filmed
object, or smoother lines of the drawing; the center of the
Hirogen design was a sphere, but in the model it got faceted (and
was flattened, for some reason).
--
-Jack
DDAY
In article <3ghps1tv906l3ppla...@4ax.com>, Jack Bohn
<jack...@bright.net> wrote:
> How can that be? I'm under the impression that they are (with
> the possible exception of December's) made from computer models,
> which are the 2nd closest thing to putting a camera at a spot
> outside the ship. I agree that November's "Double the Odds" the
I'm not sure that this is totally correct. As I understand it, having the
3D model is only one step. The artist also has to do other things like pick
a "lens" to view the image, and select a light source, distance, etc. In
other words, he can have a 3D model floating on the screen, but then could
select a fisheye lens that distorts it.
This probably becomes important when you move in close to the model. If you
know anything about photography, you know that if you use a low power lens
(like a 20mm) and take a picture of a building, the lines will actually bend
because of the curvature of the lens. I imagine that if you move the
perspective in on the 3D model, then you have to pick a proper "lens" in the
software to view it. In fact, this is where some of the stuff looked weird
to me--when they got in so close that the nacelles were only in a part of
the frame, it did not look right. I suspect that this is because the artist
had problems with adjusting the perspective.
> Ah! That gives me an insight on "This Unit Must Survive!"
> Likely the artist (Koji Kuramura) did not set them up in a
> kilometers-wide scene (as would be my first instinct), but
> rendered each ship with its different name and orientation, then
> cut-and-pasted the images, shrinking them to the size he felt
> necessary (and slipping on the debris he added).
As I understand it, one of the things that they will do is take a 3D image
and paste it against a 2D background. If it is not done right, it looks
fake.
> Again, are you saying the perspective is wrong objectively, or
> artistically? I could agree with the latter. I remember a photo
Objectively.
D