Galaxy array element count

40 views
Skip to first unread message

Graham Kennedy

unread,
Nov 3, 2002, 7:39:15 AM11/3/02
to

I seem to recall somebody saying that there was a shot of the E-D
in Generations that allowed you to count the number of elements
in one of the arrays. I've been looking through the movie but every
closeup of the array I can find makes it look completely smooth,
at least to my capture software.

The only shot I can get that even hints at elements is from right
after the saucer section crashlands on the planet, and the camera
begins to pan up to show the trail they left as they landed. And I
can't really tell if those are divisions between elements or just
fuzziness of the video.

Does anybody have an image that shows this at better quality?
I'm thinking of somebody with a DVD perhaps. If anyone has an
image of the array in closeup that would be great, but even
just confirmation of roughly how many elements appear to be there
would be helpful.

Thanks in advance...

--
Graham Kennedy

Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org

Mike Dicenso

unread,
Nov 3, 2002, 9:38:47 AM11/3/02
to

On Sun, 3 Nov 2002, Graham Kennedy wrote:

>
> I seem to recall somebody saying that there was a shot of the E-D
> in Generations that allowed you to count the number of elements
> in one of the arrays. I've been looking through the movie but every
> closeup of the array I can find makes it look completely smooth,
> at least to my capture software.

That was me. And I suspect the reason you're having so much trouble seeing
the segment divisions is because you're viewing in the widescreen format
and not the pan-and-scan version. The wide screen format tends to reduce
the size of the image in order to fit it onto the TV screen, even HDTVs
still aren't up to snuff quite with regards to showing the full movie
quality resolution. More below...

> The only shot I can get that even hints at elements is from right after
> the saucer section crashlands on the planet, and the camera begins to
> pan up to show the trail they left as they landed. And I can't really
> tell if those are divisions between elements or just fuzziness of the
> video.
>
> Does anybody have an image that shows this at better quality?
> I'm thinking of somebody with a DVD perhaps. If anyone has an
> image of the array in closeup that would be great, but even
> just confirmation of roughly how many elements appear to be there
> would be helpful.

I think you're looking in all the wrong places; the best shot of the
saucer array segments is to be found after the KIrk-Picard-Soren fight in
the end when we see all the shuttles stitting on the saucer hull. I have a
high-resolution picture of the the shot in Cinefex #61, page 75. You can
easily count enough of the emitter segments to get a pretty good idea of
the overall density, which as I've noted in previous phaser discussions
falls around 600, and not 200 as per the TNG TM.

Another good source to look at is the IDIC webpage, which has several good
close-up still pics of the original 4 and 6 foot models. You can much more
plainly see that there is a larger number of emitters than there should
be, if there was supposed to be only 200.
-Mike

Graham Kennedy

unread,
Nov 3, 2002, 11:31:05 AM11/3/02
to

Actually I tried that shot first, and I did use the pan and scan;
I still couldn't see the divisions, VHS just doesn't give enough
resolution.

> I have a
> high-resolution picture of the the shot in Cinefex #61, page 75. You can
> easily count enough of the emitter segments to get a pretty good idea of
> the overall density, which as I've noted in previous phaser discussions
> falls around 600, and not 200 as per the TNG TM.

I thought so. Do you have a scan of that high resolution picture
I could have?

>
> Another good source to look at is the IDIC webpage, which has several good
> close-up still pics of the original 4 and 6 foot models. You can much more
> plainly see that there is a larger number of emitters than there should
> be, if there was supposed to be only 200.

I found a pretty good pic there, though I'd still like to see that
still if you have it.

Graham Kennedy

unread,
Nov 3, 2002, 12:49:13 PM11/3/02
to

Okay, using the last image on this page :

http://members.aol.com/IDICPage/1701D.html

I drew radial lines out from the outer edges of the N and the
last C of "NCC" out to the array. According to a scale diagram
this stretch of array is 53 metres long.

My count of the elements in that stretch is 62.

Therefore, each element is 0.8548 metres long.

My measure of the entire upper array is 798 metres,
so by my count this array should have 933 elements
in it.

Other arrays :


Array Length Elements

Main Dorsal Saucer (1) 798 m 933
Small Dorsal Saucer (2) 20 m 23
Small Dorsal Engineering (2) 16 m 18
Small Ventral Engineering (2) 16 m 18
Lateral Pylon (2) 40 m 46
Main Ventral Engineering (1) 92 m 107
Ventral Saucer (1) 630 m 737
Dorsal neck (1) 140 m 163

Total, all arrays 1,844 m 2,045

The main ventral engineering and dorsal neck have a degree
of uncertainty in the measurement because I had to estimate
how much curvature of the hull added to the former and
completely guess the length of the latter.

Graham Kennedy

unread,
Nov 3, 2002, 1:01:28 PM11/3/02
to
Graham Kennedy wrote:
>
> Total, all arrays 1,844 m 2,045

^^^^^
Whoops, this should read 2150

Mike Dicenso

unread,
Nov 3, 2002, 1:57:54 PM11/3/02
to

On Sun, 3 Nov 2002, Graham Kennedy wrote:

>
> Actually I tried that shot first, and I did use the pan and scan;
> I still couldn't see the divisions, VHS just doesn't give enough
> resolution.

That's very odd. I just checked my pan-and-scan VHS copy, and the emitter
divisions are plainly there, though the scene does tend to blur them a bit
as the camera does a pan across the saucer.

> > I have a high-resolution picture of the the shot in Cinefex #61, page
> > 75. You can easily count enough of the emitter segments to get a
> > pretty good idea of the overall density, which as I've noted in
> > previous phaser discussions falls around 600, and not 200 as per the
> > TNG TM.
>
> I thought so. Do you have a scan of that high resolution picture
> I could have?

I've tried photcopying the page as well as doing scans, and it tends to
"wash out" the emitter segment detail. I'll see if I can get a better scan
from a friend of mine who has a better scanner. But my last estimate using
the scene as a reference gave me about 600-1000 emitters for the upper
dorsal, and a low end number of around 500.

> > Another good source to look at is the IDIC webpage, which has several
> > good close-up still pics of the original 4 and 6 foot models. You can
> > much more plainly see that there is a larger number of emitters than
> > there should be, if there was supposed to be only 200.
>
> I found a pretty good pic there, though I'd still like to see that
> still if you have it.

I'll see what I can come up with.
-Mike

Mike Dicenso

unread,
Nov 5, 2002, 7:09:48 PM11/5/02
to

On Sun, 3 Nov 2002, Graham Kennedy wrote:


I actually took a different turn than you did. I estimated the length of
each array by doing direct measurements off of my 1/2500th scale E-D model
using a nifty bendable ruler which can mold itself to the shape of the
array and supporting hull. Thus I got the following Measurements for all
the arrays, excepting the dorsal one:

Array Length Emitters
---- ------ -------

Upper Main Saucer............... 825.46m ...... 965
Lower Main Saucer............... 635m ......... 742
Small aft Saucer (2)............ 25m .......... 29
Ventral Engineering............. 91m .......... 106
Pylon Arrays (2)................ 41m .......... 48
Aft bottom Engineering (2)...... 22.22m........ 26
Aft Engineering Top (2)......... 22.22m ....... 26
Dorsal array ................... ? ............ ?

As you can see, the numbers come up fairly close to yours, and result in a
slightly higher overall number of emitter elements. If we add in the
Dorsal array it winds up making a total of 2,182 emitter elements.
-Mike

Graham Kennedy

unread,
Nov 6, 2002, 6:26:29 AM11/6/02
to

Since both estimates are within about 5% using different methods,
that's a pretty good confirmation that the numbers are correct.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages