Actually, I prefer almost an opposite approach: Spray the
inner surface a clear, or even opaque, color. And then
*dullcoat* the outer surface. This gives it a pseudo
"soft focus" look; similar to the red spinning nacelle caps
on the TOS Enterprise.
Registered Linux User #328317 - SlackWare 10.1 (2.6.10)
Just caught an interesting hint on a modeler's website recently.
(sorry, no link, it'd buried in my bookmarks! )
His suggestion was to spray the inside surface white (if not lighting
the nacelle) in order to "reflect" the chosen outside color more.
I may try it, soon.
For the TOS Enterprise, I've preferred painting the bussard collectors
copper, then covering that with Tamyia Clear Red. You can see my
1/1400 Enterprise in CultTVMan's gallery.
Also just recently encountered (again, for TOS) a vendor at
www.federationmodels.com (Accurate Parts) who sells clear red resin
bussard collectors for the 22" and 18" Enterprises. I just picked up
the 22" domes from them, and not only are they gorgeous, they're a
perfect fit. In fact, I'm tempted to add some lighting in this version
after all, they're so nice... :)
I do have the Polar Lights 1/1000 on the shelf, but I haven't decided
how to paint the clear bussard collectors on that kit. Maybe I'll just
try to reproduce that lovely ruby-red.
On a similar note, I've seen several TOS build-ups where not only the
main sensor dish is copper, but the inner rings of the housing as
well. Can anyone point to original show screencaps which show that?
Not arguing, but I don't remember that. As if that's proof. Heh.
Looks nice, though.
On Sun, 01 May 2005 18:07:29 GMT, Greg Heilers
It's difficult to get a screencap that shows the rings clearly enough to
identify the color. They're usually in shadow, the sensor dish is usually
in the way, and the film was too grainy.
The book "Star Trek Mechanics - Official Guide 4" has an old promotional
photo of the 3' studio miniature which shows the sensor dish and rings very
clearly; they're a bright metallic copper. Unfortunately it's a Japanese
book and currently out of print, so it's difficult to find. The same photo
has appeared elsewhere, but I don't recall any specific books.
The same book also has a bunch of closeup photos of the 11' studio
miniature, probably taken in the past 10 years. They show that the rings
are metallic copper. You can find scans of those photos at
(Those photos were taken sometime after the miniature's latest restoration
in the 1990's, so I don't entirely trust it as a color reference.)
I also have an old ST poster magazine from 1977 with an article about the
11' studio miniature. It quotes a 1974 letter from the Smithsonian
describing some of the restoration work that needed to be done on the
miniature after it arrived at the museum, including:
|| fabricate and install missing "dish and spike" on "main sensor" [...]
|| Both dish and spike are painted bronze approximating existing paint on
|| main sensor."
I don't trust the Smithsonian paint job, due to the various creative
"adjustments" they've made over the years. Take the recent (and
hideous) weathered grid markings the model now carries. Horrible!
By odd coincidence, I did encounter what I believe to be the same
photos you refer to, recently.
And, sure enough, the rings are copper!
Mystery solved. :)
When I went back to verify I had the correct link above, I found out
that www.cloudster.com also includes many photos of actual vehicles
(Apollo & the Shuttle) as well as other movies and shows, including
Gerry Anderson and George Pal works. It's a nice site.
On Mon, 02 May 2005 17:26:24 GMT, "Wayne C. Morris"
Please note that those are all shots of Greg Jein's 5.5' model built
for DS9, hence not the original 11' model. :)
But, as I commented elsewhere, there are some shots of the original
3-footer which show the copper rings behind the sensor dish.
On Mon, 2 May 2005 18:36:48 -0400, "The Model Hobbit"
Yep, like I said, I don't entirely trust it as a color reference.
Some old "behind the scenes" photos taken under normal lighting conditions
do show a hint of a grid pattern on the saucer, but just a hint. I think
the current paint job is a gross exaggeration of what was originally there.
A little darker and with more scratches, but yes, it's the same photo.
The current Smithsonian scheme may be a bit exaggerated, but I feel it is
representative of the final touches made on the studio model. However,
during the run of the original series, very few opportunities were made to
use footage of this "update", it seems. I have seen a (very) few shots
from third season episodes that feature such weathering, but as in earlier
episodes, most footage is older "stock footage". Remember, for the most
part, the SFX outfit did *not* photograph the model(s) episode by
episode....but instead did a few marathon sessions, filming a ton of
footage...from which the editors then grabbed what they wanted.
Also, the colorful markings on the underside of the secondary hull,
although accurate for some of the later updates to the studio model(s),
are rarely (if ever) visible in any of the episode shots.
Also, keep in mind, that just like when we want to photograph our *own*
models for "professional" publication...the paint job on studio models
needs to be exaggerated, in order for such touches to even show up
on screen, or on a photograph. Especially when dealing with SFX art at
the time, where each step in the process suffered great degradation. Look
at Shep Paine's work. Gorgeous in photos, but (intentionally) exaggerated
"in the flesh".
So, just because the current Smithsonian paint job does not seem to
match what *appears* on the TV screen...does not necessarily mean that
it is inaccurate.
Registered Linux user #328317 - SlackWare 10.1 (2.6.10)
After reading up on the topic, and personal experience, very much
agreed! My most recent 18" TOS model is (relatively) dark grey when
viewed normally, and is somewhat close to the colors suggested in the
CultTVMan article. On the other hand, it doesn't look anything like
what we've seen on tv! Then my old theatre lighting experiences came
back, and I remembered how lighting can really change the appearance
So do you paint for the final product, or follow the studio coloring?
I've seen some pretty garish starship paint jobs which might actually
look respectable under studio fresnels. If they still use fresnels
these days. :)
But, since I don't have several million candlepower in the apartment,
I've decided to paint as what's seen on screen; TV, film, whatever.
Hence the current Smithsonian scheme would be useful for weathering
ideas, but not as an actual template. That's my story, and I'm
stickin' to it!
On Mon, 02 May 2005 23:35:11 GMT, Greg Heilers
Like any other genre in our hobby...it is usually a "damned if you don't,
damned if you do" thing. Do you paint for what looks "right" under your
workspace lighting?...or for what looks "right" under the anticipated
display conditions: display case, (usually less than adequate) show
lighting, etc.? There is really no right or wrong answer, but it is
something to take into consideration.
I like to take into consideration the display conditions, since, as a
"figure guy", goofy fleshtones are not so forgiving...lol.
Registered Linux User #328317 - SlackWare 10.1 (2.6.10)
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.