Building The Death Star - PRODUCTION

[robn1]

I know it's a lot of work, but I think it's best to do it yourself to keep a constant style. And though there are some vertical window groups visible, the horizontals are much more prominent. Plus the horizontals help to suggest "levels".

As for the size of windows, there are shots that show different sizes. But the larger ones are most likely because of the light blooming through the holes. The smaller ones are more representative of what was there. Use the smallest bits to start with, much easier to adjust that way if necessary.

 

[vaderdarth]

Do it yourself Rob, the tinier the holes, the larger the scale.

 

[PHArchivist]

By the way - here is an updated look at the dish, now that I have "flattened" most of the detail pieces. The "before" pic follows below.

 

[PHArchivist]

Here is a side by side look. In the more recent shot (left), I flipped it here just to make the orientation match.

 

[vaderdarth]

Awesome, that totally changes the look. I have always been critical thinking this dish didn't seem "deep" enough, but those changes fixed whatever it was that was distracting my eye.

 

[PHArchivist]

I think the stark relief of the more robust detail pieces interrupted the visual continuity of the concavity of the dish (that was a mouthful!).

Even to the eye, it now looks more "dish like"...

Also, since the above image was taken, I've reduced at least two or three more pieces (specifically, the pieces at "3:00" and just past "6:00" on the larger image), enhancing the improvements.

Further, the lighting on the more recent image - though it accentuates and isolates the dish as a whole - does in fact flatten the appearance, compared to Art's shot with the pronounced shadow.

Finally, I have painted over about five way-too-heavy pencil lines, redrawing them with a finer lead.

Regrettably, the detail piecs within the inner ring (not the final disc at the center, but the next step out) are nearly impossible to get at with the sand paper. So the greater relief we see in this inner ring may need to remain.

 

[vaderdarth]

try one of these:

 

[PHArchivist]

You know, looking at the original, I could go even more "flat" on the detail pieces

[/QUOTE]

 

[robn1]

Yeah the dish has always looked like a week part to me, I just couldn't tell why. The strips still look heavy. And is it just me, or does the dish look too curved? The original looks more like a straight walled cone shape, less domed.

 

[PHArchivist]

Yeah the dish has always looked like a week part to me, I just couldn't tell why. The strips still look heavy. And is it just me, or does the dish look too curved? The original looks more like a straight walled cone shape, less domed.

We'll never know for sure (since the original is gone).

But I beleive the original may (may) have been paper. If so, then it may have been more code shaped.

Mine was heat-formed styrene, using a buck taken from the sphere.

 

[CTF]

Rob, to get the pictures you want, you're going to need two "passes" or elements. Shoot the DS beauty pass, then turn off your key light and expose for the model lights. Don't change focus or stop, get the correct exposure for the lights by adjusting the exposure time. Shoot tests to determine best exposures. Then composite the two images for a final. Depending on your background, you might also want to capture a matte pass.

Listen to this guy.

 

[PHArchivist]

Listen to this guy.

Eh, what does he know!

 

[PHArchivist]

By the way and for what its worth...

I have just under 1,700 holes so far. I'm not going to be giving a running count as that would be boring.

But...

I started on 3/20/11, so I'm averaging about 150 - 200 per day. That means at this rate (should I be able to keep it up), I'll be done in two to three months.

Or more specifically (and for the numbers minded):
--Call it 175 per day
--Estiamte 12,500 total (somewhere between 10,000 and 15,000)
--12,500/175 = 71.4 days
--71.4/30.5=2.3 months

Yes - useless information...!

 

[EvilRocketeer]

i smell a get together!!!:love

let's do it. Perfect timing to celebrate my tenth rpf anniversary.

And a decent percentage of lights should be done by then.

party!!!!!!!!!!

 

[IndyFanChuck]

I've been checking on this thread for a while, and I have to tell you man, this is one of the coolest builds I have ever seen. AWESOME work, and lordy I can't wait to see this thing lit! :thumbsup

By the way and for what its worth...

I have just under 1,700 holes so far. I'm not going to be giving a running count as that would be boring.

But...

I started on 3/20/11, so I'm averaging about 150 - 200 per day. That means at this rate (should I be able to keep it up), I'll be done in two to three months.

Or more specifically (and for the numbers minded):
--Call it 175 per day
--Estiamte 12,500 total (somewhere between 10,000 and 15,000)
--12,500/175 = 71.4 days
--71.4/30.5=2.3 months

Yes - useless information...!

 

[Scott Graham]

To attempt to answer your question, I'm mostly saying take a look at the pic. I see all of the things you point out below in this shot. I just wanted to post the pic in case it's not somewhere here in this huge thread.

Found it in my stash of reference. I assume I got it from here somewhere. Had to google the name of it to trace it back to wackychimp - who is a member here.

It's a pic of it lit around the time that it had a temp dish in place - from what I can tell. It's got a crack in the same place too.

It looks like there's a randomness to it depending on who was working on a section and who was having a good or bad day. So do some of the work drunk!

REQUEST FOR HELP


I've noted that the pattern of lights on the original is more predominantly oriented horizontally. That is, the more notable strings - or lines - of lights are horizontal.

While there are lines of lights running vertically, it seems to me that there are more running horizontally.

I'd be curious to see what you all think...

Dig out whatever reference you have on the original model, and tell me what characteristics you see in the lighting patterns.

For example, things I've noted are:
--More horizontal lines than vertical
--Varying sizes of light holes
--Some lines of lights are perfectly straight, while others meander showing a "hand-made" look
--Some clusters of lights (versus straight lines)
--Some lines are actually double lines

What else do you see?

 

[EvilRocketeer]

Page 100!!!!!!!!!!

Where are the updates!!!!

 

[PHArchivist]

Page 100!!!!!!!!!!

Where are the updates!!!!

Still in the camera!

 

[PHArchivist]

REAR WINDOW

One thing I haven't talked much at all about is the lareg section of clear acrylic in the back of the model.

Recall, on the back side, in the lower dome I have dish-sized access hole to change light bulbs.

In the upper dome, I have a large trapezoid, starting at the equator, and extending up to the arctic circle that has been left as clear acrylic (unpainted). This is an homage to the original, and to allow visitors to see the internal aspects of the model.

But...

This also leaves a HUGE amount of light shining out the back which detracts from the actual lights of the model. Plus, though the original is only part way finished (front half of the sphere), the clear area interrupts the continuity of the sphere.

So I'm thinking about painting it over.

I would do so with the base grey (now that I have more - thanks CrackerJazz!), but likely would not add cityscapes and lights.

What do you all think?

Also, for the industry pros and photographers out there:
--What effect does this have on photography?
--Would the "light bleed" help or hinder photos?
--Does the large amount of light cast on the photo backdrop facilitate pulling a matte?

Thoughts...?

 

[vaderdarth]

whatever shows thru the rest of the inside of the model is the color I'd use, primer or silver. I can't remember what you put under the gray.