Building The Death Star - PRODUCTION

I don't think this was ever drilled on the actual Death Star. These look like the windows were very gently scraped into the paint surface. When you look closely - the little spots that are in a straight line look like paint chips,and not holes! This is probably why it took less time,and effort to do this. Maybe with small drill bits,or even razor blades with the point ground flat,they could go a lot faster,and not have to worry about breaking one off. The paint is thin,so this would pose no hardship on scraping. I'd practice painting a panel of acrylic,and scrape it to see what effect it produces.

None of the photos of the Death Star seem to show any spots where light would come through small holes drilled,but rather small scrapes would produce the same effect with half the time,and effort. Light wouldn't bounce off a hole,but it would reflect off acrylic that had been scraped free of its' paint,as it would not be as dark as say a hole.
 
I don't think this was ever drilled on the actual Death Star. These look like the windows were very gently scraped into the paint surface. When you look closely - the little spots that are in a straight line look like paint chips,and not holes! This is probably why it took less time,and effort to do this. Maybe with small drill bits,or even razor blades with the point ground flat,they could go a lot faster,and not have to worry about breaking one off. The paint is thin,so this would pose no hardship on scraping. I'd practice painting a panel of acrylic,and scrape it to see what effect it produces.

None of the photos of the Death Star seem to show any spots where light would come through small holes drilled,but rather small scrapes would produce the same effect with half the time,and effort. Light wouldn't bounce off a hole,but it would reflect off acrylic that had been scraped free of its' paint,as it would not be as dark as say a hole.

Oh you know that I know all that! ;)

No worries - I have my method down. I think I even posted a picture the tool I'll be using back on page 50 or something. Its a micro drill bit chuck. When I say drill, I mean two or three finger twists with the chuck to get through the paint. After drilling all the way through the styrene of the off-the shelf kit 10,000 times, I am very much looking forward to the ease and rapidity of working with a clear substrate.
 
I figured that you didn't want to drill into your masterpiece.:$ This is so beautiful Rob! You've done everyone so proud. It'd be a shame to wreck it after all your hardwork,and the time that you,and Brad(jedifyfe)put into this so far.
 
The only "iffy" element to the light holes will be below the lower equatorial band, where I had to build up 10-15 times the amount of primer to smooth it out. I really don't know how thick it is, but its feasible for the first inch or so below the lower band that the primer may be 1mm-2mm thick, so the light would have to "tunnel" out.

I suppose I could test that at any time, but it is what it is - there's no way at this point to correct it.

This was all due to my smoothing out the bulge I created.
 
I wouldn't worry about that right now. I'm aware of this,as I have read all the posts up to now. I'd save that for after you've painted the top half above the equator. This will give you time to figure out what you need to get the job done without damaging any more paint,or styrene being disturbed under the paint. I think the best thing right now would be to finish the top,then work around below the band to give it more time to dry. Then work through the primer with a small drill bit to let the light through.
 
I would drill the first few test lights on the backside, practice a little.

Why start drilling right around the dish when you're not sure how it's gonna work.
 
Note the right half of the upper row, and the completion of the middle row
0929090002.jpg


Here's a small treat; I unmasked the "Arctic Circle"
0929090003.jpg


Here you can see more of what I did today
0929090004.jpg


Note how as I get around towards the back of the dome, it looks less "crafted" - similar in concept to the original
0929090005.jpg


Look at the last three blocks of the middle row. Darker. Consistency issues, for better or for worse. Its a lesson. The bottom of the original is pretty darn consistent, I'll mask as much as I can stand and do it in as large sections as possible.
0929090007.jpg


0929090008.jpg
 
Last edited:
Regarding sheen (not Charlie), the Arctic Circle IS dead flat. I don't like it. I actually like the gloss better!

And on the Arctic Circle, I may go in and flick on a very fine light grey. Its looking a tad too rich in color tone.
 
Last edited:
That's looking crazy good. You should be quite stoked!!! :)

Thanks Dave - its hard to walk away from.

I still hve some tweaks on this quadrant. Still have to paint out all the extra large blobs. That should even out the grain and reduce - well - the granularity, and make it less coarse.

Have a couple more small, small areas of grain/speckle to add, maybe narrow down a couple of the plain grey lines. But that's about it.
 
Last edited:
Looks really great Rob. I agree with ou about lightening up the arctic circle area.

Why do I get the feeling that you are going to be spending so much of your time in the garage?

The next time you see your kids, you will think they have grown.

Brad
 
It's amazing how fast this seems to be coming together now. For so many months it was just a big gray ball, but after just a few days of paint flicking it's the Death Star! Lookin' good too :thumbsup
 
Hey, Rob, I was going to e-mail you, but I figured I'd post here and let everyone give their opinion.

First of all, your painted panels are looking amazing. That first row you did certainly needs to be redone though, as none of the panels had a darker base coat. All were applied directly over the original base coat. The panels that appear darker do so because they just have a more concentrated speckle pattern with just a touch more black.

Second, you should very lightly mist the entire DS with the original base coat after the panels are finished (but before applying pencils and silver tape), and I mean just a dusting. It will help scale the speckling down even more and marry the panels into the surface.

Third, the northern pole is not a straigh darker grey. It's the plain base coat with a very very faint and sparce black or dark grey speckling on it, most likely achieved with a spray bomb or airbrush, as the speckles are much finer than on the city scapes.
052809004.jpg


Fourth, the windows were definitely scraped in, and not drilled. Almost all of them have a square or rectangular shape to them, probably made from a good ole #11 X-Acto blade. It looks as though they took their time with a good portion of them and kept the chips small, and almost roundish, but I'm guessing as time went on, they got faster and a little more sloppy, and ended up scraping away just half a hair more than what they started with. Honestly, try painting a scap piece of acrylic and doing a row of drilling and a row of chipping. You'll find the chipping much easier on the hand, faster, and maching the shape of the windows on the original DS model.

Finally, that funkier colored section on the rear of the DS before you reach the unpainted areas definitely appears to be repainted. Not only do the colors not match, but the style and technique is completely different as well. I have no idea if this was done pre or post production, so whether or not you want to add that feature onto yours is entirely up to your tastes.
 
That first row you did certainly needs to be redone though, as none of the panels had a darker base coat. All were applied directly over the original base coat. The panels that appear darker do so because they just have a more concentrated speckle pattern with just a touch more black.

You're throwing me off here - the first row has been re-done almost entirely, with the exception of one panel (which I'm going to come back to later). Are you referring to just this one panel?


Second, you should very lightly mist the entire DS with the original base coat after the panels are finished (but before applying pencils and silver tape), and I mean just a dusting. It will help scale the speckling down even more and marry the panels into the surface.
Still on the fence on this. I understand the principal in question, and respect the suggestions of others whom have suggested this. But I'm really quite fine with the degree of contrast as it is. And contrast on this model is a devil. Lighting effects contrast considerably, where it seems extreme in some shots, and not quite so in others.

Also, by using a rattle-can, there's no going back. Seems to me a decent opportunity to mess things up. We did a test with this, and I wasn't totally happy with the results. The test panel looked dusty, dry, and once around the curve it virtually "fell off". I'll wait and see how the model looks when all done, then revisit this concept. What would be ideal is if I had the base coat in bottled form (not rattle-can) so I could mist the exact base coat color in with the tooth-brush (with which I have more control).


Third, the northern pole is not a straigh darker grey. It's the plain base coat with a very very faint and sparce black or dark grey speckling on it, most likely achieved with a spray bomb or airbrush, as the speckles are much finer than on the city scapes.
052809004.jpg

I agree. I'd commented on this a few posts back, and Brad recognized this as well. Same thing about contrast. While I agree mine seems a little rich in color, contrast and color tones vary wildly on this model based on lighting and other photographic dynamics. While mine looks too dark in most shots (or comparisons) there are shots of the original where it shows darker, and shots of mine where it show lighter. Tough to judge. Also, in terms of color values, I am still - and always will be - suspect of using the original, due to fading, accumulation of occluding elements such as dust and grime, etcetera.

But with all that being said, I have a light grey that will mist over the top area with the toothbrush, using the least amount of paint possible, with the finest mist I can achieve.

Fourth, the windows were definitely scraped in, and not drilled. Almost all of them have a square or rectangular shape to them, probably made from a good ole #11 X-Acto blade. It looks as though they took their time with a good portion of them and kept the chips small, and almost roundish, but I'm guessing as time went on, they got faster and a little more sloppy, and ended up scraping away just half a hair more than what they started with. Honestly, try painting a scap piece of acrylic and doing a row of drilling and a row of chipping. You'll find the chipping much easier on the hand, faster, and maching the shape of the windows on the original DS model.
Scraped or not, I'm drilling. Just to clarify, I don't mean drilling through the acrylic. What I mean by drilling is using the correctly sized micro-drill bit in a chuck that I spin with my fingers, just enough to go through the paint. This is fast and easy. I've done it a lot before going all the way through on the styrene ERTL model, and its not that bad. Frankly, I see it as easier (or no more difficult) than using a #11 blade tip. In fact, this process will ensure same-sized and shaped holes all across, with no (as mentioned above) slop. Folks have said this model may look "better" than the original - perhaps to some degree idealized. Drilling (as I've described) versus scraping will cater towards this.

Finally, that funkier colored section on the rear of the DS before you reach the unpainted areas definitely appears to be repainted. Not only do the colors not match, but the style and technique is completely different as well. I have no idea if this was done pre or post production, so whether or not you want to add that feature onto yours is entirely up to your tastes.

My strongly-held-yet-unproven theory is the additional blocks were added on the shooting stage by different folks with different techniques. I'm not duplicating this look, as I agree it doesn't match. And this also "idealizes" the model. On the other hand, I'm following a similar philosophy in that I'm "sweating" this last 10% or so less than the rest, as its not seen much.

I realize my post here indirectly counters some of your points Aaron. Not meaning to contend, or be defensive, by any means. I appreciate all feedback, and everyting you've mentioned is accurate. Thanks! :)
 
Last edited:
Also, by using a rattle-can, there's no going back. Seems to me a decent opportunity to mess things up. We did a test with this, and I wasn't totally happy with the results. The test panel looked dusty, dry, and once around the curve it virtually "fell off". I'll wait and see how the model looks when all done, then revisit this concept. What would be ideal is if I had the base coat in bottled form (not rattle-can) so I could mist the exact base coat color in with the tooth-brush (with which I have more control).




I agree. I'd commented on this a few posts back, and Brad recognized this as well. Same thing about contrast. While I agree mine seems a little rich in color, contrast and color tones vary wildly on this model based on lighting and other photographic dynamics. While mine looks too dark in most shots (or comparisons) there are shots of the original where it shows darker, and shots of mine where it show lighter. Tough to judge. Also, in terms of color values, I am still - and always will be - suspect of using the original, due to fading, accumulation of occluding elements such as dust and grime, etcetera.

But with all that being said, I have a light grey that will mist over the top area with the toothbrush, using the least amount of paint possible, with the finest mist I can achieve.
Can't you just spray whatever primer into a clean,and dry soup can,then transfer that to an airbrush jar?

This is what I do when I can't paint directly out of a spray paint can. This way,you can have more control over the application of the base coat,as you spray. This can tone it down a little at a time until you're satisfied with the results. The best approach is to expose this to sunlight - take a couple of photos,and compare to the original Death Star. Since the Lucasfilm crew was trying to recreate the illusion of the sun on it's surface,maybe this would replicate that effect better.

Ultimately,it's your call Rob. Your build,and hard work,as well as Brads' help painting this. You decide how accurate you want it to be.
 
Back
Top