Galileo Study Model - half studio scale replica

[asalaw]

Thanks!

Actually, I haven't measured the model in person. I have a number of key measurements (which I use as a gauge) and then reverse engineer everything else from those. The more photos I have to work with, the better my measurements get.

The basic technique is how I reverse engineered my plans for the 33 inch Enterprise. Once I had some key measurements (from the original plans for the model) I could start doing studies of existing photos. This is a very basic example of how I make use of geometry to reverse engineer information from photos...

[url]http://www.shawcomputing.net/racerx/trek_stuff/study_techniques-s.jpg
Click to enlarge[/URL]​

I'll usually collect data from a photo, assign a weight to that data based on aspects of the photo, and then compare similar data from other photos to zero in on a best measurement.

With subjects like the 33 inch Enterprise and the shuttlecraft studio model, I have a relatively limited pool of images... but I have tons of images of the 11 foot model, and have reverse engineered a nice set of plans of that model (as an artifact, not as an idealized fictional starship) which I was using to build a one-sixth studio scale replica of the model as-a-model (replicating the details of the studio model's unfilmed side as it would have looked while being filmed during the second season of TOS).

I've spent a ton of money on math classes, I figure I should put some of that education to good use.


Anyways, I generally cross check my research with study models like this one to find errors or omissions in plans. Eventually I'll make these plans available for everyone. I know I like the more streamlined look of the Galileo studio model, so I figured I'd give it a try.

Plus I wanted to show I can build other things besides the Enterprise.

Holy Crapples! I hope you were actually adding up all that tuition as you went, if for no other reason than saving yourself from potentially embarrassing irony!

I've recently seen that same method being used by an industry VFX pro in the 5' Millennium Falcon thread (on my phone at work, so it's a pain to put in the link, I'll add it later). Guy named Andre, really knows his photogrammetry. You guys are smart!

I've been considering that approach myself with other props/models that there aren't any good plans for, but obviously with less critical precision needed, for various arcane technical reasons I'm sure you grasp intuitively (such as my being a lawyer, and thus nearly innumerate, cuz math + lawyer = ZZZZZZ).

I also really admire your making the plans freely available. I feel the same way, I've already put out one small graphic item, but I have lots more freebies in my bonnet, as it were. Good for you!!

 

[Eric Ardros]

Thanks guys!

Yeah, it is foamcore board. It supplies enough of a structure to keep the parts from collapsing like a house of cards when testing them together and later gluing them together.

[...]

The part is hanging down and not pressed into place... but even then, my measurements of the studio model show it to not be nearly as steep an angle as on the large scale mockup.

[...]

I had a feeling that's what it was, as that panel looks almost vertical, lol. That explains it, then. As for the angle on your studio model study blueprint, I'd say it looks good. As @asalaw said, I appreciate you making the blueprints freely available once they're done.

I like to think I got my half-finished build pretty close, but knowing the sort of in-depth research you do for all of your builds I know having a set of your blueprints to work from for the "new and improved" build would help immensely.

 

[Eric Ardros]

I went browsing through some of the reference pics I have for the Galileo studio-scale filming model, and came across these (originals posted so you can see what I see):







Based on those, it looks to me as though the angle of the panel underneath the impulse engine could be as steep as on the full-scale mock-up, as the angle appears to match the back edge of the bottom half of the hull. That's just my personal observation, though.

 

[Shaw]

Yep, I have those photos. They didn't score very high as far as weight data, so in the end they didn't effect the outcome of the analysis very much.

So it looks like you are attempting to show that two lines are parallel, so that (in turn) the angle of one would give you the angle of the other.

The problem (I've found) with that methodology is that it allows assumptions of the person doing the study to effect the data. In fact, preconceived ideas about how things are often times keeps us from actually seeing what is in front of us. This is also why I avoid other people's plans when working on my own of the same subject... I might take their assumptions and make them my own, and then cloud my seeing what is actually there.

Lets take a small example from a totally different subject... the 11 foot model of the Enterprise. We are all aware of the two sets of three lights on the underside of the primary hull towards the rear out towards the rim. Very simple shapes that should be very easy to measure and document... specially if you have access to the original model. But what if you started with a base assumption... like the circles are aligned on a circular path. That simple assumption can blind you to the fact that they are actually arranged on a straight line. What if that assumption was made by Gary Kerr, translated to many versions of his plans and many physical representations of the 11 foot model... his assumption is now most people's assumption, and people aren't going to see that feature as it really is.

Being human, I know I have assumptions that I can't keep myself from making. To avoid this, I make multiple sets of raw measurements and then compare the raw data from other sets to find out what is actually there. I know that in a three dimensional environment translated onto a plane, things can seem one way or that my mind will create optical illusions... raw number crunching is the best way to avoid that.

And yes, it is the most boring way to do this... which is why I build study models (because those are fun!).

 

[Albertese]

Shaw, you have a very solid methodology and I'm inclined to put your research ahead of others because of that.

Another thing to bear in mind when analyzing photographs is that the camera lens is going to introduce distortions. Often these aren't very apparent if you are looking at just one or two images, but once you start to dig in and really measure things out, proportions can be changed quite dramatically.

--Alex

 

[Shaw]

Thanks!

Yeah, the other thing to keep in mind is that this model is flawed by design. If it turns out nice... great! But the purpose of the model is to help learn the design, show flaws in my reverse engineering of the plans and help the next model (even if not built by me) be a little better for it.

And honestly, this is a scratch built, non-Enterprise model... if it even has a passing resemblance to the TOS shuttlecraft I'll consider that a success! If it does a reasonable job replicating the studio model, that would be a bonus! I just hope that it doesn't turn out to be an example of an abstract expressionist sculpture.*

With the Phase II Enterprise study model I had the benefit of having most of the original plans on hand to work from. This project is actually more like my 33 inch TOS Enterprise project, where I went through a number of versions of my plans building on two study models before I was willing to attempt a one-to-one scale representation.




*If it does end up being an abstract expressionist sculpture, it was planned that way from the beginning.

 

[asalaw]

Yeah, and the Enterprise was often shot with wide lenses, which have greater barrel distortion. The more I see this study/build/compare/rebuild method applied, the more I like it.

 

[Eric Ardros]

Yep, I have those photos. They didn't score very high as far as weight data, so in the end they didn't effect the outcome of the analysis very much.

So it looks like you are attempting to show that two lines are parallel, so that (in turn) the angle of one would give you the angle of the other.

The problem (I've found) with that methodology is that it allows assumptions of the person doing the study to effect the data. In fact, preconceived ideas about how things are often times keeps us from actually seeing what is in front of us. This is also why I avoid other people's plans when working on my own of the same subject... I might take their assumptions and make them my own, and then cloud my seeing what is actually there.

[...]

You make a very good point, sir!

I'd like to make it clear I wasn't trying to point out any errors or imply you were wrong with your study of the studio model, I was just sharing some of my own observations.

I wouldn't be surprised if my interpretation of the data present in the screencaps I posted were influenced by what you described above :lol

Shaw, you have a very solid methodology and I'm inclined to put your research ahead of others because of that.

Another thing to bear in mind when analyzing photographs is that the camera lens is going to introduce distortions. Often these aren't very apparent if you are looking at just one or two images, but once you start to dig in and really measure things out, proportions can be changed quite dramatically.

--Alex

Ditto! I understand and can greatly appreciate the pains you take in doing thorough and accurate research you put into every one of your study model projects

Thanks!

Yeah, the other thing to keep in mind is that this model is flawed by design. If it turns out nice... great! But the purpose of the model is to help learn the design, show flaws in my reverse engineering of the plans and help the next model (even if not built by me) be a little better for it.

[...]

Hopefully I may be the one to do that next model you allude to, granted I'm able to reasonably whittle down my current list of workbench projects and not take on anything more lol

 

[Shaw]

Well, if you are the next person to build a model based on my plans, remember to keep a critical eye towards them... I'm sure the first version I release will be full of errors and omissions.

 

[asalaw]

Well, if you are the next person to build a model based on my plans, remember to keep a critical eye towards them... I'm sure the first version I release will be full of errors and omissions.

Not a problem. I can get you cheap E & O coverage from Peppy's House of Spatulas and Indemnity.

 

[Shaw]

I spent some time playing with the decal arrangement today. Because I'll be drawing all this stuff out by hand in an EPS file (I don't like using pre-existing fonts for this type of thing) I want to make sure I'm happy with the placement of all the elements first.

Click to enlarge​

I'm actually pretty happy with what I have right now and will most likely commit to it by starting the actual decal sheet later today.

 

[asalaw]

WOOHOO!!!!

 

[Eric Ardros]

Yay for decal work They look great, I think you got them looking dead-on.

Do we know what the actual orientation of the starboard name placement on the studio-scale filming model was? :confused

 

[Shaw]

Unfortunately, there isn't any good data. To date the only starboard side shot I have is from an effects clip from Journey To Babel. Unfortunately between it being blurry and there being a reflection off the side obscuring the markings, there isn't any way to get any good data from those images.

The best time to have recorded that type of information would have been when the model was discovered, but no one took any photos of it in it's original condition. All the photos I have are after it was given a uniform gray paint job to be used as a set piece for TNG. And when they "restored" it later on, they altered it to look like the large scale mockup.

Here are some comparison shots...

That having been said, I'm leaning towards having the name follow the angle of the front of the hull. The reason is that the name on the port side has been angled to do this (rather than having it be the same as on the front), so if they were willing to play with the angle to make it fit nicer on the port side, maybe they would have done the same on the starboard side.

In the end the decals can be arranged anyway someone would want, but that is the direction I'm heading in. I included both arrangements in that illustration because my preference isn't the same as knowing how it should be... and right now, I just don't know.

 

[Eric Ardros]

Unfortunately, there isn't any good data. To date the only starboard side shot I have is from an effects clip from Journey To Babel. Unfortunately between it being blurry and there being a reflection off the side obscuring the markings, there isn't any way to get any good data from those images.

The best time to have recorded that type of information would have been when the model was discovered, but no one took any photos of it in it's original condition. All the photos I have are after it was given a uniform gray paint job to be used as a set piece for TNG. And when they "restored" it later on, they altered it to look like the large scale mockup.

Here are some comparison shots...



[B]That having been said, I'm leaning towards having the name follow the angle of the front of the hull. The reason is that the name on the port side has been angled to do this (rather than having it be the same as on the front), so if they were willing to play with the angle to make it fit nicer on the port side, maybe they would have done the same on the starboard side.[/B]

In the end the decals can be arranged anyway someone would want, but that is the direction I'm heading in. I included both arrangements in that illustration because my preference isn't the same as [I]knowing[/I] how it should be... and right now, I just don't know.[/QUOTE]

BOLD #1: Yeah, I didn't think so. I could only recall the one instance in [I]Journey to Babel[/I], but thought maybe you'd lucked out and found other source material.

BOLD #2/3: It's a shame no one did a comprehensive study of the model when it was discovered. I prefer the second restoration over what they did to it when it was used as set dressing in TNG, but still I'd have liked them to detail it as it showed in its original condition.

BOLD #4: I was thinking along the same train of thought on that one, too. That's the most sensible approach, imho.

 

[asalaw]

I'd be torn. On the one hand, following the model layout (along the leading edge) on the starboard side seems more accurate to the model. On the other, it leads the eye downward, creating the opposite effect of the port side.

On the third hand (yes, this is sic-fi, we can have three hands) it's 7 am and I have the brain of a toddler on rye. The drink, not the bread. On the fourth hand, I haven't had breakfast and a toddler on rye sounds pretty good right about now...

 

[Shaw]

I still have some time to consider the options... we'll see if anything pops up to tilt it in one direction or another between now and when I finally apply the decals.

I glued together some of the upper hull elements. Haven't worried about puttying or sanding yet, I want to let the glue fully cure for a while. It is being held up in these images by the magnet inside that will eventually hold it to the display stand.

 

[Shaw]

Eric Ardros asked about the lines on the top of my model. These represent seam lines that were visible on the studio model because they weren't fully filled in. They were hardly visible on the original and (after painting) should be hardly visible on my model.

Here is what has been added in the way of panel lines on my model...

Click to enlarge​

I figured I'd at least acknowledge that they were there.

I'll be doing something similar to the forward face plate, adding a panel line where the original model's face plate locked into place. This model isn't functional, so there was no good reason to match the functionality... but matching the look and feel of the original would be cool.

 

[asalaw]

Eric Ardros asked about the lines on the top of my model. These represent seam lines that were visible on the studio model because they weren't fully filled in. They were hardly visible on the original and (after painting) should be hardly visible on my model.

Here is what has been added in the way of panel lines on my model...

http://www.shawcomputing.net/racerx/trek_stuff/models/galileo/galileo_010s.jpg
Click to enlarge​

I figured I'd at least acknowledge that they were there.

I'll be doing something similar to the forward face plate, adding a panel line where the original model's face plate locked into place. This model isn't functional, so there was no good reason to match the functionality... but matching the look and feel of the original would be cool.

Interesting... Why is that forward seam off to the left like that? Is there a matching one on the starboard that we just can't see?

 

[Shaw]

I believe so... it looks like the top panel is made up of five pieces of plastic, but only those seams are visible enough to replicate on this study model.

The main thing I'm going for with this model is to show how the studio model might have looked if we were viewing it back in the 60's (with better images than we currently have). I'm not sure how close I'll get, but that is what I'm attempting.