Thank you for your submission!
Please remember the human, adhere to all Reddit and sub rules, and if you see anything that breaks the rules, report it! Please be sure to [Read The Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/StarTrekStarships/about/rules/) of our sub, two of them to highlight: #1 - Be Polite! and #5 - No spoilers for episodes until the MONDAY AFTER the episode airs, this gives everyone the weekend to catch up on their Trek viewings.
You can now [preorder the 2024 Ships of the Line Calendar](https://amzn.to/3Pi2Vn7)
We have a companion website now, if you'd like to see the reddit posts in a grid, [check out startrekstarships.com](https://www.startrekstarships.com/)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/StarTrekStarships) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Some of those pictures are 2-3 times bigger than the shooting models because they were made to display in the Star Trek Experience in Las Vegas
But yeah, that giant saucer was what crashed into Veridian 3
So when I was a child I played with my playmate enterprise D , god I loved that thing. I had the romulan warbird and the Klingon vor cha
How fun would it be to have those to play with
I’m 39
https://preview.redd.it/rctceu71q65d1.jpeg?width=3520&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=181327a4e1d1e435f3acc3c88dd91c1d1203724f
I still have mine after all these years. I also have the Playmates TOS Enterprise with stand.
They still work after all these years too surprisingly.
I’ll be 44 this month 😂
I had this little red rubber ball thing that was all just semi rigid rubber tassels and it looked like a photon torpedo from the original series movies. I used to set up toys and throw it at them for hours acting like I was shooting photon torpedoes as a kid.
I remember how disappointed I was to realize the only reason the First Contact bridge viewscreen was holographic was so they could avoid having a big, black, empty void on the bridge for various scenes without power.
I don't understand. I don't remember any holograms on the 1701E bridge at all.
Also having a holographic bridge would make it dark when there was no power?
It was only like that in one of the movies, where you can sometimes see a blank beige wall when the viewscreen is ‘off’. The other appearances of the Enterprise-E, they modified the set to have a more traditional viewscreen.
I like how they were flying into the battle while apparently just staring at a blank wall until that point.
It makes for a good reveal, but I feel like the more contemporary way to do it is a [coming-out-of-warp bit](https://youtu.be/tTlIwB3fnVw?feature=shared&t=11).
It was similar to how DS9 had a holographic viewscreen in Ops.
Here's the relevant scene, as the Enteprise arrives at the battle.
RIKER: The Defiant's losing life support.
PICARD: Bridge to transporter room three. Beam the Defiant survivors aboard.
RIKER: Captain, the Admiral's ship has been destroyed.
PICARD: What is the status of the Borg cube?
DATA: It has sustained heavy damage to its outer hull. I am reading fluctuations in their power grid.
PICARD: On screen
*holographic viewscreen appears*
Based on Voyager's bridge in Year Of Hell, there does seem to be some sort of holographic component - before the final battle you can see their holodeck support structure behind the inactive viewscreen.
First Contact just made it bezel-less. (Frameless?)
Early episodes of Voyager and the intro sequence have a missing texture on the central side of the secondary hull only in the CG model. Fun Easter egg you can see in the intro is a big ol black square where the eject should be because the texture got lost somewhere on the cg version.
The refit constitution class model, as I recall, had working recessed lighting on circular airlocks ¼" in diameter and you could get ridiculously close to the filming model and still have it not look like a model.
It's not a binary choice. Every competent production uses CGI \*and\* Miniature VFX \*and\* practical FX. The real art is making [CGI VFX invisible](https://youtu.be/7ttG90raCNo?si=HmPwgBT9cfoITpNO).
Parroting the "CGI vs Practical" is just parroting movie marketing to get you in the theater in the first place. And you're diminishing the hard work of thousands of VFX artists.
I’d absolutely love to have a studio model like some of those. Maybe not the ones that are bigger than a car, but one of the smaller “hero” models would be awesome.
Yeah, I know they’d probably cost more than my house. But still.
IIRC, The Orville had a physical studio model of the USS Orville due to Seth MacFarlane not wanting to rely completely on CGI for exterior scenes.
CGI is still very useful when a large number of ships are seen on-screen at the same time, especially when a fleet of ships are engaging in combat, such as the Dominion War battle scenes in DS9 S6 and S7.
Most of the ones shown here are for the Las Vegas experience. The ent D saucer is a filming model. The small voyager is a filming model.
Filming models usually ranged from 4 feet to 11 feet (the Original Series Enterprise) with some exceptions for closeup shots, but those were usually what I relate to as "busts" of the ship. Much like a statue bust is only a part of the person, most closeup shots used only a partially built ship. For example: the scene in Wrath Of Khan where the Reliant fires on the enterprise and we get a closeup of the secondary hull and neck being destroyed. This was a large scale model of just the neck and secondary hull.
They had several versions in different scales for most ships. In TNG you could tell which one was used for a particular shot by small differences between the models
The large D saucer is not from the standard filming model. The first one was six feet, the second four feet. The latter had a thicker rim and was used in later seasons.
I really think they should do ship models again when it comes to star trek, the cgi ships seem to have bridges that are way too big making the ship seem smaller than it actually is. For example I thought the Titan-A was much smaller until I saw it next to the Enterprise-D
Fun fact: The ILM model used to crash the Enterprise-D into Veridian III was **half** the size they wanted for the shots, but the budget wouldn't allow for it. It would have scaled better with the miniature trees and foliage they had on hand.
I wonder what’s the difference in cost between a physical model and a CGI model, both require a group of model makers building them. CGI artists are not cheap. I personally prefer real physical model over CGI
It really depends, but I know using physical models for the movie Moon literally made the movie possible because it reduced the budget so much. And frankly... that movie looked gorgeous, and still holds up beautifully, all thanks to a tiny little model shop that said "yeah, we can build some stuff for way less than they're pitching."
With a physical model, it doesn’t require computer tricks to make it 3D, proper lighting and shading / painting can make a 6 foot USS Enterprise looks much bigger and looks amazing. With CGI, it is still a generated model and sometimes it just looks less convincing. Oh and I like those model kits that based on the physical models
Arr the wonderful world of large scale miniatures! As a model maker hobbyist. I have nothing but respect for the artists. CGI can be great. But it can lack weight and looks unreal.
I think when most people think ‘filming model’, they envision something the size of a regular model kit, or at the outside maybe the 2 foot *Enterprise-D* filming model, not the immense 10 foot one. They don’t really have a sense of how big the practical models really are to get the level of detail they had.
Keep in mind thought that most of those pictures aren’t of the actual shooting miniatures. The smaller Voyager pic is the only one. The giant Ent D saucer was a special model used for the crash in Generations. The other models were all oversized versions for Star Trek the Experience or other displays. For example, the shooting miniatures for TNG were a six-foot model which was later replaced by a four-foot version. The six-footer was notorious for being hard to shoot due to its size and weight.
Thank you for your submission! Please remember the human, adhere to all Reddit and sub rules, and if you see anything that breaks the rules, report it! Please be sure to [Read The Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/StarTrekStarships/about/rules/) of our sub, two of them to highlight: #1 - Be Polite! and #5 - No spoilers for episodes until the MONDAY AFTER the episode airs, this gives everyone the weekend to catch up on their Trek viewings. You can now [preorder the 2024 Ships of the Line Calendar](https://amzn.to/3Pi2Vn7) We have a companion website now, if you'd like to see the reddit posts in a grid, [check out startrekstarships.com](https://www.startrekstarships.com/)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/StarTrekStarships) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Some of those pictures are 2-3 times bigger than the shooting models because they were made to display in the Star Trek Experience in Las Vegas But yeah, that giant saucer was what crashed into Veridian 3
So when I was a child I played with my playmate enterprise D , god I loved that thing. I had the romulan warbird and the Klingon vor cha How fun would it be to have those to play with I’m 39
I am 37, and endorse/resemble your comment.
https://preview.redd.it/rctceu71q65d1.jpeg?width=3520&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=181327a4e1d1e435f3acc3c88dd91c1d1203724f I still have mine after all these years. I also have the Playmates TOS Enterprise with stand. They still work after all these years too surprisingly. I’ll be 44 this month 😂
I’m the same, but I’m missing the nacelles
I had this little red rubber ball thing that was all just semi rigid rubber tassels and it looked like a photon torpedo from the original series movies. I used to set up toys and throw it at them for hours acting like I was shooting photon torpedoes as a kid.
I used to pretend the Christmas tree was a nebula and I used crayola markers for battle damage.
The bridge set would have been that way with or without cgi.
“Oh *really?*” - George Lucas
Damnit George, get outta here
I remember how disappointed I was to realize the only reason the First Contact bridge viewscreen was holographic was so they could avoid having a big, black, empty void on the bridge for various scenes without power.
I don't understand. I don't remember any holograms on the 1701E bridge at all. Also having a holographic bridge would make it dark when there was no power?
It was only like that in one of the movies, where you can sometimes see a blank beige wall when the viewscreen is ‘off’. The other appearances of the Enterprise-E, they modified the set to have a more traditional viewscreen.
If you watch the movie, it [appears projected onto a blank wall.](https://youtu.be/D7KCb-O20Fg?si=AHPXHN55crNHPoTD&t=189)
I like how they were flying into the battle while apparently just staring at a blank wall until that point. It makes for a good reveal, but I feel like the more contemporary way to do it is a [coming-out-of-warp bit](https://youtu.be/tTlIwB3fnVw?feature=shared&t=11).
Which, honestly, that coming out of warp effect is great.
It was similar to how DS9 had a holographic viewscreen in Ops. Here's the relevant scene, as the Enteprise arrives at the battle. RIKER: The Defiant's losing life support. PICARD: Bridge to transporter room three. Beam the Defiant survivors aboard. RIKER: Captain, the Admiral's ship has been destroyed. PICARD: What is the status of the Borg cube? DATA: It has sustained heavy damage to its outer hull. I am reading fluctuations in their power grid. PICARD: On screen *holographic viewscreen appears*
Funny enough I always thought of it as a holographic wall in front of an actual viewscreen hah.
Based on Voyager's bridge in Year Of Hell, there does seem to be some sort of holographic component - before the final battle you can see their holodeck support structure behind the inactive viewscreen. First Contact just made it bezel-less. (Frameless?)
Yeah this tracks with how it is shown to behave more like a window in TNG etc
Exactly. The D viewscreen was always meant to be holographic.
As you can see the perspective change when people are speaking at an angle. Presumably they’d look like they were inside a frame.
My eaglemoss delivery.
That Voyager model is beautiful…
Miss it in a way - CGI just lacks a certain something, compared to what you got in, say, TMPs love letter to the Enterprise Refit
Early episodes of Voyager and the intro sequence have a missing texture on the central side of the secondary hull only in the CG model. Fun Easter egg you can see in the intro is a big ol black square where the eject should be because the texture got lost somewhere on the cg version.
If i had the billionaire money I'd have a replica of that Enterprise and a foyer big enough to hang it,
You mean back when they were awesome
This, I always prefer more practical effects than CGI. CGI should be the spice, not the steak.
I agree although I do understand why they cgi ships now because those models were expensive as fuck
And there was a limited range of motion they could do as well. CGI ships are capable of more on screen.
The refit constitution class model, as I recall, had working recessed lighting on circular airlocks ¼" in diameter and you could get ridiculously close to the filming model and still have it not look like a model.
It's not a binary choice. Every competent production uses CGI \*and\* Miniature VFX \*and\* practical FX. The real art is making [CGI VFX invisible](https://youtu.be/7ttG90raCNo?si=HmPwgBT9cfoITpNO). Parroting the "CGI vs Practical" is just parroting movie marketing to get you in the theater in the first place. And you're diminishing the hard work of thousands of VFX artists.
I’d absolutely love to have a studio model like some of those. Maybe not the ones that are bigger than a car, but one of the smaller “hero” models would be awesome. Yeah, I know they’d probably cost more than my house. But still.
I’d love to try and find a studio scale equinox
Where are these amazing photos from? Any links?
Man that would be such an awesome vocation
Great photos.
Most beautiful starship/Queen sized mattress
I really really hope these models are preserved
I wished we still had physical ships instead of CGI
IIRC, The Orville had a physical studio model of the USS Orville due to Seth MacFarlane not wanting to rely completely on CGI for exterior scenes. CGI is still very useful when a large number of ships are seen on-screen at the same time, especially when a fleet of ships are engaging in combat, such as the Dominion War battle scenes in DS9 S6 and S7.
I actually thought the ships they used were smaller
Most of the ones shown here are for the Las Vegas experience. The ent D saucer is a filming model. The small voyager is a filming model. Filming models usually ranged from 4 feet to 11 feet (the Original Series Enterprise) with some exceptions for closeup shots, but those were usually what I relate to as "busts" of the ship. Much like a statue bust is only a part of the person, most closeup shots used only a partially built ship. For example: the scene in Wrath Of Khan where the Reliant fires on the enterprise and we get a closeup of the secondary hull and neck being destroyed. This was a large scale model of just the neck and secondary hull.
They had several versions in different scales for most ships. In TNG you could tell which one was used for a particular shot by small differences between the models
The large D saucer is not from the standard filming model. The first one was six feet, the second four feet. The latter had a thicker rim and was used in later seasons.
I really think they should do ship models again when it comes to star trek, the cgi ships seem to have bridges that are way too big making the ship seem smaller than it actually is. For example I thought the Titan-A was much smaller until I saw it next to the Enterprise-D
Fun fact: The ILM model used to crash the Enterprise-D into Veridian III was **half** the size they wanted for the shots, but the budget wouldn't allow for it. It would have scaled better with the miniature trees and foliage they had on hand.
VOYAGER ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
I hope all of these are still intact and have been preserved. They are legitimate works of art.
Too bad the TV resolution was crap then
A lost art.
A golden age.
And they arguably looked better than CGI made today.
The models still look better than any CGI.you can always tell even in theatrical releases with bigger budgets and definitely on television
This was the 'magic' in Industrial Light & Magic.
There's a reason why the ships that had physical models are the best designs Trek has had.
I wonder what’s the difference in cost between a physical model and a CGI model, both require a group of model makers building them. CGI artists are not cheap. I personally prefer real physical model over CGI
It really depends, but I know using physical models for the movie Moon literally made the movie possible because it reduced the budget so much. And frankly... that movie looked gorgeous, and still holds up beautifully, all thanks to a tiny little model shop that said "yeah, we can build some stuff for way less than they're pitching."
With a physical model, it doesn’t require computer tricks to make it 3D, proper lighting and shading / painting can make a 6 foot USS Enterprise looks much bigger and looks amazing. With CGI, it is still a generated model and sometimes it just looks less convincing. Oh and I like those model kits that based on the physical models
Oh man I would pay money for that Warbird!
Ya but now a trust fund baby executive can have something changed last minutes on a whim!
CGI will never have the natural beauty or weight of models in r practical effects
Is the photo with the Enterprise D saucer section photoshopped? That guy doesn’t look like he’s actually there lol
Arr the wonderful world of large scale miniatures! As a model maker hobbyist. I have nothing but respect for the artists. CGI can be great. But it can lack weight and looks unreal.
Title should be " back when craftsmanship was put into set building "
How is it insane?
I think when most people think ‘filming model’, they envision something the size of a regular model kit, or at the outside maybe the 2 foot *Enterprise-D* filming model, not the immense 10 foot one. They don’t really have a sense of how big the practical models really are to get the level of detail they had.
Keep in mind thought that most of those pictures aren’t of the actual shooting miniatures. The smaller Voyager pic is the only one. The giant Ent D saucer was a special model used for the crash in Generations. The other models were all oversized versions for Star Trek the Experience or other displays. For example, the shooting miniatures for TNG were a six-foot model which was later replaced by a four-foot version. The six-footer was notorious for being hard to shoot due to its size and weight.
The lord of the rings miniatures make me go full final panel Vince mcmahon