Short-Throw Projector for Starship Model Floodlight Pattern

[turner3d]

I did a build of a 1:350 scale NX-01 from the show, "Star Trek: Enterprise" with a completely custom Arduino-driven lighting system. I'm pretty happy with it, but the floodlight patterns are driving me crazy. The original onscreen ship was 100% CGI, and while the lighting throws are a distinctive part of its look, it is not possible on a physical model. There is literally no way to project those patterns with the light sources being as close to the hull as they are. Note that the build of the model itself is complete - I will not be mounting more LEDs to it, nor is it now possible to do any kind of Raytheon solution (which was never an option anyway since the plastic was an odd greyish tan)

I've had a thought that might be a little crazy, but I think I want to try it. I want to build a 2'x3' display case for it with something like a 6" tall black base, about 2' of plexiglass, then another 6" tall top. Inside of the top, I would install a device which projects the floodlight pattern straight down onto the hull. The pattern would look roughly like this, though I just tossed it together in a hurry for the sake of explanation:

What I don't know is what kind of device I should get. It needs to meet a couple of criteria:

• The projector has to fit inside of the display top, so it has to be fairly small - preferably less than 6" from lens to the back of the unit, though I'm sure I could do something creative with it if it had to protrude thru the top
• It has to be able to focus within 12-16" or so. The model is nice and big, but I don't want the case to be too freakishly tall
• I would prefer that it run on 12V or less, but it's not a deal breaker if it doesn't. I will be controlling it with an Arduino, so I'll probably be rigging up a MOSFET arrangement anyway

What I have no idea about is where to go from here. Should I try to find an analog solution like some sort of mini slide projector, or should I go with something digital? I've seen mini digital projectors for under $30, but I have no idea how bright they are or if they're able to just display a static image without an entire external computing device. Am I crazy? Is this doable? Feedback and ideas are greatly appreciated.

I'll leave you with a little video I put together of its startup sequence and the model as it is now - recorded with a Samsung Galaxy S23 with the model in front of a black tablecloth. The music and sound effects are all present in real time via USB connection from the Arduino to a PC, but that's a topic for for another post.

 

[Captain Dunsel]

Why not use a main light source and small mirrors to project the light where you need it to be (like they did with TMP Enterprise)?

 

[turner3d]

Why not use a main light source and small mirrors to project the light where you need it to be (like they did with TMP Enterprise)?

It's an interesting idea, but I don't know that it would be feasible to pull off decent patterns while keeping the light source and mirrors concealed overhead. It will be a display case and won't have the luxury of being able to hid riggings out of frame in all directions.

It might be possible to keep it all overhead with a focused beam of light and 6 meticulously angled mirrors, each with the gradient pattern maybe airbrushed onto it, but that's above my pay grade. It would be really cool, though.

 

[TheBeast]

Sorry, could you explain 'Raytheon solution?'

 

[rbeach84]

Holy c*&^! What an awesome model & lighting setup...
I had a thought about creating a clear coat pattern that would enhance the reflections of the areas the 'spots' are hitting, almost like a micro grain texture that would 'bounce' the light shining on the surface.
Might be worth an experiment on a 'finishing pig' to see if a change in the reflectance would have that effect?

Another thought is to fit the spots with a micro lens to focus the light specifically to the area in question. I have no expertise in this, but a quick search provided some interesting possibilities...

Personally, though, I think it looks great as is. If it is in complete darkness, does that make any difference to what kind of pattern is visible? It may be that ambient light is washing out the effect to some degree.

Cheers!
R/ Robert

 

[turner3d]

Sorry, could you explain 'Raytheon solution?'

It's a technique where you strategically remove light blocking from the inside of the model so that the light inside can bleed through the plastic. If the plastic is the right color and under certain circumstances, it can look really convincing. It was not an option on my NX for multiple reasons, the first being that the plastic was not white, but an odd grayish tan. Here's a pretty good example. There's no actual flood light - the light is coming from inside the saucer.

 

[turner3d]

Holy c*&^! What an awesome model & lighting setup...
I had a thought about creating a clear coat pattern that would enhance the reflections of the areas the 'spots' are hitting, almost like a micro grain texture that would 'bounce' the light shining on the surface.
Might be worth an experiment on a 'finishing pig' to see if a change in the reflectance would have that effect?

Another thought is to fit the spots with a micro lens to focus the light specifically to the area in question. I have no expertise in this, but a quick search provided some interesting possibilities...

Personally, though, I think it looks great as is. If it is in complete darkness, does that make any difference to what kind of pattern is visible? It may be that ambient light is washing out the effect to some degree.

Cheers!
R/ Robert

Thanks! For some of the floods, I think a different surface treatment would probably help. I used Dupli-Color Matte Wheel Finish for every layer of clear coating, and there are several layers. It's really interesting stuff in that it provides a matte finish but is still perfectly slick so you can slide decals around on it, but it seems to kill gloss by almost eating the light that hits it. I don't know exactly how - maybe it just refracts it around internally until it dissipates - I don't know how else to explain it. Anyway, I'm certain that is at least a portion of the problem, but I'm hesitant to try to dull it up any further in fear that it would lose all of its metallic look. For this model, I'd probably choose something different if I was to do it again.

I get semi-ok results if I adjust the rest of the lights down really low and adjust the exposure on the camera, which makes me think you're absolutely right about the type of clear coat helping for at least some of the floods. (I apologize for not dusting it first)

The biggest problem with the NX-01 is the registry flood. It's physically not possible to cast light across the curve of the saucer from the super low-profile spot where the flood lives. There were several things about the first 100% CGI Star Trek ship that made it a challenging build, but some of the lighting is literally impossible, no matter what kind of lens you throw at it.

I played around with shining a little pen light at it, and it looks really good. This is why I'm thinking that at least for this one, something shining straight down on it might be the only hope to give it that look. The real question is, what can I use? Cheapo digital mini projector? Mini slide projector of some kind? Flashlight reflectors with LEDs shining through film with patterns? Surely someone has done something similar at some point.

 

[rbeach84]

The low light results seem to come very close to the CGI model... hmmm. Now I'm thinking 'shadow box' techniques, with a turntable, deep black interior and some 'star field' masks for the background, even one with 'warp streaking'... action viewed through an inset window to reduce outside light 'polluting' the effects... just brainstorming.

Perhaps you could cannibalize some LED mini flashlights that have the built in focusing lens, mounting them so you could feed them from a wired power source and place the array in the overhead as you'd planned? Concern would be the angle of the overhead lighting would give some 'wrong' shadowing due to the angle.

So, the issue with this is attempting to replicate an effect from the CGI model which obviously had some funky lighting parameters set for it, or an oversight that applied the surface lighting patterns as a texture layer, not actual 'source effect' logic (granted, that would likely make the footprint smaller...sort of a reverse 'Raytheon'.)

Stylistically, the shows tend to not match real 'space' lighting environments anyway, since the spacecraft tend to be overly lit. If near a star, the lighting would be very stark since the shadows lack any other lighting and are really black, etc. Which is the rationale for having external lighting effects when there is no functional need for them. Spacecraft traveling at the velocities involved obviously would not rely on visual means to 'see' other craft, so the external lighting is only really useful when in the near vicinity to other craft, space stations, etc. or during EVA's.

If you are going for the CGI effect, I go back to my point about changing the reflectance in the specifc areas where you want to enhance the spots' glow. My idea was to test it first 'off model' to see if you could even get it to work and if so, mask off the patterns and 'frost' the surfaces so it glows when hit by the spots.

When I think of a 'spot light', I see a strong light source that has some form of 'collator' to focus the light, often deeply inset in a 'tube' casing. How are they installed on your model? In the images it looks almost like they are at the surface, though that is just likely how they appear when lit.

You have certainly picked a very challenging requirement...!

Regards, Robert

 

[turner3d]

The low light results seem to come very close to the CGI model... hmmm. Now I'm thinking 'shadow box' techniques, with a turntable, deep black interior and some 'star field' masks for the background, even one with 'warp streaking'... action viewed through an inset window to reduce outside light 'polluting' the effects... just brainstorming.

Perhaps you could cannibalize some LED mini flashlights that have the built in focusing lens, mounting them so you could feed them from a wired power source and place the array in the overhead as you'd planned? Concern would be the angle of the overhead lighting would give some 'wrong' shadowing due to the angle.

So, the issue with this is attempting to replicate an effect from the CGI model which obviously had some funky lighting parameters set for it, or an oversight that applied the surface lighting patterns as a texture layer, not actual 'source effect' logic (granted, that would likely make the footprint smaller...sort of a reverse 'Raytheon'.)

Stylistically, the shows tend to not match real 'space' lighting environments anyway, since the spacecraft tend to be overly lit. If near a star, the lighting would be very stark since the shadows lack any other lighting and are really black, etc. Which is the rationale for having external lighting effects when there is no functional need for them. Spacecraft traveling at the velocities involved obviously would not rely on visual means to 'see' other craft, so the external lighting is only really useful when in the near vicinity to other craft, space stations, etc. or during EVA's.

If you are going for the CGI effect, I go back to my point about changing the reflectance in the specifc areas where you want to enhance the spots' glow. My idea was to test it first 'off model' to see if you could even get it to work and if so, mask off the patterns and 'frost' the surfaces so it glows when hit by the spots.

When I think of a 'spot light', I see a strong light source that has some form of 'collator' to focus the light, often deeply inset in a 'tube' casing. How are they installed on your model? In the images it looks almost like they are at the surface, though that is just likely how they appear when lit.

You have certainly picked a very challenging requirement...!

Regards, Robert

The floods in the model are all 1mm fiber optics with a poor-man's lens at their end, formed by holding them a couple inches over a lighter until they just started to melt. 1mm is way too big to be scale, but the minimum diameter I found that could transmit a reasonable amount of light from a 5mm ultra-bright LED.

I am painfully aware of the inaccurate lighting of the CGI model in the show; there are always what seem to be at least 3 light sources present for the render whether or not the ship is supposed to be inside of a solar system. I plan to have an Arduino-controlled bright white flood shining down on the model as a whole from an angle in the hood of the display case for the sake of making it look more like the on-screen ship. I assembled a "video study" of the NX-01 pretty early on, compiling about 4 minutes of just rendered cenes from the show. I must have watched it a hundred times, and learned something new with nearly each viewing.

My goal is absolutely to make it look as much like what was seen on-screen as possible. The thing that made me build my own lighting solution from scratch in the first place is the fact that EVERY after-market lighting kit just blinks nav & strobe LEDs instantly on and off without paying any real attention to the timing, let alone the fact that the CGI strobes & navs took 100ms or so to fade in and out. A couple of frames of fading might sound trivial, but I think the fading adds significantly to the sense of scale. It's mind boggling to me how little attention is paid to detail by companies who make money from selling lighting kits.

I get that a lot of modelers strive to duplicate the studio model (which there was none in this case), but my personal preference is to come as close to what was seen on screen as possible. I'm way more interested in reproducing what I remember than I am in reproducing the tool that was used to make the memory.

Just for fun, I'll leave you with a little side-by-side test I put together to double check my work in emulating the CGI timings.

 

[TheBeast]

Now, rbeach, laughing at a newbie isn't the best look...

Just teasing!

I was actually going to suggest some of rbeach's paint techniques, or even Raytheon in spite of color issues, but this is way beyond this neophyte.

 

[turner3d]

Now, rbeach, laughing at a newbie isn't the best look...

Just teasing!

I was actually going to suggest some of rbeach's paint techniques, or even Raytheon in spite of color issues, but this is way beyond this neophyte.

Sure you were. Didn't you just ask me to explain Raytheon to you?

 

[JNordgren42]

Really nice job on your lighting rig and NX. I'm going a similar route on my 1/350 refit and for most of the same reasons you cite. The Refit is also impossible to exactly mimic the filming model by purely cast internal lights and even though Raytheon is an option, I've never really cared for it myself. I've seen some excellent builds using the technique, but they always looks slightly off no matter how skilled the builder is (and even getting it to that "slightly off" mark is very painstaking and difficult). I used to have a very small pico-projector that had a MicroSD card and could display JPEG or PNG files. I never tried to see how short it could focus, but honestly a little blur might contribute to a better effect.

 

[publiusr]

Anyone try scotchlite dusted in a semi-circle on aztek patterns?

The boxy lower sensor protrusions on the refit—I could see tiny mirror strips in those?

Of interest

3M™ H-SR-S Scotchlite Reflective Striping Kit for H-700 and H-800 Series Hard Hats

3M Scotchlite Reflective Material is bright, durable, and high quality Safety of workers due to enhanced visibility Easy application Flame-resistant film maintains brightness after repeated heat exposure

www.magidglove.com

Watercolor Aztec atop the scotchlite.
This way, even if tiny spotlights can’t truly self-illuminate on their own—ambient light fills in?

OT zip-a-tone decals might be best for glow in the dark plastics so as to look less stark.

 

[cadcoke5]

There are fluorescent paints designed to glow white under ultraviolet [UV] light. You could paint the areas illuminated by the floods, then hit the model with the UV light source to make those areas glow. Though, I suspect the model's apparent light source may not glow bright enough, and may need some sort of internal illumination.

Before attempting this, I would certainly test how the model looks with the UV light source. The existing non-fluorescent paint may actually fluoresce a bit.

Note that many UV LED sources are better described as "Almost UV". So, you want a source that is no more than 390nm (nm= nano meters- the wavelength), or you will see a very deep blue light. The best UV light sources are under 370nm.

One source for the white colored fluorescent paint is Wildfirelighting.com

 

[drusselmeyer]

UV also damages paint and plastic. Be careful how you use it with your models.