Raytheon Effect or Spotlights?

Docmani · Post by **Docmani** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:34 am

So I'm planning on starting my Enterprise 1/350 Refit after the holidays are over. I'm planning on doing all the lighting myself (rather than a kit) as a challenge.

I'm going back and forth over using raytheon or direct lighting for the spotlights. So far I'm undecided. Here are my thoughts...

Raytheon:
Pros - More precise positioning of the spot lights.
Cons - Lots of demolition work. Not sure if I'll be happy with the effect (it just seems like I spend so much time avoiding bleedthrough that I'll subconsciously not like it)

Direct Lighting:
Pros - Looks more natural.
Cons - Imprecise. Some spotlights on Enterprise have no corresponding source (ie warp nacelle spots, forward secondary hull spots)

I've also debated attempting direct lighting using 1 to 3 mm fiber optics, and attempting the shape and polish the projection end with a dremel to produce better spots.

Of course the only way I'll truely be happy with it is to light it externally like the studio model was (has anyone ever tried that?). I figure that would require a huge amount of display space/special case/mount.

Has anyone wrestled with this? Thoughts?

brt · Post by **brt** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:47 am

Do you have a 1st edition kit or the re-issue with aztecs? The plastic is different on the re-issue and the raytheon effect is yellow through the plastic. So you might want to skip the raytheon effect if you have the re-issue.

Docmani · Post by **Docmani** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:51 am

Yep, I have the reissue...

That may answer my question better than anything! LOL!

talon · Post by **talon** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 12:47 pm

It would be really cool to have all the small dental mirrors set up but it would be pretty obvious in the display of it.

You might be able to do it with narrow beam LEDs aimed from the edges of the case.

tetsujin · Post by **tetsujin** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 4:18 pm

To me, the spots that have no possible source are merely errors and shouldn't necessarily be reproduced in the model.

As for real spots vs. fake spots: Personally I am more interested in using real spots to the extent possible. I think the bleed-through method is a great effect but I'm not so fond of the "falseness" of it.

Though, of course - it's all about the end result, right? The bleed-through method can look really good, after all... I think real spots are bound to have soft edges rather than the precise borders you'd get with stage lights and dental mirrors - unless your optics are really precise... So it's not just the positioning that's more precise with bleed-through, it's the boundaries as well. It might be worth using bleed-through, or a combination of bleed-through and practical spots, for that reason.

Personally I hate the idea of having to paint my model in such a way that light can bleed through the paint job... I'd rather deal with the structural complications of practical spots than have one more thing making my paint job more complicated... :)

Styrofoam_Guy · Post by **Styrofoam_Guy** » Mon Dec 27, 2010 3:52 am

Originally I would have said direct lighting but after playing around with the Raytheon effect on the 1:1000 kit I am impressed. I can see the direct lighting being very frustrating to get looking right.

I am not sure how it will turn out on the 1350 kit though. What works in 1:1000 might not work in 1:350.

I will say the Raytheon effect is much more easier to control.