Short answer: there's some twisting of the conjugated structure, particularly in the diene
I ran initial calculations for these using B3LYP density functional theory. If anything this method has a slight tendency for extra delocalization.
I'll follow up later with other methods, but I suspect the general answer will be the same.
Honestly, I expected the delocalization to be retained in the central conjugated section (albeit not perfectly flat) with some twisting on the outer double bonds.
Indeed, the dihedral angle around that central C=C is ~6.9°, but it's not that different around the other CC=CC bonds (~3° and 5°, respectively).
The whole C=CC=CC=C is fairly co-planar, with the remaining two carbons profoundly out of plane, likely relieving ring strain.
It's clear there's some delocalization because the "single" bonds between the double bonds have bond lengths ~1.46Å, smaller than usual.
Thus, in the triene, there's slight non-planarity to the conjugated section, but it's fairly delocalized.
Interestingly, the result is a bit different for the diene. While the C=C bonds are planar (i.e., dihedral angle ~2°) the middle C-C bond is strongly non-planar (i.e., dihedral angle ~38.4°). Moreover, it's 1.475Å in length, longer than the comparable bonds in the triene.
Here, I think the delocalization of two double bonds isn't enough to balance the ring strain.