Everyone here is reacting as if the regression from holotechnology to viewscreens is a new situation artificially induced by the clash of 21st century produced Discovery vs 1960s produced TOS, but this has happened before. Remember when the Sovereign class NCC-1701-E had a holoscreen on the bridge in First Contact? It was never seen again in Insurrection or Nemesis: https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Viewscreen#Sovereign-class . Picard obviously shared Pike's distaste for holographic tech on the bridge.
I really like the use of holographic displays on the bridge or for briefing purposes. I also enjoyed the holocomm interaction between Burnham and Tyler in episode 3, the most recent use of it. I particularly like the glitchy graininess, what Pike called ghostly. However, I'm not so keen on the near perfect mirror holograms or the artificial lights Burnham blew out in ep 4. I guess that as an audience member I am most comfortable with holotech which is still obviously visually imperfect in terms of fidelity. Timo, wasn't there a holographic recording displayed in one of the trek movies? Of the Klingon Chancellor? Yistaan, holographic displays were used at least once in the first season of TNG. I seem to recall either Data or Geordi using them (over a table - maybe in the Ready room?) to show a 3-D visual of something they'd encountered. Lastly, I read on another forum the theory that they are still and have always technically been using holographic images for comms (in TNG for example), but no-one noticed. I think it's true that those in charge of visual effects went further than just plain old TV view screens. They shot footage from an angle to show the view screen images as different from the side vs head on. See here:
From an end-user perspective, I don't see what the advantage of holographic ship-to-ship communications (to make it look like the person is standing there in the room with you) would be over using the viewscreen. Kor
I wish canon could just be put in the bin. Specifically when it comes to the specifics of how to present a story. Sixty years have passed since TOS. Our future now looks a little different from theirs. Do all you canon slaves pine for WWIII too? "Let Kim Jong Un have his nukes, it is canon that there will be a WWIII in a couple of decades"
Also, with holographic communication, you are either projecting just the person (in which case you cannot see the environment of the person you are talking to, i.e. if someone is watching over their shoulder), or you do a full environment projection that ends up blocking up half the room (i.e. the conversation between Ash and Burnham this season). In the former case, you lose a lot of information on what environment the speaker is in (which is necessary for Starfleet missions), and in the latter you are blocking out half the room. So what are the benefits of holocomms other than "coolness"? Might as well just go for viewscreen communication. Huh? Those are massive leaps and assumptions to be making that any Star Trek fan, or person, would want a war in real life.
The benefit, particularly in the TNG era, would be closer fidelity to the user experience of being in a room with someone. When half of your interaction with people is on screens (loved ones back on Earth, for instance), that extra dose of physical realism could mean a lot. It's hard to overstate the role of human-centered design in satisfaction with a system. And I know people have argued that those different angles in TNG was purely a fact of filming and not meant to be 3D, but I wouldn't think it would have been hard to distort video footage to look like a 2D image from a 3/4 angle.
Those would be in social communications though, not military ones. The user experience for crew members talking with families would belong in a holodeck sending a call back home or in their quarters, not on the bridge talking with alien governments or Admirals (which is what we see most of in Trek). Considering how practically every Trek character we saw in TNG onwards was on very bad terms with their families (Riker with his father, Picard with his brother, Bashir with his genetically engineering parents, Data has no family, and Voyager was always saving limited power when they called back home), it's not surprising we didn't see family holocalls more often.
User/human-centered design principles would apply in both cases. If the goal were a system intended for deliberative decision-making with the greatest ease and efficiency, you might want a hyper-realistic 3D system. There are cognitive barriers and disconnects associated with long-distance synchronous communication, including video conferencing, compared to live, face-to-face communication. Maybe humans get better at it by the 24th Century, but if you could implement 3D effectively, it would be a possible boon to a whole range of communication contexts.
Well, all my work calls are still done via telephone despite the fact that video calls are quite widespread now. Just because a technology exists doesn't mean it's the most efficient for workplace use. Also, everyone's assuming the lack of holograms in TOS was because of 1960s budget. Except I don't think it was... In fact, it may have been easier to just film a Klingon on the bridge set and say in dialogue that it's a perfect hologram. The effect to make the holo-calling character disappear wouldn't have been any more expensive than the transporter beaming effect. Also, those "cognitive barriers and disconnects" may precisely be the tools needed to maintain a professional atmosphere in tense conversations. This isn't a bar chat that can easily devolve into a bar fight. How well do you think it would have gone if Kirk had a hologram of Kruge laughing about how his men killed David? Kirk would have lunged and tried to throttle the Kruge hologram, and the Klingon Empire would be replaying the footage again and again on their holonews. The fact that it was audio only maintained some semblance of order in what was an already awful situation.
Yeah, if I'm talking to my tyrannical Admiral boss back at Starfleet HQ, or the commander of a hostile vessel that has its weapons pointed at us, I'm just fine with keeping a sense of distance instead of being made to feel like we're all cozy and lovey-dovey in the same room. KOr
Thank goodness Apple doesn't exist in the future, or else the hologram would start recording a few seconds early...
Picard: The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. ...We work to better ourselves ...and the rest of humanity. Apple and other tech companies:
Personally, I like holographic tech. I think it would be contribute to potentially increased interpersonal interactions that might mitigate the hostility. Remember, the anonymity factor of communication can include video and phone calls as well. I think that the holographic communication would create a greater sense of comfort for interpersonal command relationships, as well as improved connection between crewmembers. Also, if security is a concern then multiple systems, from audio, to visual to holographic. Just like now aways, save for the holographic part
Ah, right. Except it was vice versa - Chancellor Azetbur was on a viewscreen in Paris, while President Ra-Ghoratreii was a hologram above Azetbur's desk in First City or whatever. The Tkon Empire in "The Last Outpost" was discussed with the help of a projection above the Observation Lounge table; the biocontainers of "The Child" were shown in holographic form in the Ready Room; Riker had holographic soft porn figures in his cabin; Data and Kolrami played a holographic game in Ten Forward; Worf selected a wedding present for Miles and Keiko using a holographic catalogue; etc. Holoprojections were a more or less constant presence in Star Trek from "Encounter at Farpoint" to "Endgame". It's just that towards the later spinoff seasons, they were more confined to the holodecks than in the early years. Oh, yes, the communications screens were 3D up until DS9 when they started using actual monitors instead of faking it with VFX. I gather the idea would simply be that "you are there". Instead of being a disembodied voice, you actually stand right next to these other folks, so the interaction goes to the next level. It's an advantage over the disembodied voice the same way a telegram is an advantage over a letter or a video conference is an advantage over a phone call - but it's basically the ultimate advantage, transforming "communications by means" into plain being there. It's difficult to see how things could be improved upon (DS9 style solid) holocomms even in theory. In any case, it's imperative that you appear in full body form, visually convincingly, and completely without your real surroundings, or else you aren't there. The tech in DS9 managed this; the tech in DSC has so far been visually coarse enough that the illusion is broken, even though holograms that are not long range communications can be made visually perfect. Timo Saloniemi