Flint probably was several famous film directors in his life time.
Hey, I never noticed that before....
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
Also worth noting that the Talosians also used such dramatic visuals when viewing--on their own screen--the initial contact between the landing party and the 'survivors.'
https://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x00hd/thecagehd0526.jpg
https://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x00hd/thecagehd0530.jpg
https://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x00hd/thecagehd0537.jpg
"Requiem for Methuselah": There is a way Flint's flat screen TV could show such marvelous camera work. He's not using the simple nanny cam we always imagined. He's using some kind of 23rd century LIDAR system that continuously (in many frames per second) maps the room and both people in it. It's a high-res sensor sweep.
So now his computer has a full-motion, 3D digital map, running in real time. AI software can render any part of the map (an angle on Kirk's face, for example) as if it were a camera view. And this computational "camera" can zoom in or swoop around any way you want.
The final touch: add a simple camera, even a still frame camera, hidden in the room to provide the computer with color information, so instead of gray ghosts or wireframe people, your full-motion, 3D rendering is painted in accurate flesh-tones and shirt color. The whole bit.
So now his computer has a full-motion, 3D digital map, running in real time. AI software can render any part of the map (an angle on Kirk's face, for example) as if it were a camera view. And this computational "camera" can zoom in or swoop around any way you want.
The final touch: add a simple camera, even a still frame camera, hidden in the room to provide the computer with color information, so instead of gray ghosts or wireframe people, your full-motion, 3D rendering is painted in accurate flesh-tones and shirt color. The whole bit.
Yeah, I must have gotten the idea from you, forgot about it, and then it came back to me afresh as if it were my own, and I fleshed it out. Good thinking, BK.
The subspace camera allows you to connect with any point in space (as long as it's within range of your camera, the standard model allows a distance of two light-years give or take) and see everything from that point of view. If you pick two separate points you can even have holographic vision. New technology allows to screen against such cameras but a cutting-edge new type of camera can even pierce those screens.
True, with a camera like that, there's no such thing as privacy. The 24th century is the voyeur's paradise.
Just like Gene Coon and Arena!Yeah, I must have gotten the idea from you, forgot about it, and then it came back to me afresh as if it were my own, and I fleshed it out. Good thinking, BK.
No, no, that was supposed to be a 'great minds think alike' comment.Yeah, I must have gotten the idea from you, forgot about it, and then it came back to me afresh as if it were my own, and I fleshed it out. Good thinking, BK.
Looking at those stills reminds that Vina is portrayed very differently the next time we see her. This leads me to believe that this Vina image isn't Vina at all, just her image used to draw Pike's interest. It's the only time she speaks so 'scientifically', "Perfect specimen" and all.
That still doesn't explain the dramatic timing of the POV movements, not by a long shot.
Having a dumb automaton write drama today is only mildly demanding, compared, say, to having it compose music in the requested style. Having a dumb automaton edit drama is yesterday's news. Why wouldn't you have your surveillance system fitted with a drama filter? (Or, depending on your mood, a filter that highlights the body language of the targets, the telltale fidgeting and so forth. Or a comedic filter.)
Timo Saloniemi
Timo Saloniemi
I suppose, if Flint's M-4 is sensitive to the behavior of his guests, then it wouldn't be unreasonable for his surveillance system to be likewise.
The problem here and with the other examples is that the footage used for the viewers doesn't seem to have been shot as surveillance camera footage; it seems that it was all shot as regular movie/episode footage and then used for surveillance camera footage. See a show such as Person of Interest for an example where footage used as surveillance footage is shot as surveillance camera footage. In that case, there are considerations made for the surveillance camera POV.
These subspace scan/LIDAR/etc. explanations are vaguely interesting, but in the end they're handwaves made after the fact to paper over a production issue.
The problem here and with the other examples is that the footage used for the viewers doesn't seem to have been shot as surveillance camera footage; it seems that it was all shot as regular movie/episode footage and then used for surveillance camera footage. See a show such as Person of Interest for an example where footage used as surveillance footage is shot as surveillance camera footage. In that case, there are considerations made for the surveillance camera POV.
These subspace scan/LIDAR/etc. explanations are vaguely interesting, but in the end they're handwaves made after the fact to paper over a production issue.
Flint is probably using his remote control for that:
https://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/3x19hd/requiemformethuselahhd1133.jpg
Or, what Timo said. The moving POV is not a serious problem.
No, because SNW will presumably continue to update the 1960s vision of continuity with present-day knowledge in mind, which is where such explanations will come in handy. It hardly seems like “papering over” when apps can generate videos based on raw photos and/or footage, and we know of course what CGI and VFX in general are capable of even today.
Except I've never noticed him actually using moving his thumb on any kind of cursor control, whether physically present or field based, for that purpose. Or it's one heck of a psychically operated control.
Said another way: Flint controlling a joystick with his thumb there during those scenes would qualify as a "Hey, I've never noticed that before...."
OTOH, Flint operates the entire planet as his mancave. It rather stands to reason that he could adjust the minutest of parameters with the smallest effort, in those cases where he hasn't created a macro for it already.
It's the lesser players, such as Starfleet, who make us really go "Huh?" when exhibiting the ability to control or monitor in detail. Although in the latter respect we really are rather screwed: both this "obviously highly advanced" onscreen reality and real offscreen techological advances would seem to dictate that automated CCTV be capable of solving all whodunnits, yet the heroes never solve anything with that. Is their CCTV too primitive after all? Or is it simply too advanced for its own good, dismissed because any villain worth the title can bend it around his little finger and make it show six impossible things before opening credits?
Timo Saloniemi
It's the lesser players, such as Starfleet, who make us really go "Huh?" when exhibiting the ability to control or monitor in detail. Although in the latter respect we really are rather screwed: both this "obviously highly advanced" onscreen reality and real offscreen techological advances would seem to dictate that automated CCTV be capable of solving all whodunnits, yet the heroes never solve anything with that. Is their CCTV too primitive after all? Or is it simply too advanced for its own good, dismissed because any villain worth the title can bend it around his little finger and make it show six impossible things before opening credits?
Timo Saloniemi
True, with a camera like that, there's no such thing as privacy. The 24th century is the voyeur's paradise.
Though it also has holodecks, so becoming a peeping tom seems redundant.
