Super Hi Res Enterprise

[Nowhere Man]

I don't understand why there's no delta shield or hull markings on the ship

No delta shield, but the bottom of the secondary hull near the deflector has "NCC-1701" and there is an NCC-1701 on the nacelle at the right hand edge of the pic. And of course, there is the "U.S.S. Enterprise/NCC-1701" on the top of the saucer that we saw in the trailer.

I see that now, I guess i just miss the color, the red stripes and decals

 

[Jimmy_C]

I don't understand why there's no delta shield or hull markings on the ship

There are definitely details obscured by the shuttle. You can see a red hull marking "coming out" from the shuttle's right wing. There's also a red marking near the deflector dish.

 

[Ptrope]

Sure as heck looks like a window, but that angle of the saucer outside doesn't jibe with anything. Not that it did in the initially-released Empire shot, either, but at least it was closer; this one is both at an angle and way off-center.

As for the streaks, those bright light sources are from the back of the bridge, reflected in the window/screen. Yet another argument against all the silly-ass 'makeup lights' on this bridge/lingerie department ...

 

[cooleddie74]

I don't understand why there's no delta shield or hull markings on the ship

This goes back to my theory that the UFP may not have been formed in this "alternate" timeline yet, due to some form of corruption by Nero

I've also been looking for some type of plating/hatch/tube used for the escape pod that Kirk appears to use - and there doesn't seem to be that detail in this new pic.

There seems to be blue lighting on the underside of the warp nacelles. I guess they figured that we've seen the blue on the inside & outside of the engines - why not do something different/new, and put it on the bottom.

One problem: the UFP is formed in 2161. The Kelvin scenes of the movie happen around or in 2233. The Federation exists already. Just because you don't see clear UFP markings on this one ship means nothing. The original TOS Enterprise didn't sport Federation banners or markings on her hull. Just the modified delta shield and arrow emblems and stripes.

 

[Kpnuts]

So?

So? You think it's plausible that in the middle of the movie, the viewscreen is turning at a very slow place, equivalent to 1 degree every 5-10 seconds for the stars to blur so incredibily little? Surely it's FAR more plausible that the ship is simply moving through space? Think about it.

You need to think about that. There is one camera on Spock, the view screen outside is from a different "camera." If it is doing a pan scan then Spock doesn't have to be "blurring" just because the stars are.

Do you think I'm 12 years old? You seriously don't need to explain that basic fact to me. My point was... it's far more likely that the ship is travelling through space, whilst there's a conversation going on on the bridge. Rather than... the viewscreen is looking for something at slug's pace by turning very gently from left to right, while Spock has his back against it.

Show it to us on the Enterprise-Teaser which we see a clear outside view of the bridge? There were no windows on the outside of the bridge.

The teaser that was made more than a year ago? Do you honestly think that NO design changes happened since they first made that model and the finished product?

Why not? It's a generation before the Enterprise. They had one nacelle on the Kelvin and two on the Enterprise. The Kelvin is not The Enterprise.

I know the Kelvin is not the Enterprise. I know the Kelvin has one nacelle. Congratulations on pointing out that incredible fact.

Starfleet ships have warp nacelles, they have saucers, they have red impulse engines, they have deflector dishes, they have bridge modules on the top of the saucer, they have registry numbers on the top of their saucer. These are all ubiquitous design decisions that can be found on all Starfleet ships. Considering we've never seen Abrams' ships before now, and given that the Kelvin has a big long rectangular window... and given the Enterprise viewscreen has suddenly become a big long rectangular thing where you can see the saucer at the bottom... I think it's safe to say it's a window (that can turn into a viewscreen when needed). It's cooler, and makes for a better set.

What "physical similarities?" You are just saying "Its a window because the Kelvin has one" but you aren't giving any evidence why this view is a Window.

'What physical similaries'? As mentioned, they're both long, and rectangular. And look similar.

Old viewscreen:

Long rectangular windows/viewscreen:

If it was ONLY a viewscreen, we wouldn't see the saucer at the bottom. It would make no sense, why waste all that viewing space on the ship itself when the whole view could be utilised for space.

 

[ancient]

And no the bridge doesn't rotate. Surely it's infinitely more plausible that the ship is simply moving slowly?

Well, if you're going to go with a physical window, you might as well make the bridge rotate, too, since that's easier than moving the whole ship whenever you want to "look around."

The window also acts as a viewscreen.

By your reasoning, the Enterprise should just have one nacelle just because the Kelvin did too.

No, they're completely different.

The window on the Kelvin is a small design decision that could easily be ubiquitous with all Abrams-era Starfleet ships. The Enterprise has a window on the bridge, that acts like a viewscreen when required.

Sorry, but aside from the little fact that THERE IS NO WINDOW ON THE SHIP EXTERIOR, a window/viewscreen combo doesn't make any sense. It's a window...that turns into a much better window? Why? Pointless.

Definitely window. Just like this...

I fail to follow that train of thought.

They wouldn't include a window on the Kelvin (something that's never been seen on Starfleet ships before, and then not do the same on the Enterprise). It's basic common sense. Plus the physical similarities are too obvious to ignore

Absolutely wrong. The Kelvin is an old design, and has no similarities to the Enterprise, aside from the very basic starfleet look. This ain't the ENT-refit and RELIANT from STII, which are very similar, this is more like the ENT-refit and the EXCELSIOR from STIII. Two different generations of ship, built over 20 years apart from eachother.

Abrams has said that everything about the look of the Kelvin, from the ship itself, to the interior design, to the unifroms, will suggest a ship MUCH more primitive than the Enterprise. The bridge window is obviously one of the elements meant to show how much more primitive the Kelvin is.

EDIT:

If it was ONLY a viewscreen, we wouldn't see the saucer at the bottom. It would make no sense, why waste all that viewing space on the ship itself when the whole view could be utilised for space.

Uh, why is it so important to show stars, and not the saucer? Is one more pointless than the other? We have no idea what the context of the scene is. Parts of the ship have been visible on the viewer before, as in INS. It's nothing to get excited over.

 

[cooleddie74]

The Kelvin is more of a halfway-point design between the NX and Daedalus classes of the mid-to-late 22nd century and the Constitution and other classes of the TOS era. More sophisticated and powerful than ships of Jonathan Archer's day...but still clunkier and bulkier than the state-of-the-art flagships to see service during Kirk's heyday.

 

[martin]

here is the image brightened...

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb133/nuclear_muffin/cleaneduplargeship.png

[And here it is converted to a link to prevent page-stretching. - M']

As for the lack of decals, this could be the ship straight out of dock, before all the official designations are added.

I hope at some point the registry is moved from the bottom of the engineering hull, to the saucer underside, and the usual deltas and other names and registries are added to the secondary hull sides, and the shuttle fantail etc...

 

[Devon]

Sure as heck looks like a window, but that angle of the saucer outside doesn't jibe with anything. Not that it did in the initially-released Empire shot, either, but at least it was closer; this one is both at an angle and way off-center.

As for the streaks, those bright light sources are from the back of the bridge, reflected in the window/screen. Yet another argument against all the silly-ass 'makeup lights' on this bridge/lingerie department ...

I might recommend reading through all of my posts thoroughly where I offered a reason on each of these points specifically already.

As I think I posted before, I know the difference between reflections and stars, especially when I am viewing the image at 100%.

 

[cooleddie74]

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb133/nuclear_muffin/cleaneduplargeship.png


Yeah, what's the big deal? In the modern U.S. Navy, most newly commissioned vessels are still missing a lot of onboard equipment as well as external markings. During WWII some even left dock to head into the war zones with some external paint applications missing to save time.

 

[Devon]

So?

So? You think it's plausible that in the middle of the movie, the viewscreen is turning at a very slow place, equivalent to 1 degree every 5-10 seconds for the stars to blur so incredibily little? Surely it's FAR more plausible that the ship is simply moving through space? Think about it.

I never said it was "constantly doing it." ALL of the stars have a horizonal motion blur. Yes it could be the ship moving.. sideways, but then how do you explain that the saucer hull has the weird angle that it does? And the fact the top of the ship makes little sense in its shape if it is a clear view with the inward/downward bow (which almost follows the distortion of the bottom of the viewscreen (or window))?

Do you think I'm 12 years old? You seriously don't need to explain that basic fact to me.

You brought it up.

My point was... it's far more likely that the ship is travelling through space,

Sideways?

whilst there's a conversation going on on the bridge. Rather than... the viewscreen is looking for something at slug's pace by turning very gently from left to right, while Spock has his back against it.

Why not?

The teaser that was made more than a year ago? Do you honestly think that NO design changes happened since they first made that model and the finished product?

If anything, it is very ever so slight adjustments. Seeing as they likely had the bridge designed by then, I'm sure someone would have caught the fact that "Oh, the bridge should have a window."

I know the Kelvin is not the Enterprise. I know the Kelvin has one nacelle. Congratulations on pointing out that incredible fact.

I had to, your reasoning for the Enterprise having a window is "because the Kelvin does."

become a big long rectangular thing where you can see the saucer at the bottom...

Because a camera can't capture that?

'What physical similaries'? As mentioned, they're both long, and rectangular. And look similar.

Oh.

If it was ONLY a viewscreen, we wouldn't see the saucer at the bottom.

Why not?

It would make no sense, why waste all that viewing space on the ship itself when the whole view could be utilised for space.

If they need a different view.. switch the camera. But you still haven't explained the reason why the hull angles are not in line with the "window" and seem to follow the distortion of the "window."

 

[Kpnuts]

Sideways?

Rotating the ship on it's axis will amount to the same motion blur. ANY movement of the ship will make the stars blur, it doesn't have to be sideways. Look at the Empire pic, the saucer is aligned perfectly front facing. No distortions there.

Pointless going around in circles with the rest of your post. I think it's a window that can have a viewscreen superimposed on it (in the same way as those data displays in the corner)

We'll revisit this thread in 5 months and see who was right.

 

[Shatterhand]

Not to throw anymore gasoline onto the fire that's been generated from this thread, but isn't it plausible that the "viewscreen" is, in fact, a window with a visual interface built into it that, at the touch of a button or a voice command, can be directed on any target or location around the ship? That seems far more likely than the "rotating bridge" hypothesis.

 

[cooleddie74]

Maybe the viewscreens are transparent viewers like the Cardassian desktop "shatterframe" comm-viewers on DS9? When you're not using them, they look like transparent little glass windows. When activated, they project a flat electronic image.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

Bridge Windows, Stars Etc.:

Due to the motion blur, and the fact that two different images show very different angles of the saucer, I suspect that the entire Bridge would need to be rotating for the viewer to be a Window.

What we might be looking at is a Viewer that is such high resolution, with 3D projection capabilities, that it is made to Simulate a Windows.

The two shots we've seen indicate that it may be in a "screensaver" mode where it is simulating a slow 360 degree rotating view over the hull.

Most of the crew are getting functional data from their instruments rather than the viewer, which is really there for communication and situational awareness for command staff on the Bridge.

Helm/Nav are facing the viewer because they have need to work with it in critical situations.

The Captain needs the overall situation, so his seat rotates, but by default faces the viewer.

Everyone else is working on their own systems with views unique to their tasks, though I ssuspect that key information can be requested as needed by the Captain for the viewer or for navigation etc.

The reason for such a Screensaver mode behind the scenes may be to give some visual variety. It looks cool.

 

[Devon]

Rotating the ship on it's axis will amount to the same motion blur. ANY movement of the ship will make the stars blur, it doesn't have to be sideways.

The motion blur will generally go the way the object is moving. Hence "Streaking stars" in Star Trek are coming from a radial point in the center, instead of just all moving in "one direction." If they are all moving sideways, that means that whatever it is, be it the camera or the object itself, is also moving sideways.

Look at the Empire pic, the saucer is aligned perfectly front facing. No distortions there.

The distortion is still there. Notice how the edge of the saucer on the right hand side is HIGHER than the point in the middle, when it shouldn't be if you are looking at it straight on with an unaltered field of vision.

 

[Devon]

Maybe the viewscreens are transparent viewers like the Cardassian desktop "shatterframe" comm-viewers on DS9? When you're not using them, they look like transparent little glass windows. When activated, they project a flat electronic image.

This is referred to as HUD.

 

[Franklin]

I throw this out for what it's worth then duck and cover in case anyone finds this suggestion so stupid that they want to throw things.
But --
Is there any confirmation that this is a picture of Spock on the main bridge, or is that just speculation? Could he be on a deck below the main bridge on that blister that sets on top of the saucer? A type of captain's ready-room? Secondary bridge? Whatever?

 

[ancient]

I throw this out for what it's worth then duck and cover in case anyone finds this suggestion so stupid that they want to throw things.
But --
Is there any confirmation that this is a picture of Spock on the main bridge, or is that just speculation? Could he be on a deck below the main bridge on that blister that sets on top of the saucer? A type of captain's ready-room? Secondary bridge? Whatever?

The bridge lights can be seen reflected in the viewscreen.

From that shot, it's pretty clear that the image shown on the viewer is pointed about 30 degrees to port and about 15 degrees down from level. An impossible angle for a window.

 

[Kpnuts]

Not to throw anymore gasoline onto the fire that's been generated from this thread, but isn't it plausible that the "viewscreen" is, in fact, a window with a visual interface built into it that, at the touch of a button or a voice command, can be directed on any target or location around the ship? That seems far more likely than the "rotating bridge" hypothesis.

That's what I and countleds others have suggested in this thread and others.

its the most logical explanation