Super Hi Res Enterprise

[MisterPL]

It... would look cooler in the film anyway.

Bingo.

It doesn't have to make sense from a scientific point of view. It's gotta look cool onscreen.

But even the Mercury astronauts insisted on putting a window on the capsule. We're human. We like to see where we're going. And Rod forbid the electric goes out. There goes the HUD and camera image. Seems like the driver would want to see where he's going.

It makes all kinds of sense if you want it to, and none at all if that's you're inclination.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

And Rod forbid the electric goes out.

You give Roddenberry's son far too much power.

Either that, or you're Scooby Doo.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

And Rod forbid the electric goes out. There goes the HUD and camera image. Seems like the driver would want to see where he's going.

If shipwide power is cut completley anyways, then impulse and thrusters are out of the question too.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

I ask again, why would a viewscreen reflect bridge lights?

Unless it where a window made of extra stong glass that turns into a viewscreen when needed. IE, a non-reflective one.

It makes sense, and would look cooler in the film anyway.

A viewer that defaults to a window simulation may have reflective glass for aesthetic purposes.

It looks like the viewer/window is viewed from a place slightly to the left of the centerline of the Bridge set, and yet the view of the outside is as if the camera is looking leftwards from a place to the right, and perhaps too far forward (or too far to the right) to see the USS ENTERPRISE decal on the saucer.

You can clearly see the "-" in the NCC-1701 running through the centerline of the saucer, to the right hand of the view, with the centerline dividing the port and starboard sides of the bridge tracing aftwards to the left from the bow lip of the saucer, where it would presumably intercept the bottom of the Bridge module to the right.

If this is actually a Window, then we would get a fixed view forward directly over the centerline of the primary hull.

In addition, the black openings on the bottom of the Bridge module facing Port and Starboard would be reflected in the layout of the Bridge interior set.

Also, looking at a different view, the shape (Width/Height) of the visual portal in question does not match between interior and exterior.

A window would be an interesting design feature, but the presumption that it is a window simply does not hold water under close scrutiny.

 

[MisterPL]

And Rod forbid the electric goes out. There goes the HUD and camera image. Seems like the driver would want to see where he's going.

If shipwide power is cut completley anyways, then impulse and thrusters are out of the question too.

That's why I specified "electric."

Drivers like windows. Pilots like windows. Astronauts like windows. I just don't see it going out of style.

 

[Kpnuts]

It... would look cooler in the film anyway.

Bingo.

It doesn't have to make sense from a scientific point of view. It's gotta look cool onscreen.

But even the Mercury astronauts insisted on putting a window on the capsule. We're human. We like to see where we're going. And Rod forbid the electric goes out. There goes the HUD and camera image. Seems like the driver would want to see where he's going.

It makes all kinds of sense if you want it to, and none at all if that's you're inclination.

Exactly.

Not only does a window that turns into a viewscreen make sense from a practical point of view... it'd just look infinitely cooler on the big screen. When you factor that, with the reflecting bridge lights (odd feature for a digital viewscreen don't you think) + the obvious window on the Kelvin (a possible Abrams-starship design trend?) ... the most likely answer is it's a window + viewscreen.

I ask again, why would a viewscreen reflect bridge lights?

Unless it where a window made of extra stong glass that turns into a viewscreen when needed. IE, a non-reflective one.

It makes sense, and would look cooler in the film anyway.

A viewer that defaults to a window simulation may have reflective glass for aesthetic purposes.

It looks like the viewer/window is viewed from a place slightly to the left of the centerline of the Bridge set, and yet the view of the outside is as if the camera is looking leftwards from a place to the right, and perhaps too far forward (or too far to the right) to see the USS ENTERPRISE decal on the saucer.

You can clearly see the "-" in the NCC-1701 running through the centerline of the saucer, to the right hand of the view, with the centerline dividing the port and starboard sides of the bridge tracing aftwards to the left from the bow lip of the saucer, where it would presumably intercept the bottom of the Bridge module to the right.

If this is actually a Window, then we would get a fixed view forward directly over the centerline of the primary hull.

In addition, the black openings on the bottom of the Bridge module facing Port and Starboard would be reflected in the layout of the Bridge interior set.

Also, looking at a different view, the shape (Width/Height) of the visual portal in question does not match between interior and exterior.

A window would be an interesting design feature, but the presumption that it is a window simply does not hold water under close scrutiny.

That's funny, this shot seems to have the window perfectly in line with the middle of the NCC-1701. Which do we believe?

- reflecting bridge lights
- Kelvin has a window (Abrams/Starfleet design trend?)
- lines up perfectly with front of saucer + why would a digital viewscreen waste space on the saucer?
- makes practical sense
- enhances set design from cinematic point of view
- other overlays already superimposed on

It's more likely a window.

I can easily imagine the final cut of the movie will have a scene where lots of graphics are superimposed on the main window/viewscreen.

I mean look, at the end of the day who gives a **** really, it's a small thing really. And personally I never really care that much about these little Trek details, but in this case, I'm just very convinced by my point.

 

[gastrof]

Getting back to the original theme of the thread, the photo of the Enterprise, is anyone else as ticked as I am that we STILL don't get to see the full length of the nacelles or the front of the saucer?

We can GUESS all we want, but the fact of the matter is, we don't know what the whole ship really looks like.

What good does it to US for them to release a high rez version of the same picture? How's about a full view of the ship instead? I mean, they couldn't have made the ship a little smaller in the same frame and let us see the whole thing?

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

And Rod forbid the electric goes out. There goes the HUD and camera image. Seems like the driver would want to see where he's going.

If shipwide power is cut completley anyways, then impulse and thrusters are out of the question too.

That's why I specified "electric."

Drivers like windows. Pilots like windows. Astronauts like windows. I just don't see it going out of style.

Perhaps I should have specified the controls for impulse and thrusters. If all the bridge instrumentation and control is dead, then odds are that navigation won't be handled by just one or two guys looking out of a window.

 

[Devon]

- reflecting bridge lights

Plasma screen?

- Kelvin has a window (Abrams/Starfleet design trend?)

So was one nacelle. Nothing to do with the Enterprise.

- lines up perfectly with front of saucer + why would a digital viewscreen waste space on the saucer?

Why not? I might have asked several times now, explain why the saucer "dips" in the middle parallel with the bottom of the of the view screen? No perfect view of the saucer should give us a distorted dip in the middle when it should rise in the middle.

 

[Kpnuts]

What does plasma screen mean? Why would a viewscreen reflect bridge lights. Even the NX-01's viewscreen didn't do that.

You clearly don't have a clue what the word 'trend' means. Starfleet ships have saucers, they have red nacelle caps, they have secondary hulls, they have bridge modules on the top of their saucer, they have a navigational deflector, they have registries painted onto the hull, they have blinking formation lights... these are all design trends. Yes the configuration/shape/purpose of a ship may vary... but there are design trend similarities across them all.

What does that last point have to do with anything? It doesn't do anything for either of our arguments, it's just the perspective, showing something that's very far away. Looks fine to me.

Face it. A digital viewscreen would NOT reflect bridge lights. It would be completely impractical, and possibly dangerous in a firefight.

 

[MisterPL]

This shot of Sulu shows the window in the background. The centerline of the hull as well as the first "1."

It's like looking out of a car windshield at the hood. The saucer is consistently visible in the trailer, too. I'm guessing this is just something they're doing because they can now.

 

[Akiraprise]

I still think that the nacelles are fugly. They're look is not improving with repeated viewings. :shrugs:

 

[JoeZhang]

This shot of Sulu shows the window in the background. The centerline of the hull as well as the first "1."

It's like looking out of a car windshield at the hood. The saucer is consistently visible in the trailer, too. I'm guessing this is just something they're doing because they can now.

Yep - that's a window.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Please address this one point, then. Show us, on any of the images of the "Abramsprise," where that window is.

That's not the window... wrong shape, wrong location. What it is may be debatable, but what I believe it to be is a replication of the nearly identical (but smaller) detail found in three places around the perimeter of the TMP 1701... and clearly identified there as a sensor emplacement.

In other words, the CAMERA you're seeing the view on the screen from, might be in that location.

It's always a little bit... annoying?... when I (or anyone else) actually addresses a point, then has to repeat it because someone didn't quite get the entire argument. When someone puts forth something you've already mentioned as PART of your argument as though it somehow contradicts your argument... like I said, annoying.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I ask again, why would a viewscreen reflect bridge lights?

Unless it where a window made of extra stong glass that turns into a viewscreen when needed. IE, a non-reflective one.

It makes sense, and would look cooler in the film anyway.

Gee, I dunno... MAYBE BECAUSE ANY SHINY SURFACE REFLECTS?!?!?!

A "viewscreen" can be shiny. A window can have anti-glare coating applied. What the HELL are you thinking... that somehow "windows" are always, and inherently, reflective, and that display screens are always, and inherently, non-reflective?

I don't know what planet you live on, but on EARTH, neither of those is the case. My computer monitor happens to reflect lights behind me fairly clearly... but the glass in the picture frame above my desk is matte glass. Funny... I must live in the freakin' mirror universe, huh?

Seriously... how can you possibly think that's a cogent argument?

 

[dillon3001]

No the stars are also very slightly blurred horizontally

Could it possibly be that the Enterprise has just dropped out of warp? Also whoever pointed out the view of Earth in the nacelle cap gets props. Never noticed that until i looked closely

 

[trevanian]

And Rod forbid the electric goes out. There goes the HUD and camera image. Seems like the driver would want to see where he's going.

If shipwide power is cut completley anyways, then impulse and thrusters are out of the question too.

That's why I specified "electric."

Drivers like windows. Pilots like windows. Astronauts like windows. I just don't see it going out of style.

Fighter Pilots probably like to SHOOT through windows too, given that it is going to be a weaker material, one not as impervious to beam weaponry.

 

[JoeZhang]

If shipwide power is cut completley anyways, then impulse and thrusters are out of the question too.

That's why I specified "electric."

Drivers like windows. Pilots like windows. Astronauts like windows. I just don't see it going out of style.

Fighter Pilots probably like to SHOOT through windows too, given that it is going to be a weaker material, one not as impervious to beam weaponry.

If they can shoot through the windows, it means they are through the shields anyway and it's irrelevent. If you are going to have the command centre on the top of the structure, it's neither here or there if a window increases the danger.

and who gives a crap anyway? it just looks cooler in a visual medium.

 

[Kpnuts]

I ask again, why would a viewscreen reflect bridge lights?

Unless it where a window made of extra stong glass that turns into a viewscreen when needed. IE, a non-reflective one.

It makes sense, and would look cooler in the film anyway.

Gee, I dunno... MAYBE BECAUSE ANY SHINY SURFACE REFLECTS?!?!?!

A "viewscreen" can be shiny. A window can have anti-glare coating applied. What the HELL are you thinking... that somehow "windows" are always, and inherently, reflective, and that display screens are always, and inherently, non-reflective?

I don't know what planet you live on, but on EARTH, neither of those is the case. My computer monitor happens to reflect lights behind me fairly clearly... but the glass in the picture frame above my desk is matte glass. Funny... I must live in the freakin' mirror universe, huh?

Seriously... how can you possibly think that's a cogent argument?

Calm down dear.

The viewscreen on every Star Trek series to date was never shiny or reflective.

Glass however is, and it would look rather similar to the above pic.

Why would a big computer monitor from the future be made to reflect things unnecessarily? It could be potentially dangerous, and completely pointless

 

[MisterPL]

That's not the window... wrong shape, wrong location. What it is may be debatable, but what I believe it to be is a replication of the nearly identical (but smaller) detail found in three places around the perimeter of the TMP 1701... and clearly identified there as a sensor emplacement.

I have no doubt it's a visual cue from an earlier Enterprise design. But it's also where the window would be because it's the right shape and in the right location.

In other words, the CAMERA you're seeing the view on the screen from, might be in that location.

If the camera were in that location, "U.S.S. ENTERPRISE" would be visible on screen. It's not. Consistently not. The camera has to be further forward, like where I suggested a few posts back.

It's always a little bit... annoying?... when I (or anyone else) actually addresses a point, then has to repeat it because someone didn't quite get the entire argument. When someone puts forth something you've already mentioned as PART of your argument as though it somehow contradicts your argument... like I said, annoying.

I know exactly how you feel. Especially after you've gone through the trouble of doing a show & tell. Frustrating.