Super Hi Res Enterprise

[ancient]

just as they look vastly different on the outside.

They don't look vastly different on the outside. They're still federation starships, the NX-01 bridge looks very similar to the Defiant bridge in terms of layout. The NX-01 even looks like the Akira class. They're all the same sort of design.

They look similar only in the broadest sense. The bridge domes look completely different. For example, there are three windows on the Kelvin dome, and zero windows on the Enterprise dome.

So you think the earlier image is correct rather than the newer, bigger pic? So what, they 'fixed it' to look wrong or something?

The quality of these pics don't exactly fill me with confidence. The terribly under-exposed shot of the Enterpries for instance. I'd say there's every possibility the Empire pic is the final version. It'd make sense, seeing as the exterior ship is in line with the bridge.

Sorry, but that's nonsense.

As bright as the bridge is, a window that shiney would look like a mirror. Nothing would be visible through it.

We're talking years into the future ffs. I'm not saying they build their windows out of 20th century glass.

I really can't be bothered arguing anymore, we're going around in circles.

Well, whatever it's made out of, it's reflective as all hell, no?

 

[SonicRanger]

The quality of these pics don't exactly fill me with confidence. The terribly under-exposed shot of the Enterpries for instance. I'd say there's every possibility the Empire pic is the final version. It'd make sense, seeing as the exterior ship is in line with the bridge.

I'm inclided to agree. Empire magazine got the film's/studio's polished version. TrekMovie got a few of the castoffs that weren't widely released for publication.

Sorry, but that's nonsense.

Why? Why is TrekMovie's shot any better than Empire magazine's? The latter certainly looks better than the former.

 

[Devon]

Yes, like the angle we'd be looking at through a window?

No, not what I meant. But then now you are taking this around in a circle. Looking through a window shouldn't give that sort of distorted view of an object.

Yes, like a window not being entirely flat. In fact it's more likely that a window is curved, and not a viewscreen.

Oh brother.

This curved/distorted saucer find of yours doesn't help your case by the way. It does nothing for either of our arguments.

It does for mine. Sorry that it doesn't for yours.

The latter certainly looks better than the former.

How so? (Not saying you are wrong, just asking how so)

 

[ancient]

Sorry, but that's nonsense.

Why? Why is TrekMovie's shot any better than Empire magazine's? The latter certainly looks better than the former.

It's nonsense because - again - there's no rational reason to say that images released are 'wrong' when they seem to disprove your theory. You can't pick what to accept and what to ignore.

ETA

Yes, like a window not being entirely flat. In fact it's more likely that a window is curved, and not a viewscreen.

A curved window doesn't distort an image. A curved tv screen does.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I seeee..... well I didn't really think the bridge was angled like that. Seems a bit stupid to me, but it would explain the strangely angled view of the saucer through the big glass reflecting window :-P

http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/federation-starship-uss-enterprise-sheet-12.jpg

Rotated to accommodate the exterior "bridge bump" as the turbolift shaft.

Paging Captain April! Captain Robert April, please report to the house courtesy phone!

And you folks thought you were talking in circles before?

::: pulls out broadsword:::

MACLEOD!!!

 

[trevanian]

A curved window doesn't distort an image.

Say WHAT?! Even in the trek universe, a curved window distorts, just like real life. take a look at the TNG lounge windows, or walk into any restaurant converted over from SHAKEY'S PIZZA, with the curvy windows that are guaranteed to make the temperature 15 degrees too high most any time of the year.

 

[SonicRanger]

A curved window doesn't distort an image.

Wrong. Just plain wrong.

 

[Kpnuts]

A curved window doesn't distort an image.

Oh dear.

 

[Kpnuts]

It's nonsense because - again - there's no rational reason to say that images released are 'wrong' when they seem to disprove your theory. You can't pick what to accept and what to ignore.

Except that one is brighter, and has the saucer perfectly lined up with the middle of the bridge...

And the other has it at a weird angle.

That's a perfectly rational reason that you don't want to accept

 

[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?

Calm down dear.

"Dear?"

Simultaneously attempting (though failing) to be belittling while succeeding at coming across as somewhat idiotic... I'm impressed.

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

That's because the viewscreen on every Star Trek series to date was a blue or green screen and an optical effect. Which, of course, resulted in it LOOKING like an optical effect.

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

As would any real physical surface whatsoever... with the degree of "shininess" based entirely upon the actual finish, not upon the purpose for which it is intended.

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

Let me put this into very simple terms. The reason that no viewscreen before has shown any reflection has been because it was a fake-looking visual effect based upon blue- or green-screen techniques. Any REAL viewscreen would, to one extent or another, reflect, much as seen here.

This is not a real physical window on-set, obviously. There is not a real, practical starship hull exterior on-set, just outside of that "window," either. You DO recognize that, I'm sure.

The reason that the reflections were added AS AN EFFECT was to make the item... whether it's supposed to be a window or a viewscreen... look for convincing and less fake. The "no reflection" screens we've always seen always looked fake, because they lacked that visual cue which ALL REAL THINGS would have... regardless of whether the object in question was a window or a viewscreen.

It was, undeniably, overdone... another example of "style versus substance" which seems to be a massive problem with the style of this film. Yes, it would be somewhat distracting.

But do you think that it would be, somehow, "less distracting" if it's reflections on a window than if it's reflections on a display screen? Is that your argument???

Wouldn't the reflections be equally distracting either way?

I agree that it's TOO SHINY. That the bizarre lighting style of that "Revlon Bridge" set is nonsensical in general and reflects quite clearly on that big piece of shiny glass... regardless of whether or not that shiny glass panel is a window or a viewer. I agree that it would be distracting... just like virtually every other feature of that HORRIFICALLY-DESIGNED set is.

I agree that in a well-designed bridge, you would not have the bridge lighting laid out in a fashion which would be able to reflect in that surface, regardless of whether it was a window or a viewer.

I agree that, regardless of whether that's a window or a viewer, you'd have the viewing surface treated with an anti-glare, anti-reflective treatment of some sort.

I just find it DUMBFOUNDING that you somehow think that, due to 40+ years of matte-based special effects in Star Trek substituting for a "real viewer," that somehow means that a "real viewer" would be incapable of reflecting, and that somehow a "real window" would inherently, and invariably, be shiny.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

It's not an assumption.

This is a window:

Abrams made the Kelvin have a front facing window for a viewscreen. Now, given that a single view would be pretty useless on a starship, we have to assume that the Kelvin's bridge window, can turn into a viewscreen whenever it needed to (to see ships approaching from behind for instance).

However, saying the window looks into the bridge is certainly an assumption. It could very well be a briefing room, or observation corridor for all we know (The Kelvin's bridge module is by no means insubstantial). As is believing that that design element carried over. The Enterprise and Kelvin are from two completley different generations of ship. Look at the B-52 and B-2, for example. You're trying to think of them as contemporaries, when the Kelvin is supposed to be this older design.

As for the assumption that it's a viewscreen... well, yeah. That's because there's precedence for it. There's no precedence in Trek for Federation starships to have windows at the front of the bridge.

Exactly correct.

All we know is that the Kelvin has three window-ish openings on the front of it's topmost deck.

Maybe on the Kelvin, that's where the crew lounge is, and the bridge is at the bottom of the ship.

Certainly equally as "possible," and every bit as logical.

As for Enterprise having a window there... there are several images of the ship (in the trailer, and elsewhere) where you can see the front surface of the topmost deck of the Abramsprise. Can any one find an actual "window" there? No... a few folks have strained pretty majorly to associate another vaguely rectangular-ish shape to "the window" but the two items are utterly dissimilar in shape (and anyone who can't see that needs to work harder at trying to figure out why square pegs can't fit into round holes, something most of us figured out as small children!).

Now, that doesn't mean that there couldn't be a window on the AbramsBridge, perhaps covered by a retractable panel or a one-way-transparent surface (so it's invisible from outside). But we have no indication that that's the case, either.

For that matter... there's no indication that Abrams' bridge is on Deck one... even THAT is an assumption on our parts, isn't it? This isn't the same ship we know, it's dramatically different in almost every way... so why hold onto that particular preconception when virtually every other preconception turned out to be wrong?

 

[Kpnuts]

That's because the viewscreen on every Star Trek series to date was a blue or green screen and an optical effect. Which, of course, resulted in it LOOKING like an optical effect.Glass however is, and it would look rather similar to the above pic.As would any real physical surface whatsoever... with the degree of "shininess" based entirely upon the actual finish, not upon the purpose for which it is intended.Let me put this into very simple terms. The reason that no viewscreen before has shown any reflection has been because it was a fake-looking visual effect based upon blue- or green-screen techniques. Any REAL viewscreen would, to one extent or another, reflect, much as seen here.

This is not a real physical window on-set, obviously. There is not a real, practical starship hull exterior on-set, just outside of that "window," either. You DO recognize that, I'm sure.

The reason that the reflections were added AS AN EFFECT was to make the item... whether it's supposed to be a window or a viewscreen... look for convincing and less fake. The "no reflection" screens we've always seen always looked fake, because they lacked that visual cue which ALL REAL THINGS would have... regardless of whether the object in question was a window or a viewscreen.

It was, undeniably, overdone... another example of "style versus substance" which seems to be a massive problem with the style of this film. Yes, it would be somewhat distracting.

But do you think that it would be, somehow, "less distracting" if it's reflections on a window than if it's reflections on a display screen? Is that your argument???

Wouldn't the reflections be equally distracting either way?

I agree that it's TOO SHINY. That the bizarre lighting style of that "Revlon Bridge" set is nonsensical in general and reflects quite clearly on that big piece of shiny glass... regardless of whether or not that shiny glass panel is a window or a viewer. I agree that it would be distracting... just like virtually every other feature of that HORRIFICALLY-DESIGNED set is.

I agree that in a well-designed bridge, you would not have the bridge lighting laid out in a fashion which would be able to reflect in that surface, regardless of whether it was a window or a viewer.

I agree that, regardless of whether that's a window or a viewer, you'd have the viewing surface treated with an anti-glare, anti-reflective treatment of some sort.

I just find it DUMBFOUNDING that you somehow think that, due to 40+ years of matte-based special effects in Star Trek substituting for a "real viewer," that somehow means that a "real viewer" would be incapable of reflecting, and that somehow a "real window" would inherently, and invariably, be shiny.

A viewscreen of the future, would be made so that it doesn't reflect. It really is as simple as that.

A window however, clearly does reflect, like on the Enterprise bridge. When it needs to be turned into a viewscren overlay, it will no longer reflect things

 

[Cary L. Brown]

A curved window doesn't distort an image.

Wrong. Just plain wrong.

The amount of distortion (due to refraction) is trivial with a thin-plate piece of glass, however. The thicker the piece of glass, the more significant the distortion.

This is due to the index-of-refraction of glass, air, water, vacuum (which has none, obviously) and so forth all being different. It's a simple geometry problem to determine the refraction index.

On the other hand... suppose that this is part of a VIEWER. Ancient is thinking of it as a curved flat-panel... which would, indeed, give you a distorted image, I'm sure we can all agree.

But Star Trek has established that they use "holographic viewers." This was most strongly established in TNG-era shows, but I seem to recall it being established on "Enterprise" as well (even if we never saw evidence of it on TOS).

Now, if this is a "holo-viewer" screen... you could have it be any shape you wanted and the holo-image on the other side would be undistorted... because you'd have the image generated so that the viewed image would inherently compensate for that. Wouldn't you?

I'll be the first to tell you that I HATE the "curvy-blobby" shape approach. Everyone who's read more than one or two of my posts probably knows that. And Abrams' film is clearly beholden to that same (functionally-ill-conceived but graphic-art-guy-"kewl") style. So they've got a pointless, poorly-conceived "window and/or viewer" there which is curved... and REGARDLESS of what it is, the curvature accomplishes nothing positive... it serves no purpose except to "look kewl." Same as the object's shininess.

A flat window would make more sense. A flat 2D viewer would make more sense. A flat holo-viewer would make more sense.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

A viewscreen of the future, would be made so that it doesn't reflect. It really is as simple as that.

A window however, clearly does reflect, like on the Enterprise bridge. When it needs to be turned into a viewscren overlay, it will no longer reflect things

Is it REALLY "as simple as that?"

You know this because you, of course, have been to the future and are an expert on what "viewscreens of the future" are really going to be like. That's why we should all accept your nonsensical declarations.

Does that about cover it?

Well... two can play at that game.

A window of the future would be made so that it doesn't reflect. It really is as simple as that.

A monitor screen, on the other hand, clearly does reflect, as we've seen on real, on-set physical monitors in Star Trek series and films in the past.
​

Now... give me a counter-argument to that. I'll wait.

 

[Kpnuts]

A monitor that will display tactical information should not reflect. It is pointless, dangerous and when you're making a digital screen of that size, you make sure that it only displays what you want it to.

A window can reflect, like it's so obviously reflecting in the Empire pic, whilst at the same time showing a bit of the saucer underneath. We've never had viewscreens show off the saucer before, why would it, it would waste valuable room on the screen.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

A monitor that will display tactical information should not reflect. It is pointless, dangerous and when you're making a digital screen of that size, you make sure that it only displays what you want it to.

A window can reflect, like it's so obviously reflecting in the Empire pic, whilst at the same time showing a bit of the saucer underneath. We've never had viewscreens show off the saucer before, why would it, it would waste valuable room on the screen.

A viewscreen (including a hologram-based one) will show, like any other display screen, whatever is being shown. I know that sounds "circular" but since you seem to be having real trouble with grasping this, I thought it should be pointed out.

If, say, it is showing something being taken from a camera (including a holographic camera) then it will show that... won't it? If the camera in question is in a location where it can see part of the hull... then you'll see part of the hull.

Please... PLEASE... would you GET OVER THIS IDIOTIC IDEA THAT WINDOWS ALWAYS REFLECT AND MONITORS NEVER DO. It is nonsensical, it is WRONG, and it makes you seem rather dim-witted... which I'm hoping isn't really the case.

Any object can reflect, and any object may be treated with non-reflective treatments to reflect LESS. No object has absolutely no reflectivity. None. Never.

A window that reflects is also "pointless and dangerous" in exactly the same way as a viewscreen, and for exactly the same reason. It is no less "pointless and dangerous" if it's a window.

And if it's a window, it's going to be even MORE "dangerous" since you can't really adjust the image (again, think of driving down a dark road at night without headlights on and with your car's interior lights on... how much, really, can you see???)

Abrams' bridge design sucks... it's all for style, not for function. It's almost entirely unusable as a real-world design. The reflective surface on this "window and/or screen" is horrific no matter which it "really" is.

 

[SonicRanger]

A monitor screen, on the other hand, clearly does reflect, as we've seen on real, on-set physical monitors in Star Trek series and films in the past.

In fact, sometimes monitor screens are so reflective in the 24th century that the crew has to tape black cardboard on them to cut down on the reflections.

And 24th century windows are so non-reflective that you'd swear there was no glass there.

 

[Kpnuts]

Your posts really are far too long-winded and sorry but I can only skim through it as I don't care about this trivial little matter that much.

If, say, it is showing something being taken from a camera (including a holographic camera) then it will show that... won't it? If the camera in question is in a location where it can see part of the hull... then you'll see part of the hull.

I know that the camera is on part of the hull and therefore the viewer will show part of the hull. It's just far more likely to be a window. Why would the viewscreen bother with a camera that shows off part of the hull, it should be focused on space in front of it.

Please... PLEASE... would you GET OVER THIS IDIOTIC IDEA THAT WINDOWS ALWAYS REFLECT AND MONITORS NEVER DO. It is nonsensical, it is WRONG, and it makes you seem rather dim-witted... which I'm hoping isn't really the case.

I never said monitors never do. My point was, in the future, you would hope that digital screens would be made so that they don't reflect. Like the viewscreens of the last 40 years haven't. If viewscreens do reflect, I doubt they'd be made to reflect to such a heavy level.

A window that reflects is also "pointless and dangerous" in exactly the same way as a viewscreen, and for exactly the same reason. It is no less "pointless and dangerous" if it's a window.

And if it's a window, it's going to be even MORE "dangerous" since you can't really adjust the image (again, think of driving down a dark road at night without headlights on and with your car's interior lights on... how much, really, can you see???)

Get your head around this very simple concept that I've been mentioning since page 1.

Of course the window isn't ONLY a window. That would be stupid. But just like the data overlays in the corner that we can see... any view that is needed and ordered by the captain, will have the viewscreen overlayed on top of the window, in the same way. Hence multi-purpose.

The window looks cool from a set production point of view, we can have a scene where Kirk goes up close and looks down through it, and the VFX of a viewscreen type graphic overlayed on top of it will look cool and modern. Plus the viewscreen overlay will be made to reflect less than the default every day window. The fact that the Kelvin has a window (95% certain it does)... is the icing on the cake in this argument.

 

[MisterPL]

As for Enterprise having a window there... there are several images of the ship (in the trailer, and elsewhere) where you can see the front surface of the topmost deck of the Abramsprise. Can any one find an actual "window" there? No... a few folks have strained pretty majorly to associate another vaguely rectangular-ish shape to "the window" but the two items are utterly dissimilar in shape (and anyone who can't see that needs to work harder at trying to figure out why square pegs can't fit into round holes, something most of us figured out as small children!).

Dude, if you see a round hole where the rectangular window is indicated below, you may want to consider remedial lessons yourself.

Or perhaps you think that giant pane Spock's standing in front of is round.

One other thing I've been aching to point out: THEY MOVED THE HYPHEN! Compare the "NCC-1701" in the images to the centerline on the saucer's hull. The hyphen was more centered in the teaser trailer but now it's off a bit more. This will, of course, totally ruin the film's own continuity and encourage even more Trekkies to boycott the movie.

What's next: No pinky ring for McCoy? No pointed ears on Spock? Uhura without a bra?

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

A curved window doesn't distort an image.

Oh dear.

First of all, technically speaking ALL glass distorts the image (slightly).

With that caveat out of the way, I have seen many examples of curved glass that do NOT noticeably distort an image. I have been in office buildings with curved glazing that does not adversely distort the scene outside. I have bought deli meat from curved-glass-front deli cases that did not noticeably distort the look of the products on the inside.

Here are some examples:
http://salestores.com/trtc6cugldec.html
http://www.thelondonglass.co.uk/glassbends.asp
http://www.euroglass.co.nz/specialprojects/eurocurvespecproj/