Super Hi Res Enterprise

[Cary L. Brown]

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.

Amazing, that anti-reflective treatment they clearly developed between the time of NewKirk's windows and Picard's windows. Probably some form of quantistabilized-rhodohydrodynium phantasmagoriasulide transrational matrix, huh?

And I'm sure that those black cardboard pieces were being replicated by the hyper-advanced bioneural-gelpack-drive superwhoitsalinium transtator system.

After all... that's the only possible explanation, isn't it?

Otherwise, you might have to just accept that the damned JJPrise screen is shiny because Abrams thinks shiny is almost as cool as he thinks "brilliant white with lights shining in your eyes" is.

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/

How dare you bring reality, and common sense, into this thread???

Originally Posted by Cary L. Brown

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.

Okayyyyyy....

Either this is a really... stretching?... effort to be funny, or you're really, really out-of-touch.

Anyone besides this guy think I was calling the window round?

Anyone besides this guy fail to grasp the concept I was really referring to?

You know... this one?

Let's see if I can simplify it even further for anyone who really WAS "stumped" by this comment.

Any given shape is not the same shape as some different shape.

Hence, square pegs do not fit into round holes in the ubiquitous "child's toy" pictured above, used to measure the most basic level of intelligence.

Hence, the "window" seen on the bridge set is not the same as the sensor-slot seen in the preview trailer image.

"Not the same shape" = "not the same shape"

Seems like a remarkably simple concept to me.

 

[Gepard]

Hence, the "window" seen on the bridge set is not the same as the sensor-slot seen in the preview trailer image.

"Not the same shape" = "not the same shape"

Seems like a remarkably simple concept to me.

...except that the two shapes do look an awful lot a like. It's hard to tell the relative widths, since we've yet to see the whole viewscreen/window, but they do seem to have the same sloping sides and rounded corners.

And considering how much you harp on about "reality" and "stretching" things, your message could get through a lot better if you dialed back the patronizing tone.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

Hence, the "window" seen on the bridge set is not the same as the sensor-slot seen in the preview trailer image.

"Not the same shape" = "not the same shape"

Seems like a remarkably simple concept to me.

...except that the two shapes do look an awful lot a like. It's hard to tell the relative widths, since we've yet to see the whole viewscreen/window, but they do seem to have the same sloping sides and rounded corners.

And considering how much you harp on about "reality" and "stretching" things, your message could get through a lot better if you dialed back the patronizing tone.

In the full trailer, we do indeed see the whole viewscreen, and get a sense of the entire shape from almost directly behind the helm/navigation.

The shape does not match up with the black opening seen at the base of the Bridge module, and the black opening is about twice the width in relation to it's height. It has the wrong aspect-ratio.

Also, there is nothing on the Bridge set shots that mirror the two at the sides of the Bridge module either.

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/xi/screencaps/trailer/trailer067.jpg

 

[Cary L. Brown]

...except that the two shapes do look an awful lot a like. It's hard to tell the relative widths, since we've yet to see the whole viewscreen/window, but they do seem to have the same sloping sides and rounded corners.

Well... measure the height of the "sensor slot" versus its width in the "preview trailer" image. Now, measure the height versus width of the viewscreen (best done in the full-crew shot, not the "Spock shot" seen above.

The aspect ratio - width to height - needs to be the same, or at least very nearly the same. But it's not. The "slot" has an aspect ratio, width to height, which is roughly twice as large as that of the "viewscreen."

And considering how much you harp on about "reality" and "stretching" things, your message could get through a lot better if you dialed back the patronizing tone.

Well, I don't start off that way, but when people take that sort of tone with me ("Dear?" "Dude, if you see a round hole where the rectangular window is indicated below, you may want to consider remedial lessons yourself?") I have no problem with pointing out the flaws in their logic without feeling too much need to avoid huwting anyone feewings.

 

[MisterPL]

...except that the two shapes do look an awful lot a like. It's hard to tell the relative widths, since we've yet to see the whole viewscreen/window, but they do seem to have the same sloping sides and rounded corners.

And considering how much you harp on about "reality" and "stretching" things, your message could get through a lot better if you dialed back the patronizing tone.

A better pair of glasses would help, too. The condescending attitude is just a cover for the myopia.

It looks like that pane from the interior shot would fit nicely in the pane on the exterior shot. The resemblance certainly isn't as "vague" as certain people believe.

 

[number6]

It's possible that the window Spock stands in front of is below the main bridge as we see on the ship model in the first trailer. Perhaps it is an observation deck? The shape is not exactly the same as the shape of the viewscreen we see in the second trailer... Just a guess.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

It's possible that the window Spock stands in front of is below the main bridge as we see on the ship model in the first trailer. Perhaps it is an observation deck? The shape is not exactly the same as the shape of the viewscreen we see in the second trailer... Just a guess.

It's hard to say for sure. The two certainly have the same "graphic trim" but that could be a stylistic choice. You're absolutely right, though... there's no conclusive evidence that this image is even on the bridge at all. It's just another assumption we've all been making.

 

[MisterPL]

Well, I don't start off that way, but when people take that sort of tone with me ("Dear?" "Dude, if you see a round hole where the rectangular window is indicated below, you may want to consider remedial lessons yourself?") I have no problem with pointing out the flaws in their logic without feeling too much need to avoid huwting anyone feewings.

When you post things like "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!" you should expect to get what you give. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

I'm just mirroring your tone. Sorry if I offended you. I'll try to be less like you in the future.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Well, I don't start off that way, but when people take that sort of tone with me ("Dear?" "Dude, if you see a round hole where the rectangular window is indicated below, you may want to consider remedial lessons yourself?") I have no problem with pointing out the flaws in their logic without feeling too much need to avoid huwting anyone feewings.

When you post things like "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!" you should expect to get what you give. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

I'm just mirroring your tone. Sorry if I offended you. I'll try to be less like you in the future.

Be careful... even with the tendency of some moderators on here to be "immoderate," that's still crossing the line and ought to be warnable.

Do the exercise I mention above. Measure the heights and widths. Compare the ratios. DO THE MATH.

The "pegs" aren't the same size... it's utterly obvious to anyone who's got basic spacial awareness skills, but if you don't have that, at least you can do it the "longhand" way.

The slot is also on a much larger diameter in the saucer than the bridge's front wall has... you might want to take that into account as well. As well as the fact that the "viewscreen" has a curvature that's not just diametral... it faces upwards, and yet you don't see an overhanging lip up there, do you? Yet the "slot" is clearly exactly that... a slot. No "window glass" protruding beyond it, is there?

 

[Kpnuts]

Ok, so after all that we're all agreed it's a reflective window with a non-reflective viewscreen overlay when needed right?

 

[Kpnuts]

Cary,

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q="calm+down+dear"&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

 

[MisterPL]

The "pegs" aren't the same size... it's utterly obvious to anyone who's got basic spacial awareness skills, but if you don't have that, at least you can do it the "longhand" way.

The slot is also on a much larger diameter in the saucer than the bridge's front wall has... you might want to take that into account as well. As well as the fact that the "viewscreen" has a curvature that's not just diametral... it faces upwards, and yet you don't see an overhanging lip up there, do you? Yet the "slot" is clearly exactly that... a slot. No "window glass" protruding beyond it, is there?

I never said the panes match perfectly. Nor do they have to. So long as the pane on the interior is smaller than the one shown on the exterior, the shape doesn't even really matter. Or in simpler terms: A round peg WILL fit through a square hole if the peg is small enough.

The image from the teaser shows two panes; one is wider and another is inset and narrower. In trailer #2, this area is lit, not unlike a window.

 

[M'Sharak]

<snip>

In the full trailer, we do indeed see the whole viewscreen, and get a sense of the entire shape from almost directly behind the helm/navigation.

The shape does not match up with the black opening seen at the base of the Bridge module, and the black opening is about twice the width in relation to it's height. It has the wrong aspect-ratio.

Also, there is nothing on the Bridge set shots that mirror the two at the sides of the Bridge module either.

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/xi/screencaps/trailer/trailer067.jpg

Reason: Added image for demo.

OneBuckFilms, even in a thread oriented toward images, that's more than a bit large, and it's also hotlinked, both of which are in contradiction of the TrekBBS policy concerning images. I've converted this one to a link; please be sure that any images you post in the future are of appropriate size and are properly hosted.

Cary,

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22calm+down+dear%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Kpnuts, once was perhaps understandable, given Cary's propensity for using lots of SHOUTY ALL-CAPS PHRASES. Doing it again (and doing it in this manner) is going too far, and gets you a warning for trolling. Comments to PM.

I may not be done here, yet. I'd recommend everyone calm down for real.

EDIT:

After conversation with Kpnuts, in which he explained to my satisfaction that no offense was intended, I'm reversing the warning.

The "everyone calm down" still applies.

 

[Kpnuts]

Kpnuts, once was perhaps understandable, given Cary's propensity for using lots of SHOUTY ALL-CAPS PHRASES. Doing it again (and doing it in this manner) is going too far, and gets you a warning for trolling. Comments to PM.

I've sent you a PM explaining what I meant with my google link.

[PM received and see my edit in the post above. - M']

 

[steven87gill]

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.

Just listened to the commentary for STII and found out Nick Meyer didn't like the fact that the viewscreen wasn't a actual window, something i alwayes agreed with.

 

[SonicRanger]

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/

Are you really comparing 1/4"-thick deli-case glass to the thick transparent-aluminum window on a starship bridge that protects the sensitive command area from the vacuum and radiation of space?

If you want to use an example from today, try the windows in the space shuttle cockpit, not a deli case. The three glass panes that comprise the forward cockpit windows of the shuttle have a combined thickness of 2.6 inches. A curved window that is 2.6-inches thick will definitely distort the image.

Anyone care to guess if the index of refraction for transparent aluminum is greater or less than window glass?

 

[M'Sharak]

Well, I don't start off that way, but when people take that sort of tone with me ("Dear?" "Dude, if you see a round hole where the rectangular window is indicated below, you may want to consider remedial lessons yourself?") I have no problem with pointing out the flaws in their logic without feeling too much need to avoid huwting anyone feewings.

When you post things like "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!" you should expect to get what you give. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

I'm just mirroring your tone. Sorry if I offended you. I'll try to be less like you in the future.

Be careful... even with the tendency of some moderators on here to be "immoderate," that's still crossing the line and ought to be warnable.

Until you get a green name, you don't get to make that call, though, do you?

And as I've pointed out to you before on several occasions, your inclination to lecture at great length in condescending tone with much use of WORDS, PHRASES and ENTIRE SENTENCES written in ALL CAPS (seriously, Cary, what have you got against the italics and underlines or bold text which others use for emphasis?) and the repeated inferences about the (lack of) intelligence of those you're presuming to enlighten are not adding anything positive to the whole. You said above "Well, I don't start off that way" in response to a remark about your patronizing tone, but the facts are that you do often come on like a freight train and that you do often tend to go off on people with very little provocation, and that you do frequently tend to respond to someone offering a differing opinion as if they attacking you personally.

The crack above about myopia may not have been strictly kosher, but it wasn't completely off-base, either. Look at what you yourself are doing to escalate the tensions in the discussion... and then don't do those things. It may take some work, but I think you'll find your points will get a better reception for the absence of the hostile, patronizing and condescending qualities in the language you use.

 

[steven87gill]

When you post things like "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!" you should expect to get what you give. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

I'm just mirroring your tone. Sorry if I offended you. I'll try to be less like you in the future.

Be careful... even with the tendency of some moderators on here to be "immoderate," that's still crossing the line and ought to be warnable.

Until you get a green name, you don't get to make that call, though, do you?

And as I've pointed out to you before on several occasions, your inclination to lecture at great length in condescending tone with much use of WORDS, PHRASES and ENTIRE SENTENCES written in ALL CAPS (seriously, Cary, what have you got against the italics and underlines or bold text which others use for emphasis?) and the repeated inferences about the (lack of) intelligence of those you're presuming to enlighten are not adding anything positive to the whole. You said above "Well, I don't start off that way" in response to a remark about your patronizing tone, but the facts are that you do often come on like a freight train and that you do often tend to go off on people with very little provocation, and that you do frequently tend to respond to someone offering a differing opinion as if they attacking you personally.

The crack above about myopia may not have been strictly kosher, but it wasn't completely off-base, either. Look at what you yourself are doing to escalate the tensions in the discussion... and then don't do those things. It may take some work, but I think you'll find your points will get a better reception for the absence of the hostile, patronizing and condescending qualities in the language you use.

Well said.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

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/

Are you really comparing 1/4"-thick deli-case glass to the thick transparent-aluminum window on a starship bridge that protects the sensitive command area from the vacuum and radiation of space?...

You're absolutley right. My fault.

Heavens knows I should never have compared a curved deli case glazing to actual transparent aluminum. I mean everyone knows that the physical properties of common everyday transparent aluminum are nothing at all like glass.

How could I have been so careless?

EDIT TO ADD:
I don't recall ever seeing any distortion through the curved windows in Ten-Forward or the conference room in TNG...
such as this screencap:
http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s1/1x08/lonelyamong062.jpg

 

[Kpnuts]

Dear god, please can someone ask JJ if it's a window or not!