New image and Total Film Magazine collector covers

[Patrickivan]

ST-ONE, it is a set problem and I really just think they didn't give it any thought-not that I'm saying they were being inconsiderate of the Trek tech we've predomintately been exposed to. I just don't think it was even on their collective radars.

It certainly doesn't look good or add anything to the images. It's distracting and, It doesn't add realism considering we have non-reflective technology today.

And Devon, to say that it only displays 5% of cirtical information, then it wouldn't be such a predominant piece of equipment that takes up a huge section of the bridge. And while we obviously don't know how things are done in this Trek universe, based on what we've seen, it's quite obvious that bridge personnel look at the screen a lot during critical moments. Let's ust look at the opening sequence to STTWK where the training crew get a tonne of information about the Kobayashi Maru. Ship data, neutral zone information, images, flight paths... If any of that were obscured by a reflection for even a moment, it could be a safety issue.

Besides, it's not like I'm saying don't go to the movie because of some issues with glare, ship design, or any of that non-sense. We're just talking about some Trek stuff.

 

[ST-One]

ST-ONE, it is a set problem and I really just think they didn't give it any thought-not that I'm saying they were being inconsiderate of the Trek tech we've predomintately been exposed to. I just don't think it was even on their collective radars.

It certainly doesn't look good or add anything to the images. It's distracting and, It doesn't add realism considering we have non-reflective technology today.

Ah, that's also why they removed the glass elements from the TNG sets, because they felt the reflective qualities of glass distracts people?

It's a glass window, a curved one even. I sure as hell would expect to see reflections whether there is none-reflective glass there today or not. It would look wrong and cheap, as it did in TNG.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

It certainly doesn't look good or add anything to the images. It's distracting and, It doesn't add realism considering we have non-reflective technology today.

It adds realism inasmuch as it makes the screen look like it's a real, solid, material object that is right there in the scene with the actors.

What you're referring to here is not realism, it's verisimilitude. These reflections lack verisimilitude, especially if you happen to be extremely interested in the history of materials science.

 

[ITL]

Reflections, reflections, reflections. Ah, if only I could give a crap. I think I'll stick to hoping it's a good movie and looking forward to seeing it.

 

[ST-One]

Reflections, reflections, reflections. Ah, if only I could give a crap. I think I'll stick to hoping it's a good movie and looking forward to seeing it.

 

[Patrickivan]

It certainly doesn't look good or add anything to the images. It's distracting and, It doesn't add realism considering we have non-reflective technology today.

It adds realism inasmuch as it makes the screen look like it's a real, solid, material object that is right there in the scene with the actors.

What you're referring to here is not realism, it's verisimilitude. These reflections lack verisimilitude, especially if you happen to be extremely interested in the history of materials science.

Not to be an ass here, but something depicting realism, or versimilar as you say, does not have to be based on historical materials. However, that being said, based on today's technology, I suppose everything on my TV does look so fake because of the lack of glare.

Now for a little history, if realistic historical glass were to be used to make the bridge of the future look more "real", based on your criteria, then all the glass on the ship would be completely distorted as early glass was not very clear at all. Maybe it could sag in areas, have imperfections such as bubbles. And you know that the whole lack of paper on the bridge makes everything look so fake too, now that I think about it.

Now as someone who was trained and spent years working in the heritage sector (with specific regards to the artifacts), I do happen to have an extreme interest in all history.

ST-One, I am not certain what your point is. Is it the lack of glass on a set that would make something look cheap, or the lack of a reflection?

 

[ST-One]

Not to be an ass here, but something depicting realism, or versimilar as you say, does not have to be based on historical materials. However, that being said, based on today's technology, I suppose everything on my TV does look so fake because of the lack of glare.

But this is not a TV-screen. It's a window.

ST-One, I am not certain what your point is. Is it the lack of glass on a set that would make something look cheap, or the lack of a reflection?

The lack of reflection would make it look fake.

 

[Patrickivan]

Not to be an ass here, but something depicting realism, or versimilar as you say, does not have to be based on historical materials. However, that being said, based on today's technology, I suppose everything on my TV does look so fake because of the lack of glare.

But this is not a TV-screen. It's a window.

ST-One, I am not certain what your point is. Is it the lack of glass on a set that would make something look cheap, or the lack of a reflection?

The lack of reflection would make it look fake.

The idea of a big window on the bridge, while it doesn't make much sense, is a cool concept that I'm not opposed to. And while I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, current anti-glare technology already exits. It doesn't make it look more real to have reflection, it just makes it look like reflections...

I've stated before that we have the technology to make glass not only anti-reflective, but opague and tinted. This window could have been made opoque (at the very least) and then the images applied. Or they can give everyone polorized sunglasses... I'm kidding.

Here's some neat little info on changing the properties of a window.

http://www.toolbase.org/Technology-Inventory/Windows/switchable-glazing-windows

 

[Franklin]

Back projection for the main viewer always looked cheap - it was never anything other than underlit and grainy. This looks much more real.

This is true. But the only solution is to make it look like reflections on a 1960s TV tube? That's realistic? That's big budget? To answer my own questions, "no" to both.

They probably could've come up with some pretty convincing non-reflective look if they had wanted to. As you and plenty of others have pointed out in other posts, this was an ARTISTIC decision. Pure and simple. They were going for a "look." They probably gave nearly zero thought to the practicality of it, or if it is a real projection of what a viewscreen would look like in the 23rd century.

To that end, that some are trying to rationalize why it SHOULD look that way as a piece of 23rd century technology is something only Trek fans would do. Let's remember that 95 percent of Trek science is pseudo-science or downright bogus, anway. It's almost all about the look. And, in this case, some of us don't like it.

 

[SalvorHardin]

Still arguing about this reflection crap ?

Wait... why do I see a clear, nice image on the viewscreen here ?

 

[Franklin]

Still arguing about this reflection crap ?

Wait... why do I see a clear, nice image on the viewscreen here ?

You know, the thing about this picture is that the viewscreen looks bigger than the one Kirk and Spock are standing in front of. At least it does to me. In the back of my mind, I've wondered if there could be more than one decent-sized viewscreen on this bridge. Or, if Kirk and Spock are in a different room. Like a ready-room, where there may be a window. One that doubles as a view screen. Probably wrong. But I just wondered.

And, as I posted above, this picture shows that if JJ and the others wanted to produce a realistic looking nonreflective picture on the viewscreen, they could. So, it must be all about going for a look that fits a moment. In other words, film-making.

 

[Patrickivan]

Still arguing about this reflection crap ?

Wait... why do I see a clear, nice image on the viewscreen here ?

Yes. It's all crap.

As for the glare. Take a look at those sidplays on the helm. Super glare...

But the main viewer looks great there. Nice and crisp and clean. Though there does seem to be something odd in the upper right corner. We'll see as more is shown.

With regards to the thread pic itself, I've given some thought about all of Nero's odd tattoos and thought that it may have been a result of the altered universe. When whoever went back in time and altered things, also altered their own past and hence, present and future. And either all Romulans in the altered universe have them, or he's like a rogue pirate Romulan.

I haven't read the comics yet, so I'm just guessing. Anyone have any thoughts and/or insight on that?

 

[ST-One]

Still arguing about this reflection crap ?

Wait... why do I see a clear, nice image on the viewscreen here ?

Even here we see reflections.

 

[ST-One]

Still arguing about this reflection crap ?

Wait... why do I see a clear, nice image on the viewscreen here ?

Yes. It's all crap.

As for the glare. Take a look at those sidplays on the helm. Super glare...

But the main viewer looks great there. Nice and crisp and clean. Though there does seem to be something odd in the upper right corner. We'll see as more is shown.

That in the upper right corner (as well as in the upper left corner, lower left, right and centre) is that HUD-like display.

But there are reflections all over the window, even in that shot.

 

[Jon1701]

I love Star Trek fans. We can always find something to disagree about.

It completely negates the "why didn't they listen to the fans?" comment that is churned out every now and again.

There isn't the tiniest detail we can all agree on.

 

[Augustus]

^Seriously.
The problem with stills is they give way too much emphasis to certain details.

If we go in to see the movie, without having seen a single picture of the view screen, I can guarantee you that the first 500 things we talked about afterward wouldn't include the view screen.

 

[ST-One]

^Seriously.
The problem with stills is they give way too much emphasis to certain details.

If we go in to see the movie, without having seen a single picture of the view screen, I can guarantee you that the first 500 things we talked about afterward wouldn't include the view screen.

Indeed.

 

[trevanian]

Still arguing about this reflection crap ?

Wait... why do I see a clear, nice image on the viewscreen here ?

Even here we see reflections.

Yeah, but I'm distracted away from that by the crummy lights they have on the helm/nav station.

I don't think it is going to be any one or two design items that prove to be really distracting ... I think that most of the show is going to be that way, for those who notice this stuff.

 

[ST-One]

Still arguing about this reflection crap ?

Wait... why do I see a clear, nice image on the viewscreen here ?

Even here we see reflections.

Yeah, but I'm distracted away from that by the crummy lights they have on the helm/nav station.

I don't think it is going to be any one or two design items that prove to be really distracting ... I think that most of the show is going to be that way, for those who notice this stuff.

Yeah, but only, as someone else already said, in a still. But since this is a motion picture (and I didn't even notice those ugly lamps in the trailer) I don't care what distracts me in still as long as it doesn't also distract me in the actual film-scene.

 

[trevanian]

If you keep the camera moving and cutting all the time, then folks don't get a chance to dwell on stuff. If you're doing this because you're DARK STAR and you cost low to mid FIVE figures and your backpacks are made from frozen muffin holders, this is smart. If you're a NINE figure budget, you ought to be able to dwell on stuff for a bit, since you've got the cash to do it right.