I'd think it wouldn't be unreasonable to have each member of a landing party monitored by at least two shipboard personnel at all times.
External view?
- Thread starter Abraxas
- Start date
There was no excuse not to think of that after Aliens came out.
They tried it once with Geordi's VISOR, but because it wasn't 100% effective in a difficult environment, they decided never to use it again.
The example from Identity Crisis really bugs me since it makes perfect sense for them to do that for every away mission, yet it only crops up in one episode where it's necessary to the plot.
Did we ever get a clear example from the OP?
You'd think that the tricorder could do that sort of thing. At the very least, images from the tricorder could be routed through the communicator's signal.
From TNG Season 4 episode "Identity Crisis" Geordi LaForge does recreate an away teams video log on the holodeck and the person that recorded the log was wearing a head-set with a light and the camera.
Here are the images of that scene courtesy of trekcore.
I would think the video log recording could also be transmitted to the ship simultaneously.
Navigator NCC-2120 USS Entente
/\
Last edited:
Unfortunately, that idea was a one-off.
Scotty's set up a camcorder on a tripod, just off the port bow...
seriosuly though the external view thing never bothered me, as I figured, as has been stated, that they use extrapolated computer simulation / signal bouncing off shields or satellites or whatever.
The thing that DID bother me was how a complete, 3d holographic image be taken with what is essentially a polaroid camera, that thing the EMH was so keen on snapping away with.
seriosuly though the external view thing never bothered me, as I figured, as has been stated, that they use extrapolated computer simulation / signal bouncing off shields or satellites or whatever.
The thing that DID bother me was how a complete, 3d holographic image be taken with what is essentially a polaroid camera, that thing the EMH was so keen on snapping away with.
Same here - although my core objection to the holocamera was that it used lenses.
I could totally buy a technology that creates visual images through synthesis of various types of sensor feed, on wavelengths that allow for seemingly aperture-less instruments like tricorders. Such imagery would be 3D either because it is recorder over time, by collating readings gathered while the user moves around at his leisure, or because the radiation emitted or reflected by the target is gathered via futuristic technologies that can grab the radiation from an arbitrary point of space, not having to wait until it deigns to fall on the instrument itself. Yet the EMH's holocamera clearly relies on incident light, gathered by conventional-looking, lens-like apertures - and creates snapshots from a single vantage point.
I'm sure a device like that could be constructed in reality. The camera would feature stereoscopic vision, which would give it at least some idea of the 3D shape of the target, and combine that with advanced computation that would further guesstimate the shape. It would be much more primitive than what Star Trek recording technologies in general appear to be like, however. But perhaps it could be a cheap consumer product, for those who can't afford a proper tricorder?
Or it could be an antiquated device, preferred by the EMH for the same reason many of today's photographers still tinker with ancient and inferior technologies - because it poses a challenge, and because with enough gall, one can declare that low quality equals high art.
Also, perhaps tricorders can gather complex and complete 3D data only because they are part of an extensive network, and because multiple instruments wielded by the landing party combine their forces. An average consumer would find such integrated technology very difficult to utilize effectively, as she couldn't simultaneously bring three tricorders and possibly also a fridge-sized, vehicle-mounted computer (on a nearby shuttle or orbiting starship) to bear on her target.
Timo Saloniemi
I could totally buy a technology that creates visual images through synthesis of various types of sensor feed, on wavelengths that allow for seemingly aperture-less instruments like tricorders. Such imagery would be 3D either because it is recorder over time, by collating readings gathered while the user moves around at his leisure, or because the radiation emitted or reflected by the target is gathered via futuristic technologies that can grab the radiation from an arbitrary point of space, not having to wait until it deigns to fall on the instrument itself. Yet the EMH's holocamera clearly relies on incident light, gathered by conventional-looking, lens-like apertures - and creates snapshots from a single vantage point.
I'm sure a device like that could be constructed in reality. The camera would feature stereoscopic vision, which would give it at least some idea of the 3D shape of the target, and combine that with advanced computation that would further guesstimate the shape. It would be much more primitive than what Star Trek recording technologies in general appear to be like, however. But perhaps it could be a cheap consumer product, for those who can't afford a proper tricorder?
Or it could be an antiquated device, preferred by the EMH for the same reason many of today's photographers still tinker with ancient and inferior technologies - because it poses a challenge, and because with enough gall, one can declare that low quality equals high art.
Also, perhaps tricorders can gather complex and complete 3D data only because they are part of an extensive network, and because multiple instruments wielded by the landing party combine their forces. An average consumer would find such integrated technology very difficult to utilize effectively, as she couldn't simultaneously bring three tricorders and possibly also a fridge-sized, vehicle-mounted computer (on a nearby shuttle or orbiting starship) to bear on her target.
Timo Saloniemi
