"How many lights do you see there?"
"I see four lights."
"No. There are five."
"I see four lights."
"No. There are five."
External view?
- Thread starter Abraxas
- Start date
It would be somewhat odd if our heroes in the 24th century didn't possess the means to produce completely synthetic 3D imagery that is derived from various sensor readings that may be simple 2D optical but may add other types of data as well. Heck, they do that for entertainment already!
In TOS already, we see that conventional optics are no longer the last word in imaging. Have a look at the camera that's supposed to record the wedding in "Balance of Terror": it's positioned oddly with respects to the podium, so that its imagery would be of very poor quality if conventionally processed. However, a couple of cameras set to the sides of the room may well combine their imagery so that a full 3D record of the event is made.
Similarly, a single-vantage-point camera headset in TNG "Identity Crisis" can be used to reproduce a full 3D environment, so that it takes the expert user several hours to find a telltale lack in coverage.
I'd say the image from "Galaxy's Child" should be easily producible from the views of a couple of cameras mounted on the nacelles.
Of course, given the existence of things like transporters, it might not be necessary to rely on primitive things such as line-of-sight optics. Quite possibly, the image of an object could be recorded from any arbitrary point in space, without the need to actually place a recording device at that point - it should suffice to grab the image "remotely" via a transporter-like device, the physical parts of which lie safely inside the starship. Lenses and the like would be outdated and unnecessary, and their presence in some (but not all) visual recording systems of Trek could be for "optional extra" or basic aiming purposes only.
Timo Saloniemi
In TOS already, we see that conventional optics are no longer the last word in imaging. Have a look at the camera that's supposed to record the wedding in "Balance of Terror": it's positioned oddly with respects to the podium, so that its imagery would be of very poor quality if conventionally processed. However, a couple of cameras set to the sides of the room may well combine their imagery so that a full 3D record of the event is made.
Similarly, a single-vantage-point camera headset in TNG "Identity Crisis" can be used to reproduce a full 3D environment, so that it takes the expert user several hours to find a telltale lack in coverage.
I'd say the image from "Galaxy's Child" should be easily producible from the views of a couple of cameras mounted on the nacelles.
Of course, given the existence of things like transporters, it might not be necessary to rely on primitive things such as line-of-sight optics. Quite possibly, the image of an object could be recorded from any arbitrary point in space, without the need to actually place a recording device at that point - it should suffice to grab the image "remotely" via a transporter-like device, the physical parts of which lie safely inside the starship. Lenses and the like would be outdated and unnecessary, and their presence in some (but not all) visual recording systems of Trek could be for "optional extra" or basic aiming purposes only.
Timo Saloniemi
We don't need to speculate about this at all. In TOS: Requiem for Methuselah, Flint is watching Kirk and Rayna kiss evidently with exactly just such a camera. When I was a child growing up, my parents didn't let me miss that detail or forget it! "Look at how the camera that's covertly monitoring them scoots around like it's on a dolly or crane, framing the shot when they kiss to emphasize the passion," they said [or words to exactly that effect]. "The monitor even decides to change vantage points on its own, evidently without Flint pushing any buttons." Oh, it was embarrassing. The part is here. It begins at about 31:25/50:40 on the version at http://www.startrek.com/watch_episode/76fpQ2r0Vv1G_KyHvgdS7nEN7vtK_ZZI. This is assuming, of course, that one is willing to take what one sees on Flint's monitor that literally. (Of course just because Flint has such a magic camera, it doesn't mean the Federation ever does.)
(con't) Of course, since it occurs inside his mansion, one could explain away Flint's monitor as a synthesis of many thousands of tiny eavesdropping sensors at fixed locations throughout the inside of his mansion.
A better example of a camera-less visual sensor is the Tantalus field in TOS: Mirror, Mirror. In this case, it is implausible that sensors mounted around the interior of the ISS Enterprise could go undetected.
Despite having therefore established that aliens and unique devices can utilize such technology, this doesn't really have any bearing on whether the Federation uses it on its starships. IMO, none of the examples presented so far suggest such technology as the most plausible explanation.
Still waiting for a clear example from the OP.
A better example of a camera-less visual sensor is the Tantalus field in TOS: Mirror, Mirror. In this case, it is implausible that sensors mounted around the interior of the ISS Enterprise could go undetected.
Despite having therefore established that aliens and unique devices can utilize such technology, this doesn't really have any bearing on whether the Federation uses it on its starships. IMO, none of the examples presented so far suggest such technology as the most plausible explanation.
Still waiting for a clear example from the OP.
One other possibility to keep in mind.
The external shot of the space born baby and the Enterprise being viewed from the viewscreen and the image not coming from ANY point on the hull could be explained in the manner of bouncing the sensor beam off the shields.
To my understanding, they frequently employ techniques of bouncing sensor readings off a star, or other stellar phenomena for a variety of purposes.
I don't see why bouncing a visual sensor feed off the shield grid or the ship's subspace field or the navigational shields would be impossible.
The external shot of the space born baby and the Enterprise being viewed from the viewscreen and the image not coming from ANY point on the hull could be explained in the manner of bouncing the sensor beam off the shields.
To my understanding, they frequently employ techniques of bouncing sensor readings off a star, or other stellar phenomena for a variety of purposes.
I don't see why bouncing a visual sensor feed off the shield grid or the ship's subspace field or the navigational shields would be impossible.
That's pretty good, but honestly I think they did it that way because removing the nacelle on the model to place the camera as if it were on the nacelle was simply not feasible. That's why a better example would be nicer.
If the intention was for the view to be from a hull mounted camera, then I'll accept the real world explanation for why the angle is off. If the intention was for the view to be from light bounced off the shields, then I'll accept that.
I'm not interested in concocting unnecessary in-universe explanations, but YMMV.
Still waiting for a clear example.
I'm not interested in concocting unnecessary in-universe explanations, but YMMV.
Still waiting for a clear example.
Well, theres that bit in 'The Menagerie' where the court watches footage from 'The Cage' as evidence, and the "camera" swoops down onto the Enterprise's primary hull and then the bridge seems to open up to the interior... as shown in the original film.
But, that was explained away as the Talosians were sending the footage as they had gleaned/recorded it from Pike's mind or something...
But, that was explained away as the Talosians were sending the footage as they had gleaned/recorded it from Pike's mind or something...
Surely court footage would be edited for maximum dramatic impact? I mean, the prosecuting attorney doesn't address the jury in a flat monotone voice - he or she emotes. So obviously said attorney would also edit any visuals for emotional effect.
Whether editing for emotional effect is the prerogative of human(oid)s in the 23rd century... Dunno. I personally can't see any reason why computers couldn't do it on their own. Framing, zooming and such is really quite formulaic, and it shouldn't be long before a computer in our very own reality can write and produce an animation without any input from humans.
Timo Saloniemi
Whether editing for emotional effect is the prerogative of human(oid)s in the 23rd century... Dunno. I personally can't see any reason why computers couldn't do it on their own. Framing, zooming and such is really quite formulaic, and it shouldn't be long before a computer in our very own reality can write and produce an animation without any input from humans.
Timo Saloniemi
I sort of got the impression from some current cartoons and films that that was already happening.
External view means they put a front/rear view of space on their screen on the bridge.
My favorite thing (pet peeve wise) - and this goes for any TV show - is when someone is watching images from a security camera on a monitor, and the footage pans, zooms, does closeups and cuts... who's operating that camera, Kubrik?
Close, it is his successor, an M4.5 multi-tronic unit with upgrades, an M5 prototype.
Navigator NCC-2120 USS Entente
/\
I think a good example of an external view would be from "Assignment: Earth". When Scotty is able to bounce his sensor beam off of an old-style weather satellite and get an extreme close-up shot of Gary Seven crawling out on the access arm of the Saturn V. I couldn't see any type of optical super highdef camera being able to get an image that stable and undistorted. It must be a synthetically created image, based on ensor data.
^^^
Indeed -- if anything, our Trek heroes didn't do enough monitoring of, say, an away team by simply pointing a telescope at them.
Indeed -- if anything, our Trek heroes didn't do enough monitoring of, say, an away team by simply pointing a telescope at them.
