Stars moving at sublight

[F. King Daniel]

Is anyone else annoyed at stars moving past starships moving at sublight speeds in Trek, with no regard for how huge and far away stars really are? I forgave it in TOS and the early TOS movies, but to see it as late as Voyager and Enterprise (and even TOS-R) really wound me up.

The illusion of speed at sublight is easily created by showing a moving ship on a static starfield. I never want to see the camera glued to a vessel while a swarm of dust mote "stars" stream past again.

 

[BlobVanDam]

I didn't really notice it in post-TNG, but it always bugged me in TNG, because it just makes the stars look like space dust. There are several necessary fudges to make a space scene work, such as scale and lighting, but pin point stars floating past the ship is not one of those.

 

[Merky]

No, not really. Because Star Trek already defies the laws of physics and science. A lot of the crap they do on the shows are sometimes borderline, if not, fantasy. Also, it's hard to animate movement in space with the technology of the time since... space is black.

I thought the whole trippy thing XI was nice representation of light speed travel.

 

[Robert D. Robot]

It particularly bothered me in (I think it was) "The Ultimate Computer" when the Enterprise is pulling away from the space station and the stars are streaking off into the distance behind her while the space station is only slowly receding at a fairly leisurely pace.

Also, while the station is receding directly away into the center of the frame, the point that the stars are receding towards is off to center-left, as the ship's travel is angled so to be passing us on our right side as we face her.

It may have been budget constraints leading to strangeness of the visuals in this scene, but -personally- I blame Q.

 

[F. King Daniel]

^It was seeing ENT "Unexpected" followed by TOS-R "The Ultimate Computer" that inspired this thread!

 

[Robert D. Robot]

^ I haven't seen "The Ultimate Computer" in years, so that just shows how that sequence has stuck with me! Also, if I recall correctly, in "First Contact" the stars were again zipping by inappropriately (IMO) while only at Warp 1 by as we looked out through the Phoenix's "windshield".

I smile and shake my head just a bit when I see something like this error, but I understand how how difficult it is to have put a weekly television show together, keeping all parties in production on the same page, attempting to keep continuity, and working within a budget. I have no doubt that I have made some goofs (or had to take less desirable alternatives because of budget limitations) in projects that I have been a part of!

 

[Myasishchev]

I didn't really notice it in post-TNG, but it always bugged me in TNG, because it just makes the stars look like space dust. There are several necessary fudges to make a space scene work, such as scale and lighting, but pin point stars floating past the ship is not one of those.

Heck, I always thought it'd be cool to have realistic lighting. I mean, the outline of the ship would still be visible through windows (which, granted, are a tremendously unrealistic thing).

 

[Kelthaz]

Not really, no. The stars flying by looks cool, so I'm good with it.

 

[BlobVanDam]

I didn't really notice it in post-TNG, but it always bugged me in TNG, because it just makes the stars look like space dust. There are several necessary fudges to make a space scene work, such as scale and lighting, but pin point stars floating past the ship is not one of those.

Heck, I always thought it'd be cool to have realistic lighting. I mean, the outline of the ship would still be visible through windows (which, granted, are a tremendously unrealistic thing).

I've been messing around with more realistic lighting on my 3D Voyager recently, and it does look amazing when you can stage the shot properly, but for the sake of clarity it can be really difficult to actually show every important piece of the scene once you need to include more elements. For a plain flyby shot, they could do it, but for the most complex stuff like space battles, I think it's one of those necessary contrivances of film. They could definitely go more realistic, but you still have to draw the line short of complete realism.

 

[Green Shirt]

It particularly bothered me in (I think it was) "The Ultimate Computer" when the Enterprise is pulling away from the space station and the stars are streaking off into the distance behind her while the space station is only slowly receding at a fairly leisurely pace.

Also, while the station is receding directly away into the center of the frame, the point that the stars are receding towards is off to center-left, as the ship's travel is angled so to be passing us on our right side as we face her.

It may have been budget constraints leading to strangeness of the visuals in this scene, but -personally- I blame Q.

Most likely it was bugetary -- there were often scenes in TOS where there was "inappropriate" star movement. Just chalk it up to adding a new element to existing stock footage.

Compare that to how Lost in Space handled the illusion of speed - having the J-2 flying past galaxies that looked 10 feet away and several miles long.

 

[Robert D. Robot]

^ Yeah- I did figure that someone just inserted the image of the station into that used-many-times stock footage of the Enterprise at warp.... but that theory still does not eliminate the possibility that Q wasn't behind influencing someone's decision to reuse the stock footage this way!.....

......

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I'm with what others have said: if it looks cool, it is cool. At least Trek starfield scrolling is generally not as in your face as it was on, say, oldBSG.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I'd always assumed those were just dust particles reacting with the deflectors, not actual stars as such. But whatever.