Hey, it could be the Enterprise of smaller scout/science ships.
That Starbase 11 wall chart - noe in slide form
- Thread starter ChallengerHK
- Start date
Just not buying into 1635; it's just too legible here as 1685 (the 8 looks nothing like the 3s you can clearly see in 1631/1831 and 1703).
I guess this is where some remarks about quality of data are appropriate. JPEG images like those available at TrekCore use lossy compression which can distort data somewhat. For most accurate results, we need to be looking at raw frame grabs. A confounding factor is that data on Blu-rays is already subject to lossy compression, so taking a frame grab and converting it to a JPEG can compound the errors. This is a significant issue when we're relying on artifacts at the pixel level and on comparisons with other parts of the image.
If data subject to lossy compression is all we have to work with, then the only possible way to improve the quality of data is not to study single stills, but to study all of the available frames in the period of time that the chart is visible in the episode.
If data subject to lossy compression is all we have to work with, then the only possible way to improve the quality of data is not to study single stills, but to study all of the available frames in the period of time that the chart is visible in the episode.
@CorporalCaptain That's some pretty perfectly symmetrical distortion...I mean, it managed to extend the middle horizontal bar of the so-called 3 just enough to match those added curves to close the 8 while somehow not distorting the Cs, the 6 or the 5.
Short version of what I said: the more images, the better.
Oh, I know what you meant but given that the images posted for arriving at 1635 also give us 170C for the number under it instead of 1700...well, I'm still not buying it.
There is a scratch over the 1700 If I remember. Again please take this at face value currently. Only thing I will say is that 1864 is definitely not correct and it's 1654. People have always asked for answers about the chart, my goal is to try and give some answers after 50+ years. It's still going to split the fandom i think due to the remastered version and potential of what this might show. I'm just trying to give meaningful insight in what I see.
My memory is starting to go, but I could swear someone here did BR caps before.
Yeah, I don't know of the other guy that got BR caps but Trekcore has them however CorporalCaptain raised a point that they were saved as JPEGs which would lose some detail due to lossy compression. I am suggesting to grab some more screenshots but save as PNGs which is a lossless compression file.
I'd do it myself but I only own the DVDs.
Again: the more images the better!*
* - Not trying to egg anyone on to do more work! Just saying, it could prove useful. Or it could prove entirely un-useful.
Again: the more images the better!*
* - Not trying to egg anyone on to do more work! Just saying, it could prove useful. Or it could prove entirely un-useful.
I took PNG screenshots (60 frames) from my DVD last year. If you want a zip of the PNGs, PM me.
Nothing in my posts should be interpreted as me saying that you're being disingenuous. My eyes are just not seeing what you're saying in the images you posted.
And I'm not sure if 'remastered version' can account for that 3 becoming an 8. Okuda and Co. did not replace the chart with a newer version so any effects of their remastering process should have affected the readability of the chart across the board.
YMMV
Right. And just to be clear, when you say "effects" you mean "consequences."
Correct. Effect as in 'a change which is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.' So the other 3s, for example, should have been similarly affected.
The issue about that chart has always been that it is slightly out of focus (understandable since Percy Rodriquez is the subject of the shot and not it). This renders the smaller gaps borderline illegible while leaving the larger ones discernible. So it's clear when it's C or 3 but not when it's 6, 8 or 9, because of the blur of being out of focus obscures those gaps.
I also think, in evaluating the numbers, you have to keep in mind what you said earlier. The E is the top-of-line starship, so I seriously doubt MJ would have put any 18xx on the chart—they wouldn't establish the E being 13+ years old until the next episode.
About that. I don't mean to rule out anything, including an 18xx. It's just surprising, and given what Jefferies said about his numbering scheme, anomalous.