Maybe they just turned it off for that scene?
JB
JB
The Bridge Main Viewing Screen
- Thread starter ZapBrannigan
- Start date
And The Menagerie, I assume?
While not the answer to the Enterprise main viewscreen—since solid state electro-luminescent (el) products did not exist in the 1960s—el material can be found in a variety of forms today. You can outline your TV with it, strap the remote to the armrest of your favorite captain's chair, and enjoy your own private Idaho, er, Enterprise right in your living room.
Ellie had to get into the shot when she thought her name was mentioned (or thought—I have a mind reading cat).
Ellie had to get into the shot when she thought her name was mentioned (or thought—I have a mind reading cat).
While not the answer to the Enterprise main viewscreen—since solid state electro-luminescent (el) products did not exist in the 1960s—el material can be found in a variety of forms today. You can outline your TV with it, strap the remote to the armrest of your favorite captain's chair, and enjoy your own private Idaho, er, Enterprise right in your living room.
Ellie had to get into the shot when she thought her name was mentioned (or thought—I have a mind reading cat).
On your TV frame, I think you'd want a very modest level of brightness. It's like the ambient electronic noises heard on the bridge: standing a 4-hour watch in that racket would drive you nuts. And a glowing blue frame on the big monitor might be pretty annoying if it were bright.
That's right, I forgot about that rear screen set-up. And, rear screen or not, that's the only time Kirk and Spock ever saw an episode of Star Trek. I like to think they heard the music score and everything.
"Episode"? That's "historical documents."
I agree, a lit blue frame around the TV would be very annoying, even for the short duration. That's why I wonder who the genius was that added such a bright blue strip to the front cover of the latest Tricaster (a computer-based video switcher). It's almost blinding. Meanwhile, a Tricaster would be mounted in an equipment rack in a dimly-lit room with lots of display screens around. What was the designer thinking? Of course, the bridge viewscreen also has that scanning strip of lights at the bottom...
(Note the glare on the doors to the right. The photo doesn't do justice to the brilliance of that strip. It makes me squint.)
Although, there are some manufacturers that make a screen that "extends" the picture by averaging the colors and emitting them from the back of the TV so that it lights the room. I'm old school and prefer black frames—not silver—and my graphic apps use a medium gray background and tool palettes.
I just thought that blue edge was a bit of "bleed" , revealing a bit of the "blue-screen" surface where the optical was positioned. I also figured it "glowed" because the optical department tweaked the contrast of the film making the blue bolder for a "cleaner" insertion.
But I'm probably and totally off the mark in my assumption.
But I'm probably and totally off the mark in my assumption.
On the topic of viewscreens and ST being luckily predictive, Flint's tabletop flat screen probably would win the award. 
Spockboy
I wonder if they preferred the original, or the remastered version?
Looks like a job for electrical tape."Episode"? That's "historical documents."
I agree, a lit blue frame around the TV would be very annoying, even for the short duration. That's why I wonder who the genius was that added such a bright blue strip to the front cover of the latest Tricaster (a computer-based video switcher). It's almost blinding. Meanwhile, a Tricaster would be mounted in an equipment rack in a dimly-lit room with lots of display screens around. What was the designer thinking? Of course, the bridge viewscreen also has that scanning strip of lights at the bottom...
(Note the glare on the doors to the right. The photo doesn't do justice to the brilliance of that strip. It makes me squint.)
Although, there are some manufacturers that make a screen that "extends" the picture by averaging the colors and emitting them from the back of the TV so that it lights the room. I'm old school and prefer black frames—not silver—and my graphic apps use a medium gray background and tool palettes.
Flint did live through most of our recorded history, he probably invented HDTV and the flat screen, along with hundreds of other things.On the topic of viewscreens and ST being luckily predictive, Flint's tabletop flat screen probably would win the award.
This reminds me of a thread in which we all speculated on Flint's various identities throughout history.
Kor
I can see two possibilities from that:
1) The main screen really was 1.85:1, and my measurements of screencap images were slightly off.
2) The screen was intended to be 1.85:1, but it's construction was slightly off.
It's only a difference of 4 percent either way.
That memo was written long after the screen was built, for what it's worth.
If there were no memos or other documentation, one might reasonably assume the familiar 1.85:1 was the correct aspect, even if your screencap measurements are slightly off that figure. Optical paths, lenses and other factors might slightly distort the image. There are also pixel aspects in digital video that can have an effect. (If your source material is the Blu-ray, then the film scans are probably very accurate.) Since TOS was originally viewed on CRTs—an electronic "projector" with dozens of factors that might change the aspect of the material—one could argue that any "close enough" figure is good.
I doubt any of the original designers and craftsmen imagined their work would be scrutinized so closely half a century later.
When they filmed the bridge stock footage (in what I think Justman/Solow referred to as "tie-down shots"), they had to get the plane of the camera lens parallel to the plane of the main viewer, in order to get the main viewer's frame to look so square with 90 degree corners. The set wall must have been built perfectly vertical (despite being a removable section on little wheels), and the camera mount probably had some kind of leveling device that enabled them to eliminate any tilt and get the whole thing plumb.
Whenever I take a picture of my TV, it comes out slightly distorted. Usually the bottom and/or the right side of the screen is larger because I can never hold the camera perfectly untilted. Then I have to adjust for distortion in my photo editor.
Very true, but that was not my point. The frame of the bridge viewscreen can be photographed off-axis without presenting a problem to the optical department. However, assuming the camera was perfectly square to the frame does not mean the aspect (Zap's measurement) could not be distorted by any number of factors down the line: the transfers to distribution prints (16mm?), the telecine setup at each station, even the specified 4:3 aspect of Standard Def TV can vary wildly based on a number of factors. I've seen SD TVs that look very square, others that are almost pushing widescreen—and that doesn't take into account the yoke adjustments inside.
If Zap is getting distortion from a current (e.g. 16:9 LCD) TV because he is taking photos directly off the screen, then the most likely culprit is a medium or wide lens. (A long lens should be used.) Ideally, one wants a modern digital scan (HD on Blu-ray) of the TOS masters and measured with software tools, like those found in Photoshop, say.
It's pretty cool but would be cooler if it were a hologram or was also a window.