
Here's an enhancement I made with some better noise removal.
But if one has limited power capabilities - and I agree, that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing at this point in Trek's timeline, despite the examples of ENT - at the very least, one wouldn't waste what light one can generate by having such dark interior surfaces. White or light-colored walls would make better use of the available light, not to mention making the shipboard environment more conducive to both living and working over long periods (when I started Endeavour, I postulated an interior patterned after the Arts & Crafts design ethic; imagine my surprise when they did this with Stargate: Atlantis!). Even a navy ship has painted interior spaces to make it both brighter and safer.Trajet said:
I quite like it. The lighting doesn't bother me at all, as it's actually more consistent with a vessel that has limited power generation capabilities . That's the one thing that always bothered me about TNG, Voyager etc, particularly Voyager - they were always banging on about having limited energy supplies and the need to conserve what little resources they did have, but every set was almost comically overlit. I find this approach of "functional lighting" to be quite refreshing for Trek.
scotthm said:
If this movie is going to be darkly lit and full of shaky camera work then that's two big strikes against it, from my perspective.PKTrekGirl said:
Looks much darker than TNG and VOY corridors.
`
And I like dark.![]()
---------------
I'm wondering if this isn't a Jefferies Tube... especially with all that exposed piping. Remember some of those TOS-era ones in "In A Mirror, Darkly" Part II were quite big.LavianoTS386 said:
![]()
Here's an enhancement I made with some better noise removal.
An Enterprise Jefferies tube?Baldus885 said:
[...] that must be an Enterprise corridor. What else would an NCC1701 construction website be displaying?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.