There is always an exterior light shining onto the ship in every Star Trek; where does this light source come...
I can't die. Who am I?
Ultrafilters as a double dual
Integrating function with /; in its definition
What does it mean when I add a new variable to my linear model and the R^2 stays the same?
Can a Mimic (container form) actually hold loot?
Naming Characters after Friends/Family
How to make sure I'm assertive enough in contact with subordinates?
Align equations with text before one of them
How do you make a gun that shoots melee weapons and/or swords?
Remove object from array based on array of some property of that object
Why aren't there more gauls like Obelix?
Is there a way to find out the age of climbing ropes?
Why won't the strings command stop?
Are Wave equations equivalent to Maxwell equations in free space?
An Undercover Army
Does the in-code argument passing conventions used on PDP-11's have a name?
Deal the cards to the players
Why would the IRS ask for birth certificates or even audit a small tax return?
Error in TransformedField
Sundering Titan and basic normal lands and snow lands
Can a space-faring robot still function over a billion years?
Has a sovereign Communist government ever run, and conceded loss, on a fair election?
Replacing tantalum capacitor with ceramic capacitor for Op Amps
Create chunks from an array
There is always an exterior light shining onto the ship in every Star Trek; where does this light source come from?
Why and how can you hear explosions in space in Star Wars?Is there really sound in space?In the last fight scene of Star Trek: Nemesis, how did Shinzon detach his Warbird from the Enterprise after their collision?What Happened to the Original Models from “Star Trek?”Are there any resources for recipes from the Star Trek universe?Where did the original Enterprise bridge sounds come from?Why does Spock come across as so vague and submissive throughout Star Trek V: The Final Frontier?Where did the nickname of 'Bones' for McCoy come from?Which ship has the most prolific “recurring” role in Star Trek?From the bridge why can you see another ship in space, shouldn't there be no light?Is there any in-universe explanation of the likenesses caused by actor-recycling in Star Trek?Why are there no Jews in the Star Trek universe?
I know that the lighting system for the models/3d models is used for theatrical effects and for the scene, but is there an in-universe explanation?
Examples:
star-trek
asked Aug 3 '11 at 6:01
OghmaOsirisOghmaOsiris
25.2k43167286
|
show 6 more comments
I know that the lighting system for the models/3d models is used for theatrical effects and for the scene, but is there an in-universe explanation?
Examples:
star-trek
asked Aug 3 '11 at 6:01
OghmaOsirisOghmaOsiris
25.2k43167286
5
There is no in-universe explanation: not everything has one.
– user366
Aug 3 '11 at 7:20
6
It could be coming from the closest star, if you think about it, it is very possible there is always a light source from some star with an unimpeded view. If you think about it, even on a moonless night on Earth there is still some light given off by the stars, imagine if we were "closer" or not covered by different layers that each absorb a little light.
– Sydenam
Aug 3 '11 at 7:57
4
nice theory, Sydeman, except you see the same when they're in deep space (even in system, when not near to a star) where the illumination from stars just wouldn't be enough to cause this. In fact there you have the answer: it's studio lights used because any realistic display would just be completely black with nothing to see. Same reason you hear sound in external scenes. In space it should be complete silence, but that doesn't make good television.
– jwenting
Aug 3 '11 at 9:22
36
Well, when they're in deep space, they pay another ship to follow them around with bright spotlights so they always look good and they broadcast sound effects over subspace channels to all the ships around them whenever they do something so they just seem that much cooler.
– BBlake
Aug 3 '11 at 12:12
8
I actually just watched an episode of Voyager where the ship was traveling through a vast dark section of space. In the exterior shots for that episode, the ship was only ever illuminated by its own lighting and was in shadows throughout. So at least in that episode, they accounted for the lack of lighting.
– BBlake
Aug 5 '11 at 2:40
|
show 6 more comments
I know that the lighting system for the models/3d models is used for theatrical effects and for the scene, but is there an in-universe explanation?
Examples:
star-trek
asked Aug 3 '11 at 6:01
OghmaOsirisOghmaOsiris
25.2k43167286
I know that the lighting system for the models/3d models is used for theatrical effects and for the scene, but is there an in-universe explanation?
Examples:
star-trek
star-trek
asked Aug 3 '11 at 6:01
OghmaOsirisOghmaOsiris
25.2k43167286
asked Aug 3 '11 at 6:01
OghmaOsirisOghmaOsiris
25.2k43167286
asked Aug 3 '11 at 6:01
OghmaOsirisOghmaOsiris
25.2k43167286
asked Aug 3 '11 at 6:01
OghmaOsirisOghmaOsiris
25.2k43167286
asked Aug 3 '11 at 6:01
OghmaOsirisOghmaOsiris
25.2k43167286
25.2k43167286
5
There is no in-universe explanation: not everything has one.
– user366
Aug 3 '11 at 7:20
6
It could be coming from the closest star, if you think about it, it is very possible there is always a light source from some star with an unimpeded view. If you think about it, even on a moonless night on Earth there is still some light given off by the stars, imagine if we were "closer" or not covered by different layers that each absorb a little light.
– Sydenam
Aug 3 '11 at 7:57
4
nice theory, Sydeman, except you see the same when they're in deep space (even in system, when not near to a star) where the illumination from stars just wouldn't be enough to cause this. In fact there you have the answer: it's studio lights used because any realistic display would just be completely black with nothing to see. Same reason you hear sound in external scenes. In space it should be complete silence, but that doesn't make good television.
– jwenting
Aug 3 '11 at 9:22
36
Well, when they're in deep space, they pay another ship to follow them around with bright spotlights so they always look good and they broadcast sound effects over subspace channels to all the ships around them whenever they do something so they just seem that much cooler.
– BBlake
Aug 3 '11 at 12:12
8
I actually just watched an episode of Voyager where the ship was traveling through a vast dark section of space. In the exterior shots for that episode, the ship was only ever illuminated by its own lighting and was in shadows throughout. So at least in that episode, they accounted for the lack of lighting.
– BBlake
Aug 5 '11 at 2:40
|
show 6 more comments
5
There is no in-universe explanation: not everything has one.
– user366
Aug 3 '11 at 7:20
6
It could be coming from the closest star, if you think about it, it is very possible there is always a light source from some star with an unimpeded view. If you think about it, even on a moonless night on Earth there is still some light given off by the stars, imagine if we were "closer" or not covered by different layers that each absorb a little light.
– Sydenam
Aug 3 '11 at 7:57
4
nice theory, Sydeman, except you see the same when they're in deep space (even in system, when not near to a star) where the illumination from stars just wouldn't be enough to cause this. In fact there you have the answer: it's studio lights used because any realistic display would just be completely black with nothing to see. Same reason you hear sound in external scenes. In space it should be complete silence, but that doesn't make good television.
– jwenting
Aug 3 '11 at 9:22
36
Well, when they're in deep space, they pay another ship to follow them around with bright spotlights so they always look good and they broadcast sound effects over subspace channels to all the ships around them whenever they do something so they just seem that much cooler.
– BBlake
Aug 3 '11 at 12:12
8
I actually just watched an episode of Voyager where the ship was traveling through a vast dark section of space. In the exterior shots for that episode, the ship was only ever illuminated by its own lighting and was in shadows throughout. So at least in that episode, they accounted for the lack of lighting.
– BBlake
Aug 5 '11 at 2:40
5
5
There is no in-universe explanation: not everything has one.
– user366
Aug 3 '11 at 7:20
There is no in-universe explanation: not everything has one.
– user366
Aug 3 '11 at 7:20
6
6
It could be coming from the closest star, if you think about it, it is very possible there is always a light source from some star with an unimpeded view. If you think about it, even on a moonless night on Earth there is still some light given off by the stars, imagine if we were "closer" or not covered by different layers that each absorb a little light.
– Sydenam
Aug 3 '11 at 7:57
It could be coming from the closest star, if you think about it, it is very possible there is always a light source from some star with an unimpeded view. If you think about it, even on a moonless night on Earth there is still some light given off by the stars, imagine if we were "closer" or not covered by different layers that each absorb a little light.
– Sydenam
Aug 3 '11 at 7:57
4
4
nice theory, Sydeman, except you see the same when they're in deep space (even in system, when not near to a star) where the illumination from stars just wouldn't be enough to cause this. In fact there you have the answer: it's studio lights used because any realistic display would just be completely black with nothing to see. Same reason you hear sound in external scenes. In space it should be complete silence, but that doesn't make good television.
– jwenting
Aug 3 '11 at 9:22
nice theory, Sydeman, except you see the same when they're in deep space (even in system, when not near to a star) where the illumination from stars just wouldn't be enough to cause this. In fact there you have the answer: it's studio lights used because any realistic display would just be completely black with nothing to see. Same reason you hear sound in external scenes. In space it should be complete silence, but that doesn't make good television.
– jwenting
Aug 3 '11 at 9:22
36
36
Well, when they're in deep space, they pay another ship to follow them around with bright spotlights so they always look good and they broadcast sound effects over subspace channels to all the ships around them whenever they do something so they just seem that much cooler.
– BBlake
Aug 3 '11 at 12:12
Well, when they're in deep space, they pay another ship to follow them around with bright spotlights so they always look good and they broadcast sound effects over subspace channels to all the ships around them whenever they do something so they just seem that much cooler.
– BBlake
Aug 3 '11 at 12:12
8
8
I actually just watched an episode of Voyager where the ship was traveling through a vast dark section of space. In the exterior shots for that episode, the ship was only ever illuminated by its own lighting and was in shadows throughout. So at least in that episode, they accounted for the lack of lighting.
– BBlake
Aug 5 '11 at 2:40
I actually just watched an episode of Voyager where the ship was traveling through a vast dark section of space. In the exterior shots for that episode, the ship was only ever illuminated by its own lighting and was in shadows throughout. So at least in that episode, they accounted for the lack of lighting.
– BBlake
Aug 5 '11 at 2:40
|
show 6 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
There is no very good in-universe explanation for this, as Star Trek has addressed this issue incompletely and inconsistently. However, when the Enterprise was being refitted for Star Trek: The Motion Picture, the show's designers realized the same thing you did: Large parts of the film took place in interstellar space where there's no convenient light source, but the viewers needed to be able to see the ship. Perhaps we can assume that the designers of the refit decided that people outside the ship should be able to visually identify the ship.
They (the designers of TMP or the Enterprise, take your pick) came up with the solution of having the ship light itself. If you look closely, you'll see that the ship carries its own floodlights and shines them on select parts of the ship. This wasn't a complete solution, as they still used fill lighting on the model, but it at least added a slight level of realism.
USS Enterprise-A showing self-lighting
This seems to have been abandoned for the Enterprise-D design used in The Next Generation. However, the Enterprise-E displays similar lighting:
As a footnote, in Night, an episode of Voyager, the ship was traveling through a starless void, and the ship was shown to be much, much darker from the outside.
In summary, there's a lot of artistic license included in what you see on-screen. However, we've been thrown a bone in that the ships light themselves, at least a little bit.
Voyager in a starless void
edited Jan 9 '12 at 0:05
Kevin♦
26.5k11111157
answered Aug 8 '11 at 4:01
neilfeinneilfein
6,10423452
2
Great answer. As for why the Enterprise-D didn't have exterior lighting, I posit the explanation is completely out-of-universe; most of the movie enterprises have the "nameplate lighting" because the movies have bigger budgets and more attention can be paid to detail. The singular exception is the Enterprise-D, because the D from Generations is supposed to be EXACTLY the D of the series; not a refit, not a recommission. So, it has to match the series EXACTLY or viewers can be confused.
– KeithS
Jan 6 '12 at 20:38
6
After watching that same Voyager episode (Night), I started assuming that it is basically starlight and that exterior views are in some sort of enhanced / night vision mode (in a camera that exists somewhere on the boundary between in-universe and out-of-universe).
– HNL
Feb 12 '12 at 15:06
1
@HNL The main problem with that explanation is contrast. The ships have floodlights and lit windows, which would be much brighter than any reflected starlight - and yet you can still see the "starlit" hull clearly, while also seeing the directly lit areas just as clearly. This either suggests some very special contrast management in the cameras, or that the incident light is much more intensive than starlight. Or just consider the ST shows Federation propaganda, and you're fine - TV crews following the flagship with their own light, or reënacting "historical moments".
– Luaan
Mar 7 '17 at 12:27
add a comment |
I would say because no one would watch a show were all out side shot were blackness, sometimes you just need to remember that they are going to need to take "liberties" to make the viewing experience more fulfilling. When it comes down to it we want to watch good television not necessarily technically accurate TV.
answered Aug 8 '11 at 3:17
VaughnVaughn
9161811
2
This is probably true, but the question is asking for an in-universe explanation.
– neilfein
Aug 14 '11 at 23:55
add a comment |
When you think about it, it’s very rare to see the ship at impulse in true interstellar space. Mostly they’re in star systems where the local sun would light the ship at least as well as spacecraft in our own solar system.
At warp it’s hard to say how it works, but there are the rainbow effects so clearly some measure of visible spectrum is present.
answered 7 mins ago
Russ GRuss G
561
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "186"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fscifi.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f4820%2fthere-is-always-an-exterior-light-shining-onto-the-ship-in-every-star-trek-wher%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
There is no very good in-universe explanation for this, as Star Trek has addressed this issue incompletely and inconsistently. However, when the Enterprise was being refitted for Star Trek: The Motion Picture, the show's designers realized the same thing you did: Large parts of the film took place in interstellar space where there's no convenient light source, but the viewers needed to be able to see the ship. Perhaps we can assume that the designers of the refit decided that people outside the ship should be able to visually identify the ship.
They (the designers of TMP or the Enterprise, take your pick) came up with the solution of having the ship light itself. If you look closely, you'll see that the ship carries its own floodlights and shines them on select parts of the ship. This wasn't a complete solution, as they still used fill lighting on the model, but it at least added a slight level of realism.
USS Enterprise-A showing self-lighting
This seems to have been abandoned for the Enterprise-D design used in The Next Generation. However, the Enterprise-E displays similar lighting:
As a footnote, in Night, an episode of Voyager, the ship was traveling through a starless void, and the ship was shown to be much, much darker from the outside.
In summary, there's a lot of artistic license included in what you see on-screen. However, we've been thrown a bone in that the ships light themselves, at least a little bit.
Voyager in a starless void
edited Jan 9 '12 at 0:05
Kevin♦
26.5k11111157
answered Aug 8 '11 at 4:01
neilfeinneilfein
6,10423452
2
Great answer. As for why the Enterprise-D didn't have exterior lighting, I posit the explanation is completely out-of-universe; most of the movie enterprises have the "nameplate lighting" because the movies have bigger budgets and more attention can be paid to detail. The singular exception is the Enterprise-D, because the D from Generations is supposed to be EXACTLY the D of the series; not a refit, not a recommission. So, it has to match the series EXACTLY or viewers can be confused.
– KeithS
Jan 6 '12 at 20:38
6
After watching that same Voyager episode (Night), I started assuming that it is basically starlight and that exterior views are in some sort of enhanced / night vision mode (in a camera that exists somewhere on the boundary between in-universe and out-of-universe).
– HNL
Feb 12 '12 at 15:06
1
@HNL The main problem with that explanation is contrast. The ships have floodlights and lit windows, which would be much brighter than any reflected starlight - and yet you can still see the "starlit" hull clearly, while also seeing the directly lit areas just as clearly. This either suggests some very special contrast management in the cameras, or that the incident light is much more intensive than starlight. Or just consider the ST shows Federation propaganda, and you're fine - TV crews following the flagship with their own light, or reënacting "historical moments".
– Luaan
Mar 7 '17 at 12:27
add a comment |
There is no very good in-universe explanation for this, as Star Trek has addressed this issue incompletely and inconsistently. However, when the Enterprise was being refitted for Star Trek: The Motion Picture, the show's designers realized the same thing you did: Large parts of the film took place in interstellar space where there's no convenient light source, but the viewers needed to be able to see the ship. Perhaps we can assume that the designers of the refit decided that people outside the ship should be able to visually identify the ship.
They (the designers of TMP or the Enterprise, take your pick) came up with the solution of having the ship light itself. If you look closely, you'll see that the ship carries its own floodlights and shines them on select parts of the ship. This wasn't a complete solution, as they still used fill lighting on the model, but it at least added a slight level of realism.
USS Enterprise-A showing self-lighting
This seems to have been abandoned for the Enterprise-D design used in The Next Generation. However, the Enterprise-E displays similar lighting:
As a footnote, in Night, an episode of Voyager, the ship was traveling through a starless void, and the ship was shown to be much, much darker from the outside.
In summary, there's a lot of artistic license included in what you see on-screen. However, we've been thrown a bone in that the ships light themselves, at least a little bit.
Voyager in a starless void
edited Jan 9 '12 at 0:05
Kevin♦
26.5k11111157
answered Aug 8 '11 at 4:01
neilfeinneilfein
6,10423452
2
Great answer. As for why the Enterprise-D didn't have exterior lighting, I posit the explanation is completely out-of-universe; most of the movie enterprises have the "nameplate lighting" because the movies have bigger budgets and more attention can be paid to detail. The singular exception is the Enterprise-D, because the D from Generations is supposed to be EXACTLY the D of the series; not a refit, not a recommission. So, it has to match the series EXACTLY or viewers can be confused.
– KeithS
Jan 6 '12 at 20:38
6
After watching that same Voyager episode (Night), I started assuming that it is basically starlight and that exterior views are in some sort of enhanced / night vision mode (in a camera that exists somewhere on the boundary between in-universe and out-of-universe).
– HNL
Feb 12 '12 at 15:06
1
@HNL The main problem with that explanation is contrast. The ships have floodlights and lit windows, which would be much brighter than any reflected starlight - and yet you can still see the "starlit" hull clearly, while also seeing the directly lit areas just as clearly. This either suggests some very special contrast management in the cameras, or that the incident light is much more intensive than starlight. Or just consider the ST shows Federation propaganda, and you're fine - TV crews following the flagship with their own light, or reënacting "historical moments".
– Luaan
Mar 7 '17 at 12:27
add a comment |
There is no very good in-universe explanation for this, as Star Trek has addressed this issue incompletely and inconsistently. However, when the Enterprise was being refitted for Star Trek: The Motion Picture, the show's designers realized the same thing you did: Large parts of the film took place in interstellar space where there's no convenient light source, but the viewers needed to be able to see the ship. Perhaps we can assume that the designers of the refit decided that people outside the ship should be able to visually identify the ship.
They (the designers of TMP or the Enterprise, take your pick) came up with the solution of having the ship light itself. If you look closely, you'll see that the ship carries its own floodlights and shines them on select parts of the ship. This wasn't a complete solution, as they still used fill lighting on the model, but it at least added a slight level of realism.
USS Enterprise-A showing self-lighting
This seems to have been abandoned for the Enterprise-D design used in The Next Generation. However, the Enterprise-E displays similar lighting:
As a footnote, in Night, an episode of Voyager, the ship was traveling through a starless void, and the ship was shown to be much, much darker from the outside.
In summary, there's a lot of artistic license included in what you see on-screen. However, we've been thrown a bone in that the ships light themselves, at least a little bit.
Voyager in a starless void
edited Jan 9 '12 at 0:05
Kevin♦
26.5k11111157
answered Aug 8 '11 at 4:01
neilfeinneilfein
6,10423452
There is no very good in-universe explanation for this, as Star Trek has addressed this issue incompletely and inconsistently. However, when the Enterprise was being refitted for Star Trek: The Motion Picture, the show's designers realized the same thing you did: Large parts of the film took place in interstellar space where there's no convenient light source, but the viewers needed to be able to see the ship. Perhaps we can assume that the designers of the refit decided that people outside the ship should be able to visually identify the ship.
They (the designers of TMP or the Enterprise, take your pick) came up with the solution of having the ship light itself. If you look closely, you'll see that the ship carries its own floodlights and shines them on select parts of the ship. This wasn't a complete solution, as they still used fill lighting on the model, but it at least added a slight level of realism.
USS Enterprise-A showing self-lighting
This seems to have been abandoned for the Enterprise-D design used in The Next Generation. However, the Enterprise-E displays similar lighting:
As a footnote, in Night, an episode of Voyager, the ship was traveling through a starless void, and the ship was shown to be much, much darker from the outside.
In summary, there's a lot of artistic license included in what you see on-screen. However, we've been thrown a bone in that the ships light themselves, at least a little bit.
Voyager in a starless void
edited Jan 9 '12 at 0:05
Kevin♦
26.5k11111157
answered Aug 8 '11 at 4:01
neilfeinneilfein
6,10423452
edited Jan 9 '12 at 0:05
Kevin♦
26.5k11111157
edited Jan 9 '12 at 0:05
Kevin♦
26.5k11111157
edited Jan 9 '12 at 0:05
Kevin♦
26.5k11111157
26.5k11111157
answered Aug 8 '11 at 4:01
neilfeinneilfein
6,10423452
answered Aug 8 '11 at 4:01
neilfeinneilfein
6,10423452
answered Aug 8 '11 at 4:01
neilfeinneilfein
6,10423452
6,10423452
2
Great answer. As for why the Enterprise-D didn't have exterior lighting, I posit the explanation is completely out-of-universe; most of the movie enterprises have the "nameplate lighting" because the movies have bigger budgets and more attention can be paid to detail. The singular exception is the Enterprise-D, because the D from Generations is supposed to be EXACTLY the D of the series; not a refit, not a recommission. So, it has to match the series EXACTLY or viewers can be confused.
– KeithS
Jan 6 '12 at 20:38
6
After watching that same Voyager episode (Night), I started assuming that it is basically starlight and that exterior views are in some sort of enhanced / night vision mode (in a camera that exists somewhere on the boundary between in-universe and out-of-universe).
– HNL
Feb 12 '12 at 15:06
1
@HNL The main problem with that explanation is contrast. The ships have floodlights and lit windows, which would be much brighter than any reflected starlight - and yet you can still see the "starlit" hull clearly, while also seeing the directly lit areas just as clearly. This either suggests some very special contrast management in the cameras, or that the incident light is much more intensive than starlight. Or just consider the ST shows Federation propaganda, and you're fine - TV crews following the flagship with their own light, or reënacting "historical moments".
– Luaan
Mar 7 '17 at 12:27
add a comment |
2
Great answer. As for why the Enterprise-D didn't have exterior lighting, I posit the explanation is completely out-of-universe; most of the movie enterprises have the "nameplate lighting" because the movies have bigger budgets and more attention can be paid to detail. The singular exception is the Enterprise-D, because the D from Generations is supposed to be EXACTLY the D of the series; not a refit, not a recommission. So, it has to match the series EXACTLY or viewers can be confused.
– KeithS
Jan 6 '12 at 20:38
6
After watching that same Voyager episode (Night), I started assuming that it is basically starlight and that exterior views are in some sort of enhanced / night vision mode (in a camera that exists somewhere on the boundary between in-universe and out-of-universe).
– HNL
Feb 12 '12 at 15:06
1
@HNL The main problem with that explanation is contrast. The ships have floodlights and lit windows, which would be much brighter than any reflected starlight - and yet you can still see the "starlit" hull clearly, while also seeing the directly lit areas just as clearly. This either suggests some very special contrast management in the cameras, or that the incident light is much more intensive than starlight. Or just consider the ST shows Federation propaganda, and you're fine - TV crews following the flagship with their own light, or reënacting "historical moments".
– Luaan
Mar 7 '17 at 12:27
2
2
Great answer. As for why the Enterprise-D didn't have exterior lighting, I posit the explanation is completely out-of-universe; most of the movie enterprises have the "nameplate lighting" because the movies have bigger budgets and more attention can be paid to detail. The singular exception is the Enterprise-D, because the D from Generations is supposed to be EXACTLY the D of the series; not a refit, not a recommission. So, it has to match the series EXACTLY or viewers can be confused.
– KeithS
Jan 6 '12 at 20:38
Great answer. As for why the Enterprise-D didn't have exterior lighting, I posit the explanation is completely out-of-universe; most of the movie enterprises have the "nameplate lighting" because the movies have bigger budgets and more attention can be paid to detail. The singular exception is the Enterprise-D, because the D from Generations is supposed to be EXACTLY the D of the series; not a refit, not a recommission. So, it has to match the series EXACTLY or viewers can be confused.
– KeithS
Jan 6 '12 at 20:38
6
6
After watching that same Voyager episode (Night), I started assuming that it is basically starlight and that exterior views are in some sort of enhanced / night vision mode (in a camera that exists somewhere on the boundary between in-universe and out-of-universe).
– HNL
Feb 12 '12 at 15:06
After watching that same Voyager episode (Night), I started assuming that it is basically starlight and that exterior views are in some sort of enhanced / night vision mode (in a camera that exists somewhere on the boundary between in-universe and out-of-universe).
– HNL
Feb 12 '12 at 15:06
1
1
@HNL The main problem with that explanation is contrast. The ships have floodlights and lit windows, which would be much brighter than any reflected starlight - and yet you can still see the "starlit" hull clearly, while also seeing the directly lit areas just as clearly. This either suggests some very special contrast management in the cameras, or that the incident light is much more intensive than starlight. Or just consider the ST shows Federation propaganda, and you're fine - TV crews following the flagship with their own light, or reënacting "historical moments".
– Luaan
Mar 7 '17 at 12:27
@HNL The main problem with that explanation is contrast. The ships have floodlights and lit windows, which would be much brighter than any reflected starlight - and yet you can still see the "starlit" hull clearly, while also seeing the directly lit areas just as clearly. This either suggests some very special contrast management in the cameras, or that the incident light is much more intensive than starlight. Or just consider the ST shows Federation propaganda, and you're fine - TV crews following the flagship with their own light, or reënacting "historical moments".
– Luaan
Mar 7 '17 at 12:27
add a comment |
I would say because no one would watch a show were all out side shot were blackness, sometimes you just need to remember that they are going to need to take "liberties" to make the viewing experience more fulfilling. When it comes down to it we want to watch good television not necessarily technically accurate TV.
answered Aug 8 '11 at 3:17
VaughnVaughn
9161811
2
This is probably true, but the question is asking for an in-universe explanation.
– neilfein
Aug 14 '11 at 23:55
add a comment |
I would say because no one would watch a show were all out side shot were blackness, sometimes you just need to remember that they are going to need to take "liberties" to make the viewing experience more fulfilling. When it comes down to it we want to watch good television not necessarily technically accurate TV.
answered Aug 8 '11 at 3:17
VaughnVaughn
9161811
2
This is probably true, but the question is asking for an in-universe explanation.
– neilfein
Aug 14 '11 at 23:55
add a comment |
I would say because no one would watch a show were all out side shot were blackness, sometimes you just need to remember that they are going to need to take "liberties" to make the viewing experience more fulfilling. When it comes down to it we want to watch good television not necessarily technically accurate TV.
answered Aug 8 '11 at 3:17
VaughnVaughn
9161811
I would say because no one would watch a show were all out side shot were blackness, sometimes you just need to remember that they are going to need to take "liberties" to make the viewing experience more fulfilling. When it comes down to it we want to watch good television not necessarily technically accurate TV.
answered Aug 8 '11 at 3:17
VaughnVaughn
9161811
answered Aug 8 '11 at 3:17
VaughnVaughn
9161811
answered Aug 8 '11 at 3:17
VaughnVaughn
9161811
answered Aug 8 '11 at 3:17
VaughnVaughn
9161811
9161811
2
This is probably true, but the question is asking for an in-universe explanation.
– neilfein
Aug 14 '11 at 23:55
add a comment |
2
This is probably true, but the question is asking for an in-universe explanation.
– neilfein
Aug 14 '11 at 23:55
2
2
This is probably true, but the question is asking for an in-universe explanation.
– neilfein
Aug 14 '11 at 23:55
This is probably true, but the question is asking for an in-universe explanation.
– neilfein
Aug 14 '11 at 23:55
add a comment |
When you think about it, it’s very rare to see the ship at impulse in true interstellar space. Mostly they’re in star systems where the local sun would light the ship at least as well as spacecraft in our own solar system.
At warp it’s hard to say how it works, but there are the rainbow effects so clearly some measure of visible spectrum is present.
answered 7 mins ago
Russ GRuss G
561
add a comment |
When you think about it, it’s very rare to see the ship at impulse in true interstellar space. Mostly they’re in star systems where the local sun would light the ship at least as well as spacecraft in our own solar system.
At warp it’s hard to say how it works, but there are the rainbow effects so clearly some measure of visible spectrum is present.
answered 7 mins ago
Russ GRuss G
561
add a comment |
When you think about it, it’s very rare to see the ship at impulse in true interstellar space. Mostly they’re in star systems where the local sun would light the ship at least as well as spacecraft in our own solar system.
At warp it’s hard to say how it works, but there are the rainbow effects so clearly some measure of visible spectrum is present.
answered 7 mins ago
Russ GRuss G
561
When you think about it, it’s very rare to see the ship at impulse in true interstellar space. Mostly they’re in star systems where the local sun would light the ship at least as well as spacecraft in our own solar system.
At warp it’s hard to say how it works, but there are the rainbow effects so clearly some measure of visible spectrum is present.
answered 7 mins ago
Russ GRuss G
561
answered 7 mins ago
Russ GRuss G
561
answered 7 mins ago
Russ GRuss G
561
answered 7 mins ago
Russ GRuss G
561
561
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Science Fiction & Fantasy Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fscifi.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f4820%2fthere-is-always-an-exterior-light-shining-onto-the-ship-in-every-star-trek-wher%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
5
There is no in-universe explanation: not everything has one.
– user366
Aug 3 '11 at 7:20
6
It could be coming from the closest star, if you think about it, it is very possible there is always a light source from some star with an unimpeded view. If you think about it, even on a moonless night on Earth there is still some light given off by the stars, imagine if we were "closer" or not covered by different layers that each absorb a little light.
– Sydenam
Aug 3 '11 at 7:57
4
nice theory, Sydeman, except you see the same when they're in deep space (even in system, when not near to a star) where the illumination from stars just wouldn't be enough to cause this. In fact there you have the answer: it's studio lights used because any realistic display would just be completely black with nothing to see. Same reason you hear sound in external scenes. In space it should be complete silence, but that doesn't make good television.
– jwenting
Aug 3 '11 at 9:22
36
Well, when they're in deep space, they pay another ship to follow them around with bright spotlights so they always look good and they broadcast sound effects over subspace channels to all the ships around them whenever they do something so they just seem that much cooler.
– BBlake
Aug 3 '11 at 12:12
8
I actually just watched an episode of Voyager where the ship was traveling through a vast dark section of space. In the exterior shots for that episode, the ship was only ever illuminated by its own lighting and was in shadows throughout. So at least in that episode, they accounted for the lack of lighting.
– BBlake
Aug 5 '11 at 2:40