How do Star Trek viewscreens show perceivable depth?

Question

This has bothered me ever since I noticed it; the viewscreen in The Next Generation shows perceivable depth even when viewed from an angle when, I would imagine, such an angle should start to warp the image (like with TVs in real life).

I simply shrugged all this off as out-of-universe "movie magic", thinking that the creators prioritized aesthetics over logic. But then I watched this fascinating video:

In the video, he implies that this was all intentional; that the viewscreens were meant to showcase some fancy, futuristic 3D/depth-capable screen technology.

Is there really such an in-universe explanation in Star Trek?

You are assuming that the viewscreen is just a TV. I guess it is just reasonable that they advanced technology enough to have a proper 3D screen. — Polygnome, Sep 16 '18 at 22:29
Would this really be 'fancy'? Everybody but Picard looks at the dialogue partner at an angle. What would that accomplish? If Picard walks to the extreme left of the screen, would the weapons officer get a peek behind the back of the Romulan? — bukwyrm, Sep 17 '18 at 14:20
@bukwyrm, no, he wouldn't. The screen is not a screen at all; it's a holographic projection. Basically, it is a holodeck built into the front of the bridge. In other words, it is using photons to construct a mini diorama of the other ship inside an area of the bridge. When Picard moves, the image does not change to follow him, but because the Romulan is using a similar device, he sees Picard move, so he turns to keep eye-contact, and Picard does the same. In other words, it's like if the Romulan and his deck were inside an alcove on the Enterprise bridge. — Synetech, Sep 17 '18 at 15:24
I don't know why this should bother you. It's advanced holographic tech. Very believable future tech too. — ThePopMachine, Sep 17 '18 at 15:43
It's far more complicated to do it this way, compared with the 'flat screen' approach, so it almost certainly was deliberate. — DJClayworth, Sep 17 '18 at 18:44
@Synetech more of a maxi-diorama, is it not? But i see it now - the viewscreen may also be the sensor, ezplaining why the guy at the top is so big: his viewscreen is smaller, rendering him proportionally bigger - also explains why he seems to be squinting, the whole bridge is diorama'ed on his desktop viewscreen, making Picard about the size of a Barbie. — bukwyrm, Sep 18 '18 at 06:08
hey this is actually a pretty neat detail, i never noticed. (OTOH, even in TBBT the characters look "out of the screen" like a window when skyping) — ths, Sep 18 '18 at 07:04
Joined just to mention that someone managed to do something that gives a similar effect 10 years ago using the Nintendo Wii - I've skipped the video to the point just before he shows it in action so you can see the difference https://youtu.be/Jd3-eiid-Uw?t=2m35s Sure, it isn't exactly the same but interestingly related none the less. — RyanfaeScotland, Sep 18 '18 at 11:41
@Synetech My first thought on a holodeck on the bridge was why hasn't anyone tried to hack it and turn off the safety protocols to assassinate the captain? — Darren Bartrup-Cook, Sep 18 '18 at 14:15
Those screenshots also make sense if you assume they have conversations by beaming the other party into a room in front of the bridge, and the viewscreen is just a window. (Presumably the giant alien in the top pair of images is kneeling so he doesn't hit his head on the ceiling.) — Ray, Sep 18 '18 at 15:21
"why hasn't anyone tried to hack it and turn off the safety protocols to assassinate the captain?" Obviously, the only "solid" thing the viewscreen can produce (unlike a "regular" holodeck) is a force field over its "front face" so you can't accidentally fall in. There would be no reason for it to do anything else, so it has no ability to do anything that could harm the bridge or anyone on the bridge. At most, it might be able to produce a flash-bang effect. — Matthew, Sep 18 '18 at 17:01
"If Picard walks to the extreme left of the screen, would the weapons officer get a peek behind the back of the Romulan?" The Romulan's transmission is probably filtering that out in real time. The ability to manipulate your transmission to show something fake is pretty standard in sci-fi. I'm sure it's SOP to at least blur or black out anything that might be "sensitive". — Matthew, Sep 18 '18 at 17:08
The "camera" of the voyagers doctor seems to take quite elaborate holographic pictures, and it seems that other people see this as quite normal tech, so considering that already today you have things like 4k and 3d displays it is not a big leap to have holographic imaging centuries later. — PlasmaHH, Sep 19 '18 at 07:31
@RyanfaeScotland And just a couple years later, that's how the mass-market Nintendo 3DS works — Izkata, Sep 19 '18 at 20:32
@Synetech, Re, "it is using photons to construct a mini diorama of the other ship inside an area of the bridge." There is no need for it to do that. It only needs to reconstruct the light rays as if they came from a mini diorama, but there is no reason why it would have to enclose a volume of space big enough to actually hold the scene that you seem to be looking at. Otherwise, how big would that volume have to be when the scene that it's showing is what's outside the ship? — , Sep 20 '18 at 22:41
@DarrenBartrup-Cook, the Holodeck puts you inside the hologram, and it uses force fields to create the illusion that you can touch and feel things that aren't really there. Those force fields are what make it potentially dangerous. But, the viewing screen is different. It puts you on the outside. It creates the illusion that you are looking through a window in to some other space, but you can't climb through, or touch or feel anything in that space. There's no reason why it would be equipped to create force fields or why it would need any potential to harm the people watching it. — , Sep 20 '18 at 22:47
@DJClayworth I don't think so. It's less complicated, it's just a matter of compositing. — Tobia Tesan, Sep 23 '18 at 11:39
@TobiaTesan It's not just compositing. At the very least you have to shoot the 'other' bridge from two angles. — DJClayworth, Sep 23 '18 at 18:14
On a side note: this technology might not be that far away: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-field_camera — Polygnome, Sep 24 '18 at 08:34

score 123 · Answer 1 · edited Sep 17 '18 at 10:13

123

There's no on-screen canon explanation given.

However, the Star Trek: The Next Generation - Technical Manual states

The main viewer display matrix includes omni-holographic display elements and is thus capable of displaying three-dimensional information.

edited Sep 17 '18 at 10:13

Valorum

689,072
162
4,636
4,873

answered Sep 17 '18 at 07:35

Brian Ortiz

3,262
2
24
30

25

This rather implies that the cheap tactic of disguising a subterfuge (e.g. having taken over a ship) by hiding just out of view of the viewscreen would be easily defeated by someone simply standing to one side such that they can see 'behind' the virtual hole-in-the-wall presented by the bridge bulkhead... – Tom W Sep 17 '18 at 13:20
7

I can totally believe holographic displays in 22xx. That they can incorporate them with full-color holographic cameras still baffles me though. – John Dvorak Sep 17 '18 at 17:41
3

@JohnDvorak We sort-of already have them today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-field_camera – Dai Sep 17 '18 at 20:54
1

@Dai at 3x5m and working through a holographic display? If you have the money to throw at it (and they do), I guess... And then you also have to synthesize the corresponding hologram in realtime (also plausible, but kinda hell to program, but then they have GAIs)... – John Dvorak Sep 17 '18 at 20:58
1

Star Trek: The Next Generation S1E1 @ 26:22: Wesley (Dr Crusher's son) says that the forward viewer uses "high-resolution, multispectral imaging sensors", then is cut off by Picard. I seem to recall there being something about it earlier on in the episode as well, but I'm not sure where to look. – Tiny Giant Sep 18 '18 at 02:43
15

@JohnDvorak : imagine someone from a few decades ago when the largest hard drive was 5 MB and weighted as much as a truck, saying the same thing if you showed him a 512GB micro-SD card. How can you have so much money to throw at a storage 100000 time larger weighting millions of times less, and why would you ever need such a thing? – vsz Sep 18 '18 at 09:53
11

@JohnDvorak If we grant the holodecks, the viewscreen is really just a holodeck that you look into through a window. – J... Sep 18 '18 at 11:12
2

@vsz Computer technology isn't the best example; I doubt anyone would have trouble imagining how to fill that space. You might be surprised how many things were invented in the 50s, and postponed until we have better/cheaper hardware. We already have plenty of ideas on how to fill drives a thousand times bigger, if only we had the bandwidth - I remember some show 3D screen that was showing a minute long advertisement; they needed a whole cluster of HDDs just for that. SSDs make this a lot easier, of course. – Luaan Sep 18 '18 at 18:42
@TomW That would only be the case if the camera is able to see in that direction, and no part of the observed environment is being simulated on either end. I imagine someone who wants to have a video conversation without revealing their surroundings - e.g. the captain of a warship would surely never want to reveal their entire bridge in detail - would be prepared for this. – talrnu Sep 19 '18 at 18:33
1

There is a scene in the TV series Voyager where the screen is badly damaged (maybe The Year of Hell?), but you can clearly see that the interior is the same design as the walls of the holodecks (when turned off). – Reactgular Sep 19 '18 at 18:36
But then in DS9, where they start using holographic communication, it's treated like new technology... ? – komodosp Jun 11 '19 at 08:53

score 85 · Answer 2 · edited Jan 07 '20 at 00:47

85

In the Star Trek: Voyager episode “Year of Hell,” there is a scene where the viewscreen is offline due to heavy damage to the ship.

What's interesting in this is that it is not simply black, like a monitor nowadays when offline, but it has a structure that looks exactly like the wall of Voyager's holodeck.

So I guess it achieves the fancy 3D effect by using similar technology to the holodecks. (An other answer has also conjectured the similarity to holodecks, but I don't have enough rep yet to comment on that answer.)

edited Jan 07 '20 at 00:47

Community

1

answered Sep 17 '18 at 16:55

Gábor Gévay

911
5
4

5

The viewscreen on the bridge of the Enterprise-E is holographic. It is clearly shown in the movie First Contact, when the Enterprise-E joins the battle against the Borg Cube near Earth. – Sava Sep 17 '18 at 18:47
This is a great example of what I said in the other comments. I like that you noticed this too. :) – Reactgular Sep 19 '18 at 18:37
Here's a clip of what @Sava is talking about: https://youtu.be/t4DCOpG1oNE?t=32s I believe this scene takes place on Enterprise's battle bridge, which is in a more fortified location than the regular bridge, so it may use different display technology from the viewscreen normally used in the show. – talrnu Sep 19 '18 at 18:42

score 24 · Answer 3 · answered Sep 18 '18 at 19:05

24

Great theory, but I suggest another reason they depicted the viewscreens as they did: A 2D image of someone looking straight into the camera appears to be looking straight at the viewer regardless of the viewing angle, and this is unnerving. It's the effect of a portrait that seems to stare at you no matter where you are in the room. This may be why portrait artists often pose the subject looking to the side. It's less creepy. A realistic 2D video conversation might have looked like this, which might even make an audience laugh.

answered Sep 18 '18 at 19:05

Greg Bittner

259
2
2

5

That is kinda creepy... – Michael Frank Sep 18 '18 at 22:11
10

This is a nice out-of-universe explanation, but the question explicitly asks for in-universe information. – jpmc26 Sep 19 '18 at 00:17
12

Nice illustration, but I think it would look different from that. That image is missing a perspective transform. When properly transformed it should just look like a picture on the wall. – z0r Sep 19 '18 at 00:47
3

@z0r Even with a perspective transform it still looks like the person is staring at the viewer. The important thing is the centered pupils. – Sneftel Sep 19 '18 at 15:07
I imagine it's fun coordinating these scenes, as the actor on the viewscreen has to face exactly the right direction off-camera (based on the angle of the camera filming the scene from the bridge) – talrnu Sep 19 '18 at 18:36
Babylon 5 seemed to go back and forth with this idea, the times they showed the 'flat' transmissions didn't really come off as creepy per se. But they did add a sense of not-entirely-welcome realism that may have been off-putting in TNG. – Kevin Laity Sep 19 '18 at 19:50
1

This answer would be more satisfying with an image that actually did a perspective transform (even though it doesn't really matter). In the meantime, you can simulate what it would look like by looking at the first image from the question and then looking at your monitor at an angle. – jamesdlin Sep 19 '18 at 23:40
@z0r This out-of-universe property would also applies in universe. It makes it a speculative in-universe answer, but not designing a viewing screen that may make the received speaker appear to be directly addressing the most junior-grade bridge staff is probably a plus. – Lexible Sep 20 '18 at 01:33
@Lexible sure, but that's how real world screens work and it's fine. A holographic screen would be better, but the experience of a flat image isn't that bad. – z0r Sep 21 '18 at 01:59
@z0r "but the experience of a flat image isn't that bad." For humans possibly, but the point of the show is that they are meeting, often in a first contact situation, species that are not human. – Lexible Sep 21 '18 at 06:32
You never look into the camera. – Tobia Tesan Sep 23 '18 at 11:41
@Lexible: What an alien crew sees on their viewscreen on their ship is entirely decoupled from how the viewscreen on the Enterprise bridge shows things, isn't it? – O. R. Mapper Sep 24 '18 at 12:12
@O.R.Mapper You misunderstand I am not describing what the alien interlocutor sees on its screen: Starfleet presumably wants its alien interlocutors to unambiguously appear to be speaking with the commanding officer (or at least with someone on point). A non-holographic image means that an alien interlocutor will appear to be speaking directly to every individual on the bridge, thereby rendering ambiguous who the alien interlocutor is actually directing attention to (in terms of visual cues). – Lexible Sep 24 '18 at 16:13

score 10 · Answer 4 · answered Sep 17 '18 at 18:10

10

Current viewing panels are "flat" because each pixel is essentially an omnidirectional lighting element. If you could make each pixel emit light in only one direction (like a laser vs. an LED), then you would only be able to see the screen from one angle. If you can further combine that with being able to emit multiple different pixels at the same physical location, but with different "output angles", then you can make a display that appears "3D".

The basics for this sort of thing have actually been around for some time, using a technique called lenticular printing. More recently, there has been work into making interactive displays using the same principles. Presumably, Star Trek is just using an advanced version of something that works on the same idea.

Other answers mentioned holodeck technology. I would guess that the walls of the holodeck are doing something like I described, and thus it makes sense to say that the viewscreen is using "holodeck technology".

answered Sep 17 '18 at 18:10

Matthew

999
5
15

That sounds an awful lot like a phased-array radar like Aegis. – Harper - Reinstate Monica Sep 17 '18 at 19:41
2

@Harper - It's not quite the same thing, phased-array radar use radio wave phase interactions to control the beam - there's an array of antennas that all emit in the same direction, but by changing the phase of each emitter, the beam can be shaped to go in different directions. What this post is describing is much simpler and just uses different emitters pointing in different directions. So the effect may be similar, the technology is completely different. – Johnny Sep 17 '18 at 23:57
2

Integral Imaging has been around as a concept since 1908 - every so often a TV/Monitor company will show an example - still quite a way to go, but it's a case of shrinking/improving existing technology, rather than inventing something completely new – Chronocidal Sep 18 '18 at 09:51
1

@Chronocidal, exactly! The "how" of the question is easy to answer; we've known for a long time. We just don't have a practical implementation yet. Obviously, by TNG era, they do. – Matthew Sep 18 '18 at 17:05

user101856 · Answer 5 · 2019-06-09T01:26:01.937

A second interesting observation is that the viewscreen potentially presents a 180 degree FOV's worth of information. Even though this is not visible to someone looking right at the screen from a distance, if you put your cheek right up against the "glass" of the screen you can seemingly see the very corners of the other side's bridge.

Below: The blue door, and the control panel with two levers is only visible from the viewer's POV, not the captain's.

I think it is obvious from that that at the bare minimum, there is a camera(s) on the other end which has a full hemisphere of viewfield, possibly a full sphere.

The easiest way of inmplementing the screen, then, is to build a bowl-shaped alcove or recess into the wall of the bridge, and have the (curved) screen lie along this surface. That could also produce the illusion of the screen "always facing you", using an old low-tech trick:

Given ST's tech level, I would expect there to be an array of scanners and sensors all around the bridge, able to provide a view from any angle at will, and even compose a 3D representation of the scene.

On the receiving end, you could use the same technology as in holodecks to reconstruct the scene in a very lifelike matter.

One thing that always concerned me is the security implications of showing foreign military personnel an image of your starship's bridge. Especially with ST's tech, it shouldn't be hard to edit the video stream online and insert a generic bridge background scene behind the captain. Perhaps this is already happening in the usual case: You could imagine that the comms equipment defaults to transmitting the image of the speaker, and the receiving equipment automatically fills in the missing background with a standard scene.

...but then, the receiving equipment could also just be sophisticated enough to deconstruct the fake bridge and substitute an image of the real bridge. :-D But seriously, excellent point. — Deacon, Sep 20 '18 at 17:47
Well, in one of the episodes features them talking to a Ferengi captain, and the background is just plain white: It seems that such technology is available, but the opportunity to show of your highly competent bridge-crew is typically more highly valued. — Chronocidal, Sep 21 '18 at 15:34
@Doug R. er, how would it deconstruct it? I was saying it would literally be sending only the captain on a greenscreen background, and then the Enterprise replaces the green background with "Generic Romulan Bridge". — user101856, Jun 09 '19 at 01:27

score 1 · Answer 6 · answered Sep 16 '18 at 22:10

1

As far as I can remember, they never gave any kind of explanation in-universe for how the viewscreens work.

answered Sep 16 '18 at 22:10

Sava

8,789
2
36
79

2

The one example is, as mentioned above, Star Trek First Contact. It's explicitly shown that the viewscreen is a blank wall and when Picard orders it activated, the view appears out of nowhere. That implies hologram tech. – Keith Morrison Sep 19 '18 at 15:09

Gaultheria · Answer 7 · 2019-06-10T18:01:52.043

There is no in-universe explanation for all of the viewscreen's tricks.

You wrote:

I simply shrugged all this off as out-of-universe "movie magic", thinking that the creators prioritized aesthetics over logic. But then I watched this fascinating video:

[...]

Is there really such an in-universe explanation in Star Trek?

In "The Defector" (TNG 3x10), the viewscreen emphasizes a dramatic moment by zooming in on the face of Romulan Commander Tomalak.

Tomalak taunts Picard:

"First, Captain, you will return the traitor Jarok, then you will surrender as prisoners of war."

Picard, standing in place, responds defiantly:

"Do you seriously expect me to accept those terms?"

Tomalak taunts Picard again:

"No, Captain Picard, I expect you won't. You have thirty seconds to decide."

The camera's view of the area around the screen does not change. This is apparently how Picard sees the screen, and he remains standing in one place during the exchange. Since the camera's view of the screen remains constant, the perspective of Tomalak within the screen should not change, even taking the parallax effect of three-dimensional display technology into account.

The exchange starts at 0:10 in this video:

Wayne Werner · Answer 8 · 2018-09-19T13:40:22.307

0

A pretty simple speculative in-universe explanation is that it uses roughly the same technology as the holodeck. It's already a technology that exists on the Enterprise, and the viewscreen wouldn't have to really be as complicated since nobody has to interact with it physically.

I'm not aware of any explanation that's been given in-universe, though.

edited Sep 19 '18 at 13:40

answered Sep 17 '18 at 16:18

Wayne Werner

741
1
9
14

2

... don't you mean in-universe? – RedCaio Sep 18 '18 at 02:17
Out of universe explanation with in-universe elements then? – Wayne Werner Sep 18 '18 at 13:15
1

In-universe means that the explanation assumes the universe's reality. Out-of-universe is an explanation that acknowledges the universe is entirely made up by people, such as writers, directors, producers, actors, etc. Out-of-universe explanations are usually ones that center on the concerns of these people (budget, time, technique, appeal, etc.). Your answer is in-universe; it assumes the holographic technology is real. You may be looking for the word "speculative," indicating that there's no in-universe proof of your idea. Unsubstantiated speculation is discouraged on this site, though. – jpmc26 Sep 19 '18 at 00:20
1

@jpmc26 good to know - my understanding (based solely on QA that I've read here) is that in-universe meant that it was actually explained in the universe at some point or another, using in-universe elements. #TIL :) – Wayne Werner Sep 19 '18 at 13:41
1

@WayneWerner the term for that is canon. – Dan Henderson Sep 21 '18 at 17:32

score 0 · Answer 9 · answered Sep 20 '18 at 12:46

0

We already have this technology. Since 1901.

With lenticular lenses, the angle of the viewer determines what image is seen. So far, we're exploiting it within limited range, to feed left eye something different than right eye, eg. in Nintendo 3DS. One of the reasons we don't do it to the extent shown in Star Trek is that it's very cumbersome to get enough images taken at all angles in order to feed such screen. Fo me more puzzling is where are the cameras all around the bridge : )

answered Sep 20 '18 at 12:46

Agent_L

1,329
1
7
10

Given the kind of sensor technology they have in the show, I doubt there's anything like a camera being used - it's just as likely to be visible-light sensors embedded in multiple locations around the bridge working together to provide a 3D representation of the room. Encounter At Farpoint shows Riker reviewing away team footage, but there were no cameras visible on the mission... presumably their tricorders can gather enough data for the computer to generate a view of events that looks suspiciously like the TV footage. – Matthew Walton Sep 21 '18 at 15:24

How do Star Trek viewscreens show perceivable depth?

9 Answers9

There is no in-universe explanation for all of the viewscreen's tricks.