"Future Effect"

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-10-11 01:19am

What about that little R2 unit you can buy for 100 bucks at Target? It may not have that many commands but at least its a step in the right direction. That's where technology is headed. Making technofetish toys for rabid Star Wars fans.

Shaka[Zulu] · Post by **Shaka[Zulu]** » 2002-10-11 02:34am

ok... some points....

jetpacks -- easily doable today, given the easy availability of small gas turbines of 50-150lbs of thrust. said engines are increasingly being used for R/C models, as well as ultralights and RPV's, and can acheive endurance far superior (tens of minutes) to the 30 second flights of the original rocket 'belt'. they would be noisy however.

flying cars -- been done, with numerous examples ranging from convertible gyroplanes in the 1930's to the fixed-wing convertibles of the 50's & 60's. never took off because they still require pilots licenses (expensive for most ppl) and they arent fully self-contained. not to mention the ATC hassle that would probably cause the FAA to implode if significant numbers were to take flight.

it should be noted that certain fields of tech, while capable of explosive advancement under the right conditions, are rarely permitted to enjoy such for long, due to political and economic concerns -- transportation and energy are the most notorious for this phenomenon... governments really dont want their citizenry to have the freedom of movement that things like rocket belts and flying cars would provide, and business interests absolutely despise tech that threatens their existing markets...

I will add to this later... must sleep now... cannot think... ugh...

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2002-10-11 06:24pm

kojikun wrote:Sure they could have. They saw the developement of TV from little boxes to home sets with 30 inch screens in under 50 years, why wouldnt they assume equally fast developement when it comes to computers?

However, the thing i argued about was the lack of decent DISPLAY SCREENS on the bridge, not computers. They could have assumed it would be easy to make very thin TVs, thats why its scifi.

No doubt they did assume such. The problem was that on the minimal budget afforded them, and with the limited special effects of the late 1960s, they probably just couldn't pull off anything better than they did.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2002-10-12 01:16am

Like I said, my issue was with their displays. 5-10 small televisions would have cost some $2,500 MOST. That would not have increased the budget significantly -- the cost of the visuals would have been insignificant.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2002-10-12 02:47am

kojikun wrote:Like I said, my issue was with their displays. 5-10 small televisions would have cost some $2,500 MOST. That would not have increased the budget significantly -- the cost of the visuals would have been insignificant.

The cost of the video monitors is only part of the equation. There are significant non-obvious costs involved with using video monitors in TV (sound stage) sets. Each monitor would need a VTR or VCR to provide a video feed. Back in the 1960s these things were not cheap. Each monitor feed would need to be genlocked with the camera(s) to prevent flickering. Genlock gear is fscking expensive even today; back in the TOS era it would have been astronomically expensive.

From what I recall from the DS9 series start hype, it was only by the time of DS9 that it became cost effective for Trek to routinely use in-set video monitors.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2002-10-12 12:27pm

Well thats silly. Who needs genlocking and shit? That adds to the fucking realism. And whats all this crap about VCRs? No they werent cheap but they had a damn huge budgest for fucks sake they could afford it.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2002-10-12 04:18pm

kojikun wrote:Well thats silly. Who needs genlocking and shit? That adds to the fucking realism. And whats all this crap about VCRs? No they werent cheap but they had a damn huge budgest for fucks sake they could afford it.

Without genlock the monitors would look more like strobe lights than anything else. Forget about using them to show something as opposed to being background elements.

As for costs, using modern equipment at current prices (Canadian dollars):

Timebase corrector: $3200
Broadcast-quality videotape recorder: $2400
14" video monitor: $920

$6520 per monitor & video channel. For 1960s prices, increase by a factor of ten or so....

This stuff isn't cheap for a low budget series like TOS.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2002-10-12 10:08pm

I think you're exxagerating there a bit, dude.

The VCR doesn't need to be broadcast quality. A $50 home modern VCR is good enough, the 69 equivalent would have been fine.

And I don't know what you're smoking but a 27" digital flattube HDTV costs $700 (http://www.bestbuy.com/detail.asp?e=111 ... &scat=1470)

As for the timing corrector, I've seen plenty of flicker on filmed monitors. The flicker is hardly a problem.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2002-10-14 09:51pm

Enlightenment wrote:
kojikun wrote:Well thats silly. Who needs genlocking and shit? That adds to the fucking realism. And whats all this crap about VCRs? No they werent cheap but they had a damn huge budgest for fucks sake they could afford it.
Without genlock the monitors would look more like strobe lights than anything else. Forget about using them to show something as opposed to being background elements.

As for costs, using modern equipment at current prices (Canadian dollars):

Timebase corrector: $3200
Broadcast-quality videotape recorder: $2400
14" video monitor: $920

$6520 per monitor & video channel. For 1960s prices, increase by a factor of ten or so....

This stuff isn't cheap for a low budget series like TOS.

Pardon me, but did they even have VCRs in 1966? Not to my knowledge, they didn't. I mean, the original TOS pilot was in black and white, for Christ's sake! They had to colorize it in order to re-use the stock footage in "The Menagerie."

Also, no they did not have a "damn huge" budget. from every account I've read, their budget was shit. Why do you think they reused a mask from "The Outer Limits" and had to make all their aliens basically the same? I.e. Klingons = Vulcans with good tans & bad haircuts?

MattTheSkywalker · Post by **MattTheSkywalker** » 2002-10-15 02:35am

victorhadin wrote:The 'future effect' is not a matter of over-ambitious predictions, but of misplaced predictions. We don't have manned missions to Jupiter and flying cars because there is no point.

We do have a system of telecommunications undreamed of in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 'E-commerce' is now not merely a possibility, but a popular and widespread one.

Computers are advancing at a rate so furious none could have predicted it.

Our space exploitation has reached, not to distant planets, but to Earth's orbit, placing geostationary satellites in massive numbers over our planet for communication.

People expected a material revolution in tangible items and gadgets, but instead we got one in concepts, commerce and communications. It is no less impressive for all that; merely different.

Right - Necessity is the mother of invention. We're not driving alternative fuel source cars because oil is plentiful, even if we have to spill some blood to get it at prices we want.

That's another topic though.