Flare Sci-Fi Forums: Transporter Continuity

This is topic Transporter Continuity in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/1249.html

Posted by Stingray (Member # 621) on :

Why was the Voyager transporter beam different from the TNG movies? Also, are the TNG movie beams different from movie to movie? And what about DS9 during this time. I remember they used the TNG series one before the movies for runabouts and the like. What about after? And finally, what's the point? Obviously each VFX team has to have its own pretty thing, but is there any possible technical explanation (rationalization I should say) as to why? (as a note, Endgame used the same effect as all of Voyager, where AGT changed it for the future versions).

[ June 16, 2001: Message edited by: Stingray ]

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :

For all we know transporters probably have visualization plug-ins like Winamp or something.

Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :

I suppose like all technological fields transporter systems are continuously upgraded, refined and enhanced. This is the only explanation I can think of as to the disparate visual appearacne of the de-materialization/materialization sequence.

We know with reasonable assurance that in this field we have observed a distinct increase in speed in the transport process since the beginning of TNG. This is due to technological advances, quite obviously. I only hope that the 'Enterprise' series is true to this precedent and utilizes a realistically slower and more cumbersome transport sequence than the ones used in TOS.

Posted by The_Evil_Lord (Member # 256) on :

That's assuming series V will feature transporters, which it shouldn't (at best very, very early prototypes - but I doubt those would be installed on such a primitive ship...). Shuttlecraft will probably be the main means of getting down to a planet's surface (I so much *hope* they'll maintain continuity as far as this aspect of the show is concerned - i.e., no infinite supply of shuttles).

[ June 16, 2001: Message edited by: The_Evil_Lord ]

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :

Um, Evil Lord, you do know what Brannon Braga is calling the shots this series don't you?

In fact, I don't know if they'll even bother to include Roddenberry's name in the credits. They probably will just for the sake of it, but if they're ditching Star Trek from the title...

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :

*whallops Hobbes with a large Trout named Kilgore*

Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :

No, if like me you want to see continuity in the Star Trek universe, the 'pre-Enterprise' should not have transporters. Period. But the whole point of having transporters on TOS was for 'story telling' sake, ie it was far more convenient to have them beam down immediately to any location, rather than have to embark on a tedious shuttle mission every time the crew wanted to visit the surface.

So rather than investigate true Trek canon, and give some thought and respect to the Trek chronology in regards to technological compatibility with what has been established on the other Trek shows - most relevantly TOS, 'Enterprise' will employ transporters for the sole reason explained above - the ease and convenience of story telling.

Posted by Mr. Christopher (Member # 71) on :

IIRC the reason for transporters was that they couldn't afford to use the shuttle everytime they needed to go to a planet. Actually, I don't think there was even a shuttle set or mock-up until later in the show when they had the money to build it.

Also, witness B5. They didn't have "tedious shuttle flights", they just sped things up a bit.

"Okay, we have to get in a shuttle and head down to the planet."
*one minute later*
"Okay, now that we've made it safely to the surface..."

Posted by Daniel (Member # 453) on :

Transporters and continuity? HAH! That's funny. That whole talking while beaming thing in II and VI, the change in beam effects between series...

Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :

B5 was different though, they were not bound by the same production precepts that were in place in the sixties. Then, they needed quick, clear, clean cut action without too much complication.

B5 obviously had to use shuttles because they coudn't possibly employ transporter-type technology. They had to set themselves apart from Trek. To have used them would've been seen as a blatent rip off of Trek.

In TOS 'teleportation' was used to implement quick and precise movement to external locations. The theory regarding the inavailability of a shuttle set may indeed have been another factor.

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :

Speaking of transporter evolution...

In "Family Business", I think Sisko and Yates had a discussion about the quality of transporters aboard the Xhosa. It was told that transporters came in "marks", and Kasidy's old "mark V" was too primitive to handle the transportation of some delicate goods, so her crew had to haul the barrels by hand. Ben had thought Kasidy had the old model "mark VI" aboard, so presumably the modern TNG-style variant used by Sisko himself was mark VII or newer. (Note that they are apparently indeed discussing the age of the system, and not something like affordability, with Kasidy having bought the economy model of a modern device - I don't remember the dialogue word for word, but will check.)

Now, seven consecutive, gradually evolving marks or more (eight or more if we say the Voyager version came later) is just barely enough to account for all the transporter visual effects we have seen so far. Kirk's gold-shimmering TOS device (and the Jenolan's or the Ligonians' device) could be, say, mark III. Then there would be a blue-sparkling mark IV for ST:TMP, lasting for little over a decade; mark V with those scanning lines for the TOS movies; mark VI in between, if Paramount wants to revisit the E-C era or something; and finally mark VII for TNG, to be followed by mark VIII for Voyager and the TNG movies (these effects share such great commonality that I think they should be regarded as the same).

This leaves two marks for pre-TOS times, and gives an average of about 15 years of "mark lifetime". If we assume that the rapid discarding of the TMP version was due to an atypical failure of that design, then we can hike the lifetime closer to 20 years. This would place mark I somewhere in the 2230s-40s - which is exactly where fanfic has been placing it all the time!

One could say that marks were only assigned to human-cleared systems, and that cargo transporters and experimental, transporter-psychosis-inducing teleportation devices were in existence for some decades before that. This would still leave the device history somewhat short of the mid-22nd century mark...

One could of course also say that the marks do not proceed chronologically after all, nor span the whole history of the transporter technology. They could parallel the shuttlecraft "types" or "classes", neither of which has shown a satisfactory linear trend (class 4 for the TNG "van" in "The Outcast" yet class 2 for the VOY "sportscar" in "Drone" or "Extreme Risk", and no canon confirmation of types at all - and the type numbers are only at 9 now, even though shuttle design lifetime seems awfully short and dozens if not hundreds types of shuttles would be expected to have been created by TNG time).

Timo Saloniemi

Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :

Mind you, in Crusade they often made use of shuttles - well, they had no choice did they? And they often had scenes set in shuttles en route to or from the Excalibur. . . which didn't work very well. Their interior redesign of the standard Earthforce shuttle looked silly, it was just crap. But then Crusade in general was crap.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Timo: Maybe a change in the visual doesn't necessarily denote a change in mark number. Maybe the mark number only changes when there is a significant change, and just a change in the shimmer effects doesn't denote such. After all, computer programs don't get a new version number every time something changes about them. You'll have v1, followed by v1.1, v1.2, v1.21, v1.5, and so on, then eventually you'll get to v2. The mark numbers could work the same way. You could have a bunch of different transporters w/ a bunch of different effects, and they're all called "mark III", and mark IV doesn't come around until there's some significant fundamental change in the technology...

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

It could also be the case that, at least among Federation transporters, the visual effect depends to a great deal on how the individual transporter is setup/aligned/tuned. So Voyager's transporters might look the way they do thanks to whatever engineering team installed them, whereas the Enterprise E's slightly different effect comes from some tweaks LaForge has made.

Posted by Wes1701E (Member # 212) on :

quote:
Voyager's transporters might look the way they do thanks to whatever engineering team installed them, whereas the Enterprise E's slightly different effect comes from some tweaks LaForge has made.

My thoughts exactly. Transporter effect is generally the same in the Federation 24th century.. hell its only slightly diffrent in the 29th century.

The transport effect differs from species to species. Personally, I like the Borg and Cardasian versions.

Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :

We can't really know. Maybe only a slight change in the transporter setting significantly changes the visible effect and the color. Only the speed would be a sure sign of the kind or age of technology employed.

http://www.trektoday.com/news/170601_01.shtml
The Enterprise will have a transporter (and imagine how pissed I am about that). The only thing I can do is observe the transport effect with a stop watch.

Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :

I wonder. . . has anyone ever tried to catalogue all the various transporter effects, and how long they take? I guess it'd go something like this:

"The Cage:" Can't remember
TOS: Classic whine and gold shiimmer
TAS: Animated version of above
Movies 1-6: various effects, can't remember much except it seemed to be variations on lights, glows and shimmers
TNG/DS9: basically stayed the same.
Generations: can't remember
FC: definitely different
Insurrection: bit more TNG-like again
Voyager: the strange one, you know, two lights start in middle, move up and down, plus shimmer. . .

Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :

TMP: Slooowwwww. First type which required anti-radiation shielding. (Don't go in here if you are a Vulcan captain or a redshirt).

TWOK: You can talk through them, and that's about all I remember about them.

STIII: Like all things in that movie, it made a strange sound.

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :

Cage, TOS, TAS: Basically the same slow golden sparkle effect in all. People seem immobilized by the onset of the beam, yet they do end up in different positions than what they had when starting (phasers move from holster to hand etc.).

TMP: Blue variant of the above, with nifty "eddy currents" flowing in 3D all across the transportee's surface, instead of just sparkles.

ST2-ST6: Essentially the same effect in all of these, with "scan lines" similar to the later Voyager effect and with minimal sparkles. Only minor variations in color. Moving within the beam seems easy; people don't seem to maintain a rigid pose through the process in any of the cases.

TNG, DS9, Generations: Rapid white "waterfall" effect. Despite people often maintaining rigid poses, we get canon confirmation that one can move during transportation, and even look and feel around in the transporter beam's "phased realm".

Voyager: Scan lines added to waterfall, tinted towards blue. People always move within the beam.

First Contact: Simple waterfall? Rigid poses.

Insurrection: Very little transporting performed by Federation devices. How was Picard snatched to safety in the end? I seem to remember simple waterfall.

Timo Saloniemi

Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :

Nice work. 8)

First Contact also had a network of stars that seemed to move downwards in a spiral pattern, I think. It definitely wasn't just the TNG waterfall.

The movie beams always had this disassociated blue or red glow that almost filled the transporter area. . .

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

I thought that in the movies, blue was Federaton, and Red was Klingon.

Did we see any other races transporter beams?

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

"Realm of Fear" showed Barclay moving around while he should have been totally energized. Personally, I think he was moving in his mind, but not physically. When the other person touched him, his consciousness interpreted it as a creature biting his arm (I suppose it touched the matter that would later reconstitute his arm), but everything he saw was more like a dream. After all, he imagined those people as giant flying slugs...

I suspect that, when we see people moving in the beam, that's actually just the scanning process. From the moment of dematerialization to the moment of rematerialization, they can't really move (duh... all their bits aren't connected to each other...).

Posted by Beamie (Member # 649) on :

Hi

It is right you cant't move in the Beam. If you can, the Molecular Imaging Scanners coulnd't read you correct and the we have an nice Transporter accident

The Borg and the Romulan beam is Green
The Cardassian: is gold

Greetings Beamie

Posted by Stingray (Member # 621) on :

In "Relics", when Scotty steps off the pad on the E-D, he remarks to Geordi that, "You changed the resonator array!" Since he obviously hasn't openend up a transporter and taken a look inside yet, and only expierienced a new transport, he must be talking about something that is apparent from the process itself. I assume that the writers intended him to mean the visual affect we all know and love.

Although, I couldn't find anything in the TNG TM under transporters about 'resonator arrays' or anything concerning the look of the thing.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

That's because the TNGTM came out before "Relics", and it was probably something the writers made up just for that instance.