Bill Pragnell wrote:
> I liked the way Serenity handled this - all the space scenes were eerily 
> silent, except for weapon firing / impacts, which sounded like they were 
> being transmitted by the spacecraft hulls, not air (or some other 
> gaseous medium). Not completely realistic, but quite a good effect.
> 
> (I think the new Battlestar Galactica does this too, but not all the 
> time, bizarrely).

I've watched Battlestar Galactica and they really do stick to "no sound 
in space", although, if you're inside a ship or, as Warp mentioned, 
you're in for the ride along one of the pilots, you can hear their 
ship's sounds, e.g. breaking, impacts etc.
Generally, I really like how most of what happens in their space fights 
is filled with music, not big explosions, even though the images are 
really awesome and have depth I've seldom seen even in big movie 
productions.

Regards,
Tim

Post a reply to this message

Kyle <hob### [at] gatenet> wrote:
> On 23 Jun 2008 17:50:58 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

> I think an additional reason is that this statement ...

> >  Everybody knows that there's no sound in space

> ... is not really true.  I bet if you ask 100 people, "If we are both floating in
space, and I snap my fingers, what will it sound like?", most of them will not answer
correctly.  

  There are actually much worse misconceptions about outer space. The
quintessential and by far most widespread example is: "Space is very cold.
Anything put into outer space will freeze very fast."

  I'd say 99% of people who get *all* the other facts about outer space
right (such as people *not* exploding when they are put into vacuum, etc),
get this one wrong.

  On earth there are three methods of heat transfer: Conduction, convection
and radiation. A piece of meat put into a freezer will freeze in a few
hours because of conduction and convection. Radiation plays only a very
small role.

  In vacuum there's no conduction nor convection. Vacuum has no "temperature"
which it could somehow transfer to objects. It's vacuum. There's nothing
there. The only possible mechanism for heat transfer is radiation. Vacuum
is, in fact, a pretty good insulator.

  The only way for, for example, a human to freeze in space is to slowly
radiate its own temperature away. This does happen, but it happens very
slowly, and it requires that he doesn't receive any excess heat radiation
(for example from a nearby star). In fact, if a human was floating in space
closer to the Sun than a certain distance (I wouldn't dare to bet about
the critical distance), he would never freeze because the Sun is warming
him up by radiation heat transfer.

  Even without any star or other radiating source nearby, the human body
takes a long time to radiate its own heat away in vacuum. While it will
eventually freeze, it will take quite some time to do so.

  In spaceship designs the biggest problem is not, ironically enough,
how to keep the ship warm, but on the contrary how to keep it cool.
Motors, electric devices, etc. all produce heat, and it's very difficult
to get rid of it. Putting a big thermal sink on the outer hull of the
ship is a poor way of getting rid of the heat because it radiates the
heat away very slowly in vacuum.

  Maybe some people get confused by the so-called cosmic microwave
background radiation, which causes the entire universe to radiate
at about 3 kelvin. From this they (erroneously) deduce that everything
put in outer space will quickly freeze to 3 kelvin.

  Of course it's the exact opposite: In fact, the background radiation
*adds* to the temperature of everything. It doesn't reduce the temperature.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Tim Nikias wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
>> I liked the way Serenity handled this - all the space scenes were 
>> eerily silent, except for weapon firing / impacts, which sounded like 
>> they were being transmitted by the spacecraft hulls, not air (or some 
>> other gaseous medium). Not completely realistic, but quite a good effect.
>>
>> (I think the new Battlestar Galactica does this too, but not all the 
>> time, bizarrely).
> 
> I've watched Battlestar Galactica and they really do stick to "no sound 
> in space", although, if you're inside a ship or, as Warp mentioned, 
> you're in for the ride along one of the pilots, you can hear their 
> ship's sounds, e.g. breaking, impacts etc.
> Generally, I really like how most of what happens in their space fights 
> is filled with music, not big explosions, even though the images are 
> really awesome and have depth I've seldom seen even in big movie 
> productions.

I've only seen season 1 (I think it's awesome, by the way!), but I seem 
to remember being able to hear the sound of cylon raiders firing through 
vacuum, albeit in a muffled, hull-conducted way. I may be mistaken. I 
shall have to go and watch it again (what a sacrifice!).

What also helps the visuals is the hand-held style, something you never 
see in space battles or dogfights. Great stuff!

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:25:05 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> But the spaceship is an object and thus isn't a 'subject' that can
>> perceive anything.
>
>   Of course it is, and of course it does.
>
>   That's as ridiculous as saying that if the movie is showing a car,
> the sound of the car should not be heard because the car is not a  
> "subject"
> and doesn't "perceive anything".

If you take the convention that the camera is say a 'ghost' then sure you  
should hear what you can from that position, but that means you can't hear  
a spacehip. You're either looking at it from the ghost perspective or the  
subject's perspective. From that point of view if you can hear what the  
occupants are hearing that's fine, but don't create the sound of what you  
would hear from the outside if there was a medium in which to transmit  
sound.

>> Sure if you're focused on some guy staring out a
>> porthole you could hear what he can hear. Likewise in a battle the  
>> sounds
>>  from the ship's own blasters can be transmitted to the pilot, but how  
>> does
>> the sounds from the other ships guns get transmitted to them unless  
>> you're
>> expected to take the perceptions of every ship on screen; and even then
>> you can have someone react to a 'laser' bolt zipping by their ship from  
>> an
>> unseen enemy.
>
>   If you can see the other ship, and you can see the laser, you can hear
> it because it's a subject in view, and the convention is to make the
> soundtrack so.

And if you can't see the other ship? If you're front-facing from the  
cockpit and only see the lasers go past you state you should be able to  
hear them?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

>> IIRC the first one who
>> complained about whoosh sounds in Star Wars was Harlan Ellison, who wrote 
>> a
>> big rant about this in 1976.
>
>  That's odd, given that the movie was released in 1977...

Maybe he got to see/hear parts of it before it was released?

Post a reply to this message

Sounds like a bunch of rationalizations to me.

I don't know about anyone else, but when I watch a sci-fi movie and the 
camera is in space, I expect to hear whatever you would hear in space... 
ie, nothing.  The fact that there are added sound effects breaks the 
fourth wall by reminding me that someone added those effects just to 
make it sound cool.

Music doesn't do this, because there's music constantly throughout the 
movie, so I already disassociate it with the physical location of the shot.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

The other thing about temperature I've seen in movies lately, is the 
idea that the Sun will instantly burn you to death.  While true if 
you're close enough, most of the time the subjects aren't (and the 
writers just needed a way to make space more dangerous for dramatic effect).

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

4860eb82@news.povray.org...
>  In vacuum there's no conduction nor convection. Vacuum has no 
> "temperature"
> which it could somehow transfer to objects. It's vacuum. There's nothing
> there. The only possible mechanism for heat transfer is radiation. Vacuum
> is, in fact, a pretty good insulator.
>
As long as no evaporation or sublimation is concerned.
And they are fast in vacuum

Marc

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> Sounds like a bunch of rationalizations to me.

  So?

  What you do you suggest? Explaining the custom with irrational arguments?
How would that make any sense?

> I don't know about anyone else, but when I watch a sci-fi movie and the 
> camera is in space, I expect to hear whatever you would hear in space... 

  Thus you expect there to be a camera, even though in the fictional
world depicted in the movie there is no camera.

  If the movie aknowledges the existence of the camera, it breaks the
fourth wall.

> ie, nothing.  The fact that there are added sound effects breaks the 
> fourth wall by reminding me that someone added those effects just to 
> make it sound cool.

  That exact same argument could be used for *any* added sound effect
in *any* movie. Which would make 99.999% of movies flawed.

> Music doesn't do this, because there's music constantly throughout the 
> movie, so I already disassociate it with the physical location of the shot.

  Background music is a movie-making convention. Likewise locating the
sound environment to be somewhere close to or between the subjects being
filmed is another. There's no relevant difference.

  Putting the sound environment at the camera is an acceptable technique
only when the movie establishes that what you see has been filmed using
a camera (one example would be in-movie news footage).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

48610211$1@news.povray.org...
.
>
> Music doesn't do this, because there's music constantly throughout the 
> movie, so I already disassociate it with the physical location of the 
> shot.
>
Music does not do that because it is the more often not 'in situation' 
though I remember some gags, specially in Mel Brooks movies...(Blazing 
Saddles?) .
As (did not) said Gilles  the London Philharmonic is obviousely not flying 
in space.
so the part of your mind which sorts believable things and unbelievable 
things has already classified music as off-topic.
Sound effects are performed a 'in situ' which is a nonono in space for some 
people.
I don't really care. What makes me more trouble is seeing spacecrafts flying 
like aircrafts!
I can accept it for epic space battles (we read faster what our brain is 
trained to see )  but not  a space shuttle (a today's craft) obviousely out 
of range (shuttle is designed for low orbit. you could launch it beyond with 
a more powerfull launcher but just why a shuttle?) just stopping propulsion 
and gently "slowing down" (i.e. getting a null relative velocity with a 
comet rushing at 40000 m/s ... LOL)

Marc

Post a reply to this message