 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieee org> wrote:
> The thunder was so loud that all three of us fell to the ground.
That's approximately what should happen in the movies as well: If the
lightning is so close that it's in sync with the thunder, it should be
*really* loud (and even dangerous).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2 Sep 2008 14:26:00 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> So why are movie makers so afraid of putting a realistic pause between
>the lightning and the thunder? They know there should be a pause, all
>the viewers know it, no viewer would get bothered by there having a
>realistic pause because they know it should be there. So why? Why this
>odd rule?
You keep forgetting that "the movies" is not real life.
Do you ever go to live theatre where the art of story telling has even more
constraints? If you did then you would understand that sometimes the technical
problems lead to compromise. What is the point of having a role of thunder when
people are speaking? The audience would not be able to hear the words. Should a
film of a 24 hour storyline last a day?
It seems to me that you object to artistic licence in the movies.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> You keep forgetting that "the movies" is not real life.
It seems to me that Warp sometimes confuses the fuzzy imprecision of
human-human interaction with the required precision of computational maths.
> Do you ever go to live theatre where the art of story telling has even more
> constraints? If you did then you would understand that sometimes the technical
> problems lead to compromise. What is the point of having a role of thunder when
> people are speaking? The audience would not be able to hear the words. Should a
> film of a 24 hour storyline last a day?
Didn't Andy Warhol produce a film that did just that? I suppose I could
Google it but I'm sure someone else will do it for me :-)
John
--
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> You keep forgetting that "the movies" is not real life.
Oops, forgot to say congrats on your TC-RTC success
John
--
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 11:46:34 +0100, Doctor John <joh### [at] homecom> wrote:
>
>Didn't Andy Warhol produce a film that did just that? I suppose I could
>Google it but I'm sure someone else will do it for me :-)
I'm sure he did, it is the sort of thing he would have done.
And think it clever.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 11:47:53 +0100, Doctor John <joh### [at] homecom> wrote:
>Doctor John wrote:
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> You keep forgetting that "the movies" is not real life.
>
>Oops, forgot to say congrats on your TC-RTC success
>
???
Winning a one horse race has little value.
But thanks anyway.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
> If you did then you would understand that sometimes the technical
> problems lead to compromise.
There's no technical problem in having a realistic pause between lightning
and thunder in movies. I don't even think anyone would consider it in any
way unrealistic if there was a realistic pause (unlike with other things,
where reality in movies is considered unrealistic by most people).
> What is the point of having a role of thunder when
> people are speaking?
I didn't understand the question.
> Should a film of a 24 hour storyline last a day?
There's a very practical and artistic story-telling reason to skip
forward in time. There's no practical nor story-telling nor any other
reason to not to have a realistic pause between lightning and thunder.
It's simply some kind of odd convention.
> It seems to me that you object to artistic licence in the movies.
I do not object to artistic license when it makes sense or is there
for practical reasons.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6 Sep 2008 16:22:55 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> If you did then you would understand that sometimes the technical
>> problems lead to compromise.
>
> There's no technical problem in having a realistic pause between lightning
>and thunder in movies. I don't even think anyone would consider it in any
>way unrealistic if there was a realistic pause (unlike with other things,
>where reality in movies is considered unrealistic by most people).
>
You are right, there are no technical problems. I should have said aesthetic.
I believe that is the reason for the unrealistic gap between the flash and the
peal. Without researching it myself I cannot really say.
>> What is the point of having a role of thunder when
>> people are speaking?
>
> I didn't understand the question.
>
Again I phrased it badly. If the flash and peal are close together then the rest
of the plot can continue without being interrupted by the thunder.
>> Should a film of a 24 hour storyline last a day?
>
> There's a very practical and artistic story-telling reason to skip
>forward in time. There's no practical nor story-telling nor any other
>reason to not to have a realistic pause between lightning and thunder.
>It's simply some kind of odd convention.
>
In your opinion.
>> It seems to me that you object to artistic licence in the movies.
>
> I do not object to artistic license when it makes sense or is there
>for practical reasons.
Well we disagree about the donner unt blitzen
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
news:48c2e69e@news.povray.org...
> It's simply some kind of odd convention.
There's no waiting time for lightning because lightning, to be understood
(and impressive) as lightning, is supposed to go "Flash!!! Crack!!!", not
"Flash!!!, Awkward pause during which nothing remotely interesting happens,
Crack!!!". FlashCrack is Lightning. FlashPauseCrack is "Eh, who just took a
picture?, Uh, What's this noise?" Even in real life this is not always
obvious and that's a luxury movies can't afford.
It's not odd, it's a normal convention for movies. In movies, no time is
wasted for going to the toilet, saying "thank you", saying "hello" on the
phone, finding a parking space, healing after being shot at or beaten,
waiting for hair and clothes to dry, filling a tax return and other
gazillion things that are part of normal life, unless of course it's part of
the plot. In movies, night may come instantly after day. Only significant
events occur and then only on a compressed timeline, in complete disregard
of the laws of physics, biology, economy, psychology and whatnot. Normal
moviegoers accept this and do not care, unlike obsessive geeks who compile
this sort of things on the internet ;D
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gilles Tran" <gil### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
news:48c40168$1@news.povray.org...
> It's not odd, it's a normal convention for movies. In movies, no time is
> wasted for going to the toilet, saying "thank you", saying "hello" on the
> phone,
Yes, why do Americans never say "goodbye" to the other person on the
'phone?? They just put the thing down... (in films I've seen anyway), but is
this typical in real life?
~Steve~
> G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
