 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
TC wrote:
>> Seriously though, I would just like to see one where the blade can extend,
>> without the horrible design of the plastic ones. So far, I can't. lol
>
> The problem with light sabres is: they are complete nonsense. Even more so
> than laser guns and most other SF stuff. don't crucify me, I am disappointed
> by this sad fact, too.
>
> Let's think about those marvellous SF battles, colourful laser beams
> glittering in deep space while marvellous sound effects sound aloud. Never
> mind that in a vacuum there is no sound to be heard and laser beams are
> invisible. But I digress, so back to the post.
>
> I would simulate an extensible light sabre by building on the principle of a
> neon light. Get yourself a hilt, a clear glass cylinder with an emitter
> cathode on the one end and an anode on the other. Fill with neon gas. By
> applying the principle of ionisation by collision and slowly increasing the
> voltage you should be able to achieve a look similar to a light sabre. You
> can get the electronic parts on the web. Maybe you can find an optical
> transparent dye that emits a colourful visible light when hit by
> UV-radiation. I don't know if such a dye exists or if it would be
> affordable - the usual dye used is not transparent.
>
> However, you might run into problems finding an adequate power supply - or
> you would be chained to the nearest socket by a long power cord.
>
Uh.. Sorry. They already solved *that* with LEDs. There are two methods
the Hyperdyne ones uses a string of them, running up the tube. The
others use a inner core, or some sort, with makes the saber look like it
has a "bright" core, and a more defuse outside, as a side effect, and
increase the brightness of the LED linearly, to produce the effect. Both
produce "shimmer", by adding small variances into the voltage used to
light the LED(s). No, the, as one guy put it, "unicorn they are looking
for", is a way to make the actual tube itself "extend", without having
to have it a fixed length. There is no practical solution at this point
for doing that.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Ok, this is just fracking nuts, and no, I am not just talking about how
> much the damn things would cost you. I just wanted to see if I could
> find something *vaguely* less lame than the cheap plastic ones you get
> at halloween, planning for the next one. What I find is stuff like this:
What I can't figure out is how the hell they did the *original* effects
in the film...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> TC <do-not-reply@i-do get-enough-spam-already-2498.com> wrote:
>> Never
>> mind that in a vacuum there is no sound to be heard and laser beams are
>> invisible.
>
> Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation, at the energy
> levels usually used in terrestrial conditions, might be invisible. But
> energy weapons in scifi movies do not necessarily use either LASER nor
> the energy levels we are accustomed to. (The word "laser" has become more
> or less synonym of "light/energy ray", especially in scifi settings, but
> that doesn't mean that it's literally a LASER.)
>
> The energy beams used by space ship weapons in scifi movies may be though
> of using some form of energy still unknown to us, and the levels of energy
> involved are ostensibly staggering (after all, these energy beams have to
> penetrate energy shields and reinforced space ship hulls, so a regular
> earthly LASER won't cut). It's *plausible* that this form of energy beam,
> at the energy levels involved, might be visible, either all by itself or
> by "burning" whatever matter is in space (after all, space is seldom 100%
> total vacuum, and instead there are always trace amounts of hydrogen
> molecules from stellar wind, etc).
>
> As for sounds in space, if you require space scenes to be mute, you are
> actually requiring for the movie to break the fourth wall. See more here:
>
> http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/AboutSoundsInSpace.html
>
> (Not that breaking the fourth wall would be *wrong* per se. However, it's
> equally non-wrong to not to break the fourth wall as well.)
>
Don't know. This may be less the case now than it was in the past.
Battlestar did *everything* in space, unless you where in a cockpit, or
inside the ship, "silent", and it worked.
As for the Sci-fi effects issues.. Blasters and sabers both require
something we can't manage "containment". Both are likely to be plasma,
not laser. We can produce cold plasmas, and hot, and to *some extent*
control the cold ones, but it takes a lot of energy to produce them, and
"containment" is limited to more or less flat planes, between emitter
and collector, and such. In other words, we are more likely to see
something like Star Trek corridor shield, before we ever see a blaster,
never mind a saber. Sabers.. Are probably more likely than a blaster,
simply because it may be, in principle, possible to create a plasma
"blade" which is hot enough to cut something, but cool enough/isolated
enough, from the emitter, to prevent it melting a central "core" into
slag. In effect, you would generate the plasma at the tip of a baton, or
maybe the bottom, depending on how it had to work, then "collect" it on
the other end. This means that, unlike a true lightsaber you would have
a solid core, under the plasma. The most likely design such such a thing
would be more like a plasma chain saw, where the emitter and collector
where isolated by distance, from the "core" used to feed the energy and
particles to the emitter system. Its would be hottest nearest the emitter.
But, its all about containment, when making something more complex.
There is no known way to trap such a mass of plasma energy in a ball, or
limit how far it goes from an emitter, without a container, so that it
can be fired at a target. You would get something more like a flame
thrower, than a blaster, or blade, and it would diffuse in *all*
directions at once, with the only exception being what ever directional
movement may have been added at the emission point. Its that containment
issue that creates a hang up. Its one thing to contain particles in a
layer, between points you can control, then mess with the particle
density, its another thing entirely to force it out in a tight beam, or
a pulse, and expect it to maintain cohesion over more than a few feet.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> What I can't figure out is how the hell they did the *original* effects
> in the film...
They used a wooden dowel wrapped with reflective tape. You'll notice that
almost every time it "extends" in the original Episode IV movie, they're
lifting it up, or turning it to the side, or doing something else that lets
the perspective work out such that it looks like it's getting longer.
Then, you sit down and have someone with an xacto knife scratch the film on
each frame where the blade is and then paint over it.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> What I can't figure out is how the hell they did the *original*
>> effects in the film...
>
> They used a wooden dowel wrapped with reflective tape. You'll notice
> that almost every time it "extends" in the original Episode IV movie,
> they're lifting it up, or turning it to the side, or doing something
> else that lets the perspective work out such that it looks like it's
> getting longer.
>
> Then, you sit down and have someone with an xacto knife scratch the film
> on each frame where the blade is and then paint over it.
So... the actors are just waving wooden sticks, and the effect was
actually painted onto the original film negatives by hand? o_O
I guess that explains why the blade shimmers slightly...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> What I can't figure out is how the hell they did the *original*
>> effects in the film...
>
> They used a wooden dowel wrapped with reflective tape. You'll notice
> that almost every time it "extends" in the original Episode IV movie,
> they're lifting it up, or turning it to the side, or doing something
> else that lets the perspective work out such that it looks like it's
> getting longer.
>
> Then, you sit down and have someone with an xacto knife scratch the film
> on each frame where the blade is and then paint over it.
>
The funniest thing being, now, if they had to remake the damn things,
they could just buy up a mess of them from these people, complete with
replicas of the original "film equipment parts", used to make the ones
in the first movie, and a whole mess of custom ones, you can even get
powder coated, colored, etc., how ever you want them... The only damn
thing you can't find, a reasonably priced set of tunics and robes. lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> unlike a true lightsaber you would have a solid core,
I wasn't aware we knew enough about how lightsabers work to know there isn't
a solid core (or at least a wire) under the plasma.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> TC <do-not-reply@i-do get-enough-spam-already-2498.com> wrote:
>> Never
>> mind that in a vacuum there is no sound to be heard and laser beams are
>> invisible.
>
> Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation, at the energy
> levels usually used in terrestrial conditions, might be invisible. But
> energy weapons in scifi movies do not necessarily use either LASER nor
> the energy levels we are accustomed to. (The word "laser" has become more
> or less synonym of "light/energy ray", especially in scifi settings, but
> that doesn't mean that it's literally a LASER.)
>
If it is a LASER, at a very high energy level, it would still be
invisible from the camera's perspective. There is very little to scatter
the beam, even if it was in the visible spectrum, so the only places
anyone in the movie would see the beam is at any point along the path it
travels, and possibly after it starts to vaporize the target.
As for sound, LASER beams do not go WOOOSH! or PEW! PEW! PEW!
I have thought, however, that it could be explained by having the
Unobtainium capacitors, that power a LASER/plasma/whatever weapon,
discharge with a sonic component. I mean, if the charging circuit for a
set of flash bulbs has a nice whine to it, maybe the futuristic ones
will just have a different charge rate/volt/pattern.
> The energy beams used by space ship weapons in scifi movies may be though
> of using some form of energy still unknown to us, and the levels of energy
> involved are ostensibly staggering (after all, these energy beams have to
> penetrate energy shields and reinforced space ship hulls, so a regular
> earthly LASER won't cut). It's *plausible* that this form of energy beam,
> at the energy levels involved, might be visible, either all by itself or
> by "burning" whatever matter is in space (after all, space is seldom 100%
> total vacuum, and instead there are always trace amounts of hydrogen
> molecules from stellar wind, etc).
Plasma, ion or blaster guns, antimatter particle streams. All good
choices that may, at some energy level or condition may emit photons.
Waste of good impact energy, but sometimes it can not be helped.
I suppose, thinking about it more, that a LASER might scatter in a space
'dog-fight' situation. The vehicles involved would be maneuvering and,
barring gravity modification or some other reaction-less system, would
be leaving behind a trail of some particles. A LASER would scatter in
that, and may possibly impart enough energy to cause those particles to
glow.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> If it is a LASER,
That's exactly why Star Trek uses phasers. The original scripts had "laser"
and Roddenbury said to keep someone from showing up in a year or two saying
"lasers can't do that."
> Unobtainium capacitors,
I found it very amusing that in Avatar they actually refer to one of the
minerals as "unobtainium."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> light the LED(s). No, the, as one guy put it, "unicorn they are looking
> for", is a way to make the actual tube itself "extend", without having to
> have it a fixed length. There is no practical solution at this point for
> doing that.
Your are perfectly right. I wanted to suggest some way that might allow to
>see< through a clear glass cylinder (without noticing LEDs), enhancing the
illusion of extension. Frankly, to put my idea into work, you would have to
do quite a bit of experimenting. Fiddling with pressures, dyes, voltages.
Way too much work and expense for a party ;-)
Something that might actually work and look cool (though not at all like a
lightsabre) would be putting a chain of miniature plasma globe emitters into
a clear glass cylinder.
http://www.teslaboys.com/Plasma/MorePlasmaGlobes/index.html
I mean: take a plasma globe, shrink it's diameter to 3 cm, take 50 emitters
and put them into a 1.5 m long glass cylinder. Fill it with Krypton, power
up and enjoy.
If you could get it to work, it would look very cool, I guess.
Still - way too much work and expense for a party ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
