 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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:
Build your own hilt to put stuff in:
http://www.thecustomsabershop.com/Modular-Hilt-System-C3.aspx
Add parts, either the single LED version:
http://www.plecterlabs.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=23
Or a multiple LED version (This one would cost almost $500 before done,
due to all the LEDs, which being high output are almost $3-$5 a piece):
http://www.hyperdynelabs.com/hyperblade/purchase.php
This is a view of what the later ones look like, when lit:
http://www.hyperdynelabs.com/hyperblade/photo.php?picID=hyperblade_allcolor1.jpg
o.O
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
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
