 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] pacificwebguy com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
m_a_r_c <jac### [at] wanadoofr> wrote:
> What makes me more trouble is seeing spacecrafts flying like aircrafts!
This could actually be explained with some (rather imaginary) technology:
Spacecraft (at least in most scifi movies and series) are subject to
enormous accelerations, so they need what is usually called "inertial
dampeners" to stop the people inside from being squashed onto walls,
floors and ceilings.
Likewise spacecraft in scifi movies need artificial gravity, because
operating the ship is most convenient for humans in normal gravity (and
exposing humans to zero gravity for long periods of time has negative
side-effects).
It may be that due to these two factors that if a spaceship needs to perform
a tight turn in high velocity, the best way to do it from the point of view
of the inertial dampeners is to do it like an aircraft would do it in an
atmosphere. Perhaps this minimizes the amount of energy required for the
inertial dampeners (and the artificial gravity), energy which is better
used for shields and suchs.
It may also be the most natural way for the pilot to operate the ship,
so even if the ship would be able to perform maneuvers which would be
impossible in atmospherical conditions, those are only reserved for when
they are truely needed, and the default is to fly the ship in the way which
is most natural for the pilot.
Of course this doesn't excuse those movies/tv-series where a ship
stops to complete halt if it runs out of fuel...
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Everybody knows that there's no sound in space, and everybody knows that
> the vast majority of scifi movies get this wrong and present sounds audible
> in space, which is physically impossible, and thus an inaccuracy.
Reminds me of a certain commentary regarding Star Trek:
"When the Enterprise is struck by some sort of weapon, you often see
people like Sulu, etc. falling out of their chairs. One would think the
designers of the Enterprise would had heard of seat belts..."
--
It is kisstomary to cuss the bride.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Everybody knows that there's no sound in space, and everybody knows that
> the vast majority of scifi movies get this wrong and present sounds audible
> in space, which is physically impossible, and thus an inaccuracy.
Has anyone placed a microphone in space, blown something up nearby, and
recorded the results?
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> 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.
Yep. That's why the moon landers were covered with gold foil (nice
reflector) and the moon suits were white. To reflect as much as possible
the incoming radiation because it's difficult to get rid of.
On a different track, perhaps the computers on the ship see the lasers
and ships, and make fake laser sounds and ship swooshes, in order that
the pilots can have an instinctive understanding of what's going on
around them without having to turn around. (Not unlike a HUD tracking
your eyes to make it easier to activate controls in a fighter jet.)
Of course, that still falls down when you're out in space hearing the
swooshes instead of in the pilot's cockpit.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> 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?
Technically, "rationalization" is irrational.
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/09/rationalization.html
:-) I just thought that was an interesting post. Indeed, the whole site
is pretty interesting.
> Thus you expect there to be a camera, even though in the fictional
> world depicted in the movie there is no camera.
I was always amused when there are lens-flair effects on things like CG
movies where you're supposedly looking out the eyes of a character.
> If the movie aknowledges the existence of the camera, it breaks the
> fourth wall.
Yeah, like lens flairs do for me. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23 Jun 2008 17:50:58 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Everybody knows that there's no sound in space, and everybody knows that
>the vast majority of scifi movies get this wrong and present sounds audible
>in space, which is physically impossible, and thus an inaccuracy.
[snip]
Has no one heard of the phrase "The suspension of disbelief"?
It's a film and the people in it are actors.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
