On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:08:28 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:

>And lo on Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:20:06 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
>spake, saying:
>
>> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>> Pfft everyone knows Santa Claus is fictional; just like the Tooth Fairy,
>>> the Easter Bunny, and Jesus.
>>
>>   Nothing ruins a friendly chat better than trolling.
>
>I agree; good job this isn't the povray.religion.christianity group  
>otherwise someone might have taken my comment seriously and started  
>arguing.
>

You're wrong :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Thu, 26 Jun 2008 01:06:59 +0100, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at 
> vtSPAM.edu"> did spake, saying:
> 
>> Phil Cook wrote:
>>>
>>>  Hey that could be it though, the ship keeps track of every ship in 
>>> range and when it spots one firing applies a sound to let you know; 
>>> that would explain why enemy ships can sound different to allied ships.
>>
>> That would be kind of difficult with weapons like lasers. How would 
>> you know when it had fired before the beam hit you?
>>
>> I can see the computer code now:
>>
>> when laserBurstHitsHull
>>    do temporalDisplacement(makeSound(), -2 seconds)
> 
> Heh you forgot they're all hooked up to that instantaneous radar system 
> they've all got.

They actually bother to justify that in Star Trek (from TNG onwards), 
their scanners work in subspace and thus do indeed see things much 
faster than if they were detecting conventional radiation. True, it only 
passes the buck, but it's nice that they acknowledge the issue!

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:48:38 +0100, Bill Pragnell  
<bil### [at] hotmailcom> did spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>> And lo on Thu, 26 Jun 2008 01:06:59 +0100, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at  
>> vtSPAM.edu"> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> when laserBurstHitsHull
>>>    do temporalDisplacement(makeSound(), -2 seconds)
>>  Heh you forgot they're all hooked up to that instantaneous radar  
>> system they've all got.
>
> They actually bother to justify that in Star Trek (from TNG onwards),  
> their scanners work in subspace and thus do indeed see things much  
> faster than if they were detecting conventional radiation. True, it only  
> passes the buck, but it's nice that they acknowledge the issue!

'Your universe's rules are no match for my techno-babble'

-- 
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

Phil Cook wrote:
> 'Your universe's rules are no match for my techno-babble'

'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from 
techno-babble' ?

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:57:43 +0100, Bill Pragnell  
<bil### [at] hotmailcom> did spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>> 'Your universe's rules are no match for my techno-babble'
>
> 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from  
> techno-babble' ?

LOL

-- 
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

And lo on Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:46:21 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>  
did spake, saying:

> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:08:28 +0100, "Phil Cook"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>> And lo on Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:20:06 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  
>> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>>> Pfft everyone knows Santa Claus is fictional; just like the Tooth  
>>>> Fairy, the Easter Bunny, and Jesus.
>>>
>>>   Nothing ruins a friendly chat better than trolling.
>>
>> I agree; good job this isn't the povray.religion.christianity group
>> otherwise someone might have taken my comment seriously and started
>> arguing.
>
> You're wrong :)

[giggling like a schoolgirl] Fight! Fight!

-- 
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

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:11:19 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:

>>> I agree; good job this isn't the povray.religion.christianity group
>>> otherwise someone might have taken my comment seriously and started
>>> arguing.
>>
>> You're wrong :)
>
>[giggling like a schoolgirl] Fight! Fight!
>

What do you mean "like" ya big girl's blouse :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>> Not necessarily.  When watching a really good movie, I feel like "I am 
>> there."  It's a strange split; I experience the Point of View (gotta be 
>> careful writing POV in these forums!), yet without the concerns of 
>> actually being there such as danger from suffocation (or errant enemy 
>> fire!).  As long as I can imagine that I see and hear things from the 
>> point in space where the camera sits, I can forget about the camera and 
>> merrily enjoy the illusion.  This is, after all, what Suspension of 
>> Disbelief is all about.
> 
>   So if the camera is filming, from 10 meters away, two subjects talking,
> you expect to be just barely able to hear some talking, but since the
> movie soundtrack will nevertheless have them talking at a clearly audible
> volume, that ruins the movie for you?

Not at all, and it really isn't the same thing.

Having the volume of the conversation boosted, while irrelevant parts 
are subdued, mimics the way our minds already work.  We filter out 
irrelevant sounds, and pay attention to relevant ones.  Moreover, 
hearing the conversation is vital to our understanding of the story, and 
not being able to hear it well gets in the way of our enjoyment more 
than quibbling about the mixing levels.

>   If they are inside an establishment and the camera is outside, filming
> them through a window, you expect not to hear what they are saying?

I was recently watching a movie where, in one shot, the camera started 
outside an establishment, and then moved inside the building.  The 
ambient sounds, the conversation of the main characters, and even the 
soundtrack all were adjusted from being bright and clear while outside, 
to echoing and (slightly) subdued inside.  It worked surprisingly well 
to convey the sense of entering the building.

>   Why is this movie convention ok everywhere else, but not in space?

Because it's not really the same.  I, at least, don't think of the 
camera as a camera - I think of it as a point of view.  I am perfectly 
willing to believe that there is a point of view which allows me to see 
and hear what's in the movie, without worrying about whether or not 
there is a camera and microphone.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:11:19 +0100, "Phil Cook"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> 
>>> You're wrong :)
>> [giggling like a schoolgirl] Fight! Fight!
>>
> 
> What do you mean "like" ya big girl's blouse :)

Stephanie, stop pulling Phillipa's pigtails :-)

John

-- 
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:58:07 +0100, Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom>
wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:11:19 +0100, "Phil Cook"
>> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> 
>>>> You're wrong :)
>>> [giggling like a schoolgirl] Fight! Fight!
>>>
>> 
>> What do you mean "like" ya big girl's blouse :)
>
>Stephanie, stop pulling Phillipa's pigtails :-)
>

Yes ma'am
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message