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.

  However, I read a rather interesting point of view about this.

  When a movie is filming some subject, let's say for example two people,
the sound environment is that of these two people, not that of the camera.
Regardless of how far (or how close) the camera is, the sound is that of
the "average" of those two persons. In other words, the film soundtrack
depicts what those persons hear (averaged between the two). The camera
itself may even be a dozen of meters away, yet the soundtrack is from the
perspective of the subjects, not the one of the camera.

  This is an accepted movie technique, and you seldom see anyone complaining
about it. It's an established way of depicting a fictive scene, and
everyone just accepts that.

  If the scene had a soundtrack from a microphone attached to the camera
(which would be "realistic"), that would actually break the fourth wall,
so to speak. It would actually make the audience aware that there *is*
a microphone, there *is* a camera, and the former is attached to the
latter.
  In the movie's own reality there, of course, is no camera nor microphone,
so making the scene so that it becomes obvious that there is, breaks the
fourth wall and the willing suspension of disbelief.

  The same goes for outer space scenes: If the movie is, for example,
showing a spaceship as the subject of the scene, the soundtrack is that
of the point of view of the spaceship. The spaceship can "hear" itself
(or, more practically, the people inside the spaceship can hear it).

  If that scene was completely silent, however, it would once again break
the fourth wall: The movie is telling that the "microphone" is in space,
probably attached to the camera, which reminds the viewers that there *is*
a camera, there *is* a microphone, and both are in space, where there's no
sound.
  This, once again, breaks the fourth wall because in the movie's reality
there should be no camera nor microphone.

  Movies which have sound in space are simply sticking to the movie
convention that the soundtrack is that which is perceived by the subject
being filmed, not that which is perceived by the camera (which doesn't
really "exist" in that reality).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:48601ac1@news.povray.org...

>   Movies which have sound in space are simply sticking to the movie
> convention that the soundtrack is that which is perceived by the subject
> being filmed, not that which is perceived by the camera (which doesn't
> really "exist" in that reality).

Agreed. Nobody seems to object to the "camera" (in one of the very few
movies which got the sound "right") outside Discovery One filming the action
(manned by the 6th crew member I suppose) but everyone who's had some high
school physics feels the need to show it off by focusing on the physical
impossibility of the "microphone".

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.
> 
>   However, I read a rather interesting point of view about this.
> 
>   When a movie is filming some subject, let's say for example two people,
> the sound environment is that of these two people, not that of the camera.
> Regardless of how far (or how close) the camera is, the sound is that of
> the "average" of those two persons. In other words, the film soundtrack
> depicts what those persons hear (averaged between the two). The camera
> itself may even be a dozen of meters away, yet the soundtrack is from the
> perspective of the subjects, not the one of the camera.
> 
>   This is an accepted movie technique, and you seldom see anyone complaining
> about it. It's an established way of depicting a fictive scene, and
> everyone just accepts that.
> 
>   If the scene had a soundtrack from a microphone attached to the camera
> (which would be "realistic"), that would actually break the fourth wall,
> so to speak. It would actually make the audience aware that there *is*
> a microphone, there *is* a camera, and the former is attached to the
> latter.
>   In the movie's own reality there, of course, is no camera nor microphone,
> so making the scene so that it becomes obvious that there is, breaks the
> fourth wall and the willing suspension of disbelief.
> 
>   The same goes for outer space scenes: If the movie is, for example,
> showing a spaceship as the subject of the scene, the soundtrack is that
> of the point of view of the spaceship. The spaceship can "hear" itself
> (or, more practically, the people inside the spaceship can hear it).
> 
>   If that scene was completely silent, however, it would once again break
> the fourth wall: The movie is telling that the "microphone" is in space,
> probably attached to the camera, which reminds the viewers that there *is*
> a camera, there *is* a microphone, and both are in space, where there's no
> sound.
>   This, once again, breaks the fourth wall because in the movie's reality
> there should be no camera nor microphone.
> 
>   Movies which have sound in space are simply sticking to the movie
> convention that the soundtrack is that which is perceived by the subject
> being filmed, not that which is perceived by the camera (which doesn't
> really "exist" in that reality).
> 

Thats sounds like a lot of rationalization for the simple Truth that We 
the viewers love explodions.

Post a reply to this message

> Thats sounds like a lot of rationalization for the simple Truth that We 
> the viewers love explodions.

And that space films would be pretty boring with no sound.

Hey they often have background music in space films too, where does that all 
come from?

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> a écrit dans le message de news: 
48601ac1@news.povray.org...
>  Movies which have sound in space are simply sticking to the movie
> convention that the soundtrack is that which is perceived by the subject
> being filmed, not that which is perceived by the camera (which doesn't
> really "exist" in that reality).

Interestingly enough, not only there's sound in space but the entire London 
Symphonic Orchestra (John Williams conducting) is there too, floating around 
and trying not to get in the way of the X-Wings. IIRC the first one who 
complained about whoosh sounds in Star Wars was Harlan Ellison, who wrote a 
big rant about this in 1976. I like Ellison as a writer, but that rant was 
really dumb.

In the DVD commentary of LOTR there's an anecdote (from memory, actual 
wording may be different) about an actor complaining about lighting being 
too artificial: "It's supposed to be completely dark there, where is the 
light coming from?" And the director answered: "From the same place as the 
music"

G.

Post a reply to this message

I liked the way Serenity handled this - all the space scenes were eerily 
silent, except for weapon firing / impacts, which sounded like they were 
being transmitted by the spacecraft hulls, not air (or some other 
gaseous medium). Not completely realistic, but quite a good effect.

(I think the new Battlestar Galactica does this too, but not all the 
time, bizarrely).

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:50:58 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

>   Movies which have sound in space are simply sticking to the movie
> convention that the soundtrack is that which is perceived by the subject
> being filmed, not that which is perceived by the camera (which doesn't
> really "exist" in that reality).

But the spaceship is an object and thus isn't a 'subject' that can  
perceive anything. Sure if you're focused on some guy staring out a  
porthole you could hear what he can hear. Likewise in a battle the sounds  
 from the ship's own blasters can be transmitted to the pilot, but how does  
the sounds from the other ships guns get transmitted to them unless you're  
expected to take the perceptions of every ship on screen; and even then  
you can have someone react to a 'laser' bolt zipping by their ship from an  
unseen enemy.

-- 
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 23 Jun 2008 17:50:58 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

I think an additional reason is that this statement ...

>  Everybody knows that there's no sound in space

... is not really true.  I bet if you ask 100 people, "If we are both floating in
space, and I snap my fingers, what will it sound like?", most of them will not answer
correctly.  

If you create a space film in which you do not hear the phasers fire, or the whoosh of
a spacecraft fly-by, I believe most people will think that something is wrong with the
film, because their
perception of physics is what they experience on Earth daily, not what is reality in
space.

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran <gil### [at] agroparistechfr> wrote:
> IIRC the first one who 
> complained about whoosh sounds in Star Wars was Harlan Ellison, who wrote a 
> big rant about this in 1976.

  That's odd, given that the movie was released in 1977...

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> But the spaceship is an object and thus isn't a 'subject' that can  
> perceive anything.

  Of course it is, and of course it does.

  That's as ridiculous as saying that if the movie is showing a car,
the sound of the car should not be heard because the car is not a "subject"
and doesn't "perceive anything".

> Sure if you're focused on some guy staring out a  
> porthole you could hear what he can hear. Likewise in a battle the sounds  
>  from the ship's own blasters can be transmitted to the pilot, but how does  
> the sounds from the other ships guns get transmitted to them unless you're  
> expected to take the perceptions of every ship on screen; and even then  
> you can have someone react to a 'laser' bolt zipping by their ship from an  
> unseen enemy.

  If you can see the other ship, and you can see the laser, you can hear
it because it's a subject in view, and the convention is to make the
soundtrack so.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> I liked the way Serenity handled this - all the space scenes were eerily 
> silent, except for weapon firing / impacts, which sounded like they were 
> being transmitted by the spacecraft hulls, not air (or some other 
> gaseous medium). Not completely realistic, but quite a good effect.
> 
> (I think the new Battlestar Galactica does this too, but not all the 
> time, bizarrely).

I've watched Battlestar Galactica and they really do stick to "no sound 
in space", although, if you're inside a ship or, as Warp mentioned, 
you're in for the ride along one of the pilots, you can hear their 
ship's sounds, e.g. breaking, impacts etc.
Generally, I really like how most of what happens in their space fights 
is filled with music, not big explosions, even though the images are 
really awesome and have depth I've seldom seen even in big movie 
productions.

Regards,
Tim

Post a reply to this message

Kyle <hob### [at] gatenet> wrote:
> On 23 Jun 2008 17:50:58 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

> I think an additional reason is that this statement ...

> >  Everybody knows that there's no sound in space

> ... is not really true.  I bet if you ask 100 people, "If we are both floating in
space, and I snap my fingers, what will it sound like?", most of them will not answer
correctly.  

  There are actually much worse misconceptions about outer space. The
quintessential and by far most widespread example is: "Space is very cold.
Anything put into outer space will freeze very fast."

  I'd say 99% of people who get *all* the other facts about outer space
right (such as people *not* exploding when they are put into vacuum, etc),
get this one wrong.

  On earth there are three methods of heat transfer: Conduction, convection
and radiation. A piece of meat put into a freezer will freeze in a few
hours because of conduction and convection. Radiation plays only a very
small role.

  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.

  The only way for, for example, a human to freeze in space is to slowly
radiate its own temperature away. This does happen, but it happens very
slowly, and it requires that he doesn't receive any excess heat radiation
(for example from a nearby star). In fact, if a human was floating in space
closer to the Sun than a certain distance (I wouldn't dare to bet about
the critical distance), he would never freeze because the Sun is warming
him up by radiation heat transfer.

  Even without any star or other radiating source nearby, the human body
takes a long time to radiate its own heat away in vacuum. While it will
eventually freeze, it will take quite some time to do so.

  In spaceship designs the biggest problem is not, ironically enough,
how to keep the ship warm, but on the contrary how to keep it cool.
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.

  Maybe some people get confused by the so-called cosmic microwave
background radiation, which causes the entire universe to radiate
at about 3 kelvin. From this they (erroneously) deduce that everything
put in outer space will quickly freeze to 3 kelvin.

  Of course it's the exact opposite: In fact, the background radiation
*adds* to the temperature of everything. It doesn't reduce the temperature.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Tim Nikias wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
>> I liked the way Serenity handled this - all the space scenes were 
>> eerily silent, except for weapon firing / impacts, which sounded like 
>> they were being transmitted by the spacecraft hulls, not air (or some 
>> other gaseous medium). Not completely realistic, but quite a good effect.
>>
>> (I think the new Battlestar Galactica does this too, but not all the 
>> time, bizarrely).
> 
> I've watched Battlestar Galactica and they really do stick to "no sound 
> in space", although, if you're inside a ship or, as Warp mentioned, 
> you're in for the ride along one of the pilots, you can hear their 
> ship's sounds, e.g. breaking, impacts etc.
> Generally, I really like how most of what happens in their space fights 
> is filled with music, not big explosions, even though the images are 
> really awesome and have depth I've seldom seen even in big movie 
> productions.

I've only seen season 1 (I think it's awesome, by the way!), but I seem 
to remember being able to hear the sound of cylon raiders firing through 
vacuum, albeit in a muffled, hull-conducted way. I may be mistaken. I 
shall have to go and watch it again (what a sacrifice!).

What also helps the visuals is the hand-held style, something you never 
see in space battles or dogfights. Great stuff!

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:25:05 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> But the spaceship is an object and thus isn't a 'subject' that can
>> perceive anything.
>
>   Of course it is, and of course it does.
>
>   That's as ridiculous as saying that if the movie is showing a car,
> the sound of the car should not be heard because the car is not a  
> "subject"
> and doesn't "perceive anything".

If you take the convention that the camera is say a 'ghost' then sure you  
should hear what you can from that position, but that means you can't hear  
a spacehip. You're either looking at it from the ghost perspective or the  
subject's perspective. From that point of view if you can hear what the  
occupants are hearing that's fine, but don't create the sound of what you  
would hear from the outside if there was a medium in which to transmit  
sound.

>> Sure if you're focused on some guy staring out a
>> porthole you could hear what he can hear. Likewise in a battle the  
>> sounds
>>  from the ship's own blasters can be transmitted to the pilot, but how  
>> does
>> the sounds from the other ships guns get transmitted to them unless  
>> you're
>> expected to take the perceptions of every ship on screen; and even then
>> you can have someone react to a 'laser' bolt zipping by their ship from  
>> an
>> unseen enemy.
>
>   If you can see the other ship, and you can see the laser, you can hear
> it because it's a subject in view, and the convention is to make the
> soundtrack so.

And if you can't see the other ship? If you're front-facing from the  
cockpit and only see the lasers go past you state you should be able to  
hear them?

-- 
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

>> IIRC the first one who
>> complained about whoosh sounds in Star Wars was Harlan Ellison, who wrote 
>> a
>> big rant about this in 1976.
>
>  That's odd, given that the movie was released in 1977...

Maybe he got to see/hear parts of it before it was released?

Post a reply to this message

Sounds like a bunch of rationalizations to me.

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... 
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.

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.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

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

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> a écrit dans le message de news: 
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] pacificwebguycom> 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

"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> a écrit dans le message de news: 
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

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?
> How would that make any sense?

Colloquially, the act of rationalizing something is the act of finding 
reasons to support something you know is wrong.  In other words, this 
sounds to me like they're just trying to find any excuse they can not to 
change their ways.

>> 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.

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.

Of course I know it's not real, and all that, but I can trick myself 
into believing it for a while.  Anything "wrong" (such as badly 
tesselated geometry, poor artificial lighting, a microphone boom 
slipping into the picture or, in this case, sound effects in a vacuum) 
detracts from my ability to fool myself.

>> 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.

Two things:

1) Not necessarily.  It depends on whether or not those sound effects 
draw attention to themselves.  In this vein, the best movie score is one 
which you don't notice.  Sound effects in a vacuum get noticed partly 
because many people know there's no sound in a vacuum, and partly 
because there has been such a big fuss made about it.

2) 90% of everything is crap anyway (this principle has a name, but I do 
not remember it.  I'll google it later).  Not your 99.999%, but still 
pretty close :)

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> 2) 90% of everything is crap anyway 

"And nowadays, there's 100 times as much stuff out there. Unfortunately, 
nowadays 99.99% of everything is crap."

-- 
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

> Has anyone placed a microphone in space, blown something up nearby, and 
> recorded the results?

I think if you were near enough to a big explosion the microphone would 
surely pick up some signal, because all the gas created by the explosion 
would create some increase in pressure momentarily.  The question is, how 
far away from a "normal" sized explosion would the changes in pressure be 
detectable?

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:13:05 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
did spake, saying:

> 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.)

Wasn't that how they rationalised it in Star Trek for the explosions?

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. Oh sure some  
might say if that's the case it should be linked to navigation so it can  
move out of the way of any incoming shots, but where's the fun in that?

-- 
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 Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:05:36 +0100, m_a_r_c  
<jac### [at] wanadoofr> did spake, saying:

>
> "Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 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.

"The Simpson Files" killed incidental music for me with the oncoming  
Springfield Philharmoic tour bus :-)

A book I read had a character in a palace who got annoyed with the  
constant background music, pulled aside a curtain in his room and found a  
muscian there. Turned out that as an honoured guest he was assigned a  
musician who followed him around keeping out of sight and providing  
appropriate mood music.

OTOH watching some TV shows from the early eighties and before it's  
strange how you notice that the majority of the time there isn't any music  
playing in the background and how quiet it all seems, somehow more  
intense; might just be me though.

-- 
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 Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:51:26 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>  
did spake, saying:

> 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.

Nooooooo! Next you'll be saying programmes like Emmerdale and Eastenders  
aren't real either and that there really isn't a suburb of Liverpool  
populated solely by attractive people between the ages of 18 and 25.

-- 
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 Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:23:00 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:

>Nooooooo! Next you'll be saying

Santa Claus!
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:52:09 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>  
did spake, saying:

> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:23:00 +0100, "Phil Cook"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>> Nooooooo! Next you'll be saying
>
> Santa Claus!

Pfft everyone knows Santa Claus is fictional; just like the Tooth Fairy,  
the Easter Bunny, and Jesus.

-- 
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 Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:33:45 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:

>And lo on Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:52:09 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>  
>did spake, saying:
>
>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:23:00 +0100, "Phil Cook"
>> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>
>>> Nooooooo! Next you'll be saying
>>
>> Santa Claus!
>
>Pfft everyone knows Santa Claus is fictional; just like the Tooth Fairy,  
>the Easter Bunny, and Jesus.
>

How can the last one be when he walked on your green and pleasant
lands?
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:21:45 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>  
did spake, saying:

> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:33:45 +0100, "Phil Cook"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>> And lo on Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:52:09 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>
>> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:23:00 +0100, "Phil Cook"
>>> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nooooooo! Next you'll be saying
>>>
>>> Santa Claus!
>>
>> Pfft everyone knows Santa Claus is fictional; just like the Tooth Fairy,
>> the Easter Bunny, and Jesus.
>
> How can the last one be when he walked on your green and pleasant
> lands?

Odd that bit never made the novel; I'd have thought all the fights where  
he led the centaurs against the orcs would have been a shoe-in. We can  
blame the editors I suppose.

-- 
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 Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:20:59 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:

>>> Pfft everyone knows Santa Claus is fictional; just like the Tooth Fairy,
>>> the Easter Bunny, and Jesus.
>>
>> How can the last one be when he walked on your green and pleasant
>> lands?
>
>Odd that bit never made the novel; I'd have thought all the fights where  
>he led the centaurs against the orcs would have been a shoe-in. We can  
>blame the editors I suppose.
>
LOL <boggle, boggle, boggle>
No one ever expects the "Editors" :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

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?

  Moreover, if they are on the street, and the camera is close to the
driveway, you'll expect hearing passing cars much louder than the talking?

  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?

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

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

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.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote in message
news:op.uda3c9wuc3xi7v@news.povray.org...
> >
> > How can the last one be when he walked on your green and pleasant
> > lands?
>
> Odd that bit never made the novel; I'd have thought all the fights where
> he led the centaurs against the orcs would have been a shoe-in. We can
> blame the editors I suppose.

RotFL

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Tim Nikias wrote:
>> Bill Pragnell wrote:
>>> I liked the way Serenity handled this - all the space scenes were 
>>> eerily silent, except for weapon firing / impacts, which sounded like 
>>> they were being transmitted by the spacecraft hulls, not air (or some 
>>> other gaseous medium). Not completely realistic, but quite a good 
>>> effect.
>>>
>>> (I think the new Battlestar Galactica does this too, but not all the 
>>> time, bizarrely).
>>
>> I've watched Battlestar Galactica and they really do stick to "no 
>> sound in space", although, if you're inside a ship or, as Warp 
>> mentioned, you're in for the ride along one of the pilots, you can 
>> hear their ship's sounds, e.g. breaking, impacts etc.
>> Generally, I really like how most of what happens in their space 
>> fights is filled with music, not big explosions, even though the 
>> images are really awesome and have depth I've seldom seen even in big 
>> movie productions.
> 
> I've only seen season 1 (I think it's awesome, by the way!), but I seem 
> to remember being able to hear the sound of cylon raiders firing through 
> vacuum, albeit in a muffled, hull-conducted way. I may be mistaken. I 
> shall have to go and watch it again (what a sacrifice!).

I started watching the series again today and I have to admit, yup, they 
do have sound in open space. But it really is muffled, as you said, and 
seems to adhere more to the rule Warp mentioned: it kinda sounds like a 
subjective point of view, but overall, it's really less in-your-face 
than some other movies. I like how the smaller spaceships move with lots 
of tiny thrusters all around the ships, that's some of the noise you 
hear by the way.

> What also helps the visuals is the hand-held style, something you never 
> see in space battles or dogfights. Great stuff!

Yup, the angles and zooms really are great. Although some are a little 
over the top, I generally like the style. Sometimes you follow the 
perspective of a certain pilot and watch out of the cockpit. Especially 
in grand battle scenes it really sells the point that 3D battles are NOT 
fun.

Regards,
Tim

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:13:05 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> 
> did spake, saying:
> 
>> 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.)
> 
> Wasn't that how they rationalised it in Star Trek for the explosions?
> 
> 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. Oh sure 
> some might say if that's the case it should be linked to navigation so 
> it can move out of the way of any incoming shots, but where's the fun in 
> that?
> 

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)

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 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.
> 

Support your friendly local troll today.

BTW Gremlins exist! they're all working at Redmond

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

>  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?

Depends on what the shot is trying to achieve.  Both possibilities are used 
a lot in actual movies.

A short 2 second shot from outside with audio from inside is used to show 
the viewers where the subjects are, followed immediately by a shot inside 
the building.  The other option is to have the audio from outside, usually 
this type of shot lasts longer and is used to emphasise that what is going 
on inside isn't known to the outside, or vice-versa.  Or it might be used to 
emphasise that some very loud noise from inside is audible from outside.  Or 
to show how peaceful it is outside compared to inside, or vice-versa.  I'm 
sure there's more purposes too.

Post a reply to this message

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.

-- 
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 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.

-- 
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 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