Hi All

In the past days i uploaded some image and got great feedback from the members and the people of the Crit.Group
But it did give me a insight on something else..
The way WE think it all is ..comes from the way Hollywood makes us see it...
For an example .. i made a image with somebody in mid air floating...
On that image loads of people commented that "the Beam" should be more illuminated and more bright and seen etc etc..
I start to wonder why they think it should be like that...
"Nobody" has ever seen it in real life so the way we think it should look like is what Hollywood film maker make us see it...
The same with other things in images.. if its not to the "rules" Hollywood makes it not "real / ok "
I do like to state that MY way of making things look is MY way and not HWoods way ...
I like all the comments a lot an i learn about it ..but the way you see it in movies in not THE WAY it always should be...
Keep in mind that everybody has its own mind on how he or she see the world or the fantasy they think of..
And Hollywood movies is just the way the director of that movie show hisversion of how it should be..
For instance there is NO ! sound in space .. still all starwars craft make sound when they fly by in space .... its George lucas Idea of space...

Thnx for your time and energy spent on reading this

Remember when you save time you need a place to strore it !!

Chris

Yes, but it works both ways.  Moviemakers have to account for normal
human expectations.  Very few of us are accustomed to living in a vacuum.
We expect a vehicle to make sounds as it passes by.  If Lucas made everything
completely silent in space, a few scientists and astronauts would say "Yes,
that's exactly how it should be!"  but 99.9% of people would say "Huh?  Where's the
sound?"  and would feel the movie was too unrealistic.

its not about realism at all .. its about when its not like the movies ..then its not "real"
The aliens have to use a light beam with ambient otherwise it not "real"

Does this make sense ?
It not easy to put my dutch mind into written english words..
When i can speak english its all okay ..nobody whould even know im not from the US ;}

Chris

@ockham - that's what made 2001: A Space Odyssey so remarkable, was the use of silence, ambient noise and lack of dialog.

it's an artistic choice: create images for the mass market, for the target demographic, or create images for yerself. do the former and you'll be popular today, and forgotten in 10 years. do the latter and you'll be ignored today, but possibly quite popular long after yer dead. ya can also speed up the process by various actions - moving to tahiti, getting involved in politics, cutting off yer ear and mailing it to some broad, etc.

Quote - Yes, but it works both ways.  Moviemakers have to account for normal
human expectations.  Very few of us are accustomed to living in a vacuum.
We expect a vehicle to make sounds as it passes by.  If Lucas made everything
completely silent in space, a few scientists and astronauts would say "Yes,
that's exactly how it should be!"  but 99.9% of people would say "Huh?  Where's the
sound?"  and would feel the movie was too unrealistic.

And yet, if you watch the vacuum scenes in the "Firefly" TV series, they're all done in complete silence and they still feel very dramatic and a whole lot more gritty and "real" than anything in the Star Wars movies.

Over time I think Hollywood conventions do manage to really twist people's ideas of how things work.  For example, how many people know that if you hold a flame to a fire sprinkler, that sprinkler will be the only one in the building that turns on - you won't set off the sprinklers on the whole floor the way they do in the movies.  

In the city where I live, the police recently conducted a survey to see if people knew the emergency services number.  Most of the people surveyed said it was "911".  In Australia, the number is actually "000".  People have learned the wrong number from seeing so many US movies and TV shows.  Thanks to their devotion to Hollywood, in an emergency, they'll be dialling a number that won't do anything at all.

Quote - Hi All

In the past days i uploaded some image and got great feedback from the members and the people of the Crit.Group
But it did give me a insight on something else..
The way WE think it all is ..comes from the way Hollywood makes us see it...
For an example .. i made a image with somebody in mid air floating...
On that image loads of people commented that "the Beam" should be more illuminated and more bright and seen etc etc..
I start to wonder why they think it should be like that..

I was one that mentioned the beam.

TBH I didn't even think about Hollywood when I posted my comment. I went with common sense in the way light projects after I looked around my home at my various lights and the street lights outside and how they cast beams of light towards the ground.  You can change a great number of things in life, but science is pretty concrete.  Even the moon casts light and shadows down onto earth and us humans didn't even have a hand in it doing that :)

Quote - [In the city where I live, the police recently conducted a survey to see if people knew the emergency services number.  Most of the people surveyed said it was "911".  In Australia, the number is actually "000".  People have learned the wrong number from seeing so many US movies and TV shows.  Thanks to their devotion to Hollywood, in an emergency, they'll be dialling a number that won't do anything at all.

About 25 years ago I was living in a small city in the northern part of the Province. The place we were staying at was broken into.  The number to call for emergencies was "Zenith 1000" or something like that.  I never did figure out how to dial that!!!!  I ended up calling the Operator and she patched me through.

What kind of engines and fuel did they use on Star Wars space craft? Maybe they do make that sound in space for real hmmm? GIVE ME A BREAK PEOPLE! It's all fantasy. Besides that, who floats around in space like a cameras perspective does waiting for a space craft to come flying by, a rock or something? A lot of the veiws+sounds we get from movies are veiws and sounds we would never hear or see in real life.  Places you cannot be and sounds you would never hear or even maybe so loud in real life they'd blow your ear drums because nobody would/could be there. But that's not very interesting or fun is it? It's the movies. Fake. Make it anyway you want too. The more impossible yet seemingly real it looks the more popular it may become. Star Wartrek in a nut shell.

Quote - The aliens have to use a light beam with ambient otherwise it not "real"

And the light cone sudenly ends in the middle of space. I don't know if is an effect of the ambient or a property of the light.

I too was one of the ones that commented on the light. 

Gotta say I agree with Acadia, because the light in the image cast such a defined area on the ground I thought the light might be like that of a flashlight or floodlight, which has a concentrated beam.

I like this :} .. what i try to point out is that "we" start to have a "reality" thats fanstasy..
The best thing i remember is that a image here on RO had a lightbeam stopping in mid air
And there was a figure holding a " SW lightsabre" ...
That the light was stopping was wrong ..but nobody sayed wel so is the SW sabre..
That the Lightsabre laser stopped in mid air ..looked normal ..while thats just as non natural as the light beam comming from the light source...

I hope this make my point more clear ..
And i want to say once more i did try to Rant on any crittics i get or any person...

Chris

Well, you know, that's true. I never gave the concept of light sabre's stopping so abruptly any thought.

It must be The Force!!!

Surely in the the SW fandom there is a pseudo-scientific explaination plausible enough for the lightsaber. Anyway the Star Wars universe is not meant to be "heavily scientifically oriented", while a serious Star Trek fan could tell you the exact power in HP of all the Enterprise engines down to the second decimal digit.

(I know because when I was younger I was a trekker myself... now unfortunately I have no more time to spend in conventions...)

Giorgio

I ain't an expert in starwars, trek or other geek topics, but those with some knowledge of particle accelerators and ionizing sources may be familiar with cerenkov radiation, which can appear in the manner depicted by those starwars lightsabre things. it is also something to avoid with all due diligence IMVHO.

on the other hand, Hollywood teaches people about history, and what they teach is sometimes big time Wrong!
Pocahontas (The Disney cartoon) is an example.  You look at her and you have to think... "Wow, she looks pretty buff for a 12 year old" which is how old she was when the historical event took place.  In the direct fo vid sequel, she's shown back on Europe, but they don't show her as a slave, who died of TB at age 28..... wouldn't make a good movie for the kiddlioes.
Hollywood is an entertainment machine, pure and simple.  Truth doesn't pay the bills.  If you want truth, see An Inconvinient Truth.  If truth is not that important to you, the machine will deliver to you what you want.  If you want entertainment with a hint of truth, check out the Indies, for they have nothing to lose, and much to gain.

oh yeah..in Braveheart, he'd been dead and dismembered for 6 years before the princess showed up. In the U*5xx  movie (don't remember the designation), and the Great Escape, both were done by the British, instead of the Americans.

The Legend of Zorro had so many anachronisms, I don't know where to begin. The Confederate army didn't  start in 1850, nitroglycerin wasn't...ah, don't get me started..;)

Regarding the visible cone of light, I'm not sure what laws of physics apply in your area but round here you can't see light till it hits something!

I've been watching the re-runs of X-files and they keep pumping a smoke machine into the woods just so they can show the beams from  the UFOs.

Acadia, If you're seeing the cones from your lights at home maybe you should cut down on the cigarettes or at least open a window. :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

I like the light cones that pass through the walls and illuminate inside the house.
And light can become solid too!!!!
Do you think that light is some easy thing?

@Prikshatk: LOL! I was wondering when that would come up. It's really an issue when you consider that "laser" weapons in space should also be completely invisible - no convenient "forest smoke" for them to pass through. But it's hard to make a space battle look exciting when you can't see who's firing their weapons, or what they're shooting at.

As for light sabers, yes real light doesn't stop in mid-air but it also doesn't emerge slowly from a flashlight with a hissing noise when you press the switch. I always assumed the light saber was some kind of narrow force field projected by the handle, not an actual laser/light beam.

Some stuff Hollywood does is based on reality, but usually not. The real issue is that Hollywood establishes visual conventions that people come to regard as the standards against which other art should be judged. Sort of like Microsoft sets software "standards" by doing things a certain way, and then letting other companies copy their approach. Like MS, Hollywood has the lions share of the market, and it gives them the power to define conventions, whether they do so wisely or not.

And art has always had these kinds of conventions. Renaissance paintings had a very highly developed visual language, with symbols having particular meanings. A mouse represented the devil, a dog implied fidelity, a cat infidelity. Silent films had a similar iconography - a checkered tablecloth in a scene indicated that the family was "poor but honest" for example.

You are free to defy these kind of conventions of course, but art is like language in that if you go outside of what people expect, you can impede understanding. Paint the local noblewoman with a cat at her feet, even if she's just a cat lover, and there goes your repeat business. (Unless she suddenly finds herself wildly more popular at court, and commissions you to do a follow-up) :biggrin:

Quote - Acadia, If you're seeing the cones from your lights at home maybe you should cut down on the cigarettes or at least open a window. :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear.

When I said "cone" or "beam" I didn't mean literal.  However, if you look at a light you will see that the area between the source of the light and the point of contact is also illuminated to a degree. It doesn't just start and end with nothing in between.

it would illuminate dust motes and stuff

Just some thoughts:
 
Disney movies:

1. Most historians say that Pocahonatas was actually a 12-year old girl who ran around naked a lot. She may have had a romance with John Smith, but a love affair between a 12-year old and a European probably won't work too well in a Disney movie. Supposedly, the movie, The New World, is a little closer to the truth... even if there's no signing tree in it.
2. And, as everyone knows, Victor Hugo always meant to include singing gargoyles in The Hunchback of Notre Dame, but he cut it out in favor of critiquing the church. (That's sarcasm, by the way.)
    
   Anyway, back to how things "should look" in movies. Has anyone stopped to think about the cameraman in these kinds of shots. Is he floating just outside the Enterprise? And when the Enterprise goes to warp speed, does the cameraman get left behind or do they swing back around and pick him up?
   And how is his camera-ship microphone picking up the stereo sound of the lasers, explosions, dialog over the radio, and the soundtrack?
    
   In other words, just accept things as they are, for dramatic reasons. These are movies and they may not always show reality. ;)

'The real issue is that Hollywood establishes visual conventions that people come to regard as the standards against which other art should be judged'

Yes, that is the real issue. If you want to know how deeply Hollywood imagery is ingrained in our imaginations, take your average common-or-garden alien as an example. There all kinds of aliens, but the real standard was defined by steve spielberg in 'Close Encounters' - small cute-looking aliens with large heads, big cute eyes and long tapered arms. How many times have we seen similar aliens on X-files, and all the other TV shows of the 80s/90s?

Yet, before speilberg came along, aliens were invariably horrible monsters of one kind or another. He was the first one to make them 'acceptable' as harmless funny little creatures. If there were an alien invasion tomorrow, half the population would be outraged because the aliens don't look like speilberg's version.

Speilberg also defined the now-accepted convention of 'blue light' - that's the effect you see in movies when a spacecraft is outside a door/window - blindingly over-exposed blue light that seeps through the cracks in the walls and shutters.

And don't even get me started on dinosaurs...... 

Don't get me wrong. I think speilberg is a genius in his own way, but he's definitely supplied our collective imagination with fixed imagery which is difficult to deny.... even when we know better.

mac

Its very simple. Sound in a vacuum in ther movies helps immerse the viewer into the action. Wether it's reaLISTIC OR NOT IS IRRELEVANT. Oops! Sorry for caps.  I know that if I am in a plane and another one flys by I hear certains sounds in a certain way. When I am watching a sci-fi film, Even though I know there is no sound in the vacuum of space it helps get me into the action. Oh and not even to mention Fireballs.

Pete

Sound is very important for movies, you can define if is a good or bad movie only hearing the sound. Movies unless are documentary are for entertaiment. I want to see a big space ship in the screen and hear a loud deep bass sound that gives the sensation of something huge, without the sound the spaceship is something  dull and flat only in the screen. Scifi weapons must have sound and visual effects, without them are boring and without action.

There problem are not the movies, they fulfill in excellent way the entertaiment. I want to see dragons in the movies even dragons don't exist. The problem is the people,  politicians, goverment, generals, military, intelligence that believe that what is in the movies is the reality, they make a war thinking that war is as in the movies and everyone knows the result of the war.....

Who invented 3D ?

Where did 3D come From ?

George Lucas, ILM and StarWars.

So with out George Lucas, ILM and StarWars.

There would be no Poser we would all be coloring in are coloring books.

RorrKonn
http://www.Atomic-3D.com

Quote - Who invented 3D ?

CAD machines existed a long time before Lucas.

Quote - So with out George Lucas, ILM and StarWars. There would be no Poser we would all be coloring in are coloring books.

No, what made posible Poser were the cheap computers that you can have in your home.

Quote - > Quote - Who invented 3D ?

CAD machines existed a long time before Lucas.

Quote - So with out George Lucas, ILM and StarWars. There would be no Poser we would all be coloring in are coloring books.

No, what made posible Poser were the cheap computers that you can have in your home.

What is the name of the Video that used CAD before StarWars ?

RorrKonn
http://www.Atomic-3D.com

I just tried to google for "1977 3D Software" and the top result was the DAZ3D site! :blink:

I always suspected that first movie was done with an early alpha of DAZ|Studio. :rolleyes:

What about the old lens flare when a light source comes round from behind a planet?

Why even on 3d this is still added even when is actually blocking the view of a scene?

Becaus in a real camera, it would do this, and the idea of a camera looking at this gives a realistic perspective, even when it wasn't "filmed".

There is a new wave in the last 5 years or so, to do more "realistic" scenes.

War movies with shaky cameras, tight shots, fast pans, blured auto zoom delays, random unclear gun noises, to copy how press cameras sound when covering some kind of battle.

As noted in "firefly" and "galactica" they have gone for the closest thing to reality, which would be a sort of "camera mounted in another ship" point of view. It shakes and moves randomly, it blurs when it can't catch up with the action, and I think it adds a lot of realism.

I believe is the imperfections that make the unreal appear real, even at the cost of obscuring or bluring detail and artwork.

Actual real history of 3D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_computer_graphics#History

http://accad.osu.edu/~waynec/history/lessons.html

RorrKonn
http://www.Atomic-3D.com

I'm not sure I get the reference to Lucas and 3D. To my knowledge there was very little in the way of CGI in the original Star Wars movie. It was all optical effects. The only "digital" stuff was the readouts on the weapons in the Millenium Falcon, which looked kinda like "asteroids."

(I was also suprised that, after all the fairly pointless CGI Lucas added to the re-release of Star Wars, that he didn't bother to update this one part. Sure, the Death Star blows up with an expanding ring, but the computer readouts still look like asteroids!)

So what is the connection between 3-D graphics and Star Wars circa 1977? The first movies I ever saw that made extensive use of CGI were released in 1982 - Tron, and Star Trek II: Wrath Of Khan (with the "Genesis effect".)

In space there is supposed to be dramatic music...not sure where it comes from but it is always there...just watch a space movie.

Oh, and your 'light beam', its supposed to make a 'Buzzzing' noise, if not then its not realistic.

If you saw it on television then it MUST be true:
Tele (tell you) Vision (with sight)

Jimdoria wrote: "To my knowledge there was very little in the way of CGI in the original Star Wars movie." Take a look at the Lightsaber handles in Star Wars, they're Flash bulb handles from old cameras. Coldrake

I have been a Artist for, lets see, lets just say a long long time.

When you show people ya Art alot of people will make a suggestion.

Even if there not Artist.Some how I think they done this before video's.

I didn't participate in making these videos so I have no idea how much if any 3D is in them.

if ya watch the first 3 starwars with little to know 3D and watch the last 3 Starwars made with 3D available.

if ya watch the first KingKong in Black and White and watch the second KingKong with little to know 3D and watch the third KingKong with 3D available.

the later Videos just seems more.

Matrix Videos where killer.

Anyways every year the Videos seem to be getting More.

Realistic or not I don't care. I care about being entertained.

I did not like KingKong 1,2 so I did not bother to go see KingKong 3.

it aired on TV and I watched it and to my surprise I like KingKong 3.

Just because Disney a kids video plays a video out one way.I can't see why anyone would take a kids video as fact,anyways

When I post StarWars invented 3D.on a 3D form was surprised not to get 50 actual 3D history links.

But if humans want to let HollyWood tell them like it is I would not be surprised.

Humans go minimum wage is $5 a hour and a gallon of fuel is $3 and a Pack of Cigs is $4 ,OK.

When minimum wage should be $50 a hour and a gallon of fuel 3 cents and a Pack of Cigs 4 cents.

I am still waiting on StarWars,StarTrek etc etc to become real so I can go to the used space ship lot that use to be a used car lot and buy me a space ship and leave this planet :)

RorrKonn
http://www.Atomic-3D.com

Quote - What is the name of the Video that used CAD before StarWars ?

Ask General Motors, probably you have seen many videos, but you have no idea that it were 3D.
I suppose that you know about Gouraud shading, guess where the guy "Gouraud" was working.

George Lucas used computers for making Star Wars, from where did came all the computers and 3d software, you are not going to tell me that Lucas created it.
Have you heard about  "vector displays", something that almost is not used today?

Quote - Who invented 3D ?

Where did 3D come From ?

George Lucas, ILM and StarWars.

 

So with out George Lucas, ILM and StarWars.

There would be no Poser we would all be coloring in are coloring books.

 

RorrKonn
http://www.Atomic-3D.com

There was no 3D in use in the movie Star Wars(original). Well possibly some of the wireframe animation but I think that that was 2D. That name of yours sounds familiar. Do you use Truespace and were you a frequent poster on the caligari Truespace email forum?

Quote - Actual real history of 3D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_computer_graphics#History

 

http://accad.osu.edu/~waynec/history/lessons.html

 

RorrKonn
http://www.Atomic-3D.com

Don't ever believe what you read on Wkipedia since anyone can edit anything another user wrote. The original Star wars used nothing but scale model, paintings for the backdrops, and actually painting directly onto the film itself. For example the engine clows and the light SaBER LIGHTS. The neon lighting in TRON was also painted on frame by frame if I recall.

Things use to exist a long time before the public is aware of its existence and some can be very old.
The public only aknowledge the existence when the "thing" is used in some movie or in the propaganda of some new popular released product, many times the only "new" is the new propaganda.
If some film maker one day decide to release a movie made only in Poser 4 and this movie becomes a best seller and very popular, the general population will discover the most greatest technological advance in 3D of the third millenium: Poser 4!

pjanak, I take every thing I read as fiction.

Take the declaration of independence, just a script of fiction.

kawecki, If a Video only makes a Million they call it a flop.

I would be willing to make a flop with Poser 4 ;)

RorrKonn
http://www.Atomic-3D.com

No problem with a half-flop.