Babylon 5 EFX
Jms at B5
Just a quick note with two purposes:
1) to alert folks interested in Lightwave to check out the B5 episode
airing in about 2 weeks, "Into the Fire," the second new episode back, to
see some nifty stuff one can do when one applies oneself. That episode
has roughly 114 CGI shots in 43 minutes, and are easily some of the most
elaborate ever done for TV. (There's some nice stuff toward the latter
half of this coming week's episode, but the following one is the big
blow-out.)
and
2) to plink the noses of those on here who came on proclaiming that "good
sources" told them that the CGI EFX on B5 would either go to hell, or look
crappy, or be less than before. We're now doing far more EFX than in any
previous season, and more elaborate shots. I said these individuals were
full of it then, and the facts have spoken for themselves in the time
since. These individuals have since dropped away and gotten real silent.
I hope they'll be as forthright now that they've been shown to be wrong as
they were in their original proclamations.
Otherwise we'd have to assume that these individuals were spewing out
things they knew weren't true, just to poison the well and cause us grief,
and I just can't *imagine* that *anyone* would do something like that....
jms
Mike
Babylon 5 is one of my favorite shows. I think you have done an
incredible job in the past, and I expect only the best in the future.
Thank you for sharing your adventure with the rest of us.
Fondly,
Mike
Mike
critic...@earthlink.net
** www.type3.net/~third **
The toughest time...in anyone's life...is when you have to kill a
loved one just because they're the devil. -- Emo Phillips
Antonio Lanzirotti
To hell with the critics Jms. B5 is THE BEST SHOW ON TV. <--Period!
Keep up the awesome work. I just sit there and watch the EFX and wonder
how the hell you did that! Oooo, look at that specularity map...is that
a procedural texture...gotta love them lens flares! Anyways, just a
short note of support. I eagerly await next week's episode.
--
,-~~-.___.
/ | ' \
( ) O
\_/-, ,----' Dr. Antonio Lanzirotti
==== // mailto:ala...@mail.idt.net
/ \-'~; /~~~(O) Dept. of Geosciences
/ __/~| / ~~~ | Univ. of Massachusetts
=( _____| (_________| http://shell.idt.net/~alanzir/
Maria Ana Montalvo
In article <19970127045...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,[snip]
Joe! Fancy meeting you here....
Is it OK to repost your message at rastb5m?
Maria
The_Fly
Joe, I don't think anyone *really* doubted that the new FX would be
any good.
I'm sure that your Foundation Imaging-trained team, using Foundation
Imaging objects and Foundation animation techniques will turn out some
very fine work indeed!
Looking forward to it,
MOJO
Jms at B5
Maria: sure, repost away.
jms
Stranahan
---------------------
Joe, I don't think anyone *really* doubted that the new FX would be
any good.
I'm sure that your Foundation Imaging-trained team, using Foundation
Imaging objects and Foundation animation techniques will turn out some
very fine work indeed!
------------------
Oh, this could become VERY fun.....
_____________________________________________
Lee Stranahan
http://users.aol.com/stranahan/index.htm
J. Eric Chard
Mojo wrote:
> Nah, it won't go anywhere - Joe has a history of staying quiet
> whenever someone bests him or proves him wrong.
That's a good policy: one more should adhere to, no?
> MOJO
--
************************************************************************
** jeric@accessone - Synergy Productions/Synergy Graphix & Animation **
** Shooter, Gaffer, Animator for the End of the Millenium **
*************************** Seattle ***********************************
J. Eric Chard
Stranahan wrote:
> This is sort of similiar to what happened with my brother Ken and Area 51
> - he built the system, hired the people, etc. Sure, he was betrayed by
> people (I wonder if Scott Wheeler''s column in Newtechniques will cover
> topics like 'stabbing your friends in the back' or maybe 'how to lose a
> job like the X-Files midseason')
How DOES one do that?
> - but the fact is that it's always the
> people you trust who screw you in situations like this.
A truism. You wouldn't let people you didn't trust get in a position
to screw you.
And you only CAN hurt the ones that love you. The rest don't care.
> Lee Stranahan
> http://users.aol.com/stranahan/index.htm
Mojo
stra...@aol.com (Stranahan) wrote:
>---------------------
>Joe, I don't think anyone *really* doubted that the new FX would be
>any good.
>I'm sure that your Foundation Imaging-trained team, using Foundation
>Imaging objects and Foundation animation techniques will turn out some
>very fine work indeed!
>------------------
>Oh, this could become VERY fun.....
Nah, it won't go anywhere - Joe has a history of staying quiet
whenever someone bests him or proves him wrong.
Just ask around on the newsgroups!
MOJO
Hojo
jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:
>Just a quick note with two purposes:
> jms
I got into the show because of the FX and because I was a LW user....
but the show's characters and storyline outgrew the FX long ago... If
the FX get better then the show will skyrocket.
*********************HOJO AT THE SANCTUARY*********************
Because what it takes a normal person thirty years of life to
accomplish, I can do in a day......
***************************************************************
J. Eric Chard
dnahelix wrote:
>
> Back to the original thread:
>
> I am a big fan of the show and of Foundation's work on it. I am sorry
> to see them not on the show.
>
> I have heard some folks criticize the Bab FX as looking not "real"
> enough. Well, I really appreciate the more stylized look. I don't think
> every space show has to have "weathered" ships (weather in space?).
> I also don't think realism is always the cat's meow.
Indeed. Many times slams agains B5's space shots are thinly disquised
(sp?) versions of "It doesn't look like Star Trek."
Besides, the Shadow ships rock. Give me the creeps every time.
Mojo
Joe, I don't think anyone *really* doubted that the new FX would be
any good.
I'm sure that your Foundation Imaging-trained team, using Foundation
Imaging objects and Foundation animation techniques will turn out some
very fine work indeed!
Lancer
ho...@sanctuary.com (Hojo) wrote:
New to this group and saw this thread. I watched B5 about a year ago and
the first thing was that the ships were too shiny and looked too good..
Have the graphics changed since then?
******************************************
Lancer's Mech and Star Wars 3d Art Gallery
http://www.users.interport.net/~lancer/
LAN...@INTERPORT.NET
******************************************
"If you don't stand for something, you'll
fall for anything "
Mike
On Thu, 30 Jan 1997 18:06:03 GMT, Mo...@foundation-i.com (Mojo) wrote:
>stra...@aol.com (Stranahan) wrote:
>
>>---------------------
>>Joe, I don't think anyone *really* doubted that the new FX would be
>>any good.
>
>>I'm sure that your Foundation Imaging-trained team, using Foundation
>>Imaging objects and Foundation animation techniques will turn out some
>>very fine work indeed!
>>------------------
>
Foundation isn't doing the effects anymore. It's all done in-house.
Mike
- ask for email address. deliberately removed to avoid spam -
Stranahan
------------------------------------
Foundation isn't doing the effects anymore. It's all done in-house.
I know.
I think Mojo's point was that the 'in-house' effects team is using the
work that Foundation did...and that Foundation did the hard work of
building the models, and (more importantly) creating the techniques,
training the staff, and creating the system that did the effects.
This is sort of similiar to what happened with my brother Ken and Area 51
- he built the system, hired the people, etc. Sure, he was betrayed by
people (I wonder if Scott Wheeler''s column in Newtechniques will cover
topics like 'stabbing your friends in the back' or maybe 'how to lose a
job like the X-Files midseason') - but the fact is that it's always the
people you trust who screw you in situations like this.
Brad Bowman
Lee,
Without getting into law suit territory, can you give us a brief run-doen
of what happened to Area 51?
--
Brad Bowman
Digital Artist
http://members.aol.com/bmocgraph
Stranahan <stra...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970131124...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
John Gronquist
Mojo <Mo...@foundation-i.com> wrote in article
<5cqnpp$8...@usenet79.supernews.com>...
> stra...@aol.com (Stranahan) wrote:
>
> >---------------------
> >Joe, I don't think anyone *really* doubted that the new FX would be
> >any good.
>
> >I'm sure that your Foundation Imaging-trained team, using Foundation
> >Imaging objects and Foundation animation techniques will turn out some
> >very fine work indeed!
> >------------------
>
>
> >Oh, this could become VERY fun.....
>
>
> Nah, it won't go anywhere - Joe has a history of staying quiet
> whenever someone bests him or proves him wrong.
>
> Just ask around on the newsgroups!
>
>
> MOJO
>
>
Mojo, You guys did some pioneering work, you should be proud of that. But
the guys doing B5 now are doing some great stuff on their own as well. The
Vorlon true-form, the Shadow planet killer effect, the atmospheric
lightning, etc., it's all new stuff and all pretty derned decent. They're
working their butts off, and I'm sure "Into the Fire" will be the 'put up
or shut up' CGI episode for them...
Sure, they learned from you. But so did a lot of people who never worked
for Foundation. Hell, Ron's put out video's basically saying "here's how
you make a B5 spaceship look like a B5 spaceship".. That knowledge spreads
around, it's inevitable. Saying those folks will never exceed what's been
done in the past is silly, because people learn new tricks all the time,
and the tech is improving even faster... What's more important is how
Foundation will exceed what they've already done.
$0.02 from someone who has no business getting involved...
Slainte.
Stranahan
--------------------
Without getting into law suit territory, can you give us a brief run-doen
of what happened to Area 51?
No. I should just shut up. I should not write posts so late at night. I'm
a happy person. My life is good. I like it when bad things happen to bad
people, but I like it more when good things happen to good people. So,
more important then what happened to A51 - my brother Ken is now the
visual effects supervisor on Sliders, and I'm in the midst of a big
film-res job for an HBO. Happy things....
J. Eric Chard
mco...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> If Foundation Imaging is doing the FX on Voyager now, will we get to
> see some real alien looking ships. I sometimes think Paramount or the
> trekkers are real strict, the ships always have to be symmetrical, and
> have nacelles on sticks, ect.
>
> On B5, Ron Thornton makes these real cool alien designs, or ships that
> look like flying saucers to vegetables. Different kinds of symmetry and
> lack therof, and other stuff. I wish on voyager, there was some
> realistic but real different looking technology.
Me too, although after B5's >writing<, I can no longer watch ST: The
Franchise.
Even better, although they've fallen down on this recently, at least B5
has the occasional NON-humanoid alien, and IMO their makeup is generally
more imaginative than ST:TF.
--
dnahelix
Back to the original thread:
I am a big fan of the show and of Foundation's work on it. I am sorry
to see them not on the show.
I have heard some folks criticize the Bab FX as looking not "real"
enough. Well, I really appreciate the more stylized look. I don't think
every space show has to have "weathered" ships (weather in space?).
I also don't think realism is always the cat's meow. I can appreciate
photorealism for what it is, but to me visuals with an emphasis on
style are more attractive. Of course, the FX ultimately must serve the
overall design and mood of the show. I feel Foundation did a great job
of this. Good luck guys!
John A. Davis
DNA Productions
p.s. - Look forward to seeing your work on Steve.Oedekerk.com
William Longworth
On 31 Jan 1997 20:16:33 GMT, "John Gronquist" <joh...@microsoft.com>
wrote:
>Mojo, You guys did some pioneering work, you should be proud of that. But
>the guys doing B5 now are doing some great stuff on their own as well. The
>Vorlon true-form, the Shadow planet killer effect, the atmospheric
>lightning, etc., it's all new stuff and all pretty derned decent. They're
>working their butts off, and I'm sure "Into the Fire" will be the 'put up
>or shut up' CGI episode for them...
>
>Sure, they learned from you. But so did a lot of people who never worked
>for Foundation. Hell, Ron's put out video's basically saying "here's how
>you make a B5 spaceship look like a B5 spaceship".. That knowledge spreads
>around, it's inevitable. Saying those folks will never exceed what's been
>done in the past is silly, because people learn new tricks all the time,
>and the tech is improving even faster... What's more important is how
>Foundation will exceed what they've already done.
>
>$0.02 from someone who has no business getting involved...
>
>
>Slainte.
I don't think the quality was ever really in question. I think the
issue was exactly how those fx were achieved in light of the recent
split between B5 productions and Foundation Imaging.
Let's just say the story seen in usenet doesn't quite match reality.
"Trainee's" my ass.
Bill L.
Leif the Viking
In article <19970127045...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, jms...@aol.com
(Jms at B5) wrote:
What´s all this talk about the B5 effects looking good? I don´t give a shit
aboutlens flares and procedural textures. The minute you see that something
is done in computer graphics and it´s supposed to be a believable effect in
a live action film, it´s a failure. With B5, the images are too glossy and
the camera is flying all over the place like in a TV commercial from the
eighties. Even my mother, who doesn´t know anything about 3D, complained
that the stuff looked to computery.
I recently did an interview with one of the biggest big shots in visual
effects, who has won more Oscars than I like to think of. He mentioned B5
as an example of what he considered particularly bad CG visual effects
work.
--
Jo Jurgens
jjur...@online.no
mco...@earthlink.net
Lancer wrote:
Whenever one says too shiny i's just loves to drop in. Like when i
see one of them Minds Eye videos with filmed CGI or watching CGI effects
in movies, noticed that CGI rendered to film, even when transferred to
video, it has a certain peculiar image quality. Kinda slightly gauzy
and grainy and all.
The one tiny little detail on B5, that peeves me is the CGI goes
straight to tape, perfect and flawless, razor sharp with supersaturated
colors.
I have to give kudos to Stranahan and Area 51, at least when they did
Space Above and Beyond, they did little things like using desaturated
colors, dithering the image a bit and adding a 24 fps stutter so it cut
nearly perfectly with the live action. I hear even on features, they
often have to soften the image, or add artificial grain and other
artifacts to make the composited FX fit in.
I keep hearing about some film grain filter effect, I hope it's true,
so if a show is shot on film, the FX might match a bit better.
mco...@earthlink.net
Jean-Eric Hénault
Is it me, or has Star Trek's story line gone very boring, while's B5 has
become very exciting ? The last episode where Janeway dies really is
pathetic. Especially the memorial service.
Too bad I can't convince my local broadcaster to switch B5's time slot
from it's current position on Tuesday, Midnight... Very bad slot. In
fact, I wouldn't mind if they switched Star Trek's saturday night with
Babylon 5.
Jean-Eric
Jean-Eric Hénault
Is this me, or you're new to this area of the net ? ;-)
I've been reading your articles in VTU for a while. You've become quiet
a philosopher and a visionnary. I think you're one of the few in the
business that dares to think beyond the software and harware issues.
I've heard you will continue publishing these fine articles in
NewTechniques.
Keep-up the good work!
Jean-Eric
Adam Chrystie
mco...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> If Foundation Imaging is doing the FX on Voyager now, will we get to
> see some real alien looking ships. I sometimes think Paramount or the
> trekkers are real strict, the ships always have to be symmetrical, and
> have nacelles on sticks, ect.
Digital Muse still does some current Voyager episodes. Here's a lil
Voyager Trek info for you...When we were surfacing the the Akritirian
ships in episode "The Chute". we thought it would be cool to put soem
alien writing on the ship..we'd never seen any alien writing on any of
the ships and thought it was strange that voyager is the only ship with
lettering..Paramount went for the idea and to my knowledge, the model in
that episode were the first to feature lettering on an alien
craft...this episode was aired a few weeks ago as a repeat.
Adam Chrystie
a Digital Muse guy
Mike
>What´s all this talk about the B5 effects looking good? I don´t give a shit
>aboutlens flares and procedural textures. The minute you see that something
>is done in computer graphics and it´s supposed to be a believable effect in
>a live action film, it´s a failure. With B5, the images are too glossy and
>the camera is flying all over the place like in a TV commercial from the
>eighties. Even my mother, who doesn´t know anything about 3D, complained
>that the stuff looked to computery.
>
>I recently did an interview with one of the biggest big shots in visual
>effects, who has won more Oscars than I like to think of. He mentioned B5
>as an example of what he considered particularly bad CG visual effects
>work.
first of all, CAN YOU DO BETTER?? The procedurals are used in many
things such as the M&M commercials. Lens flares are just a
reproduction of a natural occurence. You're not supposed to be
impressed. The camera is suppposed to be on a ship in space, therefor
it moves around a lot. ..as in Star Wars. Who is this big shot that
you talked to? Why won't you mention his name? If the effects are so
bad, then why is it that Babylon5 won awards for effects?
Stranahan
----------------------
I have to give kudos to Stranahan and Area 51, at least when they did
-----------------------
Make sure that's KEN Stranahan you give credit to, not me. I was a worker
drone, and did have much to do with the look of the show. Ken did.
Leif the Viking
In article <32f3da42....@news.earthlink.net>, **ask for email address
wrote:
> >What´s all this talk about the B5 effects looking good? I don´t give a shit
> >aboutlens flares and procedural textures. The minute you see that something
> >is done in computer graphics and it´s supposed to be a believable effect in
> >a live action film, it´s a failure. With B5, the images are too glossy and
> >the camera is flying all over the place like in a TV commercial from the
> >eighties. Even my mother, who doesn´t know anything about 3D, complained
> >that the stuff looked to computery.
> >
> >I recently did an interview with one of the biggest big shots in visual
> >effects, who has won more Oscars than I like to think of. He mentioned B5
> >as an example of what he considered particularly bad CG visual effects
> >work.
>
> first of all, CAN YOU DO BETTER??
That´s the stupidest response you can give to any critisism. It´s like
responding to a film critic who says a film is bad "well could you have
directed it better" Would you expect every art critic to be a painter?
That´s just not an issue when it comes to critisism. You can make an
esthetical judsgement without having any of the equipment or the knowledge
to achieve the same result.
The procedurals are used in many
> things such as the M&M commercials. Lens flares are just a
> reproduction of a natural occurence. You're not supposed to be
> impressed. The camera is suppposed to be on a ship in space, therefor
> it moves around a lot. ..as in Star Wars.
Yes, yes, yes, it´s used all over the place, but that´s exactly why it´s so
bad. It´s just cheap effects that anyone can do with an effect that happens
to be available in the program they use, so they use no matter if t
required or not. Every goddamn commercial these days there have lens
flares, and it´s not cool. (And another thijg, as with everything in
computer graphics, they look to clean. In the real world, lens flares make
the dirt on the lense show) It´s becoming overused, stupid, and a sure
indication that the artists aren´t able to come up with anything new. It´s
like doing image manipulation in Photoshop just by using the filters that
come with the program. You just end up with an effect that´s been done
before thousands of times. A good example is 2D morphing, which was a cool
effect years ago, but now has become totally dated because it´s used
everywhere and you can do it in $ 15 shareware pograms. As for flying
cameras, that´s the curse of 3D animation, not just space stuff. Rule
number one should be that you don´t move the camera unless you have a
specific estethic or storytelling reason for it. Moving it all over the
place is just a complete waste, and it gives away the effect as bad
computer work immediately.
Who is this big shot that
> you talked to? Why won't you mention his name?
Because I´m not sure if he wants to be quoted on critisising a specific
show. However here´s the quote, so you´ll have to make your guesses
yourself.
(About Star Wars:) "I always tried to put some sort of sense of style
into the fly path, as though the pilot enjoyed skidding or fishtail the
spaceship, like somebody might enjoy skidding a car around a turn. Itıs
more interesting to watch than just a spaceship going around a turn. Other
times I would try to make it look as if there was a real operator behind
the camera who was having problem following the ship as it flew by, so that
it would get partly out of the frame before the camera caught up with it.
That was a conscious decision on my part, itıs not something written in the
storyboard or that the director tells you to do. Not many people understand
things like that and are able to say ³Iım gonna take this beyond. Iım gonna
try and make this really interesting.² Itıs true of every part of
filmmaking, you can do things really well, or you can just do them in a
dull way thatıs been done before. You need to overcome it and find
something new in it, so that when you see it on the screen, it appears
fresh and new and interesting. Thereıs been a lot of TV series lately with
computer graphic space ships, like Babylon 5 and that stuff, where the
ships are not flying in very interesting ways and the look is too
computery. Maybe the people who work on those shows are not as original
thinkers, theyıre happy with just copying something. A lot of people in
the effects business really donıt have an eye for what people want, they
lack a film sensibility. Thatıs what so special about Ray Harryhausenıs
work. If you look at a big studio production like The Day the Earth Stood
Still, the flying saucer look very tended. Theyıre very afraid to move.
Thereıs very few shots of the thing, itıs got no character. The story may
not demand it, but it could be done like Ray would do it, where the shot
design is just totally free. Itıs inspired by a sense of love of images and
the motion of them. You see that consistently in Rayıs movies, while it
used to be very rare in Hollywood movies up until Star Wars.
Another quote, this one from my interview with Ray Harryhausen:
Computers seem to be able to put very realistic images on the screen. Iım
not so sure that it is always desirable, depending on the story to be told.
Fantasy is a dream world and thereıs something almost mystical that takes
place on the screen by using stop-motion rather than a computer generated
image. The peculiarity of the animation process adds to that dream like
quality. But in the end result, all of these techniques are used for the
purpose of entertainment. The computer is another tool, but not the only
one possible. Thereıs use for every technique in the world of
entertainment. I donıt understand these people who say that after computer
animation came in, stop motion is dead. I think stop motion gives you
greater creative possibilities, because with computers there always has to
be a lot of people pushing buttons. Computer animation is going to exhaust
itself because you see it on television every day. Now they have 20-second
commercials that do the same thing as the very expencive Hollywood movies.
You see the same effects over and over again, with no variation on what´s
been done before. So itıs going to water itself down by overexposure. Itıs
no longer startling in the way King Kong was startling when it came out in
1933.
If the effects are so
> bad, then why is it that Babylon5 won awards for effects?
If Harryhausen is such a great effects artist, why did he never win an
Academy Award?
--
Jo Jurgens
jjur...@online.no
MarkW
jd...@flunku.com (Leif the Viking) wrote:
>What´s all this talk about the B5 effects looking good?
Um... Okay... Follow me on this one; Many people think that the B5
effects look good. Quite simple, really.
> I don´t give a shit
>about lens flares and procedural textures.
Nobody said you have to. If all you can see in B5 is lens flares and
procedural textures... Well... *fine*. I think you need to look a
little more closely.
> The minute you see that something
>is done in computer graphics and it´s supposed to be a believable effect in
>a live action film, it´s a failure.
Let me get this straight now... You're talking to a newsgroup that
consists *specifically* of people who use 3D computer graphics, people
who can usually tell *immediately* when something was done with 3D...
and... You're saying that if we can tell it's 3D then it's a failure.
Er...
> With B5, the images are too glossy
Too glossy for... what, exactly? Your tastes? Fine, but that's just
you and it's not necessarily true that anybody else shares your tastes
or even cares one iota what they are.
>the camera is flying all over the place like in a TV commercial from the
>eighties.
No, this isn't really true. *Most* of the "Camerawork" in the B5
effects has been either a) The camera stays in the same place and
rotates to follow it's subject, or b) The camera flies in a straight
line without rotating at all. (This seems to be changing slightly now
that the effects are being done by people other than FI.)
> Even my mother, who doesn´t know anything about 3D, complained
>that the stuff looked to computery.
Er... And? (And just out of interest, would she have known it was CG
if you hadn't told her? Normal people don't have *any* understanding
at all as to what "Computer graphics" means.)
>I recently did an interview with one of the biggest big shots in visual
>effects, who has won more Oscars than I like to think of. He mentioned B5
>as an example of what he considered particularly bad CG visual effects
>work.
Read my lips; "So fucking what." Who cares? Everybody has an
opinion. I'm quite certain that many people on this newsgroup know
one"Big shot in VE" or more and I'll let you in on a secret... None of
the particular "Big shots" that I know agree with your friend. Which
leads us back to "So what". (And I'm not even going to *start* with
the pathetically weak "I'm right because somebody important agrees
with me" angle.)
"Oooh look, a thread about Foundation Imaging, I'll have to whinge and
bleat about how bad their stuff is."
Gak.
Why did you even bother posting?
MarkW.
Jim Woodruff
Jean-Eric Hénault <vide...@odyssee.net> wrote:
>Is it me, or has Star Trek's story line gone very boring, while's B5 has
>become very exciting ? The last episode where Janeway dies really is
>pathetic. Especially the memorial service.
>Too bad I can't convince my local broadcaster to switch B5's time slot
>from it's current position on Tuesday, Midnight... Very bad slot. In
>fact, I wouldn't mind if they switched Star Trek's saturday night with
>Babylon 5.
>Jean-Eric
At least one of your local broadcaster's show B5, the local FOX
affiliate discontinued showing it last season... I've been rather
disappointed when I see posts here about one particular episode or
another and how good the effects have been.
Oh well, maybe in reruns one day.
Jim Woodruff
digiPIX
jwoo...@linknet.net
Emile Edwin Smith
Mike wrote:
>
> >What´s all this talk about the B5 effects looking good? I don´t give a shit
> >is done in computer graphics and it´s supposed to be a believable effect in
> >the camera is flying all over the place like in a TV commercial from the
> >that the stuff looked to computery.
> >
> >effects, who has won more Oscars than I like to think of. He mentioned B5
> >as an example of what he considered particularly bad CG visual effects
> >work.
>
> things such as the M&M commercials. Lens flares are just a
> reproduction of a natural occurence. You're not supposed to be
> impressed. The camera is suppposed to be on a ship in space, therefor
> you talked to? Why won't you mention his name? If the effects are so
> bad, then why is it that Babylon5 won awards for effects?
>
> - ask for email address. deliberately removed to avoid spam -
>
> ** www.type3.net/~third **
>
> The toughest time...in anyone's life...is when you have to kill a
> loved one just because they're the devil. -- Emo Phillips
Remember way back when, when B5 first started showing? Were there any
lens flares or for that matter anything else that looked anything like
B5 on TV for that kind of budget or otherwise? No, it was completely
unique, right? The look of the show was created back then, lens flares
and the like are a bit overused in a lot of things now but remember,
whom are they copying? B5. If B5 were just starting now, it would have a
much different look, Ron has mentioned before that he would like to do
lot's of modifications to the station but you can't do that, it is a
defined element. Shows don't change their look mid-stream. The look was
defined in the pilot, so that's the way it stayed. And remember B5 was
the best looking show period when it came out using CG, and still stands
out as one of the best. Whomever you talked to that said the effects in
B5 are bad is both arrogent and ignorant when you look at the whole
picture.
--
Emile Edwin Smith
(an un-biased)
Animator
Foundation Imaging
Paul Oberlander
dnahelix wrote:
>
> Back to the original thread:
>
> I am a big fan of the show and of Foundation's work on it. I am sorry
> to see them not on the show.
>
> I have heard some folks criticize the Bab FX as looking not "real"
> enough. Well, I really appreciate the more stylized look. I don't think
> every space show has to have "weathered" ships (weather in space?).
My .02 cents worth. If you followed NASA research close enough you
would know that space is a very harsh environment. Atomic oxygen is
more corrosive that salt water, not to mention bombarding any substance
with solar wind, gamma and x-radiation. NASA had a test satellite which
was simply composed of different substances to see what the effects of
near Earth orbit would do. The results were worse than predicted.
Scientific American had several articles on this a few years back.
Besides, if you want to talk about unreal, the ships on B5 travel faster
than the speed of light. Now that's something to laugh at....
Paul Oberlander
--
"There are only two races on earth: the decent and the indecent" Viktor
Frankl
Lee Hutchinson
In <32F4AD...@earthlink.net> Paul Oberlander
<obr...@earthlink.net> writes:
<snip>
>Besides, if you want to talk about unreal, the ships on B5 travel
faster
>than the speed of light. Now that's something to laugh at....
>
>Paul Oberlander
Now, now...the ships on B5 use jumpgates to gain access to hyperspace,
which correllates to normal space in really strange yet convenient
ways. The ships never actually exceed lightspeed. In fact, the ships
never even exceed normal cruising speed. They simply...drive off the
road and take the back way through the woods. You know, that little
dirt path that shaves, oh, about a zillion years off the trip time.
Now, you want absurd, let's talk Star Trek. A matter/antimatter
reaction is amplified by a mysterious crystal called "dilithium," and
the incredible energies derived thereof are channeled into two warp
nacelles. Computer-controlled injectors in the nacelles fire the drive
plasma in a pattern into a series of field coils, which do some sort of
resonance thing and end up creating a series of "subspace fields,"
which somehow have propulsive qualities and drive the ship at
superphotonic speeds by an incredibly nifty phenomenon called
"asymetric peristaltic field manipulation."
HA! Now THAT'S absurd! And it was summarized from my ST:TNG tech
manual, which I have sitting on my lap! Go ahead! Check it against
your copy! Every insane Star Trek fan has a copy! MY EXPLANATIONS ARE
TOTALLY CANON! I SEEM TO HAVE LOST ALL OF MY MARBLES!
I'm sorry. The pressure of school and all seems to have gotten to me.
Now, weren't we talking about Lightwave a second ago? Could we go back
to that, please?
--
Lee Hutchinson
Poke...@ix.netcom.com
"One hundred and six miles to Chicago; we got a full tank of gas, a half-
pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses."
"Hit it."
Lancer
>Remember way back when, when B5 first started showing? Were there any
>lens flares or for that matter anything else that looked anything like
>B5 on TV for that kind of budget or otherwise? No, it was completely
>unique, right? The look of the show was created back then, lens flares
>and the like are a bit overused in a lot of things now but remember,
>whom are they copying? B5. If B5 were just starting now, it would have a
>much different look, Ron has mentioned before that he would like to do
>lot's of modifications to the station but you can't do that, it is a
>defined element. Shows don't change their look mid-stream. The look was
>defined in the pilot, so that's the way it stayed. And remember B5 was
>the best looking show period when it came out using CG, and still stands
>out as one of the best. Whomever you talked to that said the effects in
>B5 are bad is both arrogent and ignorant when you look at the whole
>picture.
>--
>
>Emile Edwin Smith
>
>(an un-biased)
>Animator
>Foundation Imaging
It is true that shows can't redo their whole image but there has to be a
growth that reflects the improvements and advancements in CG technology.
You can't stay with the old look. I am sure the artists are more than
capable and can certainly introduce these improvements over a period of
time.
Michael C. Ling
Now that it's out, what do you think?
M C L - :-)
On Wed, 29 Jan 1997 03:05:54 GMT, Mo...@foundation-i.com (Mojo) wrote:
Brad Bowman
Happy things for Happy people. What ever happened to your short and wide
sig?
Stranahan <stra...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970131223...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> --------------------
> Without getting into law suit territory, can you give us a brief run-doen
> of what happened to Area 51?
> ------------------
>
> No. I should just shut up. I should not write posts so late at night.
I'm
> a happy person. My life is good. I like it when bad things happen to bad
> people, but I like it more when good things happen to good people. So,
> more important then what happened to A51 - my brother Ken is now the
> visual effects supervisor on Sliders, and I'm in the midst of a big
> film-res job for an HBO. Happy things....
>
>
>
>
>
Michael C. Ling
On Sun, 02 Feb 1997 00:16:53 GMT, ask@for_email.address (Mike) wrote:
>first of all, CAN YOU DO BETTER?? The procedurals are used in many
>things such as the M&M commercials. Lens flares are just a
Are you hiring? Cuz I doubt anyoneis going to bother duplicating or
outdoing babylon 5 for the sake of this argument. :-)
Stranahan
--------------------
Happy things for Happy people. What ever happened to your short and wide
sig?
I mellowed my sig out while I worked on a massive overhaul of my web page.
I went to a straight -name- thing, then quietly added the URL a few weeks
again...soon, the massive remarketing effort will begin anew....hooo hoooo
haaaaaaaaaaaa
Michael C. Ling
On 2 Feb 1997 03:56:16 GMT, jd...@flunku.com (Leif the Viking) wrote:
>The procedurals are used in many
>> things such as the M&M commercials. Lens flares are just a
>> reproduction of a natural occurence. You're not supposed to be
>> impressed. The camera is suppposed to be on a ship in space, therefor
>> it moves around a lot. ..as in Star Wars.
>
>Yes, yes, yes, it´s used all over the place, but that´s exactly why it´s so
>bad. It´s just cheap effects that anyone can do with an effect that happens
>to be available in the program they use, so they use no matter if t
As you say later on, it's how it's used. If it's done right, it does
not bring attention to itself. It just furthers the storyline.
>required or not. Every goddamn commercial these days there have lens
>flares, and it´s not cool. (And another thijg, as with everything in
>computer graphics, they look to clean. In the real world, lens flares make
I wonder if B5 is locked into the graphics-look it used during B5's
pilot and first season when cpu power was 1/24 of today's machines?
>the dirt on the lense show) It´s becoming overused, stupid, and a sure
>indication that the artists aren´t able to come up with anything new. It´s
>like doing image manipulation in Photoshop just by using the filters that
>come with the program. You just end up with an effect that´s been done
Maybe it's insecurity? :-)
>before thousands of times. A good example is 2D morphing, which was a cool
>effect years ago, but now has become totally dated because it´s used
>everywhere and you can do it in $ 15 shareware pograms.
Morphing is just a tool. It shouldn't be the star of the scene. It
should be inconspicious while doing its job.
> As for flying
>cameras, that´s the curse of 3D animation, not just space stuff. Rule
>number one should be that you don´t move the camera unless you have a
>specific estethic or storytelling reason for it. Moving it all over the
>place is just a complete waste, and it gives away the effect as bad
>computer work immediately.
Back to to square one... now that you have a camera, what are you
going to take a picture of, and how. suddenly all this freedom
ovewhelms you...
M C L -
Jean-Eric Henault
> Besides, if you want to talk about unreal, the ships on B5 travel faster
> than the speed of light. Now that's something to laugh at....
>
possible, but it would require a whole new understanding of physics.
Warp space is one of the most advanced theory. Hyperspace is an other
one. Stephen Hawken himself (one of today's most celebrated scientist)
said it was possible. He even said he was working on Warp Drive theory
while visiting the sets of the Enterprise D a few years back.
Only a century ago, people said it was impossible to fly. They said it
was impossible to break the sound barrier. They said it was impossible
to go in space or on other planets. Well, they were wrong. There are new
physics we haven't even discovered yet.
There are even some pretty advanced theories on how to Transport objects
or even people. Actually, it is even now possible to "Transport" single
atoms from one location to an other one. Transporter technology and
warp-drive are still far away. But you never know, revolutions tend to
happens suddenly... ;-)
Jean-Eric
Jean-Eric Henault
I suppose it's the main difference between science and science-fiction.
But there is a difference where the lines blur.
Although the science behind Star Trek is somewhat whacky, it's still the
best thing you can get to the real thing. Sure, Dilithium is an
overrated material. As for Anti-Matter, very large amounts of energy can
be obtained by the controlled collision of matter and Anti-Matter
particles. If the average public understood what Anti-Matter can do,
they would realize that in comparison, the A-bomb is a child's toy.
Apparently, a single tea-spoon of anti-matter would be enough to
vapourize most of our solar system.
As for warp drive, well, the concepts you described bellow is only used
for story telling, not a roadmap for faster than light travel. There are
many challenges ahead of us before we reach these kinds of velocities.
However, I am confident that one day, it will be possible. I just hope
that by then, the word "Rendering" will have be elliminated from our
vocabulary... ;-)
Jean-Eric
ratb...@aol.com
Most of the character animation suffered from a bad, bad, bad case of
over-keyframing; the walking dewbacks looked like they were in serious
pain, and Jabba was awfully fidgety for a crimelord. If the animator had
held back about 50% or so on the wobbliness in the character anims, the
end result would have been much more convincing.
And they STILL didn't fix that lightsaber scene where Ben & Vader wave
plastic sticks at each other...
vce...@aol.com
In article <19970131124...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
stra...@aol.com (Stranahan) wrote:
>
> ------------------------------------
> Foundation isn't doing the effects anymore. It's all done in-house.
> --------------------------------
>
> I know.
>
> I think Mojo's point was that the 'in-house' effects team is using the
> work that Foundation did...and that Foundation did the hard work of
> building the models, and (more importantly) creating the techniques,
> training the staff, and creating the system that did the effects.
>
> This is sort of similiar to what happened with my brother Ken and Area 51
> - he built the system, hired the people, etc. Sure, he was betrayed by
> people (I wonder if Scott Wheeler''s column in Newtechniques will cover
> topics like 'stabbing your friends in the back' or maybe 'how to lose a
> job like the X-Files midseason') - but the fact is that it's always the
> people you trust who screw you in situations like this.
>
Unfortunately, its an all too common occurance now. The computer has
opened up alot of avenues for just about anybody with a computer and some
programs to create special effects, even arrogant tv producers.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Glenn Saunders
There doesn't seem to be much loyalty in Hollywood, and this is true of computer animation as well, a field
where demand is high and everyone seems to be looking outside for better jobs or scheming to start their own
new company.
I wouldn't bother complaining about it; it's just the way the industry works.
It's dog-eat-dog.
John Gronquist
Paul Oberlander <obr...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<32F4AD...@earthlink.net>...
> My .02 cents worth. If you followed NASA research close enough you
> would know that space is a very harsh environment. Atomic oxygen is
> more corrosive that salt water, not to mention bombarding any substance
> with solar wind, gamma and x-radiation. NASA had a test satellite which
> was simply composed of different substances to see what the effects of
> near Earth orbit would do. The results were worse than predicted.
> Scientific American had several articles on this a few years back.
Paul, any chance of digging up the volume number? I for one would LOVE to
see what that corrosion actually looked like...
>
> Besides, if you want to talk about unreal, the ships on B5 travel faster
> than the speed of light. Now that's something to laugh at....
Well, that's why it's called science >fiction<.. :-)
Robert Gougher
ratb...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
> And they STILL didn't fix that lightsaber scene where Ben & Vader wave
> plastic sticks at each other...
YES!!!!!!!!!
A bunch of people around here noticed that.
Kind of sad too, when you consider that there was 700+ feet of new
negative in this release, due to recomping, rematting and rerotoing
a bunch of shots.
Rob
--
Robert A. Gougher (My opinions and mine alone)
Software Engineer, Eastman Kodak Company
r...@raster.kodak.com
http://www.rit.edu/~rag4277
Ernie Wright
Re FTL travel, Jean-Eric Henault wrote:
> I don't know what's to laugh about. Einstein himself said it was
> possible, but it would require a whole new understanding of physics.
> Warp space is one of the most advanced theory. Hyperspace is an other
> one. Stephen Hawken himself (one of today's most celebrated scientist)
> said it was possible. He even said he was working on Warp Drive theory
> while visiting the sets of the Enterprise D a few years back.
"Warp space" and "hyperspace" are just words invented by science fiction
authors. There's no science there. Einstein dealt with the possibility
of ideas unsupported by science in a diplomatic way, by saying in effect,
yes, anything's possible, assuming you're willing to throw out everything
we currently know. Leprechauns and fairies are possible in this sense,
as is practically anything you care to name. And is it possible Stephen
Hawking was, um, joking?
> Only a century ago, people said it was impossible to fly.
Everyone points this out sooner or later, but the theoretical basis for
powered fixed-wing flight was laid by George Cayley in papers published
a hundred years before Kittyhawk, and birds have been demonstrating that
it's possible far longer than humans have been walking upright. There's
no comparable demonstration in nature of faster than light travel. You
can plug speeds above c into existing relativistic equations, but there's
no reason to think the results have any physical significance.
As a fictional device, FTL is a minor conceit that makes for interesting
stories. It isn't necessary to think it's "really" possible, and it'd be
misleading to claim that current scientific understanding supports it.
ma...@precipice.com
And.....thats absurd, let me think about it and Ill get back to you in a
nanosecond.
Lee Hutchinson
In <32F692...@odyssee.net> Jean-Eric Henault <vide...@odyssee.net>
writes:
>> Besides, if you want to talk about unreal, the ships on B5 travel
faster
>> than the speed of light. Now that's something to laugh at....
>>
>possible, but it would require a whole new understanding of physics.
>Warp space is one of the most advanced theory. Hyperspace is an other
>one. Stephen Hawken himself (one of today's most celebrated scientist)
>said it was possible. He even said he was working on Warp Drive theory
>while visiting the sets of the Enterprise D a few years back.
Actually, according to Einstein, traveling FASTER than c poses
absolutely no problem at all and is entirely possible.
It's the REACHING lightspeed part that's the pisser.
John Gronquist
> As a fictional device, FTL is a minor conceit that makes for interesting
> stories. It isn't necessary to think it's "really" possible, and it'd be
> misleading to claim that current scientific understanding supports it.
>
> - Ernie http://www.access.digex.net/~erniew
>
>
>
Actually, there is a physicist [sp?], named Alcubierre, that did a write up
of a valid theory on how to handle FTL travel while still in an Einsteinian
universe. It involves collapsing the space in front of you and expanding
that behind, effectively creating a gravitational 'lift'. Since you're
warping space you're not actually creating any momentum or relativistic
travel as such, so your perception is just that you're travelling very fast
without any inertia..
Wayne S. Williams
Hello,
Jean-Eric Henault wrote:
>
> > Besides, if you want to talk about unreal, the ships on B5 travel faster
> > than the speed of light. Now that's something to laugh at....
> >
> I don't know what's to laugh about. Einstein himself said it was
> possible, but it would require a whole new understanding of physics.
> Warp space is one of the most advanced theory. Hyperspace is an other
> one. Stephen Hawken himself (one of today's most celebrated scientist)
> said it was possible. He even said he was working on Warp Drive theory
> while visiting the sets of the Enterprise D a few years back.
B5 is science fiction. Very well done IMO! It has real beings, with
real personalities, set in an unreal environment, and CG that is always
tasteful, realistic, and as good as, or better, than anything else out
there. (I hope it stays this way.)
I've been a Stephen Hawking fan for some time now, have read his
books, listened to his books on tape etc. At no point have I ever heard
him say that there is a possibility of traveling faster than the speed
of light!? If you have
written material on this, could you please direct me to his
publication? From all that I've read, he says, that to attain light
speed would require an infinite amount of energy. Which means that
everything that is the universe, would have to be converted into the
energy necessary to reach that speed. So I guess once one reached the
speed of light, he wouldn't be around to enjoy his accomplishment. ;-)
And in this explanation, I think Mr. Hawking was describing the
theories established by Mr. Einstein....
Warped space and wormholes, as I understand it, are best described by
taking a sheet of paper, and drawing a planet at the top of the sheet
and another at the bottom. Now normally to get from planet A to planet
B you move from one to the other in a straight line, which can be
represented by a drawn line between the two. This implies a certain
amount of time to travel a certain amount of distance as represented by
the line drawn between the 2 planets. With warps or wormholes, this
distance is shortened by picking up the sheet of paper and bending it so
the top (where planet A is) and bottom (where planet B is) are right
next to each other. This obviously makes the distance between the 2
much shorter, making the journey much quicker. Of course there is
absolutely no proof that this capability exists, but it certainly makes
for some good science fiction, and definetly a new understanding of
physics.
Back on topic; has anybody been working with PuppetMaster on a DEC
Alpha? Seems a bit quirky at times to me. You move a piece, some of
the points get pulled in weird directions,...but you keyframe the move,
advance a frame then go back a frame, and everythings snap back into
place just fine!?!? Other than this I have to say that this is one
great plugin; it's like having seemless hierarchy.
I would like to see the ability to have adjustable influence of
points across parented segments.
3D Wayne / CyLum 3D Imaging
______________________________________________
http://www.gate.net/~dddwayne
Mark Clarkson
> > Besides, if you want to talk about unreal, the ships on B5 travel faster
> > than the speed of light. Now that's something to laugh at....
OK, how about this one. How is it that you can see all those 'laser'
beams stabbing here and there, in a _vacuum_. I believe that a beam of
coherent energy ought to be totally invisible without air, dust, etc.
around.
--
..mark clarkson
mailto:ma...@southwind.net
http://www2.southwind.net/~markc/mark.html
vox: 316.688.5071
fax: 316.688.1216
Bruce Pearson
Mark Clarkson <ma...@southwind.net> wrote in article
<32FA3E...@southwind.net>...
> > > Besides, if you want to talk about unreal, the ships on B5 travel
faster
> > > than the speed of light. Now that's something to laugh at....
>
> OK, how about this one. How is it that you can see all those 'laser'
> beams stabbing here and there, in a _vacuum_. I believe that a beam of
> coherent energy ought to be totally invisible without air, dust, etc.
> around.
> --
> ..mark clarkson
Not necessarily true. Coherent beams of a high enery will create a
cascading quantum-tunneling effect. The resulting space-vacuum implosion
will generate a high-energy photon ( at harmonics of the beam ) at each
implosion-point. The photon direction is random, or, based on quantum
uncertainty. But, those photons would be visable.
Hey, maybe I should write this stuff for a living! :}
BP
Robert Baldwin
Actually, they were ceramic-composite antennae off of German tanks...
Know just a little too much....
-rob
ratb...@aol.com wrote in article
<19970204121...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> Most of the character animation suffered from a bad, bad, bad case of
> over-keyframing; the walking dewbacks looked like they were in serious
> pain, and Jabba was awfully fidgety for a crimelord. If the animator had
> held back about 50% or so on the wobbliness in the character anims, the
> end result would have been much more convincing.
>
bi...@traveller.com
Mark Clarkson <ma...@southwind.net> wrote:
>> > Besides, if you want to talk about unreal, the ships on B5 travel faster
>> > than the speed of light. Now that's something to laugh at....
>OK, how about this one. How is it that you can see all those 'laser'
>beams stabbing here and there, in a _vacuum_. I believe that a beam of
>coherent energy ought to be totally invisible without air, dust, etc.
>around.
Unfortunately you believe wrong, but that's ok, think about it for a
minute or two and you'll realize why you are wrong.
-bill
Jeff Jasper
> >OK, how about this one. How is it that you can see all those 'laser'
> >beams stabbing here and there, in a _vacuum_. I believe that a beam of
> >coherent energy ought to be totally invisible without air, dust, etc.
> >around.
>
> Unfortunately you believe wrong, but that's ok, think about it for a
> minute or two and you'll realize why you are wrong.
No he is right. We use a HeNe lasor here for holography. One is a 5mwatt
and the other is a 10mwatt lasor. Both have amber beams but you don't
see them unless the beam is hitting dust, mirrors, or something else.
Lasor light is coherent light. To make lasor light visible you have to
record it in a way that expands the beam into the color scale and then
you can see a recorded image of the beam. This is called a diffraction
grating. The same goes for Blue, green, or whatever lasor you are using.
Jeff
dys(fun)ctional
Jeff Jasper <jasp...@osu.edu> writes:
> No he is right. We use a HeNe lasor here for holography. One is a 5mwatt
> and the other is a 10mwatt lasor. Both have amber beams but you don't
> see them unless the beam is hitting dust, mirrors, or something else.
amber? it's 632.8 nm, that looks pretty red to me.
> Lasor light is coherent light. To make lasor light visible you have to
> record it in a way that expands the beam into the color scale and then
> you can see a recorded image of the beam. This is called a diffraction
> grating. The same goes for Blue, green, or whatever lasor you are using.
actually, if your beam is strong enough, you can ionize the air
it is traveling through. this makes it visible without
reflective beam scatter..obviously, this would fail to work in
a perfect vacuum. but then, space is not a perfect vacuum.
what you're failing to take into account, is the energy weapons
in b5 aren't photonic based. they're ejecting negative entropic
whipped spam particles which are resonating space and causing
electrons in naturally ocuring atomic oxygen and hydrogen to jump
orbitals and release photons. this is what you are seeing.
it also screws with your cable reception. *sigh*
--
radio waves cast senselessly about cling and stutter on barb tipped
taunt lines stretched to some sandy infinite horizon. high tension
wires rent screaming air molecules locust like and blinking gecko
enjoys a noonday fly.
http://rever.nmsu.edu/~spamgod/
Ernie Wright
John Gronquist wrote:
> Actually, there is a physicist [sp?], named Alcubierre, that did a
> write up of a valid theory on how to handle FTL travel
For a humorous introduction to "unconventional" thinkers that includes
Alcubierre's place among them, see
http://www.astro.umd.edu:80/~jordania/other/humor/2Dsykolg.html
Alcubierre is a postdoc at the University of Wales. Who knows whether
his theory is valid?
- Ernie http://www.access.digex.net/~erniew
Jeff Jasper
> what you're failing to take into account, is the energy weapons
> in b5 aren't photonic based. they're ejecting negative entropic
> whipped spam particles which are resonating space and causing
> electrons in naturally ocuring atomic oxygen and hydrogen to jump
> orbitals and release photons. this is what you are seeing.
MMMMMmmmm, spam particles...
Jeff
Ken Geary
"But I don't like SPAM.....(insert signing vikings here)"
Mark Clarkson
>
> Not necessarily true. Coherent beams of a high enery will create a
> cascading quantum-tunneling effect. The resulting space-vacuum implosion
> will generate a high-energy photon ( at harmonics of the beam ) at each
> implosion-point. The photon direction is random, or, based on quantum
> uncertainty. But, those photons would be visable.
Oh yeah .... I forgot about th ol' cascading quantum-tunneling effect.
Mark Clarkson
> what you're failing to take into account, is the energy weapons
> in b5 aren't photonic based. they're ejecting negative entropic
> whipped spam particles which are resonating space and causing
> electrons in naturally ocuring atomic oxygen and hydrogen to jump
> orbitals and release photons. this is what you are seeing.
What's the rest mass of one of those?
Gaven Eogan
>OK, how about this one. How is it that you can see all those 'laser'
>beams stabbing here and there, in a _vacuum_. I believe that a beam of
>coherent energy ought to be totally invisible without air, dust, etc.
>around.
>--
>..mark clarkson
If you are talking about on B5 - then Mojo wrote in an article a long
time ago that the ships fired high energy plasma bolts which are
luminous and so visible in a vacuum, unlike as he said, lasers which
would be invisible in a vacuum - so Foundation DID think about it!
--
/--\ /-- /--\ /--\ /--\ \ | Gaven Eogan ( geo...@alf2.tcd.ie )
| | | | | | | |\ | Computer Science at Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
| -\ |-- | | | -\ |--| | \| http://alf2.tcd.ie/~geogan/index.html *NEW ADDRESS*
\--/ \-- \--/ \--/ | | | | A1200, Blizzard III 50/50Mhz, 10Mb RAM, 200Mb HD
J. Eric Chard
BobMcNamee wrote:
>
> then again ... if the weapons aren't LASER beams, then those rules don't
> apply. they aren't necessarily coherent Light... Could be charged packets
> of plasma... or something Sci-Fi (most probable)
>
> besides spaceship battles in the dark of space (without lots of dramatic
> nebula backlighting) with invisible beam destoying ships would get
> terribly boring.
But think how fast they'd render! >8^)
>
> Bob McNamee
--
************************************************************************
** jeric@accessone - Synergy Productions/Synergy Graphix & Animation **
** Shooter, Gaffer, Animator for the End of the Millenium **
*************************** Seattle ***********************************
Steve
On 5 Feb 1997 23:15:21 GMT, poke...@ix.netcom.com(Lee Hutchinson )
wrote:
>>> Besides, if you want to talk about unreal, the ships on B5 travel
>faster
>>> than the speed of light. Now that's something to laugh at....
Something that annoys me is that in all sci-fi films&programmes I've
seen, the thrusters/engines of the ships are burning all of the time.
I'm no NASA engineer but I've been giving it some thought and
concluded that because of the near absolute vacuum of space there is a
lack of friction once you're up there (friction makes things stop),
because of this the engines would only need to fire-up to get you to
the speed you want, then they'd turn off (maybe with a small
maintenance burst every now and then). And then you'd need just as
powerful reverse thrusters to stop.
Steve
Wayne S. Williams
Hello,
Jean-Eric Henault wrote:
>
> Besides, if you want to talk about unreal, the ships on B5 travel faster
> than the speed of light. Now that's something to laugh at....
>
Dave Paige
0@0.0 (Steve) wrote:
>On 5 Feb 1997 23:15:21 GMT, poke...@ix.netcom.com(Lee Hutchinson )
>wrote:
>
>
>>>> Besides, if you want to talk about unreal, the ships on B5 travel
>>faster
>>>> than the speed of light. Now that's something to laugh at....
>
>Something that annoys me is that in all sci-fi films&programmes I've
>seen, the thrusters/engines of the ships are burning all of the time.
>I'm no NASA engineer but I've been giving it some thought and
>concluded that because of the near absolute vacuum of space there is a
>lack of friction once you're up there (friction makes things stop),
>because of this the engines would only need to fire-up to get you to
>the speed you want, then they'd turn off (maybe with a small
>maintenance burst every now and then). And then you'd need just as
>powerful reverse thrusters to stop.
>
>Steve
I believe the need to burn engines has far less to do with friction
and far more to do with gravity.
Dave Paige
da...@access.digex.net
http://www.access.digex.net/~davep
zoo
In article <32fdff6...@news.digex.net>, da...@access.digex.net says...
Now this is just getting rediculous. Sure someday somebody will come up with
a new concept of how to do an engine, but for now it's all about the look. That's
why there's fire explosions in space, engines burning, "visible" laser beams(there's
another one), etc. etc. It's not meant to be totally realistic. But it's always
good to challenge the current thinking. That's how ideas are born. I just saw
ALIENS on tv and I liked what they did in that movie. In space it was VERY dark.
Not alot of natural light, or sources of light from the spacecraft. It was a little
more realistic and cool looking. The only source of light was a faint blue nebulae
and a bright planet. But to complain about engine burn not being realistic is beside
the point. The entertainment value is more important than realism.
--
\\|//
-(@ @)-
0-"zoo"
Paul Oberlander
John Gronquist wrote:
>
> Paul Oberlander <obr...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
> <32F4AD...@earthlink.net>...
> > My .02 cents worth. If you followed NASA research close enough you
> > would know that space is a very harsh environment. Atomic oxygen is
> > more corrosive that salt water, not to mention bombarding any substance
> > with solar wind, gamma and x-radiation. NASA had a test satellite which
> > was simply composed of different substances to see what the effects of
> > near Earth orbit would do. The results were worse than predicted.
> > Scientific American had several articles on this a few years back.
>
> Paul, any chance of digging up the volume number? I for one would LOVE to
> see what that corrosion actually looked like...
See what I can do....
Paul
Mean time try this....
>
> >
> > Besides, if you want to talk about unreal, the ships on B5 travel faster
> > than the speed of light. Now that's something to laugh at....
>
> Well, that's why it's called science >fiction<.. :-)
--
"There are only two races on earth: the decent and the indecent" Viktor
Frankl
Paul Oberlander
Ernie Wright wrote:
>
> Re FTL travel, Jean-Eric Henault wrote:
>
> > possible, but it would require a whole new understanding of physics.
> > Warp space is one of the most advanced theory. Hyperspace is an other
> > one. Stephen Hawken himself (one of today's most celebrated scientist)
> > said it was possible. He even said he was working on Warp Drive theory
> > while visiting the sets of the Enterprise D a few years back.
>
> authors. There's no science there. Einstein dealt with the possibility
> of ideas unsupported by science in a diplomatic way, by saying in effect,
> yes, anything's possible, assuming you're willing to throw out everything
> we currently know. Leprechauns and fairies are possible in this sense,
> as is practically anything you care to name. And is it possible Stephen
> Hawking was, um, joking?
>
> > Only a century ago, people said it was impossible to fly.
>
> Everyone points this out sooner or later, but the theoretical basis for
> powered fixed-wing flight was laid by George Cayley in papers published
> a hundred years before Kittyhawk, and birds have been demonstrating that
> it's possible far longer than humans have been walking upright. There's
> no comparable demonstration in nature of faster than light travel. You
> can plug speeds above c into existing relativistic equations, but there's
> no reason to think the results have any physical significance.
>
> stories. It isn't necessary to think it's "really" possible, and it'd be
> misleading to claim that current scientific understanding supports it.
>
> - Ernie http://www.access.digex.net/~erniew
Perfectly put, Ernie, Iwas going to say exactly the same thing, but now
I don't have to.
Paul
mco...@earthlink.net
Dwight M Evers wrote:
>
> Ahh...good question, easily answered...
>
> There are 2 explanations that I subscribe to on this one...
>
> 1) It is a TV/Movie, therefore enjoy it. :)
> 2) There are minute particles in space all the time. Just because
> there is no air does not mean that there is nothing at all out there.
> Some "BEAM" weapons researched now use highly charged particles with a
> laser doing all the thermal work behind it. In essence, a matter stream.
>
> Pick your own explanation if mine does not work.
>
> ============================================================================
> | "...peace is a thing which a person
> Dwight M. Evers | must be willing to fight for..."
> ev...@plains.NoDak.edu |
> NDSU | -Abe Lincoln
> ============================================================================
>
> Mark Clarkson (ma...@southwind.net) wrote:
> : > > Besides, if you want to talk about unreal, the ships on B5 travel faster
> : > > than the speed of light. Now that's something to laugh at....
>
> : beams stabbing here and there, in a _vacuum_. I believe that a beam of
> : coherent energy ought to be totally invisible without air, dust, etc.
> : around.
> : --
> : ..mark clarkson
>
B% as all TV sf is somewhat stylized rather than totaly realistic. YOu
think all the galaxy there all bright colored nebulas like that? You
think space fighters would ever slug it out with puny plasma ball
weapons that travel only 200 meters per second restricting combat to WWI
era ranges? The lasers are visible cause if they wern't you'd see
spaceshipa spontaniously cracking open from invisible rays, and the
audience would be veryc onfused about who was shooting whom.
BobMcNamee
then again ... if the weapons aren't LASER beams, then those rules don't
apply. they aren't necessarily coherent Light... Could be charged packets
of plasma... or something Sci-Fi (most probable)
besides spaceship battles in the dark of space (without lots of dramatic
nebula backlighting) with invisible beam destoying ships would get
terribly boring.
Good for one show maybe... but it would be tough to have set B5 under such
visually boring rules.
Bob McNamee
Scott Elyard
In article <32F8D8...@access.digex.net>, Ernie Wright
<ern...@access.digex.net> wrote:
#Everyone points this out sooner or later, but the theoretical basis for
#powered fixed-wing flight was laid by George Cayley in papers published
#a hundred years before Kittyhawk, and birds have been demonstrating that
#it's possible far longer than humans have been walking upright.
What the heck, to be even more accurate, birds have been flying for a good
60 million years before humans even evolved. And flying reptiles existed
far earlier than that...
.oO=-------------------------------------------------------=Oo.
| Scott Elyard, Stone Bug Studios(tm) |
| --ooOOoo-- |
| Animation, Graphics, Modeling, Rendering Research & Writing |
| s...@tc-net.com http://www.tc-net.com/~sbs |
\~------------------------------------------------------------/
Dwight M Evers
ted
On Sun, 09 Feb 1997 16:47:12 GMT, da...@access.digex.net (Dave Paige)
wrote:
>0@0.0 (Steve) wrote:
>>Something that annoys me is that in all sci-fi films&programmes I've
>>seen, the thrusters/engines of the ships are burning all of the time.
>>I'm no NASA engineer but I've been giving it some thought and
>>concluded that because of the near absolute vacuum of space there is a
>>lack of friction once you're up there (friction makes things stop),
>>because of this the engines would only need to fire-up to get you to
>>the speed you want, then they'd turn off (maybe with a small
>>maintenance burst every now and then). And then you'd need just as
>>powerful reverse thrusters to stop.
>I believe the need to burn engines has far less to do with friction
>and far more to do with gravity.
Not so. But one more annoying factor is that :-
The only time that they do need to fire up their engines
is when they wish to change direction to offset the
current momentum.
We've seen powerful thrusters behind spaceships as a basic
design but never ever powerful forward backward thrusters
if any at all nor any big side thrusters in main capital space
ships so that immediate evasive manoeuvres can be executed.
The starfury fighters in B5 are noticeably always on during
space combat which does make sense if they wish to easily
change flight direction at anytime. But the pilots themselves
would have been near zero gravity and should not respond with
hand movements that fast as if normal gravity (ie. 9.81g) is
present. Note the B5 station is constantly rotating to
simulate Earth's gravity.
One more thing that B5 does avoid unlike the ST and Star Wars
stuff to a certain extent, spaceships don't meet at a single
plane at anytime.
Regards
cheehui :-)
e-mail:tedd...@singnet.com.sg
Mark/Elaine
In article <32FE47...@earthlink.net>, "mco...@earthlink.net"
<mco...@earthlink.net> writes
>YOu
>think all the galaxy there all bright colored nebulas like that?
Don't wanna be too picky, but the nebula backgrounds used in B5 are
actual Hubble photos, so in fact the galaxy IS full of bright coloured
nebulas like that.
Have Fun, Mark
Colin Kai
Oooohh,
Got shares in foundation have we???
Just a Tad bitter and twisted perchance. Hey, I program for a living, I
train others, when they move on and do good from using my knowledge *I*
don't then decide to gripe about it.
Come to think of it, who taught you to talk ??
Do you hear them saying how you can only talk because *they* taught you?
And anyway, they talk better than you do?? And you stabbed 'em in the
back when ya got an 'A' in English, because they only got a 'D' ???
And here you are, still talking! All the time, talking, I guess things
can't be bad.
Foundation Imaging were good, but don't you think, maybe, just a little,
that they benefited from the deal, after all, one has to ask, would we
even know of them so widely were it not for B5?? Now I ain't putting
them down, much respect to anyone who can do this for a living instead of
'normal' work, not saying it's easier, but I'd rather do 3D than dig
holes if you know what I mean??
Truth be, we are all, (yup, me included), a product of our environment,
I'm sure as you studied CGI you were quite happy picking other peoples
brains, in fact it's a maxim to not re-invent the wheel , if the
knowledge is there, use it! I do, i rely on it, why spend days figuring
something out, banging your head against a wall, when you can be shown
the light in a few minutes? (pun indended)
So guys, flame away, but wise up! We live, we learn, it's what we do, if
someone leaves us behind, then that's the way it is. Also, it can sorta
sour people to ya if all you do is gripe about it, not tres professional
after all, don't look to attractive on the ole C.V.
Claudia Marie
tedd...@singnet.com.sg (ted) writes:
>On Sun, 09 Feb 1997 16:47:12 GMT, da...@access.digex.net (Dave Paige)
>wrote:
>>0@0.0 (Steve) wrote:
>>>Something that annoys me is that in all sci-fi films&programmes I've
>>>seen, the thrusters/engines of the ships are burning all of the time.
>>I believe the need to burn engines has far less to do with friction
>>and far more to do with gravity.
>The starfury fighters in B5 are noticeably always on during
>space combat which does make sense if they wish to easily
>change flight direction at anytime. But the pilots themselves
>would have been near zero gravity and should not respond with
>hand movements that fast as if normal gravity (ie. 9.81g) is
>present. Note the B5 station is constantly rotating to
>simulate Earth's gravity.
Hand movements? They're slow when someone is floating freely on, say,
the space shuttle, only so astronauts don't push themselves back with
the same force as their arm is moving forward.
The pilots are harnessed in. Why would they need to move slowly?
Claudia
--
Freedom means letting other people do things you don't like. -O
Steven Johansen
>>Don't wanna be too picky, but the nebula backgrounds used in B5 are
>>actual Hubble photos, so in fact the galaxy IS full of bright coloured
>>nebulas like that.
Well..... more accurately the galaxy is full of bright
coloured nebulae like that when viewed as an image from
a telescope (not to mention after various photo enhancements)
Steven
Branit
Yea, and weeeooooh, where'd they git them spaceships!
They's no spaceships like that, that I knowd of.
Them's don't exist! Them spaceships!
cheehui
On 11 Feb 97 20:57:27 GMT, cma...@laraby.tiac.net (Claudia Marie )
wrote:
>Hand movements? They're slow when someone is floating freely on, say,
>the space shuttle, only so astronauts don't push themselves back with
>the same force as their arm is moving forward.
>
>The pilots are harnessed in. Why would they need to move slowly?
Urrm, because there's no gravity ? If you're a B5 fan,
notice how fast the pilot moves to yank the handle
for an ejection sequence. A human's motor control is
decidedly much more difficult and less precise in zero
gravity.
But that's not to say the series doesn't rock. It does !
The CGI FX was damn spectacular but the plot and
storyline is outta this world ! :-)
Best regards
ted :-)
e-mail:tedd...@singnet.com.sg
===========================================
According to rumours, harley Davidson is
going to release a new motorcycle to the
devout Harley fans.
It's going to be called the "Harley Looyah"
===========================================
VirtualBri
>Don't wanna be too picky, but the nebula backgrounds used in B5 are
>actual Hubble photos, so in fact the galaxy IS full of bright coloured
>nebulas like that.
It seemed like the Hubble shots only appeared after NDE started on the
show. Foundation was painting theirs.
--Brian
======== http://members.aol.com/virtualbri/ =======
== Home of the LightWave 3D Internet Resource Lists ==
============= 100 hits a day and growing =============
============ All you gotta do is ask.... ============
Devin Lafontaine
>Don't wanna be too picky, but the nebula backgrounds used in B5 are
>actual Hubble photos, so in fact the galaxy IS full of bright coloured
>nebulas like that.
Yeah, problem is hubble is hundreds of times more light perceptive than an
eye or even a camera, and it exposes these nebulae on photplates for
several minutes at minumum.
gary...@aol.com
>
>> With B5, the images are too glossy
>Too glossy for... what, exactly? Your tastes? Fine, but that's just
>you and it's not necessarily true that anybody else shares your tastes
>or even cares one iota what they are.
>
I actually like the glossy look. Very Realistic! Just like the pictures from NASA of the Shuttle crew serviceing the Hubbel Telescope. Years in space and looks shiney and new..
Gary Grossoehme
Gary Grossoehme, Oregon Electronics, 503-239-5293
Gary...@aol.com
"I'm a hologram, dammit, not a Doctor!"
Claudia Marie
che...@aztech.com.sg (cheehui) writes:
>On 11 Feb 97 20:57:27 GMT, cma...@laraby.tiac.net (Claudia Marie )
>wrote:
>>Hand movements? They're slow when someone is floating freely on, say,
>>the space shuttle, only so astronauts don't push themselves back with
>>the same force as their arm is moving forward.
>>
>>The pilots are harnessed in. Why would they need to move slowly?
>Urrm, because there's no gravity ? If you're a B5 fan,
>notice how fast the pilot moves to yank the handle
>for an ejection sequence. A human's motor control is
>decidedly much more difficult and less precise in zero
>gravity.
I've never heard this before. I'm sure you're not just making it
up out of thin air, but I've never heard it before. It seems to me
that there would be some initial disorientation, but that that would
be pretty quickly trained *out* of fighter pilots.
>But that's not to say the series doesn't rock. It does !
>The CGI FX was damn spectacular but the plot and
>storyline is outta this world ! :-)
*grin* True 'nuff.
spyde...@aol.com
>> As a fictional device, FTL is a minor conceit that makes for interesting
>> stories. It isn't necessary to think it's "really" possible, and it'd be
>> misleading to claim that current scientific understanding supports it.
>>
>> - Ernie http://www.access.digex.net/~erniew
>
>Perfectly put, Ernie, Iwas going to say exactly the same thing, but now
>I don't have to.
>
>Paul
If you guys keeping thinking like that, then nothing will get developed. I'm not saying that it is possable, but you should at least have an open mind or prove that it cann't be done.
Spyder