Blaster, Laser or Turbolaser?

[Illuminatus Primus]

I think the AOTC chase sequence has more than one bolt from the same cannon in flight simultaneously, and the bolts on independent trajectories from the movement of the cannon.

[Elheru Aran]

Slave-1 is an exception? Could you indicate more closely where so I could take a look?

Probably what IP is referring to is the seismic bombs. The guns (even the rapid-fire hidden ones) and the proton torps are normal enough, but fightercraft (which, incidentally, I don't think Slave I should be classified as-- it's more a light patrol craft, IMHO) don't normally carry bombs unless they're purpose-built for that, like the TIE bomber.

[Ender]

Alright McC, then answer one simple fucking question: If those where unintentional errors, why do we see the same errors in the new films where the tech makes avoiding them much easier and why where said errors not corrected in the SE and DVD releases like a number of others where.

[McC]

Depends on the instance, but those kinds of errors could easily creep in with modern techniques, depending on the way you do it.

If they're still doing roto work on the frames -- that is, painting the blaster effects on frame-by-frame (although today, it's a much more automated process and "painting" isn't really the right term anymore), then it's harder to explain. One would think they'd have even more exacting precision now than before.

If, on the other hand, they're doing particle emission or something slightly more randomized, the semi-random nature of the particle emission means that slight single-frame variance could easily creep in. In fact, it's easier to explain DBI now (in a VFX sense) than it is to explain it from the OT, where they were (ostensibly) using methods wherein they should have complete visual control. However, (and this line of thinking just occured to me) the OT was doing using layered film compositing (I think). As such, the working scale is reeeeally small. Depending on what methods they used, they may simply not have had the scale precision to achieve super-accurate positioning. Although that doesn't really seem to hold with the relatively accurate placement of other things...

*shrug* I need more data on the process they used to achieve the old effect.

But, the above should answer your question regarding the same effect showing up (intermittently) in the PT.

[Ender]

But, the above should answer your question regarding the same effect showing up (intermittently) in the PT.

Not in the slightest. A dodge is not an answer. You tossed out a bunch of maybe crap but never came close to a definitive statement and didn't even respond to half that question.

Why in the PT do we still see predamage, damage without bolts, and if these where errors (and well known and publicised ones) why where they not corrected in the SE and DVDs like other errors where.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Usually when a visual effects company makes some sort of mistake, they often say something about it. I've never heard ILM mention any sort of errors regarding weapons fire.

[Ender]

Usually when a visual effects company makes some sort of mistake, they often say something about it. I've never heard ILM mention any sort of errors regarding weapons fire.

I know, I'm just waiting to see if he has anything beyond tautology here.

"It's an error because it is an error!"

[McC]

Not in the slightest. A dodge is not an answer. You tossed out a bunch of maybe crap but never came close to a definitive statement and didn't even respond to half that question.

The "maybe crap" is because A) I don't work for ILM and B) I don't have firsthand (or any-hand) information on the precise techniques they used. The most I can find via a google search is that the used "optical compositing." Well, no shit. I knew that much. But did they use large-scale glass projection optical compositing, layered film optical compositing, or some other technique for the spatial blast effects? I don't know that information.

Why in the PT do we still see predamage, damage without bolts

This I answered. If they used particle effects, which are not inherently super-precise, this can result. If they did direct roto work, it shouldn't be happening, and my evaluation that it's a mistake is cast into serious doubt (unless, of course, they did this on purpose to match with what they had before; i.e. the decided to stay consistent rather than fix an old problem). When I do laser blasts and stuff like this, I used particle effects because it's much faster than roto. ILM has the Saber compositing software, though, so they might do roto instead. I think Saber was originally designed to track references in a scene (like the top and bottom of a lightsaber reference pole) and then create art on top of it, but I don't know for sure.

and if these where errors (and well known and publicised ones) why where they not corrected in the SE and DVDs like other errors where.

Because they aren't glaring. You cannot see these unless you look at it frame-by-frame. Hell, I didn't know about it until I started looking into SW tech stuff and stumbled across the various SWvST sites, and I've usually got a pretty good eye for effects glitches like these. As such, why would ILM fix something when virtually no one knows about it? I don't know why you call these well-known and publicised. A large glob of grease taking the place of a "forcefield" is one thing. A frame-or-two offset that no one can detect when watching the movies normally is quite another. Hell, I probably wouldn't have fixed them either (although, I'm usually pretty anal about making sure things like this match up, even when it comes to particle effects -- usually takes up oodles of time that would be better spent on other aspects of the animation, but I feel that it's important, even if no one else would notice). It wasn't until just a few years ago that I even noticed the offset engine glow on one of the ISDs in the ESB fleet scenes on the non-SE OT. Casual viewers don't see this stuff. Critical viewers may miss this stuff. That satisfies the people ILM needs to satisfy. Frame-by-frame tech wankers like us don't really factor in.

Is that sufficiently non-tautological (is that a word?)?

[Meest]

No matter if they used modern digital or old school optical effects, you're forgetting the basis on how they work. Just instead of a computer doing the "tweening" (in between frames) it was done manually, what being said they still had to use keyframes, so no matter what randomness might be filled in, its still being animated towards the plotted keypoints. So its very hard to say what wasn't done on purpose. If they didn't use any pyro to blow up targets, then I'd have to agree that its off on purpose because its a pure optical effect that has to be put on top of the footage, but if they had footage with the target blowing up they just had to add the bolt flying into it on time which would bring up the question why mistime it at all?

[McC]

No matter if they used modern digital or old school optical effects, you're forgetting the basis on how they work. Just instead of a computer doing the "tweening" (in between frames) it was done manually, what being said they still had to use keyframes, so no matter what randomness might be filled in, its still being animated towards the plotted keypoints.

Uh...what method do you use to "tween" keyframes without a computer? I thought keyframes were a uniquely digital tool, or rather the tweens they create are unique to digital tools. Without a digital interpreter, you'd have to manually paint every frame.

One question that we have yet to find out is the compositing order. This could lead to a number of explanations: A) the film reels were out of sync B) they painted the bolt on a different layer, and as such they had to approximate the time when the asteroid was destroyed C) the bolt layer was out of sync in terms of its actual X-Y position and was actually meant to originate further forward on the destroyer (speaking specifically about the ESB asteroid shot in this instance).

If they didn't use any pyro to blow up targets, then I'd have to agree that its off on purpose because its a pure optical effect that has to be put on top of the footage, but if they had footage with the target blowing up they just had to add the bolt flying into it on time which would bring up the question why mistime it at all?

*nod* There's less weight in the glitched VFX argument against DBI than there is for bolt redirection. While bolt redirection is easily explained as a VFX glitch (hand painting frames, after all), DBI requires a glitch during the actual compositing process -- but this isn't unheard of. Hell, it happened at least once in a more major way before the SE came out with the aforementioned dislocated ISD engines in ESB. A fast effect like a turbolaser bolt just slightly off in its positioning in the compositing layer could (and does, for most people) easily escape notice.

So, perhaps it wasn't an error in their creation process but rather when they put the final composite together.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Still, your argument is that they messed up every single time, which is very, very unlikely.

Also, you're assuming that back in the 70s and 80s, ILM wasn't careful enough doing their work. These aren't the films of Georges Méliès, for God's sake...

[McC]

Still, your argument is that they messed up every single time, which is very, very unlikely.

DBI is the exception, not the rule. Generally speaking, damage happens with impact, meaning they got it right waaaay more often than they got it wrong. My argument is that the compositing wasn't synchronized from time to time (the same terminology, incidentally, used to explain why the "tracer" sometimes doesn't hit when the object explodes) and that's why these things happened. It's less an error and more a technical glitch, and given what I know about optical compositing (which isn't that much -- most of my knowledge is digital-based), it's very conceivable for this to happen from time to time.

Also, you're assuming that back in the 70s and 80s, ILM wasn't careful enough doing their work. These aren't the films of Georges Méliès, for God's sake...

Quite the contrary -- the fact that they could synchronize so many bolts with only a few exceptions is a testament to their accuracy. The few times when it didn't synch up can be attributed to either time crunch (i.e. human error) or slight machine error (one of the film reels being composited was running just slightly too slow or some such).

[Illuminatus Primus]

This is fucking stupid. It is there, and there's nothing else in the film to contradict it, in which case you must consider procedural or experimental error.

I mean really, if you throw out stuff like the bolts-in-flight following the movement of the snowspeeder in TESB for example, as SFX errors, then what? Do you imagine another set of "intended" effects in its place? Who decides what those are?

When you consider your alternatives and what results you get, then its quite obvious SOD is the way to go, and that the trend is toward c-propogation.

Apparently lots of people just watched and thought "ooohh...pretty red darts" and that was that. But that's not the all to end all here.

[Cornelius]

If this were a mistake that everone knows about and voices, why do they not admit it and fix it? They admitted and fixed other mistakes like other movies have.

[vakundok]

No reaction to the non moving (visible part of a) blast I posted?

[McC]

Nono, you misunderstand. I wasn't trying to dismiss them from analysis. This originated when:

Couldn't be the TL damage before/after hit explained only by movie inperfection, like the lightsabre damage before hit in RotJ?

And I told him:

Nope. The SoD hounds are going to come down on you very hard for this Basically, thanks to SoD, we must accept the frame-by-frame presentation as exactly what happened, not an error (which we understand it probably is in the real world). As such, any theory must incorporate this damage-before-impact thing.

IOW, I agree with what you're saying -- any theory must incorporate. I was simply addressing what he asked about why we cannot dismiss it.

[Ender]

Not in the slightest. A dodge is not an answer. You tossed out a bunch of maybe crap but never came close to a definitive statement and didn't even respond to half that question.

The "maybe crap" is because A) I don't work for ILM and B) I don't have firsthand (or any-hand) information on the precise techniques they used. The most I can find via a google search is that the used "optical compositing." Well, no shit. I knew that much. But did they use large-scale glass projection optical compositing, layered film optical compositing, or some other technique for the spatial blast effects? I don't know that information.

Rigt, so you cannot answer the question and are still whining. Gotcha.

Why in the PT do we still see predamage, damage without bolts

This I answered.

No, you didn't. Again, you provided a bunch of if and maybe instead of proof that it was an error.

Quit the bullshit and prove your position.

and if these where errors (and well known and publicised ones) why where they not corrected in the SE and DVDs like other errors where.

Because they aren't glaring.

Bullshit, you watch the Death Star explode a second time after the beam stopped. Very obvious damage without a bolt.

*snip McC whining about stuff being frame by frame when as usual he clearly has no idea what he is talking about*

Is that sufficiently non-tautological (is that a word?)?

No. We know that there are very obvious instances of damage without a bolt that do not need to be seen frame by frame. The Death Star scene is the best example, and we already know they retouched that scene for the SE. Yes they did not change the secondary explosion. You can't explain this, and you can'tprove your position.

With zero evidence but your gut feeling, you maintain your position in the face of holes the size of a dyson sphere in it. Tautological to the extreme.

[McC]

Rigt, so you cannot answer the question and are still whining. Gotcha.

No, you didn't. Again, you provided a bunch of if and maybe instead of proof that it was an error.

Quit the bullshit and prove your position.

I've provided evidence that strongly corroborates with what I'm talking about (re: de-synced compositing layers). It's something that's documented to happen in optical compositing, and given the very minor deviation (only a few frames at any given instance) that is normally not noticable it's understandable that they didn't fix it for the SE. Seems open-and-shut to me.

Bullshit, you watch the Death Star explode a second time after the beam stopped. Very obvious damage without a bolt.

...what? When did the Death Star's explosion get involved in a blaster discussion?

*snip McC whining about stuff being frame by frame when as usual he clearly has no idea what he is talking about*

You call it whining, but it's a reasonable assessment of what's going on.

No. We know that there are very obvious instances of damage without a bolt that do not need to be seen frame by frame.

Excepting your Death Star scene (again, which scene are you talking about?), there are no instances that come to my mind where the bolts are obviously doing anything other than flying across space and striking a target. Obvious != visible only via frame by frame analysis.

The Death Star scene is the best example, and we already know they retouched that scene for the SE. Yes they did not change the secondary explosion.

Again, I don't know which scene involves the Death Star and blasters, so I'm confused as to what you're referring.

You can't explain this, and you can't prove your position.

Again, excepting your DS example, neither can you.

Which makes more sense: there are a few instances wherein the composited plates didn't quite match up the way we expected (which has been known to happen in multi-layer optical compositing), or the ILM artists purposely made objects react/get hit/explode before the bolts even hit, even though the vast majority of times they do react only when the bolts hit? Seems like a simple matter of parsimony to me.

With zero evidence but your gut feeling, you maintain your position in the face of holes the size of a dyson sphere in it.

I've yet to see you present one scrap of anything other than "you're whining and you're wrong" regarding why my explanation about slightly out-of-sync compositing layers is erroneous. That's a pretty weighty amount of evidence in this case, given that it's been known to happen with optical compositing (do I need to hunt up references for you via Google search?). Why didn't they fix it in the SE? I answered this: it's not noticable enough to worry about.

Disclaimer: This is an irrelevant discussion in terms of actual analysis of blasters, just to clarify. It's a discussion of intent/film effects/etc, and due to SoD has no bearing on the blaster discussion whatseover. Just want to make that clear for anyone who thinks I'm trying to use this as justification to ignore these instances in any kind of analysis of blaster effect.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Disclaimer: This is an irrelevant discussion in terms of actual analysis of blasters, just to clarify. It's a discussion of intent/film effects/etc, and due to SoD has no bearing on the blaster discussion whatseover. Just want to make that clear for anyone who thinks I'm trying to use this as justification to ignore these instances in any kind of analysis of blaster effect.

Which is why I'm wondering why anyone fucking cares. It isn't as if it changes anything for either party.

[McC]

Which is why I'm wondering why anyone fucking cares. It isn't as if it changes anything for either party.

*shrug* I'm getting tired of arguing it, too. All this over a remark I made to somebody explaining why we have to accept frame-by-frame under SoD... Can we just move on?

[Bob the Gunslinger]

Still, your argument is that they messed up every single time, which is very, very unlikely.

Also, you're assuming that back in the 70s and 80s, ILM wasn't careful enough doing their work. These aren't the films of Georges Méliès, for God's sake...

I always thought that the SFX were timed this way because that is the optimum timing for the "laser blast go boom" effect. I assumed that when they had the lasers hit the object before it exploded,it must have looked fake or too-slow when played back at 24fps.

I guess I considered it similar to the way that sound effects used to be done 1/8 of a second off because that made them seem more realistic to a human brain than if they were dubbed spot-on.

(And this is something I learned in Psychology class 6 years ago and I sold the book, so no I don't have reference page numbers. It really shouldn't be hard to verify, or disprove if it's wrong. Since this won't change anyone's insistence on frame-by-frame SOD, I don't think it much matters anyway. I'm just giving what I thought the "real world" explanation is.)

[McC]

That's a neat thought...

But why would they do it sometimes and not others? Situation-specific?

[Slartibartfast]

Which is why I'm wondering why anyone fucking cares. It isn't as if it changes anything for either party.

*shrug* I'm getting tired of arguing it, too. All this over a remark I made to somebody explaining why we have to accept frame-by-frame under SoD... Can we just move on?

Well, you did call the people who defended SoD dogs.

[McC]

Well, you did call the people who defended SoD dogs.

Er...yeah, I see how you could read it that way. That's not what I meant, though. I meant "hound" in the sense that they would find him and "eat" him; wasn't meant to be a character attack or anything. Sorry if I stepped on any toes with that remark!

[Kurgan]

There's lots of errors in the films they haven't fixed yet.

It'll be interesting to hear if they mention any of them in the new commentaries (or fix anything more) on the new DVD's.