Jedi Invisibility Powers

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-08 12:48pm

DocHorror wrote:
George said we would understand how and why Obi-Wan and Yoda disappeared into the Force by the time the prequels were done. What makes you think he isn't laying the groundwork for that in TPM?
I would assume that he would do so in a manner that would be understood by everyone from the age of 5+ upwards after going to the cinema once...I doubt it would be done in a manner that relies on a DVD player and constant rewatching in slow motion.

Actually, you could easily see them shimmering with the naked eye in the theatre, especially in the second shot. That's why I was so stunned that "Moonstone Spider" (who has mysteriously disappeared) insisted there were no unusual effects in that scene. I don't know why this escaped your attention, but I saw it clear as day.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-01-08 12:51pm

I concur with the above post, having 3 prints playing in the first two weeks I varified it the second time that I watched it. I noticed it the first time, but I assumed due to it being 1am and at the end of an 8 hour shift, my eyes were playing tricks on me. But I defenitley remember seeing it when I saw it on the big screen.

DocHorror · Post by **DocHorror** » 2003-01-08 12:54pm

I don't know why this escaped your attention, but I saw it clear as day.

Different people see different things. I never saw TPM in the cinema.

I am allowed my own interpretation of the scene aren't I? You say it shows they can turn invisible, fine, you say that I wont stop you.

I say it wasn't intended to show they could turn invisible, but shit, they can run really fast!

Mr Flibble · Post by **Mr Flibble** » 2003-01-08 01:49pm

Crown, I like your theory it seems to explain a lot.
Watching that scene has raised a question in my mind though, the can make themselves and their clothes, including the cloak, even when some distance from them invisible, but why not the lightsaber blade?
Perhaps this adds to Crown's submergence theory, and they submerged themsleves, their clothes and the lightsaber handle, but left the blade in the normal realm to use it to deflect or to attack? However they don't seem to use their sabers in this sequence, so maybe it indicates that the blade can't be made invisible.

An offhand crazy idea this gives me, assuming Crown's theory was correct, the saber blade could have a submerged force component, and 'real component' hence the strange thermal properties, perhaps they are channeled through the force realm. And as there is already a force realm 'blade the rest cannot be submerged. Like i said this is just a crazy idea, and it is late so you should probably ignore it.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-01-08 02:00pm

Mr Flibble wrote:Crown, I like your theory it seems to explain a lot.
Watching that scene has raised a question in my mind though, the can make themselves and their clothes, including the cloak, even when some distance from them invisible, but why not the lightsaber blade?
Perhaps this adds to Crown's submergence theory, and they submerged themsleves, their clothes and the lightsaber handle, but left the blade in the normal realm to use it to deflect or to attack? However they don't seem to use their sabers in this sequence, so maybe it indicates that the blade can't be made invisible.

The blades are significantly dimmer. Not completely invisible, but not as bright as they normally are.

Mr Flibble · Post by **Mr Flibble** » 2003-01-08 02:03pm

Darth Servo wrote:
Mr Flibble wrote:Crown, I like your theory it seems to explain a lot.
Watching that scene has raised a question in my mind though, the can make themselves and their clothes, including the cloak, even when some distance from them invisible, but why not the lightsaber blade?
Perhaps this adds to Crown's submergence theory, and they submerged themsleves, their clothes and the lightsaber handle, but left the blade in the normal realm to use it to deflect or to attack? However they don't seem to use their sabers in this sequence, so maybe it indicates that the blade can't be made invisible.
The blades are significantly dimmer. Not completely invisible, but not as bright as they normally are.

Yeah I should have said that, thinking about it, the simplest solution is the blade gives of more light hence harder to conceal, thats what I get for attempting to think without sleep.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2003-01-08 02:06pm

Hasn't anyone considered that Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan simply went to warp?

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-01-08 02:16pm

The "transparency" effect looks a lot like motion blur if you watch the scene at normal speed. It might not have been intended to be interpreted as anything more.

George said we would understand how and why Obi-Wan and Yoda disappeared into the Force by the time the prequels were done. What makes you think he isn't laying the groundwork for that in TPM?

Including one second long scene in to TPM, that will go un-noticed by the vast majority of the viewers, as a part of an explanation for the disappearance of Yoda and Obi-Wan?

It would have been a *very* Machiavellian move for GL to make.

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-01-08 02:19pm

Ah, fuck!

Forot that you can't edit posts in in this forum. Could someone delete the double post.

Thanks.

Mr Flibble · Post by **Mr Flibble** » 2003-01-08 02:27pm

Sir Sirius wrote:The "transparency" effect looks a lot like motion blur if you watch the scene at normal speed. It might not have been intended to be interpreted as anything more.
George said we would understand how and why Obi-Wan and Yoda disappeared into the Force by the time the prequels were done. What makes you think he isn't laying the groundwork for that in TPM?
Including one second long scene in to TPM, that will go un-noticed by the vast majority of the viewers, as a part of an explanation for the disappearance of Yoda and Obi-Wan?
It would have been a *very* Machiavellian move for GL to make.

In the part immediately after the screen caps where they are running down the end of the corridor, they are visible flickering, at normal speed, and it does not look like motion blur. Whether it is aiming to set the ground work for the explanation of the disappearance of Yoda and Obi Wan, I don't know. But I would definately say it is intended to show that the Jedi are able to make themselves translucent.

AWACS · Post by **AWACS** » 2003-01-08 02:34pm

Out of interest, what sort of effect would 60-100 G have on a "normal" person?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-08 02:42pm

Mike, this is cool, but before jumping to any conclusions, I'd suggest ripping the scene from the DVD. The fact that you said that you captured this sequence and then had to inverse-telecine it back down makes me suspect that the Jedi translucency might have been the result of the inverse-telecine algorithm that you're using. Deinterlacing footage in this manner has been known to cause artifacts and effects like this. What could have originally been a simple motion blur could have been reduced to a one-frame translucency by your deinterlacer. Best to keep all your bases covered.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-01-08 02:54pm

AWACS wrote:Out of interest, what sort of effect would 60-100 G have on a "normal" person?

As far as I know, your entire skeleton will liquify.

pecker · Post by **pecker** » 2003-01-08 03:02pm

Wow.

One thing, You have to remember that the film is meant to be viewed at normal speed. So while they may have turned invisible frame by frame, the intent may have simply have been to have alot of motion blur. So while the fact they they moved fuckign fast is alright, they may not have 'actually' turned invisible.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2003-01-08 03:32pm

I can't comment on telescene artifacts but I've done a few experiments with the equipment I have at hand and the effect here is not consistant with ordinary motion blur.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-01-08 04:56pm

pecker wrote:Wow.

One thing, You have to remember that the film is meant to be viewed at normal speed. So while they may have turned invisible frame by frame, the intent may have simply have been to have alot of motion blur. So while the fact they they moved fuckign fast is alright, they may not have 'actually' turned invisible.

I have a different take: we know they were originally suppossed to go invisible, but the scene was cut. My guess is that this was part of that shot, and they just left that bit in because they figured no one would go through frame by frame.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-08 05:04pm

Enlightenment wrote:I can't comment on telescene artifacts but I've done a few experiments with the equipment I have at hand and the effect here is not consistant with ordinary motion blur.

Have you done anything with taking a telecined motion blur and inverse-telecining it? Either way, for the best precision, the best thing to use would be the frames straight from the DVD.

pecker · Post by **pecker** » 2003-01-08 06:19pm

[quote="Ender"][I have a different take: we know they were originally suppossed to go invisible, but the scene was cut. quote]

They were?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-08 06:24pm

Durandal wrote:
Enlightenment wrote:I can't comment on telescene artifacts but I've done a few experiments with the equipment I have at hand and the effect here is not consistant with ordinary motion blur.
Have you done anything with taking a telecined motion blur and inverse-telecining it? Either way, for the best precision, the best thing to use would be the frames straight from the DVD.

Actually, telecining and inverse-telecining can only, at worst, cause bad interlacing because of a mismatched field A and field B. You might get something like this:

Notice the double-image caused by faulty de-interlacing of mismatched fields from what should be two separate frames. But at no time would inverse-telecining cause something to become smoothly transparent.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-08 06:25pm

Since the frames straight from the DVD have been altered, their timebase is actually inaccurate. The only way to approach the original source picture is to inverse-telecine.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-08 06:33pm

Darth Wong wrote:Since the frames straight from the DVD have been altered, their timebase is actually inaccurate. The only way to approach the original source picture is to inverse-telecine.

NTSC DVD's aren't stored at 29.97FPS; they are stored at 23.976FPS. The DVD player is what telecines them. That is why there are progressive-scan DVD players, which can hook into a HDTV and play the stream straight from the disc without telecining it for a normal NTSC television. The only time DVD footage is altered is when it is a PAL disc, in which case an extra frame is simply added every second.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-08 06:34pm

But otherwise, you're correct. I guess Jedi have invisibility powers.

pecker · Post by **pecker** » 2003-01-08 06:36pm

Durandal wrote:But otherwise, you're correct. I guess Jedi have invisibility powers.

Which they fail to use at every other convenient opportunity

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-08 06:37pm

Durandal wrote:NTSC DVD's aren't stored at 29.97FPS; they are stored at 23.976FPS. The DVD player is what telecines them.

Actually, if you rip the MPEG file off the CD and examine it directly, it's interlaced and telecined and plays at 29.97 fps. There is no way to restore the original 23.976 fps presentation without inverse telecining, hence the wide availability of inverse-telecining tools in DVD ripping software.

That is why there are progressive-scan DVD players, which can hook into a HDTV and play the stream straight from the disc without telecining it for a normal NTSC television.

Actually, progressive-scan players are forced to deal with the same telecined MPEG file. This is why there's two kinds of progressive-scan: "fake" progressive-scan (the cheaper ones that simply de-interlace every frame and interpolate missing data) and "true" progressive-scan (the more expensive ones that perform inverse-telecine on the fly).

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-01-08 07:02pm

Holy flying fuck. A while ago (like a week or two) in some thread about jedi deflecting lasers I noted that if they could deflect a laser then could bend light and become invisible but weve never seen that when it would have been important..

I guess this changes things. No. Fucking. WAY. O_O