Blaster fire speed

[McC]

I'll go hunt for it in the archives

Or perhaps I won't...seems my username for the current boards won't work on the archival boards.

[Darth Wong]

Sorry, I only update the archive board periodically, and you must have signed up since the last update (which was done at year-end 2003).

[Darth Wong]

Which observations were those? So far, you've referred me to Dr. Saxton's analysis, which is based on a distance figure given in the novelization (i.e. not direct movie observation) compared with the frames over which the event happens.

In the absence of contradictory visuals in the movie, the novelization's distance figure is canon.

Check your facts. The RSA range mistake came about through assuming that "35mm" meant the focal length of the lens rather than the size of the film. I went out and got the focal length of the motion control cameras used (as best as I could find, anyway -- it's startling how little hard specification data there is available, at least from the search parameters I input) coupled with a professional CG package's assessment of the FOV involved. That's a far cry from the math used by the RSA fellow, which struck me as wrong when I first glanced at it.

Of course, RSA is a lunatic. However, do you realize that your method only works for scaling if the camera was looking at a real, full-scale planet rather than a much smaller picture or model?

I used a different method (so far as I can tell) and the correct focal length (as far as I know) and put up every step of my calculations and a visual representation of my source data. Please point out which aspect of this source data or calculation is inaccurate or incorrect in its assessment. Is the trigonometry incorrect? Is the focal length wrong? If not, I'm not entirely sure my findings can be cast into that much doubt...

See above.

[McC]

Sorry, I only update the archive board periodically, and you must have signed up since the last update (which was done at year-end 2003).

Yeah, I just signed up recently to ask a question relating to acceleration and relativistic considerations, but then was overwhelmed by the compulsion to jump into technical analysis

In the absence of contradictory visuals in the movie, the novelization's distance figure is canon.

Right, and there appear to be contradictory visuals

Of course, RSA is a lunatic. However, do you realize that your method only works for scaling if the camera was looking at a real, full-scale planet rather than a much smaller picture or model?

True. However, is it not fair to assume that such an occurence is taking place, as it is what were supposed to be looking at? Granted, it's not how they achieved the visual, but it's what the visual is supposed to represent. If we go with the notion that the analysis doesn't work because it's not what we're actually looking at, then the whole notion of TLs hitting objects before the visible part actually strikes goes right out the window, since it seems to me that it's more of an FX mistake/fudge rather than a deliberate choice. However, if we assume everything we see is as it was, then this method of analysis should work, should it not?

[Darth Wong]

Yeah, I just signed up recently to ask a question relating to acceleration and relativistic considerations, but then was overwhelmed by the compulsion to jump into technical analysis

I'll probably update the Archive again at the end of the month.

In the absence of contradictory visuals in the movie, the novelization's distance figure is canon.

Right, and there appear to be contradictory visuals

Only if you treat SFX methods as canon facts. You might as well use this same method to prove that the ISD is only a 6 foot long model rather than a 1 mile long starship.

Of course, RSA is a lunatic. However, do you realize that your method only works for scaling if the camera was looking at a real, full-scale planet rather than a much smaller picture or model?

True. However, is it not fair to assume that such an occurence is taking place, as it is what were supposed to be looking at?

We're not supposed to know the real focal length of the camera used to make the SFX, any more than we're supposed to know that the ISD is actually a 6 foot long model.

Granted, it's not how they achieved the visual, but it's what the visual is supposed to represent. If we go with the notion that the analysis doesn't work because it's not what we're actually looking at, then the whole notion of TLs hitting objects before the visible part actually strikes goes right out the window, since it seems to me that it's more of an FX mistake/fudge rather than a deliberate choice. However, if we assume everything we see is as it was, then this method of analysis should work, should it not?

No, because the focal length of the actual camera is not admissible canon information, any more than the physical size of the actual ISD model is admissible.

[Robert Treder]

No, because the focal length of the actual camera is not admissible canon information, any more than the physical size of the actual ISD model is admissible.

Well, I suppose that if knowing the focal length of the camera gave us valuable information, we could rationalize it by saying that we were looking at the focal length of the camera that the in-universe documentarists were using.
But from what I gather, the focal length isn't going to give us any valuable in-universe information, so we don't have to worry about that.

[Lord Poe]

Well, I suppose that if knowing the focal length of the camera gave us valuable information, we could rationalize it by saying that we were looking at the focal length of the camera that the in-universe documentarists were using.
But from what I gather, the focal length isn't going to give us any valuable in-universe information, so we don't have to worry about that.

It wouldn't be valid anyway. The SFX shots aren't a matter of filming a model hanging on a wire in front of a star background. With every element, the models, planets, space, lasers, goes (or WENT, back in those days) through an optical printer to marry the visuals together.

[McC]

I'll probably update the Archive again at the end of the month.

Great

Only if you treat SFX methods as canon facts. You might as well use this same method to prove that the ISD is only a 6 foot long model rather than a 1 mile long starship.

And why not? After all, what you measure it as is based upon what you use for scaling. You can prove the ISD is a 6 foot model if you use a reference that ends up scaling it as such. You can, using the very same lens features, also prove that it's 1.6km long, given appropriate scaling methodology. Neither figure is more or less valid. The scale involved simply changes.

We're not supposed to know the real focal length of the camera used to make the SFX, any more than we're supposed to know that the ISD is actually a 6 foot long model.

No, that's true, but we are supposed to understand (at least, this is how I interpret it) that what we are seeing was filmed by some 'omnipresent' observer with some kind of camera, and we can use the properties of that imaginary camera to derive meaningful information.

No, because the focal length of the actual camera is not admissible canon information, any more than the physical size of the actual ISD model is admissible.

Why isn't the physical size of the actual ISD model admissible as canon? It should be regarded as some of the most unquestionable canon, I'd think. After all, the model makers built it with a specific scale in mind, and using that scale and the precise dimensions of the model, one can come up with meaningful and very accurate dimensions for an ISD.

It wouldn't be valid anyway. The SFX shots aren't a matter of filming a model hanging on a wire in front of a star background. With every element, the models, planets, space, lasers, goes (or WENT, back in those days) through an optical printer to marry the visuals together.

The method of constructing the effects is irrelevant, since we're not discussing the notion of how the effects were created, but rather what visual results we would actually achieve if these things were actually filmed with the equipment (lenses) in question. I have yet to see why this method of extrapolation is invalid.

[Darth Wong]

And why not? After all, what you measure it as is based upon what you use for scaling. You can prove the ISD is a 6 foot model if you use a reference that ends up scaling it as such. You can, using the very same lens features, also prove that it's 1.6km long, given appropriate scaling methodology. Neither figure is more or less valid. The scale involved simply changes.

You're missing the point, which is that the dimensions of equipment used to make the movies does not translate to the canon universe it's depicting.

No, that's true, but we are supposed to understand (at least, this is how I interpret it) that what we are seeing was filmed by some 'omnipresent' observer with some kind of camera, and we can use the properties of that imaginary camera to derive meaningful information.

And you assume that our imaginary observer, with his imaginary camera, must actually be the physical camera that was used to make the effects. Justify this assumption.

Why isn't the physical size of the actual ISD model admissible as canon? It should be regarded as some of the most unquestionable canon, I'd think.

Why?

After all, the model makers built it with a specific scale in mind, and using that scale and the precise dimensions of the model, one can come up with meaningful and very accurate dimensions for an ISD.

Relative dimensions, not absolute dimensions. You are using the absolute dimensions of the camera's focal length.

The method of constructing the effects is irrelevant, since we're not discussing the notion of how the effects were created, but rather what visual results we would actually achieve if these things were actually filmed with the equipment (lenses) in question.

Wrong. Nowhere in the idea of suspension of disbelief is it mandated that our imaginary observer must be using the same make and model and configuration of cameras as the SFX technicians.

I have yet to see why this method of extrapolation is invalid.

See above.

[McC]

You're missing the point, which is that the dimensions of equipment used to make the movies does not translate to the canon universe it's depicting.

And you assume that our imaginary observer, with his imaginary camera, must actually be the physical camera that was used to make the effects. Justify this assumption.

Wrong. Nowhere in the idea of suspension of disbelief is it mandated that our imaginary observer must be using the same make and model and configuration of cameras as the SFX technicians.

Okay, this is true. If you'd like, I can calculate the above values based on other types of lenses. Alternately, I could try to ascertain what the effective focal length of a certain lens would be in some other space shot where the sizes of the objects involved are much more well known and then use that.

Why?

Because that's the length of the model and, as such, if you know the scale, you know the canon length? Hasn't this even been done to verify the 1.6km length in the past, and worked out precisely? Isn't this also one of the leading justifications (along with filmed depictions) of the 17.6km Executor length?

[Connor MacLeod]

You're missing the point. When Mike says "Suspension of Disbelief", he is saying that the method used to analyze the given universe requires one to treat it as a historical documentary - or in other words as if it is an accurate account of what actually occured. You don't treat it as a movie - the ships in the movies do not neccesarily correspond to the "models" (what would you consider more reliable - observed evidence of the actual ship's size, or a result based on just the model of the ship?). Discussion of models, SFX, "director/producer/writer intent", etc.. are not relevant to suspsnesion of disbelief.

For example: by this method, whatever a "model" or an "artist's camera" might reveal does not neccesarily correspond to what is onscreen, because we are treating it if it were real, and the "cameraman" capturing it is not capturing models - he is capturing real ships, real people, etc. Since the two are considered completely different, no similarity can exist. (By analogy, one could also point out that what we see onscreen is also superior to what is in, say, the scripts. If the script/model says something is X-miles long, and onscreen visuals say something else, the visuals are to be considered more reliable, because as we are treating it as "real life" it would have no script.)

[McC]

If the script/model says something is X-miles long, and onscreen visuals say something else, the visuals are to be considered more reliable, because as we are treating it as "real life" it would have no script.)

Well, naturally. However, what I'm suggesting is applying real-world principles to achieve the results. I simply elected to use the motion control camera's focal length as my basis since it's what they used to film the models in the movie. However, the 'stock' lens that LightWave is inclined to use is a 24mm lens. I think this is a relatively standard lens size. I'd be happy to use this to derive calculations as well. My point is that we can probably figure out what lens the 'documentor' was using based on what we see and then apply that figuring to other shots wherein we can't extrapolate what the focal length is. The above is merely one possible examination, based on a lens used for model work IRL and, admittedly, probably not what one would use in a documentary of the Rebellion. My point is, I think the method itself is worthwhile, even if my actual calculations are flawed in their constants (namely, lens focal length).

[Connor MacLeod]

Well, naturally. However, what I'm suggesting is applying real-world principles to achieve the results.

How is it "real-world" in a way that applies to suspension of disbelief? What you are proposing is incompatible with that methodology.

I simply elected to use the motion control camera's focal length as my basis since it's what they used to film the models in the movie. However, the 'stock' lens that LightWave is inclined to use is a 24mm lens. I think this is a relatively standard lens size. I'd be happy to use this to derive calculations as well. My point is that we can probably figure out what lens the 'documentor' was using based on what we see and then apply that figuring to other shots wherein we can't extrapolate what the focal length is.

But the "cameraman" documenting the "hiostorical footage" in movies is not neccesarily related to the person who does for the models, or whatnot. Thus the standard is not neccesarily applicable (The cameraman is not in "our" galaxy, or from our time, or even our tech base...) This is why it does not work out the way you think it does - the connection you think exists does not. (How do you know a 24mm lens is "standard" in the SW universe?)

The above is merely one possible examination, based on a lens used for model work IRL and, admittedly, probably not what one would use in a documentary of the Rebellion. My point is, I think the method itself is worthwhile, even if my actual calculations are flawed in their constants (namely, lens focal length).

How is it worthwhile if it produces flawed results? Something is only worthwhile to us if it produces reasonably accurate conclusions.

[Connor MacLeod]

You believe originally suggested that plasma bolts may require a tiny projectile to provide the means to keep them contained. I suggested maybe a repulsorlift coil (or subnuclear knot, whatever) could provide the level-trajectory.

a repulsor coil by itself is not going to do anything. Repulsors like other devices (like tractor beams) are clearly not "always on" (else I question whether Luke's X-wing would have sunk into Dagobah's swamp). Thus you need something to activate/deactivate them. Since a full repulsor is rather ludicrous, at best its *maybe* a partial repulsor (you only need to keep it "on" - the projectile isn't goign to survive impact and the release of the plasma component.) Or, you might simply get away with just having the knots themselves (perhaps the Tibanna gas has properties that allow it to influence such "subnuclear" knots in order to sustain some sort of anti-grav effect, though whether or not that's possible or sensible I have no idea.)

[McC]

How is it "real-world" in a way that applies to suspension of disbelief? What you are proposing is incompatible with that methodology.

Okay, I'm having an extremely hard time reading SoD the way you're using it. To me, suspension of disbelief is the acceptance that what we see on screen can have happened. As such, what I'm proposing is quite compatible. What is your intention behind SoD?

But the "cameraman" documenting the "hiostorical footage" in movies is not neccesarily related to the person who does for the models, or whatnot. Thus the standard is not neccesarily applicable (The cameraman is not in "our" galaxy, or from our time, or even our tech base...) This is why it does not work out the way you think it does - the connection you think exists does not. (How do you know a 24mm lens is "standard" in the SW universe?)

How do you know it's not? Really, this point is becoming somewhat trivial. Any lens of any focal length can be plugged into this situation to come up with figures. My point is that the math works, even if the constants are incorrect. Determining the constants is the only X factor at this point.

How is it worthwhile if it produces flawed results? Something is only worthwhile to us if it produces reasonably accurate conclusions.

A particle beam travelling at c when it clearly is not doing so is not a reasonably accurate conclusion either It's worthwhile for its method. My calculations may be wrong, due to wrong input constants, but the method is sound. So instead of trying to say why my constants are wrong (which I have accepted as a distinct possibility), why not set about trying to determine the right constants?

[Darth Wong]

Okay, this is true. If you'd like, I can calculate the above values based on other types of lenses. Alternately, I could try to ascertain what the effective focal length of a certain lens would be in some other space shot where the sizes of the objects involved are much more well known and then use that.

Given the possibility of a zoom lens or a cropped picture, I don't see how you can come up with scaling when you have only one object of known size on the screen.

Because that's the length of the model and, as such, if you know the scale, you know the canon length?

The "if you know the scale" part would be where your argument falls down for Alderaan and the superlaser.

Hasn't this even been done to verify the 1.6km length in the past, and worked out precisely?

If the filmmaker states that it was intended to be a mile long, states the scale, and the size of certain features can be related to human beings, thus allowing us to judge scale. The same is not true of Alderaan.

Isn't this also one of the leading justifications (along with filmed depictions) of the 17.6km Executor length?

No, that's relative length, not absolute length. We can scale that the Executor is 11 times the length of an ISD, and we know from various means that the ISD is 1 mile long. Nowhere does this allow scaling from an assumption of lens geometry.

[McC]

Given the possibility of a zoom lens or a cropped picture, I don't see how you can come up with scaling when you have only one object of known size on the screen.

Yeah, this definitely does present some problems. I had considered it, though...just was waiting for someone else to bring it up

The "if you know the scale" part would be where your argument falls down for Alderaan and the superlaser.

Well, we do know the absolute (? -- your use of absolute and relative confuses me; which is which?) scale for Alderaan and the superlaser, but not the Z-depth (via the focal length, which is unknown). But the diameter of the beam and the diameter of the planet are easily attainable.

If the filmmaker states that it was intended to be a mile long, states the scale, and the size of certain features can be related to human beings, thus allowing us to judge scale. The same is not true of Alderaan.

The diameter of Alderaan is known. See my calculations post.

No, that's relative length, not absolute length. We can scale that the Executor is 11 times the length of an ISD, and we know from various means that the ISD is 1 mile long. Nowhere does this allow scaling from an assumption of lens geometry.

No, I didn't mean to imply that it did. I'm talking about scaling via model length and intended scale compared against "real" length. Assuming that this calculation does not provide a result that is not dramatically different from what we see on screen, I'd think it's a pretty safe conclusion to make. No lens geometry involved in this statement, but it's ultimately unrelated to the Alderaan size/depth/Superlaser speed discussion.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

The camera's focal length doesn't matter because depth of field pretty much disappears past fifty meters (IIRC). That's why manual cameras have an "infinity" symbol after 50.

[McC]

The camera's focal length doesn't matter because depth of field pretty much disappears past fifty meters (IIRC). That's why manual cameras have an "infinity" symbol after 50.

You're thinking focus, not focal length. A single lens can have a variable focal distance, but you can only get variable focal length with a zoom lens.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Yeah, I know, but why the hell should that matter?

[McC]

Yeah, I know, but why the hell should that matter?

If you know the focal length of the lens in question, you can determine the field of view of the lens, and thus the size of the frame in ANH when we see Alderaan, and thus the minimum Z distance the superlaser must have traveled over the 7-8 frame span of time, thus telling us the speed of the superlaser.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

That sounds way too complicated and irrelavent for the goal.

[McC]

That sounds way too complicated and irrelavent for the goal.

Figure out another way to do it

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Trig.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Or just time the damn thing.

We know how far DSI was from Alderaan, we have a good idea of how big both are, and we know how long the shot took to reach the planet.

Just multiply Alderaan's diameter by the number of PDs DSI was, subtract the radii of both DSI and Alderann, and then divide by the time. Done.