sabre physics

so as to get this discussion out of other threads, let's discuss this here


CountDoosheee: "I actually wonder what a lightsaber would look like in real life?
I was at a family party the other night, and I was distracted by this bright red lightbulb. In real life, it was a flat red, but still quite bright. I got out my DV camera and shot fully zoomed out. The light appeared bright white, with red around it.
I zoomed in on the bulb until it filled the frame, and all of a sudden it was completely red.

So... I'm wondering. If I were to see a 'real' lightsaber, would it in fact be a flat colour? I don't think a completely white light can give off a coloured glow.... but hey I'm frequently wrong!"


it's not white light, it's bright coloured light. and the glow is not actually hanging in the air around the blade like a mist, it's projected into the eye of the viewer, and onto the background behind it:

[image=http://www.blister.jp/images-item-big/ref1-2049.jpg]



2 questions:

1: which of these do you prefer

2: which of these do you think looks more real:

[image=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v705/neomp5/b73ed973.jpg]
[image=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v705/neomp5/4665ff5e.jpg]

note: they are the same blade, badly drawn, at an angle. that's not the point.

 

i'm gonna enjoy this thread.

the bottom of the two looks realistic.

 

I think both screenshots of the saber are badly blurred no offense.

I think sabers in general give off excess light and the core will always be white because of the intense heat it's supposed to project.

 

again, i'm not talking about how well it's drawn, the blur makes it look straigh, while the other is obviously angled.

 

It really depends on how bright you think the blade really is. The films, in the past, have attempted to show and the canon says that a lightsaber is an extremely bright source of light--that's why the core is white, it's blowing out the exposure on the camera--oh, by the way, movies are shot on cameras, as much as you'd like to disbelieve that fact. Films are not meant to just rote document what's happening in real life, this is why color correction, motion signatures, and hell, special effects are around--and the colored mist is just what happens to a sufficiently bright light on camera. That's not a terribly good example, though, the blur on the core is waay overboard.

In any case, this has been discussed into the ground already, and the vast majority of the
evidence and people are against you, neo. Just let it go.

 

I personally think the most important discussion is how a lightsaber would appear when photographed (be it film or digital); because we'll never see a lightsaber in real life, only on film (or video ). So what it looks like in reality is completely irrelivant. Thus, when discussing such light physics, things like apature and shutter speed must always, and I emphasise ALWAYS, be taken into account.

Reposted from other thread to add to the discussion.

 

thank you for bringing back the post in which you proved my point.

 

Could you do me a favor and explain exactly how it proves your point? I'm curious, 'cause it looks like it proves his.

 

Quite frankly, it's supporting the exact opposite of your point. We should have a set of guidelines for this thread if it's going to last and not get ourselves banned. Like: Don't throw personal preference and physical evidence into the same argument. Notice, not once (that I can remember), have I relied on my personal preference in these little theories; only what I observe. Hell, I don't even know if I've mentioned what I prefer in the recent past.

Edit: I second Funk's post ^^

 

"It really depends on how bright you think the blade really is."

not really. very bright light looks exactly the same, unless it's amorphous or distorted. so the real questtion is how solid you think the blade is.

"The films, in the past, have attempted to show and the canon says that a lightsaber is an extremely bright source of light"

only in the anakin/tyranus fight in 2, and they promptly changed their minds when yoda showed up, where the light cast on yoda's face was like a flashlight with a green cloth over it. besides, what good is a weapon that blinds it's user.

"Films are not meant to just rote document what's happening in real life, this is why color correction, motion signatures, and hell, special effects are around"

those things were originally intended to make unreal things look real, as though you were actually seeing them.

"and the colored mist is just what happens to a sufficiently bright light on camera."

yes, but the white blur is caused by a very bright light on a very dark background overexposed into a camera. it doesn't actually happen.

That's not a terribly good example, though, the blur on the core is waay overboard."

those are ryan's settings, i think.

"In any case, this has been discussed into the ground already, and the vast majority of the
evidence and people are against you, neo. Just let it go."

no evidence has been presented against me.

i'm willing to keep discussing this until you guys are willing to open your minds and look beyond effects convention, and start thinking in physical realism.

"Could you do me a favor and explain exactly how it proves your point? I'm curious, 'cause it looks like it proves his."

it shows a soli core on the bulb:

[image=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v608/dmpjedi/IMG_5245.jpg]

and on the filament:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v608/dmpjedi/IMG_5244.jpg

the filiament looks slightly blurred because it's a coil, making it amorphous, not a solidd line

"Notice, not once (that I can remember), have I relied on my personal preference in these little theories"

that's all you've had, your preference, and popular opinion. while i've repeatedly proven my point, and you've ignored it.

 

...And once again, neo proves he either can't read or has no idea what he's talking about. I'm done in this thread.

 

And that point is?

 

okay, you get proven wrong, and you leave.


refusing to admit you're wrong doesn't make you right.

 

Can't we all just get along?





Seriously, neo, you're doing nobody, especially yourself, a favour by dragging this up again. You do things your way, let everyone else do it their way, and we'll all be happy.

 

So.... why haven't you left yet?

 

neo, you're completely disregarding most of my information that goes along with those pictures. This is what you're saying:

it shows a soli core on the bulb:

the filiament looks slightly blurred because it's a coil, making it amorphous, not a solidd line

And that explains...what about light and film's reaction to it? Please reread the points that I continue to explain in my theory. And quote me where I mentioned my personal preference on lightsabers. I mean, an actual quote, copied and pasted. I forgot where I posted it...

EDIT:

But think about this...we're talking about LIGHTSABERS. Lightsabers are only possible through visual effects, which means obeying optics and photography. You go to a VFX school (especially for compositing) and you'll learn how all this works. I've been in the PixelCorps, I'd know

 

if everyone thinks neo is wrong why does everyone keep egging him on?

 

"Notice it has a soft core to it"

a lie. that doesn't help your argument.

 

How is saying that filament has a soft core is a lie? Want me to post the 6.3 megapixel version?

I need to complete my ideas before hitting 'post'

Another guideline that could help:
Keep calm, post reliable evidence to support your ideas. Bickering gets us nowhere

 

turn on a light. get right up to it. look at the filiament. solid core.

 

Ohhhhhh, Dorkman? Care to lock this before it gets out of hand?...again...

 

My answer is #1.

The light has more strength.. the other one looks fake because isnt that strong

 

I'm not going to damage my eye sight by looking straight at a filament. I came close enough when I was taking that picture And you're talking reality, I'm talking photography, which I stated earlier should be our concern. Films are shot on film. If you want your story to be reality, then you're in the wrong career. You want theater.

 

Wait, you're saying a lightsaber should look like it has a solid core because a tungstin light filament does? You're saying that if you get up close enough to a lightsaber, you should be able to see a solid pole that the light is eminating from?

 

Notes:

Photography vs. "Reality"
Your eye is a camera, and it experiences the exact same effects as film does. Looking at bright coloured lights results both in a saturated white core, as well as a coloured halo. Stare into a laser beam to prove this fact to yourself*. Alternatively, look briefly at a coloured LED - you'll see this effect.

Lightsabers and how bright they are...
Is completely inconsistent in all of the films. The fact of the matter is there is more energy in a lightsaber blade than there is in a welding torch. To look at welding torches we require extremely thick goggles to protect our eyes. If you want to know how a lightsaber should look, and how much light it will actually catch, go find some construction workers with welders and film it. Use this as reference.

How should the glow look?
This depends as much on the camera itself as anything. CCD cameras for example have vertical smear when filming bright objects (try street lights at night), not to mention other lens artifacts and colour sampling concerns. Glows are usually smaller than we make them, and significantly uglier.

To accurately reproduce what a glow should look like on your camera, you will need two things: the point spread function of your camera for a similarly bright light source of the desired colour, and a blending mode such as eLin that takes into account discrepancies in the add mode. Since I highly doubt many of you know what a point spread function is... look it up. Until you've done that and explained both point spread functions and two-dimensional convolutions to my satisfaction, my work here is done.

-Spiff

*Please don't. You'll be blinded.