Special Effects Update on the Official Site by Novagrass

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Special Effects Update on the Official Site

POSTED BY: NOVAGRASS
UPDATED: Saturday, June 15, 2002 07:14
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5699
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, June 8, 2002 7:25 AM

Just thought you guys might want to know... some special effects stuff was added to the spoilers section of the official site.

Why they were put in the spoilers section, I have no idea, but they are there.

The shots include one of the Serenity taking off from "Serenity" and another is of the animated logo (which is *very* cool).

--Dylan Palmer, aka NoVaGrAsS--

... I guess it's a Joss thing...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 8, 2002 11:21 AM

SHAMUS

Thanks for the tip!

Nothings exceeds like excess.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 8, 2002 12:35 PM

ZICSOFT

Oh gawd no. Those pods on the side. I looked at them in the previous shots and said, "Well, they look like jet engines, but they can't possibly be. The ships too unaerodynmic to fly with jet engines. Besides, where would they put the fuel? They must be something else, and they just look like jet engines." But no, there they are, obviously swiveling around VTOL-fashion.

http://users.chariot.net.au/~theburfs/URVTOL.html

OK, this is not a techie show. But Josh, can't you at least go through the motions (excuse the pun)?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 8, 2002 7:14 PM

JONWES

I'm not much of a tech head, but couldn't the jets just be for lift off/maneuvering and not neccesarily propulsion?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 9, 2002 7:14 AM

ZICSOFT

Quote:
Originally posted by Jonwes:
I'm not much of a tech head, but couldn't the jets just be for lift off/maneuvering and not neccesarily propulsion?

Well of course. Jets don't even work in space -- no air for them to suck. By the same token, what I said about the Serenity not being aerodynmic doesn't apply in space.

But using jet engines to lift the ship out of the atmosphere doesn't make any sense. I guess I'm just not supposed to look for that kind of detail.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 9, 2002 7:50 AM

SHAMUS

Will attempt rationalization/apologia for Serenity tech observed so far. Given: Antigravity exists. Gravity may be manipulated. Implies: inertia may be manipulated.

Rotatable pods on sides may work by aiming some kind of gravity-repulsing effect (obverse of "tractor-beam"). Smoke present in FX shot represents exhaust of field generation mechanism, not main effect. Resemblance to jet engine coincidental.

Since intertia/weight of ship may be negated, aerodynamic lifting-body hull shape not required. This is mainly useful in minimizing drag caused by need to generate lift.

Last problem for use in air is friction. Not good for hull materials, but not implausible to think that materials can handle same.

"Hang On!": May just be figure of speech. Say this on phone a lot. No actual suspension required. Could also be there is lag when inertial dampening effect is first engaged, as it comes up to full effect.
***
Not planning to be bothered by any of this, personally. Much more interested in why flying than how.
***
Thus endeth this geek-out.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 9, 2002 8:32 AM

SHUGGIE

Quote:
Originally posted by Zicsoft:
But using jet engines to lift the ship out of the atmosphere doesn't make any sense. I guess I'm just not supposed to look for that kind of detail.

The clip I saw uses the side engines to lift the ship off the ground - then the ship moves off along the ground. The engines swing up slowly whilst the ship is already moving off - implying that the main propulsion is the engine at the back.

I don't see any evidence yet to assume the side engines to lift the ship out of the atmosphere.

Shug

Her lips were saying 'No' but then I looked into her eyes
... and her eyes were saying 'read my lips'
- Niles Crane

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 9, 2002 11:36 AM

ZICSOFT

Quote:
Originally posted by Shuggie:

The clip I saw uses the side engines to lift the ship off the ground - then the ship moves off along the ground. The engines swing up slowly whilst the ship is already moving off - implying that the main propulsion is the engine at the back.

Then why do the engines swivel at all? If they're only used to lift the ship for that first few feet, they only need to face down.

And I say again where's the bleeding fuel tanks? Don't spin fancy theories about 24th century tech and new kinds of fuel. Those engines work by combining something with huge masses of air. Either that or the fans at the front of the engines are just decorations. So we have something that's like a jet engine in that it swallows a lot of air, but unlike a jet engine in that it doesn't combine the air with anything. Hard to imagine what kind of technology works that way.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 9, 2002 12:16 PM

SHUGGIE

Quote:
Originally posted by Zicsoft:
Quote:
Originally posted by Shuggie:

The clip I saw uses the side engines to lift the ship off the ground - then the ship moves off along the ground. The engines swing up slowly whilst the ship is already moving off - implying that the main propulsion is the engine at the back.

Then why do the engines swivel at all? If they're only used to lift the ship for that first few feet, they only need to face down.

I don't know - manoeuvrability?

Quote:
And I say again where's the bleeding fuel tanks? Don't spin fancy theories about 24th century tech and new kinds of fuel.

Other than the fact that it contradicts your argument - what reason can you give me to rule out a new fuel?

Quote:
Those engines work by combining something with huge masses of air. Either that or the fans at the front of the engines are just decorations. So we have something that's like a jet engine in that it swallows a lot of air, but unlike a jet engine in that it doesn't combine the air with anything. Hard to imagine what kind of technology works that way.

The fact is you're making a lot of assumptions. You're assuming there's no new fuel. You're assuming those are fans. You are assuming that it's a jet engine or similar to a jet engine. You're assuming that if you can't imagine a technology it can't exist.

These may or may not correct assumptions. I just think it's too early and we don't have enough information to make those guesses yet.

Shug

Her lips were saying 'No' but then I looked into her eyes
... and her eyes were saying 'read my lips'
- Niles Crane

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 9, 2002 12:58 PM

MOJOECA

Hey, it's a scifi show with six shooters and horses. Maybe the ship runs on steam.

--- Joe

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 9, 2002 1:25 PM

JONWES

Quote:
Originally posted by mojoeca:
Hey, it's a scifi show with six shooters and horses. Maybe the ship runs on steam.

--- Joe

I think that's the most sensible thing I've read on this thread!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 9, 2002 2:07 PM

Kind of off-topic, but why do I have to download Quicktime to view this stuff? I mean "bravo" for fighting the Microsoft monopoly but I'd appreciate alternate formats. Anyway - has anybody had their computer blow up due to Quicktime or is Quicktime really good for anything else or anything? I'd like to see it but I don't really feel like downloading more crap. Seems like I've already got 16 different media players of various kinds.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 9, 2002 2:34 PM

ZICSOFT

Quote:
Originally posted by Shuggie:
The fact is you're making a lot of assumptions. You're assuming there's no new fuel. Did you read my post.You're assuming those are fans. You are assuming that it's a jet engine or similar to a jet engine. You're assuming that if you can't imagine a technology it can't exist.

Forgive me for not offering a point-by-point reply. Time consuming and I'd sort of feel like I was repeating myself. Let me just address your basic argument, which is about assumptions.

You're accussing me of making all kinds of assumptions. The only one I see myself making is this one: if the imaginary technology on the show is evolved out of current technology, as those "jet engines" appear to be, then it's subject to the same rules. Obviously this assumption doesn't apply to technology that's basically new -- like that glowing thing at the end of Serenity, which is presumably the main drive.

A lot bad science fiction gets written by people who push current technology in direction it won't go. Like Jules Verne and his giant space cannon. Or 1980s TV shows and movies, which had school kids doing serious AI software on their Apple IIs!

I know I can't be too nitpicky if I want a chance to be entertained. But I also want the show to avoid most of the silly mistakes that other SF shows make. That's the main reason I got so interested when I heard JW was making a space SF show -- he always shown an awareness of this kind of problem.

Actually, I have a theory about those engines that makes them technodweeb-compliant. But I think I'll keep it for another rant.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 9, 2002 2:53 PM

ZICSOFT

Quote:
Originally posted by J:
Kind of off-topic, but why do I have to download Quicktime to view this stuff? I mean "bravo" for fighting the Microsoft monopoly but I'd appreciate alternate formats. Anyway - has anybody had their computer blow up due to Quicktime or is Quicktime really good for anything else or anything? I'd like to see it but I don't really feel like downloading more crap. Seems like I've already got 16 different media players of various kinds.

Quicktime doesn't cause a lot of problems. The worst issue I have with the Windows viewer is that it keeps nagging me to buy the "Professional" version.

I don't think Quicktime is about being anti-MS. In fact, Apple is often accussed of playing MS-style monopoly games with Quicktime technology. People who generate Quicktime do so because that's what their favorite (probably Mac-based) software does. People who want to stay vendor-neutral use MPEG.

It would be nice if all the competing vendors -- Apple, Microsoft, Real -- would just cross license their codecs, so that all the viewers could read all the formats. But the only reason to do that is to make life easier for the consumer, and that's not important. Far more important to maintain your "competitive edge"!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 9, 2002 3:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zicsoft:
...People who want to stay vendor-neutral use MPEG.

It would be nice if all the competing vendors -- Apple, Microsoft, Real -- would just cross license their codecs, so that all the viewers could read all the formats. But the only reason to do that is to make life easier for the consumer, and that's not important. Far more important to maintain your "competitive edge"!

True - companies forget that screwing consumers to beat the other companies is a lot less effective than beating the other companies by making consumers happier. And FOX is doing it as well as MS/Apple (assuming some interlocking stuff doesn't mean FOX and Apple aren't basically the same company). They put the stuff up because it's supposed to encourage interest in the show. So, obviously, it would be helpful if people saw it. And obviously more people would see it if it wasn't in a proprietary format. So they should put it up in MPEG. But that makes too much sense.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 9, 2002 3:50 PM

MOJOECA

Zicsoft -- I'll refer you to my own little rant on sci-fi "realism" in another topic.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=324&m=1500#1500

--- Joe

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 9, 2002 5:22 PM

ZICSOFT

I wouldn't make too much of the use Quicktime on the Fox site. It's a pretty popular format. And there are thinks to like about it. It streams well, and it's nice for doing VR-type stuff:

http://www.desertusa.com/qtvr/du_qtvr.html

The vendor I absolutely hate is Real. Their software is so buggy. It's always crashing and hanging, sometimes taking my system with it. Yet I can't get away from it. There's audio content, like NPR, that's only available in their format. And I own an MP3 player that I wish I hadn't bought, cause the only way I can download to it is with a RealJukebox plugin.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 9, 2002 5:28 PM

ZICSOFT

Quote:
Originally posted by mojoeca:
Hey, it's a scifi show with six shooters and horses. Maybe the ship runs on steam.

--- Joe

I'm reminded of that old RPG series, "Space 1899". Queen Victoria conquers the galaxy!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 14, 2002 8:09 AM

TINYTIMM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zicsoft:
Then why do the engines swivel at all? If they're only used to lift the ship for that first few feet, they only need to face down.

And I say again where's the bleeding fuel tanks? Don't spin fancy theories about 24th century tech and new kinds of fuel. Those engines work by combining something with huge masses of air. Either that or the fans at the front of the engines are just decorations. So we have something that's like a jet engine in that it swallows a lot of air, but unlike a jet engine in that it doesn't combine the air with anything. Hard to imagine what kind of technology works that way.

The ancient (1950's) technology proposed atomic ram jet did just that. You have to transfer energy to the air. Burning large quantities of fossil fuel is what we do now. In the future we may be able to cause low level fusion to occur in the combustion chambers, using the air itself as fuel. Just a thought.

Jeff Timm
Who notes the size / power output of jet engine technology graphs over the last 60 years or so.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 14, 2002 8:21 AM

TINYTIMM

Quote:
Originally posted by mojoeca:
Hey, it's a scifi show with six shooters and horses. Maybe the ship runs on steam.

--- Joe

Horses produce more horses. A trick jeeps haven't developed yet.
As for revolvers, the USofA developed the Civil War Gatling Gun (invented 1861) for use on the Mach 2 (OK Maybe, over its own airfield when conditions were perfect) F-104 fighter in the 1950's.
Also in the USofA, in some localities, a copy of a Civil War Revolver is the only defensive system available due to legal considerations.

Jeff Timm
Who vagly remembers a SF story where the emissions system had to cool between shots, so a double action revolver was the leading edge of ordnance developement.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 14, 2002 10:09 AM

ZICSOFT

Quote:
Originally posted by TinyTimm:

The ancient (1950's) technology proposed atomic ram jet did just that. You have to transfer energy to the air. Burning large quantities of fossil fuel is what we do now. In the future we may be able to cause low level fusion to occur in the combustion chambers, using the air itself as fuel. Just a thought.

OK, that's a good point. Still, I would expect a jet like that to rather different from what we see on the Serenity.

Here's another theory. Assume there's a compact power source somewhere on the ship that's capable of producing big huge gobs of energy. (Which there actually has to be -- space travel takes a lot of energy!) Using that source, you could power high-speed fans for in-atmosphere travel. This is actually similar to the fanjets on modern airliners, except you don't need that kerosene-powered turbine to turn the fan.

Except that now I'm getting skeptical. Can't imagine Joss Whedon thinking about this kind of technodweeb detail. He probably just decided that the Serenity had to look a certain way, and let it go at that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 15, 2002 7:14 AM

PANDORA

Quote:
Originally posted by Zicsoft:

And I say again where's the bleeding fuel tanks? Don't spin fancy theories about 24th century tech and new kinds of fuel. Those engines work by combining something with huge masses of air. Either that or the fans at the front of the engines are just decorations. So we have something that's like a jet engine in that it swallows a lot of air, but unlike a jet engine in that it doesn't combine the air with anything. Hard to imagine what kind of technology works that way.

Well, I don't claim to be much of a techhead- I actually am the farthest thing from it. However, I noticed that in Pitch Black (granted, also a sci fi movie, but it seemed to satisfy most of the techheads I know) that they powered their ships with energy cells that were compact, and internal to the ship. This also seems to be true of other ships in other mythos'. That being the case, mightn't the Firefly do more of the same?

As far as Joss neglecting such a detail... perhaps, perhaps not. I mean, the guy *is* all about story, but he seems to do ok on research.

Pandora

"Mrs. Krabappel and Principal Skinner were in the closet making babies
and I saw one of the babies and the baby looked at me." -Ralph Wiggum

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE