Stereoscopic 3D Images

Lighting a Scene in Maya

One Light

Two Lights

Three Lights

Building a Scene in Maya

Scientific Fact or Cinematic Fiction?

Scientific Fact or Cinematic Fiction?


For as long as there have been science fiction movies, there have been the misinterpretations of simple physical laws. Can we blame directors and special effects artists for their uneducated conceptions of how space works? After all, before 1968, no man had ever set foot on anything other than Planet Earth’s soil. Surely after this rare and intriguing experience, most would have the knowledge to implicate much needed science into science fiction. The tragic answer to this would be a giant “no!” Even to this day, high budget, highly ambitious science fiction movies are victims to the ignorance of their creators. Should we feel cheated? Should we feel ripped off? The answer to these questions would also be a giant “no!” Imagine watching Star Wars: A New Hope (1977) and half the movie being in silence. Imagine watching the compelling introduction to Superman (1978) without so much as an exploding Krypton. Surely, Michael Bay’s story-less but highly-budgeted special effect-crammed Armageddon (1998) would be rendered worthless without breaking some laws of outer space. The fact of the matter is, is it’s been proven that explosions in space differ vastly from explosions on Earth. Without oxygen there is nothing to carry a fiery mushroom cloud, and nothing to carry a sound wave. Could it be that our fascination for space can only be kept through lies and glitzy deceptions?

Research has brought us to the conclusion that sound does not travel in space. Since sound is simply a product of sound waves, it uses molecules to travel from the source of the sound to our ears. Simply put, there are air molecules on Earth whereas there are no molecules within the deep vacuum of space. With this in mind, explosions would not be heard on the outside of a space ship, or outside the atmosphere of a planet.

What about a fiery explosion? Could one exist in outer space? Nathan A. Unterman of the NASA Space Science Education Research Directory answers this question online after it’s asked by a firefighter. Unterman explains that there have been controlled experiments in outer space over the years, and all of them have concluded with the fact that there is no gas for oxidation. Without oxidation, there is no combustion. What would an explosion look like? It would probably be nothing more than cracking, colliding and chipping away.

In 1977, Star Wars (later to be renamed Star Wars: A New Hope) blew up in the box office and became, almost by luck and accident, a commercial success and pinnacle sci-fi film. Possessing story elements heavily borrowed from Akira Kurosawa’s The Hidden Fortress, George Lucas was able to eventually bring his space opera to new heights and eventually create a six-movie series. Upon watching this initial, necessary film, one can’t help but notice some of the odd space physics that would later bleed into the other five movies. One scene that comes to mind right away is the Death Star trench scene toward the end of the presentation. The Rebel Alliance carries out an attack on this giant floating orb, and is immediately met with resistance from surface turrets and TIE Fighters (manned space fighters). The fifteen minute scene is jam packed with loud, bright explosions and crashes, and although very exciting, very wrong. All evidence points to the fact that the Death Star is a space station that operates without any traces of atmosphere. Though there are no articles to completely disprove this, it’s apparent in researching the nature of atmosphere in general that leads to this conclusion. Earth’s atmosphere is indicated by a layer of blue gases which from a distance looks like a ring. The Death Star, for all intents and purposes, has no layer of any kind around the outer shell. With no atmosphere, there can be no Earthly explosions.



One year after Star Wars came out, Warner Bros. released Superman: The Movie, starring the late Christopher Reeves as Superman, Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor, and the late Marlon Brando as Superman’s father Jor-El. The movie brought comic-inspired cinema to a new level, ushering in what would eventually be a comic dominated movie market. All of that aside though, it simply had some scientific inconsistencies. There is a scene toward the beginning of the movie where the planet Krypton simply explodes into a million pieces. Apparently this happened because of intense subterranean geothermic activity. Aside from the fact that seismic activity wouldn’t blow up a planet, but at the most just shift it around and cover the surface in ash (the worst recorded in Earthling history was in Tambora, Indonesia, killing 92,000), the issue would once again come back to the fact that the planetary explosion would be silent and rather unromantic.

The following clip shows Krypton being blown up via the Superman: The Movie trailer. In 1:05 of the trailer, Planet Krypton blows up and scatters into a million pieces.



It’s hard to believe that a series of harsh volcanic explosions would blow a planet to bits when (in the following clip) a giant asteroid crash would keep a planet like Planet Earth in tact.



Evidence points to the fact that our planet isn’t made of glass, and if Krypton is supposed to be synonymous of Earth, then chances are likely it wouldn’t explode, just be covered in ash, which would serve the story of Krypton’s destruction just as well.

Surely, the mother of all terribly thought-out science fiction movies has to be Michael Bay’s 1998 blockbuster Armageddon. For most of the movie, the United States government is training Bruce Willis and his ragtag team of oil drillers to eventually land on the surface of an incoming asteroid and reroute its trajectory. The movie is all good and fun, aside from the lackluster acting and dialogue, but when the third act of the movie starts and the cast lands on the actual antagonistic asteroid, all believability goes down the toilet. Watch the following clip.



Upon much thorough study, this compelling scene breaks the laws of space physics, but also breaks the laws of Earth physics. At exactly 14 seconds, a huge spire collapses and crumbles to the ground. When it collides with the asteroid floor, little mini explosions appear upon impact. Would a glacial mass (with an internal temperature of about -100 degrees F) spark an explosion even on Earth? The following footage, though it can only be considered a rough comparison, can possibly serve as an indication that these explosions wouldn’t happen even on Earth.



Even piecing together the evidence that asteroids are made of minerals and rock (specifically remnants left over from the creation of the Solar System), the fact remains that the impact portrayed in the movie would realistically be a lot less dramatic.
Alas, there is still hope for science fiction movies. There have been a few studios that have followed the laws of physics while still making worthwhile and great films. Recently, a “believability report card” was made and posted on the internet:



listing a few names including the Alien Movies, Stargate, and most noticeably 2001: A Space Odyssey. All three were careful about the depiction of explosions in space, either leaving out the issue in general, or portraying them realistically. The truth is that cheesy and unrealistic special effects will never go away, unless directors start filming movies in space, but even then some sound editor will add in explosions in Protools and splice in visual effects to heighten drama. As time goes on though, and we learn more about the universe, these common misconceptions will begin to disappear, and a new and improved standard for science fiction movies will be conceived. Until then, we’ll have to settle with Michael Bay and his middle school education when it comes to reality.

Outline for Research Paper

Introduction

Most movies involving space explosions depict the explosions as being similar to explosions on Earth.

In physical terms, this is wrong.

At least three movies break this physical law.
- Superman (1978)
- Star Wars (1977)
- Armageddon (1998)

Body Paragraphs

Paragraph 1

- There is no sound or oxygen in space.
- Therefor, oxygen would not be able to expand, and "explosions" wouldn't be heard or seen.
- Explosions in the vacuum of space would be very different from Earth explosions.

Paragraph 2

- The image of explosions in space are different from explosions within an atmosphere.
- Superman depicts the explosion of Krypton and it's sun in a very hockey, 1970's way.
- Star Wars is riddled with space explosions. Everything from Alderon to the Death Star exploding.
- Armageddon is the worst! Explosions happen all over the antagonistic asteroid and the law of physics never apply.

Paragraph 3

- Some movies follow the physics of space, like Firefly/Serenity.
- Battlestar: Galactica

Conclusion

- Sci fi has a reputation for not following physics.
- Though breaking the rules makes for better movies, it also makes the movies that much more fantastical.
- Sci fi is slowly trying to become more credible.

Stop-Motion Character Animation

The road to making Yolked was a long, tedious one, involving strenuous efforts by the co-creators, Jay Hasrajani and Michael Harding. The original idea was set in stone, but often the objects used for the characters were changed and modified until we could use something affordable and convenient for stop motion animation. Voice acting played a very important role, along with other featured sound effects and music. We are very proud to present our short film Yolked.

Reverse Video Reference of Walking

Rated G for Great.

Mid Semester Survey

"This is to certify that I completed the anonymous mid-semester survey for Art/Physics 123 and am requesting the five points of extra credit.

As a student at San Jose State, I understand the university's Academic Integrity Policy (http://info.sjsu.edu/web-dbgen/narr/catalog/rec-2083.html)."

The Laws of Physics in an Animation Universe - Cloverfield

Surely movie history has told a story of fascination and fantasy, with themes delving in the more realistic or the more hypnagogic. Directors, actors and writers have tried for decades to awe audiences with new inventions and spectacles. In the early part of 2008, a J.J. Abrahms film attempted to try and seal the gap between stark reality and the fantastical with his box office hit “Cloverfield.” Using a “shaky cam” technique, Abrahms brought us into downtown New York City when normal enough urbanites are flung into an abnormal situation. Long story short, a sub aquatic monster emerges and, through the use of its own animosity and the brutality of its human-sized offspring, reaps inescapable havoc on the capitol of the world. Though the audience literally follows the story through a camcorder, this sometimes frighteningly realistic tale doesn’t escape the physical flaws of most movies. Upon a second or third watch of the film, one may notice the painfully impractical anatomy of the Cloverfield monster itself, and how this anatomy magically works in the “Cloverfield” movieverse. An architect may gasp in disbelief at the phenomenal structural integrity of the buildings in NYC. Most alarming though, is the “Cloverfield” movieverse defies the laws of sound and light, with distant explosions intermingling with their booming, audible counterparts instead of preceding them. Could critics be wrong when they say Cloverfield is a “real” take on a monster movie?

Like most large animals, the elephant has a noticeably bulky mass. The only trait that seems to equal the height of an elephant is its width. Why are elephants so bulky? Why are their legs (like rhinoceroses and bears) so chunky and cylindrical? They need pillar-like appendages to support their enormous weight. Consider the fact that the average elephant weighs around 8 and ¼ tons (or 16,500 pounds). If an elephant had thinner legs, they would snap under the pressure of a gargantuan body attached to a bulbous head. With this in mind, consider the structural integrity of the Cloverfield monster. The movie certainly kept a lot of the monster’s identity shrouded in secrecy, but two years after the film’s release we can find a plethora of concept art and analytical footage of our beast.



We can only really ballpark the weight of the Cloverfield monster. If it roughly equaled the size of the Statue of Liberty (which is a modest comparison) it would weigh in at an astounding 225 tons (or 450,000 pounds). With the shrimpy hind legs seen above, and the front legs which seem to exact all the weight on to the monster’s knuckles, would it make any sense for Clover to do anything other than collapse, breaking most if not all the bones in it’s appendages?

Some may argue that because the monster is of unknown origin, that these laws of physics don’t apply. After all, the monster could be from some distant planet where bone density is stronger than that of any living creature on Earth. This would be true if it wasn’t for the fact that J.J. Abrahms himself has stated that Clover had been lying dormant in the ocean for thousands of years until a satellite fell from the sky and into the watery depths, waking it up.

On the DVD, the designers of Clover claim to have designed the monster to specifically convey a sense of realism, but if they had added a little more science to their fiction, they would’ve realized that scaling up something that looks a lot less supported than even a human is highly problematic. This alone would set back the intentions of Cloverfield. The promises of “building a better monster” would be false, portraying Clover as less practical than the old, cheesy looking, but bulky-legged Godzilla. It would seem that the only design addiction that the Clover creators weren’t able to let go of when creating a monster, is the one that is anatomically like a smaller creature but scaled bigger. Wouldn’t an artist know to collect the proper reference before mocking up such a plot-lined beast? Wouldn’t the difference between scale and proportion be an issue raised at some point?

The physical flaws of the actual monster are somewhat forgivable though, taking into account that Abrahms never used this movie as a persuasive argument to convince us that the animal was ever actually real. However, Abrahms would rightfully argue that buildings exist in the real world, and that the physics of the buildings in the movie would intentionally try to resemble the physics of buildings in the real world. With this being said, a key sequence in Cloverfield could be rendered scientifically blasphemous. Very few may know (but surely every architect should know) that a building is supported downward into its footing, which makes it hard to believe that the top half of a building would be able to lean on another and stay stable enough for our heroes to cross over.



Think of a building as a person. Standing up straight, a man or a woman is supported by a reasonable base (a responsibility delegated highly by our legs and feet), with a center of gravity located right in the center. Let’s say we were to take this same person, but not just lean them over, but also break their ankles. Would they be able to keep their balance or would they topple over? A building is supported by beams and pillars, and unlike bones that can bend and move, a beam has little resistance in terms of breaking apart if bent far enough.

Youtube Cloverfield video.

This movie suggests that if a building is leaning over, that all it’s infrastructure reacts like a skeleton, which is simply untrue. This is doubly hard to believe when at toward the beginning of the movie, when our monster first attacks the city, it’s able to topple the 57-story tall Woolworth building with ease (in the video 3:35). Does Cloverfield physics suggest that certain buildings react to gravity while others don’t?

Above all, the most hilarious physical flaw witnessed in this movie is the fact that light and sound travel at the same time. Partnering the scene toward the beginning of the movie when the Woolworth building is toppled, an explosion in the bay is seen by a group of people on their rooftop. In “Cloverfield,” the sight and sound of the explosion happen at the same time, suggesting that sound travels at the same speed as light. When noticed, such a small flaw either ruins the authenticity of such a crucial scene, or suggests to the viewer that this is a New York City that defies the laws of time and space. This can be viewed in the video above, at 1:58.

Before ruling this out as a minor knit pick, consider the elements that make up a thunder and lightning storm. A long-standing tradition for everyone around the world is to count the seconds between when we see a flash of lightning and when we hear the following boom of thunder. We are told that the best way to judge the distance of a lightning bolt is by the delay of its sound. Is this just an old myth? To be precise, light travels at 186,282.397 miles per hour, while sound trails behind at 741.5 per hour. When you factor that out, it means that light travels about 225.3 times faster than sound. The movie below demonstrates this point effectively.



From three miles away (which would roughly be the same distance if not more of the explosion in the bay in Cloverfield), Space Shuttle STS-117, first appears around 0:11. Notice the gap of silence. A faint hum becomes audible by 0:21, and a booming roar isn’t heard until 0:31 seconds. Cumulatively, it took 20 seconds until that gripping roar of the rocket ship, as opposed to Cloverfield’s painfully unrealistic 0 seconds. The laws of sound seem to hold up where they can’t be noticeably defected, which is pretty easy to do. After all, when the statue of liberty’s head skids down the street next to you, you’d no doubt hear it when it’s happening.

The hit movie Cloverfield, which to many stood as an emotionally gripping metaphor for 9/11, which grossed $170,764,033 on a $25,000,000 dollar budget, indeed revolutionized the “shaky cam” technique, making it more than just a novelty, along with the monster movie genre (which the American Godzilla claimed to do but failed at in 1998). Though many lamemen and women alike will forever appreciate some of the groundbreaking and grand aspects of the picture, it would be no surprise if physical scientists and biologists ended up hurling in movie theater lobbies all across the world (along with 33% of the world that suffers from motion sickness) simply due to the inconsistencies of the film. It would be less of an issue if Cloverfield was produced in a way where it embraced its existence in the movieverse, but for a story advertising itself to have taken place in our world, a great deal of credibility is lost by the end of the 85 perilous minutes.

The Laws of Physics in an Animation Universe

The Laws of Physics in an Animation Universe

Outline

Movie – Cloverfield

Hypothesis 1

Organisms are not physically restrained by gravity.
The cloverfield monster is giant, matching the heights of tall buildings, yet anatomically speaking it is very slender. Assuming that its from Earth (because it has lungs, and eats humans, and was described vaguely in the Cloverfield back story as being from the ocean) it’s anatomy would typically require more mass to support all its weight (much like the bulk of an elephant or a rhino).

Counter

Though the monster seems disproportionate for its overall mass, humans remain restrained and anatomically built for their environment. Likewise with the monsters hatchlings, who seems to physically match the world around them.

Hypothesis 2

Sound travels faster than the speed of sound.
There’s a scene with an offshore explosion, miles away from New York City, yet the explosion and the sound of the explosion happen at the same time. Typically, like in a space shuttle launch, you will see the shuttle take off seconds before you ever hear it.

Hypothesis 3

Buildings can defy the laws of gravity.
There’s a scene in the movie where a building is leaning on another building which supposedly is holding the building up. Realistically, a building is supported downward, so it would’ve collapsed if tilted over.

Counter

In one of the first scenes featuring the monster, a building is knocked down virtually without effort. The moment it tilts too far to one side, the whole thing collapses and buries downtown with a blanket of rubble.

Stop Motion Animation of Falling

The Book drop was certainly a tedious process, from planning it out to uploading it. I started off by taping the ground. I would tape the different points that the book would be framed at. Once the pictures were taken, the photos were cropped in photoshop so that everything was aligned when eventually played back. After the animation process was started, I would go back to certain frames and adjust not only the spacing but also the timing. Once that was done, I had to find a way to put a gif file on to blogger. The image upload didn't work on here, so I resorted to my trusty photobucket account.

As a side note, I had the book tilt to the left, because I figured the binding on the book would naturally be the weightiest, and fall first.

Video Reference For Jumps

This movie is rated PG for Premium Goodness.



Video shot at 30 frames/second.

Video analysis of path of action

The following is an analysis using the program Tracker. Specifically, it is an analysis of a falling bottle.

The following is rated R for Reference.

In the latter part of 1986, a year smitten with Final Countdown by the band Europe, and a slew of interesting and entertaining media, such as The Labyrinth and Top Gun, not to mention Karate Kid and Jeff Goldbloom's The Fly, I was born.

I can't quite remember the occasion, but I'm sure there was thunder and lightning along with fatal rainfall. From that time on, I stumbled around the gravel below me, as I do today, finding new paths to take... Power Rangers and X-Men through the years. At the age of five, I just randomly started drawing. It was almost like a pencil and a piece of paper ran up and slapped me in my youthful, boyish face. Comics were my poison, ranging through the years from the very silly to the utter macabre. By the time I was a young man, only 21 years of age, I was woefully obsessed, having 56 comic issues to my name, ranging from 20 to 40 pages each.



In addition, I am a fool for performing on stage. I have been in a band since age 16, and have recorded and written over 50 songs.





I am currently living in San Jose, and attending SJSU as an Animation Illustration major. The experience thus far has risen strong feelings of paranoia, anxiety, and excitement. Every day is a new task, and also a new chance to prove myself. It's an odd and fulfilling existence to be able to wake up every day and learn something new. Physics of Animation, specifically, looks like an intriguing class and I have a thirst for knowledge.

Entry #1

Welcome one, welcome all. I will start this blog off with a valuable quote.

Batman: "Better three hours too soon than a minute too late."

;)