|
Author
|
Topic: Blowing Up A UFO!
|
World_Empire_Films
|
posted 03-29-2000 10:37 PM
Anyone know how to blow up a ufo while its flying? I'll probably make a styrafoam model of one..[This message has been edited by Webmaster Dale (edited 04-03-2000).] |
eggy
|
posted 03-29-2000 11:10 PM
I'm hoping this is without the use of pyrotechnics |
crazy lou
|
posted 03-29-2000 11:45 PM
well, WEF, i guess that all depends on what you mean by "blow up". you could put a nice big hole through thin styrofoam with a paintball gun, depending on the scale you build it, that might work
later
Tom
|
World_Empire_Films
|
posted 03-30-2000 02:10 AM
I kind of want the thing to crash and burn, as it crashes I want it to split apart, that kind of thing. |
Prism
|
posted 03-30-2000 02:33 AM
Heh.. I dunno.. safety is the issue here. You can't just put a fire cracker in it, toss it through the air, let it blow up and expect everything to go safely and realistically. I really can't think of any good way to do this without introducing some risks. Your best bet would be to make a 3D animation of one exploding. I'm not sure which software app has the best "explode" feature, but that's the way I would go. You could film a miniature model of a UFO against a bluescreen and fire some sort of projectile at it.. but I won't go into that.. I blew up a small snowman once with a potato gun. I'll upload a sample some time for everyone to see.Isaiah |
Mr. Sable
|
posted 03-30-2000 11:46 AM
A while ago, there was a topic about a crashing meteor. use the Search option at the top of the page to find it.But where it says to use flour, don't. Use barbeque ashes instead. |
ebrigman
|
posted 03-30-2000 02:45 PM
enough of the talk of CG... compressed air may work... pre score the ship and fill it with glitterMAKE SURE YOU WEAR GOGGLES you'll have to slow it down if it is a miniature |
Mister Twisted
|
posted 03-30-2000 03:49 PM
Good grief! the kneejerk anti-CGI attitude of some of the contributors to this board utterly baffles me. ONE person suggested that a 3d animation might be a solution. Here's the skinny: At present, pyrotechnic effects are one of the biggest challenges for CG artists, not only because they're complex to simulate but because they're extremely computationally expensive. But using compressed air isn't going to look like pyrotechnics anyway. Fragmentation type explosions are a piece of cake using most 3d software. And as ebrigman so casually mentions, you'll have to use a high speed camera. So, assuming that you ordinarily work with video, you're looking at the expense of building and rigging a miniature ship, and a miniature set (plus spares in case something goes wrong), hiring a movie camera, buying film, paying for the film to be processed, paying for the film to be telecined, all for an effect that isn't going to be what you really want anyhow, because people expect to see explosions, not something being blown apart by compressed air. Why not at least take the time to do a little experimenting with free (like Blender, or one of the older versions - I don't remember which one, exactly - of Truespace) or even expensive (I don't work with film, but I'd imagine the cost of all the above is going to be pretty high) 3d software? |
World_Empire_Films
|
posted 03-30-2000 07:50 PM
Well, CG is a good idea, I have blender. I also have the Studio 400, can I put an explosion over the footage using these tools? |
Pyromaniac
|
posted 03-30-2000 09:03 PM
Take it to the shooting range and attach it to one of 'em and launch it and you and a friend could shoot and tape it. I've got a recipe for explosions but its a secret not for this board to hear, so I can't help ya there, but go with the glitter idea. |
ebrigman
|
posted 03-31-2000 10:58 AM
problem with shooting it at the shooting range is that you will still have to slow it down and trying to frame a flying object at the moment of impact will be very difficult...My argument against CG is that it takes the human element out of the work... I suggested compressed air because it would blow the object apart without going into tabboo subjects on the board... also if the ship is precut you can do repeated takes without building a second ship... as for film... I have a 16mm and believe me when I tell you I can buy a roll of film, process it and telecine it for cheaper than buying a computer or software... besides you can also do slow motion in a video format... granted it is a little stroby... but it can be done |
Mister Twisted
|
posted 03-31-2000 03:07 PM
Well, what frame rate can your 16mm camera shoot up to? Not high enough for miniature work, I expect...And, with respect, saying that CGI removes the "human element" doesn't make any kind of sense to me. Doing it with a miniature (which I freely admit, if I had the budget, I'd prefer to do, because it's easier) entails building your model and then consigning it to the forces of nature. Using CGI, you first have to build the model, and then build a model of those natural forces as well. I'm not just talking about the forces that will cause the model to explode, crash, fall, but the physics of illumination, too. There is far more human input required to successfully pull this off in CGI. The difference is, I can afford to do it on the computer, I can't afford to do it the "old fashioned" way. And this IS a Low Budget Special Effects Forum... |
Jeff F
|
posted 03-31-2000 03:50 PM
A side note:Many zillions of years ago (or so it seems)I was in high school and did a rather foolish thing. I loaded up various models with firecrackers, M-80's and various other explosive and flammable substances, blew them up and filmed the results. On screen they looked precisely like what they were - plastic model kits blown up with fireworks. A waste of time, money, and materials.
------------------
Jeff F - Magic and FX
Amazing the Masses |
thedude
|
posted 03-31-2000 05:14 PM
Jeff did you do it in slow motion or normal speed? |
crazy lou
|
posted 03-31-2000 07:50 PM
anyone ever SEE a UFO blow up? an UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT has come to be associated with "flying saucers" but is in no way limited to them, since anything you see in the air and can't identify is technically a UFO. MAYBE a UFO is like a biohazard facility that has negative pressure and would implode, or maybe its pressurized and would explode. all the "literature" i have come across regarding "UFO" propulsion has indicated that there are not conventional methods of propulsion involved (no fuel being burnt to blow hot exhaust gasses out to move the thing, since it highly inefficient)
so MAYBE, just MAYBE compressed air would be good, MAYBE cgi would be good, MAYBE a vaccum cleaner would be good
MAYBE people should research things before posting...think of the ideal effect you are looking for , describe it, then ask for suggestions on how to accomplish the effect. Effects that you see on screen are the results of time spent designing them, testing them, and implimenting them, not just some thrown together piece o' poo.(not accusing anyone, just stating facts) it's the same as baking, you cant buy a bunch of stuff throw it in a pan an expect to get a cake no matter what frame rate you use 
later
Tom |
Benny
|
posted 03-31-2000 08:14 PM
Ok, lets take a look at the answers here, some say; no CGI use compressed air .. some say CGI! .. why not use both methods and mix them, make the UFO explode with compressed air and then add the actual "explosion" in post as CGI.
------------------
Benny | |
